Stefano Di Sandro, Leonardo Centonze, Francesca Ratti, Nadia Russolillo, Simone Conci, Enrico Gringeri, Francesco Ardito, Marco Colasanti, Carlo Sposito, Riccardo De Carlis, Mario Giuffrida, Pasquale Bonsignore, Matteo Zanello, Samuele Frassoni, Roberta Odorizzi, Vincenzo Bagnardi, Elio Jovine, Salvatore Gruttadauria, Maurizio Iaria, Andrea Lauterio, Vincenzo Mazzaferro, Giuseppe Maria Ettorre, Felice Giuliante, Umberto Cillo, Andrea Ruzzenente, Alessandro Ferrero, Luca Aldrighetti, Fabrizio Di Benedetto
{"title":"机器人与腹腔镜肝细胞癌切除术:647例患者手术和肿瘤结果的多中心倾向评分匹配分析","authors":"Stefano Di Sandro, Leonardo Centonze, Francesca Ratti, Nadia Russolillo, Simone Conci, Enrico Gringeri, Francesco Ardito, Marco Colasanti, Carlo Sposito, Riccardo De Carlis, Mario Giuffrida, Pasquale Bonsignore, Matteo Zanello, Samuele Frassoni, Roberta Odorizzi, Vincenzo Bagnardi, Elio Jovine, Salvatore Gruttadauria, Maurizio Iaria, Andrea Lauterio, Vincenzo Mazzaferro, Giuseppe Maria Ettorre, Felice Giuliante, Umberto Cillo, Andrea Ruzzenente, Alessandro Ferrero, Luca Aldrighetti, Fabrizio Di Benedetto","doi":"10.1007/s13304-025-02293-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been linked to several advantages compared to open approach, but the actual benefit of robotic liver resection (RLR) over LLR in HCC needs further investigation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a multicentric propensity-score matched (PSM) analysis comparing perioperative and oncologic outcomes of LLR vs. RLR for HCC. The PSM model was estimated using a multivariable logistic regression, with type of surgery as dependent variable and age, BMI, clinically-significant portal hypertension, αFP, size of principal lesion, number of nodules and Kawaguchi difficulty score as covariates. Overall (OS) and recurrence-free (RFS) survivals were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six-hundred-forty-seven HCC patients from 12 IGoMILS registry centers treated by LLR (553 patients) or RLR (94 patients) were included. After PSM, RLR resulted in wider surgical margins (median: 10 vs 5 mm; p = 0.002) with higher prevalence of R0 resection (98.9 vs 93.1%; p = 0.037), lower conversion rate (2.1 vs. 8.5%; p = 0.039) and shorter hospital stay (median: 4 vs 5 days; p = 0.025), with no significant difference in postoperative complication rate. We observed similar OS among RLR and LLR cohorts [5-y OS: 68.7 vs 65.0%; univariable HR = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.60-1.49); p = 0.82], with significantly better RFS in RLR cohort [5-y RFS: 46.8 vs 24.0%; univariable HR = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.52-0.98); p = 0.04].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Perioperative outcomes were significantly better in the RLR cohort, with a lower conversion rate and shorter hospital stay, although the latter may be influenced by the multi-institutional study design. Notably, we observed wider resection margins in the RLR group, which were associated with significantly improved RFS.</p>","PeriodicalId":23391,"journal":{"name":"Updates in Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robotic vs laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: multicentric propensity-score matched analysis of surgical and oncologic outcomes in 647 patients.\",\"authors\":\"Stefano Di Sandro, Leonardo Centonze, Francesca Ratti, Nadia Russolillo, Simone Conci, Enrico Gringeri, Francesco Ardito, Marco Colasanti, Carlo Sposito, Riccardo De Carlis, Mario Giuffrida, Pasquale Bonsignore, Matteo Zanello, Samuele Frassoni, Roberta Odorizzi, Vincenzo Bagnardi, Elio Jovine, Salvatore Gruttadauria, Maurizio Iaria, Andrea Lauterio, Vincenzo Mazzaferro, Giuseppe Maria Ettorre, Felice Giuliante, Umberto Cillo, Andrea Ruzzenente, Alessandro Ferrero, Luca Aldrighetti, Fabrizio Di Benedetto\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13304-025-02293-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been linked to several advantages compared to open approach, but the actual benefit of robotic liver resection (RLR) over LLR in HCC needs further investigation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a multicentric propensity-score matched (PSM) analysis comparing perioperative and oncologic outcomes of LLR vs. RLR for HCC. The PSM model was estimated using a multivariable logistic regression, with type of surgery as dependent variable and age, BMI, clinically-significant portal hypertension, αFP, size of principal lesion, number of nodules and Kawaguchi difficulty score as covariates. Overall (OS) and recurrence-free (RFS) survivals were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six-hundred-forty-seven HCC patients from 12 IGoMILS registry centers treated by LLR (553 patients) or RLR (94 patients) were included. After PSM, RLR resulted in wider surgical margins (median: 10 vs 5 mm; p = 0.002) with higher prevalence of R0 resection (98.9 vs 93.1%; p = 0.037), lower conversion rate (2.1 vs. 8.5%; p = 0.039) and shorter hospital stay (median: 4 vs 5 days; p = 0.025), with no significant difference in postoperative complication rate. We observed similar OS among RLR and LLR cohorts [5-y OS: 68.7 vs 65.0%; univariable HR = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.60-1.49); p = 0.82], with significantly better RFS in RLR cohort [5-y RFS: 46.8 vs 24.0%; univariable HR = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.52-0.98); p = 0.04].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Perioperative outcomes were significantly better in the RLR cohort, with a lower conversion rate and shorter hospital stay, although the latter may be influenced by the multi-institutional study design. Notably, we observed wider resection margins in the RLR group, which were associated with significantly improved RFS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23391,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Updates in Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Updates in Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02293-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Updates in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02293-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景和目的:腹腔镜肝切除术(LLR)治疗肝细胞癌(HCC)与开放入路相比有几个优势,但机器人肝切除术(RLR)在HCC中的实际益处需要进一步研究。方法:我们进行了多中心倾向评分匹配(PSM)分析,比较HCC的LLR和RLR的围手术期和肿瘤预后。PSM模型采用多变量logistic回归,以手术类型为因变量,以年龄、BMI、临床门静脉高压症、αFP、主要病变大小、结节数和川口困难评分为协变量。使用Kaplan-Meier法估计总生存率(OS)和无复发生存率(RFS)。结果:来自12个IGoMILS注册中心的647例HCC患者接受LLR(553例)或RLR(94例)治疗。PSM后,RLR导致更宽的手术切缘(中位数:10 vs 5 mm;p = 0.002), R0切除率更高(98.9 vs 93.1%;P = 0.037),转化率较低(2.1 vs. 8.5%;P = 0.039)和更短的住院时间(中位数:4天vs 5天;P = 0.025),两组术后并发症发生率无显著差异。我们观察到RLR组和LLR组的OS相似[5-y OS: 68.7 vs 65.0%;单变量HR = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.60-1.49);p = 0.82], RLR组的RFS明显更好[5-y RFS: 46.8 vs 24.0%;单变量HR = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.52 ~ 0.98);p = 0.04]。结论:RLR组围手术期预后明显较好,转换率较低,住院时间较短,尽管后者可能受到多机构研究设计的影响。值得注意的是,我们观察到RLR组更宽的切除边缘,这与显著改善的RFS相关。
Robotic vs laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: multicentric propensity-score matched analysis of surgical and oncologic outcomes in 647 patients.
Background and objectives: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been linked to several advantages compared to open approach, but the actual benefit of robotic liver resection (RLR) over LLR in HCC needs further investigation.
Methods: We performed a multicentric propensity-score matched (PSM) analysis comparing perioperative and oncologic outcomes of LLR vs. RLR for HCC. The PSM model was estimated using a multivariable logistic regression, with type of surgery as dependent variable and age, BMI, clinically-significant portal hypertension, αFP, size of principal lesion, number of nodules and Kawaguchi difficulty score as covariates. Overall (OS) and recurrence-free (RFS) survivals were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
Results: Six-hundred-forty-seven HCC patients from 12 IGoMILS registry centers treated by LLR (553 patients) or RLR (94 patients) were included. After PSM, RLR resulted in wider surgical margins (median: 10 vs 5 mm; p = 0.002) with higher prevalence of R0 resection (98.9 vs 93.1%; p = 0.037), lower conversion rate (2.1 vs. 8.5%; p = 0.039) and shorter hospital stay (median: 4 vs 5 days; p = 0.025), with no significant difference in postoperative complication rate. We observed similar OS among RLR and LLR cohorts [5-y OS: 68.7 vs 65.0%; univariable HR = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.60-1.49); p = 0.82], with significantly better RFS in RLR cohort [5-y RFS: 46.8 vs 24.0%; univariable HR = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.52-0.98); p = 0.04].
Conclusions: Perioperative outcomes were significantly better in the RLR cohort, with a lower conversion rate and shorter hospital stay, although the latter may be influenced by the multi-institutional study design. Notably, we observed wider resection margins in the RLR group, which were associated with significantly improved RFS.
期刊介绍:
Updates in Surgery (UPIS) has been founded in 2010 as the official journal of the Italian Society of Surgery. It’s an international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the surgical sciences. Its main goal is to offer a valuable update on the most recent developments of those surgical techniques that are rapidly evolving, forcing the community of surgeons to a rigorous debate and a continuous refinement of standards of care. In this respect position papers on the mostly debated surgical approaches and accreditation criteria have been published and are welcome for the future.
Beside its focus on general surgery, the journal draws particular attention to cutting edge topics and emerging surgical fields that are publishing in monothematic issues guest edited by well-known experts.
Updates in Surgery has been considering various types of papers: editorials, comprehensive reviews, original studies and technical notes related to specific surgical procedures and techniques on liver, colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, robotic and bariatric surgery.