Is it time to define the scope of safety for robotic resection in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma surgery? A propensity score matching based analysis of a single center experience.

IF 1.1 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery Pub Date : 2025-05-31 Epub Date: 2025-04-15 DOI:10.14701/ahbps.25-012
Mikhail Efanov, Pavel Tarakanov, Yuliya Kulezneva, Olga Melekhina, Anna Koroleva, Andrey Vankovich, Dmitry Kovalenko, Denis Fisenko, Victor Tsvirkun, Igor Khatkov
{"title":"Is it time to define the scope of safety for robotic resection in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma surgery? A propensity score matching based analysis of a single center experience.","authors":"Mikhail Efanov, Pavel Tarakanov, Yuliya Kulezneva, Olga Melekhina, Anna Koroleva, Andrey Vankovich, Dmitry Kovalenko, Denis Fisenko, Victor Tsvirkun, Igor Khatkov","doi":"10.14701/ahbps.25-012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Backgrounds/aims: </strong>Robotic surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is in the developmental and exploratory phase. The objective of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes and survival rates of robotic versus open resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in a single center, and to determine the reliable scope of robotic interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comparative analysis of outcomes from open and robotic resections at a single center was conducted using propensity score matching (PSM). The balance of covariates was assessed using standardized mean differences, and the robotic resection procedures adhered to the standards of open surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PSM was effectively applied between 41 robotic and 82 open resections. No differences were observed in blood loss, overall and severe morbidity, 90-day mortality, or length of hospital stay. Robotic resections were longer but resulted in better immediate oncological outcomes. Median overall survival for the robotic and open groups was 44 and 30 months (<i>p</i> = 0.259) before PSM and 44 and 29 months (<i>p</i> = 0.164) after PSM respectively. Conversion was required in 8 cases. A subgroup analysis excluding conversions revealed no differences in immediate and long-term outcomes. All patients undergoing robotic resection for Bismuth types I and II were alive at a mean follow-up of 37 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The robotic approach is comparable to open resection regarding immediate outcomes and survival in select patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. For patients with Bismuth type I and II tumors and early (stages I and II) TNM stages, robotic resection is a reliable treatment option when aligned with the principles of open surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":72220,"journal":{"name":"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery","volume":"29 2","pages":"127-139"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12093234/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.25-012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Backgrounds/aims: Robotic surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is in the developmental and exploratory phase. The objective of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes and survival rates of robotic versus open resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in a single center, and to determine the reliable scope of robotic interventions.

Methods: A comparative analysis of outcomes from open and robotic resections at a single center was conducted using propensity score matching (PSM). The balance of covariates was assessed using standardized mean differences, and the robotic resection procedures adhered to the standards of open surgery.

Results: PSM was effectively applied between 41 robotic and 82 open resections. No differences were observed in blood loss, overall and severe morbidity, 90-day mortality, or length of hospital stay. Robotic resections were longer but resulted in better immediate oncological outcomes. Median overall survival for the robotic and open groups was 44 and 30 months (p = 0.259) before PSM and 44 and 29 months (p = 0.164) after PSM respectively. Conversion was required in 8 cases. A subgroup analysis excluding conversions revealed no differences in immediate and long-term outcomes. All patients undergoing robotic resection for Bismuth types I and II were alive at a mean follow-up of 37 months.

Conclusions: The robotic approach is comparable to open resection regarding immediate outcomes and survival in select patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. For patients with Bismuth type I and II tumors and early (stages I and II) TNM stages, robotic resection is a reliable treatment option when aligned with the principles of open surgery.

在肝门周围胆管癌手术中,是时候确定机器人切除的安全范围了吗?基于单中心经验的倾向评分匹配分析。
背景/目的:机器人手术治疗肝门周围胆管癌尚处于发展和探索阶段。本研究的目的是比较单中心机器人与开放切除治疗肝门周围胆管癌的短期预后和生存率,并确定机器人干预的可靠范围。方法:采用倾向评分匹配(PSM)对单中心开放式和机器人切除的结果进行比较分析。使用标准化平均差评估协变量的平衡,机器人切除手术遵循开放手术的标准。结果:PSM有效应用于41例机器人手术和82例开放手术。在出血量、总体和严重发病率、90天死亡率或住院时间方面没有观察到差异。机器人切除的时间更长,但效果更好。机器人组和开放组的中位总生存期分别为PSM前44个月和30个月(p = 0.259), PSM后44个月和29个月(p = 0.164)。有8例需要转诊。排除转归的亚组分析显示,近期和长期结果没有差异。所有接受机器人切除I型和II型铋的患者在平均随访37个月时仍然存活。结论:在选择肝门周围胆管癌患者的即时预后和生存率方面,机器人入路与开放切除相当。对于Bismuth I型和II型肿瘤以及早期(I期和II期)TNM患者,在符合开放手术原则的情况下,机器人切除是一种可靠的治疗选择。
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
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信