[The Short-Term Outcome of Robotic Liver Resection-A Single Institutional Experience].

Q4 Medicine
Yutaka Takeda, Yoshiaki Ohmura, Go Shinke, Mitsuru Kinoshita, Yoshifumi Iwagami, Yoshiro Yukawa, Asami Arita, Kiminori Yanagisawa, Shinsuke Katsuyama, Ryo Ikeshima, Masayuki Hiraki, Keijiro Sugimura, Toru Masuzawa, Taishi Hata, Kohei Murata
{"title":"[The Short-Term Outcome of Robotic Liver Resection-A Single Institutional Experience].","authors":"Yutaka Takeda, Yoshiaki Ohmura, Go Shinke, Mitsuru Kinoshita, Yoshifumi Iwagami, Yoshiro Yukawa, Asami Arita, Kiminori Yanagisawa, Shinsuke Katsuyama, Ryo Ikeshima, Masayuki Hiraki, Keijiro Sugimura, Toru Masuzawa, Taishi Hata, Kohei Murata","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Robotic liver resection(RLR)has been covered by insurance since 2022. We report our short-term outcomes of RLR performed in Kansai Rosai Hospital.</p><p><strong>Patients and method: </strong>Between May 2022 and November 2023, 35 patients underwent RLR. Control 789 patients who received laparoscopic liver resection(LLR)between January 2010 and November 2023 were included for comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were noted between non-anatomical RLR and anatomical RLR groups with respect to blood loss, Pringle rate, conversion rate, biliary fistula and hospital stay, respectively. Difficulty score was higher(4.07 vs 7.71 p<0.0001)and console time was longer(212 vs 331 min p=0.0035)in anatomical RLR group than non-anatomical RLR group. No significant differences were noted between RLR and LLR groups with respect to patient age, gender, Child-Pugh, liver damage and diagnosis, respectively. Anatomical LR rate was higher(18/17 vs 534/255, 48.6 vs 32.3%, p=0.0454)and open conversion rate was lower(0 vs 0.5%, p=0.0296)in RLR group than LLR group. No significant differences were noted between RLR and LLR groups with respect to blood loss, postoperative mortality, morbidity and hospital stay, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although further studies are still needed to confirm the benefit of RLR, RLR is safe, minimally invasive, and effective approach to the management of liver tumor.</p>","PeriodicalId":35588,"journal":{"name":"Japanese Journal of Cancer and Chemotherapy","volume":"52 2","pages":"152-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Japanese Journal of Cancer and Chemotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Robotic liver resection(RLR)has been covered by insurance since 2022. We report our short-term outcomes of RLR performed in Kansai Rosai Hospital.

Patients and method: Between May 2022 and November 2023, 35 patients underwent RLR. Control 789 patients who received laparoscopic liver resection(LLR)between January 2010 and November 2023 were included for comparison.

Results: No significant differences were noted between non-anatomical RLR and anatomical RLR groups with respect to blood loss, Pringle rate, conversion rate, biliary fistula and hospital stay, respectively. Difficulty score was higher(4.07 vs 7.71 p<0.0001)and console time was longer(212 vs 331 min p=0.0035)in anatomical RLR group than non-anatomical RLR group. No significant differences were noted between RLR and LLR groups with respect to patient age, gender, Child-Pugh, liver damage and diagnosis, respectively. Anatomical LR rate was higher(18/17 vs 534/255, 48.6 vs 32.3%, p=0.0454)and open conversion rate was lower(0 vs 0.5%, p=0.0296)in RLR group than LLR group. No significant differences were noted between RLR and LLR groups with respect to blood loss, postoperative mortality, morbidity and hospital stay, respectively.

Conclusion: Although further studies are still needed to confirm the benefit of RLR, RLR is safe, minimally invasive, and effective approach to the management of liver tumor.

[机器人肝脏切除术的短期结果-单一机构经验]。
导读:机器人肝脏切除术(RLR)自2022年起被纳入保险范围。我们报告了在关西罗赛医院进行的RLR的短期结果。患者和方法:2022年5月至2023年11月,35例患者接受了RLR。对照组纳入2010年1月至2023年11月期间接受腹腔镜肝切除术(LLR)的789例患者进行比较。结果:非解剖型RLR组与解剖型RLR组在出血量、品格尔率、转化率、胆瘘及住院时间方面均无显著差异。难度评分较高(4.07 vs 7.71)结论:RLR的疗效有待进一步研究证实,但RLR是一种安全、微创、有效的治疗肝脏肿瘤的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
337
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信