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.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches / Montalti, R.; Giglio, M. C.; Wu, A. G. R.; Cipriani, F.; D'Silva, M.; Suhool, A.; Nghia, P. P.; Kato, Y.; Lim, C.; Herman, P.; Coelho, F. F.; Schmelzle, M.; Pratschke, J.; Aghayan, D. L.; Liu, Q.; Marino, M. V.; Belli, A.; Chiow, A. K. H.; Sucandy, I.; Ivanecz, A.; Di Benedetto, F.; Choi, S. H.; Lee, J. H.; Park, J. O.; Prieto, M.; Guzman, Y.; Fondevila, C.; Efanov, M.; Rotellar, F.; Choi, G. -H.; Robles-Campos, R.; Wang, X.; Sutcliffe, R. P.; Tang, C. N.; Chong, C. C.; D'Hondt, M.; Dalla Valle, B.; Ruzzenente, A.; Kingham, T. P.; Scatton, O.; Liu, R.; Mejia, A.; Mishima, K.; Wakabayashi, G.; Lopez-Ben, S.; Pascual, F.; Cherqui, D.; Forchino, F.; Ferrero, A.; Ettorre, G. M.; Levi Sandri, G. B.; Sugioka, A.; Edwin, B.; Cheung, T. -T.; Long, T. C. D.; Abu Hilal, M.; Aldrighetti, L.; Fuks, D.; Han, H. -S.; Troisi, R. I.; Goh, B. K. P.; the international Robotic and Laparoscopic Liver Resection Study Group, Investigators. - In: ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY. - ISSN 1068-9265. - 30:8(2023), pp. 4783-4796. [10.1245/s10434-023-13525-0]

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches

Cipriani F.;Aldrighetti L.;
2023-01-01

Abstract

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.
2023
Difficulty score
Laparoscopic
Liver surgery
Major hepatectomy
Minimally invasive hepatectomy
Open conversion
Robotic
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
s10434-023-13525-0.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: PDF editoriale (versione pubblicata dall'editore)
Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 529.34 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
529.34 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/163478
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 7
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 6
social impact