TY - JOUR
T1 - Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies
T2 - An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches
AU - International robotic and laparoscopic liver resection study group investigators
AU - Montalti, Roberto
AU - Giglio, Mariano Cesare
AU - Wu, Andrew G.R.
AU - Cipriani, Federica
AU - D’Silva, Mizelle
AU - Suhool, Amal
AU - Nghia, Phan Phuoc
AU - Kato, Yutaro
AU - Lim, Chetana
AU - Herman, Paulo
AU - Coelho, Fabricio Ferreira
AU - Schmelzle, Moritz
AU - Pratschke, Johann
AU - Aghayan, Davit L.
AU - Liu, Qiu
AU - Marino, Marco V.
AU - Belli, Andrea
AU - Chiow, Adrian K.H.
AU - Sucandy, Iswanto
AU - Ivanecz, Arpad
AU - Di Benedetto, Fabrizio
AU - Choi, Sung Hoon
AU - Lee, Jae Hoon
AU - Park, James O.
AU - Prieto, Mikel
AU - Guzman, Yoelimar
AU - Fondevila, Constantino
AU - Efanov, Mikhail
AU - Rotellar, Fernando
AU - Choi, Gi Hong
AU - Robles-Campos, Ricardo
AU - Wang, Xiaoying
AU - Sutcliffe, Robert P.
AU - Tang, Chung Ngai
AU - Chong, Charing C.
AU - D’Hondt, Mathieu
AU - Dalla Valle, Bernardo
AU - Ruzzenente, Andrea
AU - Kingham, T. Peter
AU - Scatton, Olivier
AU - Liu, Rong
AU - Mejia, Alejandro
AU - Mishima, Kohei
AU - Wakabayashi, Go
AU - Lopez-Ben, Santiago
AU - Pascual, Franco
AU - Cherqui, Daniel
AU - Forchino, Fabio
AU - Sugioka, Atsushi
AU - Kojima, Masayuki
N1 - Funding Information:
International robotic and laparoscopic liver resection study group investigators: Nicholas L. Syn (Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore and Ministry of Health Holdings, Singapore). Mikel Gastaca (Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, Biocruces Bizkaia Health Research Institute, Cruces University Hospital, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain). Juul Meurs (Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium). Celine De Meyere (Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium. Eric C.H. Lai (Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China). Felix Krenzien (Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany). Prashant Kadam (Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK). Kit-Fai Lee (Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China). Diana Salimgereeva (Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia). Ruslan Alikhanov (Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia. Lip-Seng Lee (Hepatopancreatobiliary Unit, Department of Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore). Jae Young Jang (Department of General Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea). Kevin P. Labadie (Department of Surgery, University of Washington Medical Center. Seattle, WA, USA). Masayuki Kojima (Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan). Asmund Avdem Fretland (Interventional Centre and Department of HPB Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway). Jacob Ghotbi (Interventional Centre and Department of HPB Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway). Jaime Arthur Pirola Kruger (Liver Surgery Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, University of Sao Paulo School of Medicine, Sao Paulo, Brazil). Victor Lopez-Lopez (Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Clinic and University Hospital Virgen de la Arrixaca, IMIB-ARRIXACA, El Palmar, Murcia, Spain). Paolo Magistri (HPB Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy). Marco Colasanti (Division of General Surgery and Liver Transplantation, San Camillo Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy). Margarida Casellas I Robert (Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Dr. Josep Trueta Hospital, IdIBGi, Girona, Spain). Mansour Saleh (Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Assistance Publique Hopitaux de Paris, Centre Hepato-Biliaire, Paul-Brousse Hospital, Villejuif, France). Edoardo Poletto (General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Dentistry, Gynecology and Pediatrics University of Verona, GB Rossi Hospital, Verona, Italy).
Funding Information:
For this study, T. Peter Kingham was partially supported by the US National Cancer Institute MSKCC Core Grant number P30 CA008747.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, Society of Surgical Oncology.
PY - 2023/8
Y1 - 2023/8
N2 - Introduction: Despite the advances in minimally invasive (MI) liver surgery, most major hepatectomies (MHs) continue to be performed by open surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and outcomes of open conversion during MI MH, including the impact of the type of approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) on the occurrence and outcomes of conversions. Methods: Data on 3880 MI conventional and technical (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) MHs were retrospectively collected. Risk factors and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analyzed. Multivariate analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis were performed to control for confounding factors. Results: Overall, 3211 laparoscopic MHs (LMHs) and 669 robotic MHs (RMHs) were included, of which 399 (10.28%) had an open conversion. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that male sex, laparoscopic approach, cirrhosis, previous abdominal surgery, concomitant other surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3/4, larger tumor size, conventional MH, and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification III procedures were associated with an increased risk of conversion. After matching, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with non-converted cases, as evidenced by the increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative morbidity/major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality. Although RMH showed a decreased risk of conversion compared with LMH, converted RMH showed increased blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality compared with converted LMH. Conclusions: Multiple risk factors are associated with conversion. Converted cases, especially those due to intraoperative bleeding, have unfavorable outcomes. Robotic assistance seemed to increase the feasibility of the MI approach, but converted robotic procedures showed inferior outcomes compared with converted laparoscopic procedures.
AB - Introduction: Despite the advances in minimally invasive (MI) liver surgery, most major hepatectomies (MHs) continue to be performed by open surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and outcomes of open conversion during MI MH, including the impact of the type of approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) on the occurrence and outcomes of conversions. Methods: Data on 3880 MI conventional and technical (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) MHs were retrospectively collected. Risk factors and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analyzed. Multivariate analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis were performed to control for confounding factors. Results: Overall, 3211 laparoscopic MHs (LMHs) and 669 robotic MHs (RMHs) were included, of which 399 (10.28%) had an open conversion. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that male sex, laparoscopic approach, cirrhosis, previous abdominal surgery, concomitant other surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3/4, larger tumor size, conventional MH, and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification III procedures were associated with an increased risk of conversion. After matching, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with non-converted cases, as evidenced by the increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative morbidity/major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality. Although RMH showed a decreased risk of conversion compared with LMH, converted RMH showed increased blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality compared with converted LMH. Conclusions: Multiple risk factors are associated with conversion. Converted cases, especially those due to intraoperative bleeding, have unfavorable outcomes. Robotic assistance seemed to increase the feasibility of the MI approach, but converted robotic procedures showed inferior outcomes compared with converted laparoscopic procedures.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85159823483&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85159823483&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1245/s10434-023-13525-0
DO - 10.1245/s10434-023-13525-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 37202573
AN - SCOPUS:85159823483
SN - 1068-9265
VL - 30
SP - 4783
EP - 4796
JO - Annals of Surgical Oncology
JF - Annals of Surgical Oncology
IS - 8
ER -