Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: application of the difficulty scoring system

Background The development of robotic system may help to relieve the difficulties encountered during laparoscopic hepatectomy. A difficulty scoring system (DSS) was developed to assess the difficulty of various laparoscopic liver resection procedures. The aim of this study is to explore if the DSS i...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical endoscopy 2020-05, Vol.34 (5), p.2000-2006
Hauptverfasser: Chong, Charing C. N., Lok, H. T., Fung, Andrew K. Y., Fong, Anthony K. W., Cheung, Y. S., Wong, John, Lee, K. F., Lai, Paul B. S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background The development of robotic system may help to relieve the difficulties encountered during laparoscopic hepatectomy. A difficulty scoring system (DSS) was developed to assess the difficulty of various laparoscopic liver resection procedures. The aim of this study is to explore if the DSS is applicable in robotic hepatectomy and to compare the outcomes of robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy among different difficulty levels. Methods Clinical data from all consecutive patients who underwent robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, were prospectively collected and reviewed. The difficulty level of operations was graded using the DSS. Perioperative outcomes of robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy were compared at each difficulty level. Results A total of 107 and 94 patients underwent robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy during the study period, respectively. Among them, 16 and 2 patients were operated for recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, respectively, and were excluded because no mark for tumour location can be assigned. For robotic hepatectomy, a higher DSS was significantly correlated with higher minor complication rate ( p  = 0.001), more intraoperative blood loss ( p  = 0.002), longer operation time ( p  
ISSN:0930-2794
1432-2218
DOI:10.1007/s00464-019-06976-8