Fully Robotic Left Lobe Donor Hepatectomy Is Safer Compared to Open.

IF 6.4 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Annals of surgery Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-26 DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000006705
Dieter C Broering, Yasser Elsheikh, Yasir Alnemary, Daniel Borja-Cacho, Mark L Sturdevant, Saleh Alabbad, Massimo Malago, Dimitri A Raptis
{"title":"Fully Robotic Left Lobe Donor Hepatectomy Is Safer Compared to Open.","authors":"Dieter C Broering, Yasser Elsheikh, Yasir Alnemary, Daniel Borja-Cacho, Mark L Sturdevant, Saleh Alabbad, Massimo Malago, Dimitri A Raptis","doi":"10.1097/SLA.0000000000006705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the outcomes of fully robotic versus open left lobe donor hepatectomies, focusing on donor safety.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Right lobe hepatectomies are traditionally preferred for adult liver transplants due to their larger graft size but may involve increased risks for donors. Left lobe hepatectomies are considered safer for donors but are less commonly used due to concerns about the small-for-size syndrome in adult settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an analysis of 339 living liver donors from a prospectively maintained registry at a single institution from November 2011 to June 2023, comparing 72 open and 267 robotic left lobe hepatectomies. Primary outcomes included donor complication rates until hospital discharge, whereas secondary outcomes focused on hospital stay and recipient complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Robotic hepatectomy was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean 77 (SD: 68) vs 316 (SD: 168) mL, P <0.001), lower donor morbidity 6% vs 18%, P =0.003), and shorter hospital stay (3 vs 5 d, P <0.001). Adult recipients receiving robotically retrieved donor grafts were associated with a lower overall morbidity rate (40% vs 59%, P =0.033) compared to open.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Robotic left donor hepatectomy significantly improves donor safety compared with the open approach, supporting its use as a less invasive and donor-centered option in living donor liver transplantation. This study, the largest known series of left lobe donor hepatectomies, demonstrates the robotic approach's superiority, potentially setting a new standard in the field of living donor liver transplantation.</p>","PeriodicalId":8017,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgery","volume":" ","pages":"108-115"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006705","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the outcomes of fully robotic versus open left lobe donor hepatectomies, focusing on donor safety.

Background: Right lobe hepatectomies are traditionally preferred for adult liver transplants due to their larger graft size but may involve increased risks for donors. Left lobe hepatectomies are considered safer for donors but are less commonly used due to concerns about the small-for-size syndrome in adult settings.

Methods: We conducted an analysis of 339 living liver donors from a prospectively maintained registry at a single institution from November 2011 to June 2023, comparing 72 open and 267 robotic left lobe hepatectomies. Primary outcomes included donor complication rates until hospital discharge, whereas secondary outcomes focused on hospital stay and recipient complications.

Results: Robotic hepatectomy was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean 77 (SD: 68) vs 316 (SD: 168) mL, P <0.001), lower donor morbidity 6% vs 18%, P =0.003), and shorter hospital stay (3 vs 5 d, P <0.001). Adult recipients receiving robotically retrieved donor grafts were associated with a lower overall morbidity rate (40% vs 59%, P =0.033) compared to open.

Conclusions: Robotic left donor hepatectomy significantly improves donor safety compared with the open approach, supporting its use as a less invasive and donor-centered option in living donor liver transplantation. This study, the largest known series of left lobe donor hepatectomies, demonstrates the robotic approach's superiority, potentially setting a new standard in the field of living donor liver transplantation.

全机器人左肝供肝切除术比开放式更安全。
目的:比较全机器人和开放左肝供肝切除术的结果,重点关注供体的安全性。摘要背景资料:由于右叶肝移植体积较大,但可能增加供体的风险,因此右叶肝切除术传统上是成人肝移植的首选。左肝切除术被认为对供体更安全,但由于担心成人环境中的小尺寸综合征,不太常用。患者和方法:从2011年11月到2023年6月,我们对来自单一机构前瞻性维护登记的339例活体肝供体进行了分析,比较了72例开放式和267例机器人左叶肝切除术。主要结局包括供体并发症发生率直到出院,而次要结局关注住院时间和受体并发症。结果:机器人肝切除术的失血量显著减少(平均77 (SD 68) mL vs. 316 (SD 168) mL)。结论:与开放入路相比,机器人左供肝切除术显著提高了供体安全性,支持其作为一种微创和以供体为中心的活体肝移植选择。这项研究是目前已知的最大的左叶供肝切除术系列,证明了机器人方法的优越性,可能为活体供肝移植领域树立新的标准。
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
Annals of surgery
Annals of surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
4.40%
发文量
687
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: The Annals of Surgery is a renowned surgery journal, recognized globally for its extensive scholarly references. It serves as a valuable resource for the international medical community by disseminating knowledge regarding important developments in surgical science and practice. Surgeons regularly turn to the Annals of Surgery to stay updated on innovative practices and techniques. The journal also offers special editorial features such as "Advances in Surgical Technique," offering timely coverage of ongoing clinical issues. Additionally, the journal publishes monthly review articles that address the latest concerns in surgical practice.
×
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