Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy in North America: Laparoscopic Versus Robotic

Abstract

BackgroundMinimally invasive hepatectomy has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, data comparing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy is lacking and limited to single-center studies. MethodsPatients undergoing major (≥ 3 segments) or partial (≤ 2 segments) hepatectomy were identified in the 2014–2017 ACS-NSQIP hepatectomy targeted database. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic approaches were compared, and propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for bias. ResultsOf 3152 minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs), 86% (N = 2706) were partial and 14% (N = 446) were major. The laparoscopic approach was utilized in 92% of patients (N = 2905) and 8% were performed robotically (N = 247). The percentage of MIHs increased over time (p < 0.01). After matching, 240 were identified in each cohort. Compared with the robotic approach, patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had a significantly higher conversion rate (23% vs. 7.4%) but had shorter operative time (159 vs. 204 min) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic cases undergoing an unplanned conversion to open were associated with increased morbidity (p < 0.001), but this difference was not observed in robotic cases. Both MIH approaches had low mortality (1.0%, p = 1.00), overall morbidity (17%, p = 0.47), and very short length of stay (3 days, p = 0.80). ConclusionMinimally invasive hepatectomy is performed primarily for partial hepatectomies. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a significantly higher conversion rate, and converted cases have worse outcomes. Both minimally invasive approaches are safe with similar mortality, morbidity, and a very short length of stay. [Display omitted]