Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: application of the difficulty scoring system

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The development of robotic system may help to relieve the difficulties encountered during laparoscopic hepatectomy. A difficulty scoring system (DSS) was developed to assess the difficulty of various laparoscopic liver resection procedures. The aim of this study is to explore if the DSS is applicable in robotic hepatectomy and to compare the outcomes of robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy among different difficulty levels.

Methods

Clinical data from all consecutive patients who underwent robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, were prospectively collected and reviewed. The difficulty level of operations was graded using the DSS. Perioperative outcomes of robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy were compared at each difficulty level.

Results

A total of 107 and 94 patients underwent robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy during the study period, respectively. Among them, 16 and 2 patients were operated for recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, respectively, and were excluded because no mark for tumour location can be assigned. For robotic hepatectomy, a higher DSS was significantly correlated with higher minor complication rate (p = 0.001), more intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.002), longer operation time (p < 0.001) and longer post-operative hospital stay (p < 0.001). The mean DSS scores of robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy were 4.5 and 3.6, respectively. (p = 0.004). For cases with low (DSS 1–3) and intermediate (DSS 4–6) difficulty level, there was no significant difference in operative blood loss, operation time and overall complications rate. Only 2 cases (2.2%) with high difficulty level were operated with laparoscopic approach while 20% of patients operated with robotic approach had DSS > 6.

Conclusions

DSS significantly correlated with surgical outcomes in patient who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Perioperative outcomes following robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy were similar in cases with low and intermediate difficulty. However, robotic system allowed minimally invasive approach in cases with higher difficulty level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ban D, Kudo A, Ito H, Mitsunori Y, Matsumura S, Aihara A, Ochiai T, Tanaka S, Tanabe M, Itano O, Kaneko H, Wakabayashi G (2015) The difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection. Updates Surg 67:123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ban D, Tanabe M, Ito H, Otsuka Y, Nitta H, Abe Y, Hasegawa Y, Katagiri T, Takagi C, Itano O, Kaneko H, Wakabayashi G (2014) A novel difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 21:745–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tanaka S, Kubo S, Kanazawa A, Takeda Y, Hirokawa F, Nitta H, Nakajima T, Kaizu T, Kaneko H, Wakabayashi G (2017) Validation of a difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection: a multicenter analysis by the endoscopic liver surgery study group in Japan. J Am Coll Surg 225(249–258):e241

    Google Scholar 

  4. Uchida H, Iwashita Y, Saga K, Takayama H, Watanabe K, Endo Y, Yada K, Ohta M, Inomata M (2016) Clinical utility of the difficulty scoring system for predicting surgical time of laparoscopic liver resection. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 26:702–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Im C, Cho JY, Han HS, Yoon YS, Choi Y, Jang JY, Choi H, Jang JS, Kwon SU (2017) Validation of difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection in patients who underwent laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy. Surg Endosc 31:430–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lai ECH, Tang CN (2017) Training robotic hepatectomy: the Hong Kong experience and perspective. Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition 6:222–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Giulianotti PC, Bianco FM, Daskalaki D, Gonzalez-Ciccarelli LF, Kim J, Benedetti E (2016) Robotic liver surgery: technical aspects and review of the literature. Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition 5:311–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ho CM, Wakabayashi G, Nitta H, Ito N, Hasegawa Y, Takahara T (2013) Systematic review of robotic liver resection. Surg Endosc 27:732–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lai EC, Tang CN (2016) Long-term Survival Analysis of Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Comparative Study. Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques 26:162–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee KF, Cheung YS, Chong CC, Wong J, Fong AK, Lai PB (2016) Laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy: experience from a single centre. ANZ J Surg 86:122–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Spampinato MG, Coratti A, Bianco L, Caniglia F, Laurenzi A, Puleo F, Ettorre GM, Boggi U (2014) Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted major hepatectomies: an Italian multi-institutional comparative study. Surg Endosc 28:2973–2979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibanes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee KF, Fong AK, Chong CC, Cheung SY, Wong J, Lai PB (2016) Robotic Liver Resection For Primary Hepatolithiasis: is It Beneficial? World J Surg 40:2490–2496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Montalti R, Berardi G, Patriti A, Vivarelli M, Troisi RI (2015) Outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World journal of gastroenterology: WJG 21:8441–8451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fruscione M, Pickens R, Baker EH, Cochran A, Khan A, Ocuin L, Iannitti DA, Vrochides D, Martinie JB (2019) Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic major liver resection: analysis of outcomes from a single center. HPB: the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association

  16. Kim JK, Park JS, Han DH, Choi GH, Kim KS, Choi JS, Yoon DS (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy of liver. Surg Endosc 30:4756–4764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Packiam V, Bartlett DL, Tohme S, Reddy S, Marsh JW, Geller DA, Tsung A (2012) Minimally invasive liver resection: robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy. Journal of gastrointestinal surgery: official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 16:2233–2238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Salloum C, Lim C, Lahat E, Gavara CG, Levesque E, Compagnon P, Azoulay D (2017) Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Left Lateral Sectionectomy: analysis of Surgical Outcomes and Costs by a Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study. World J Surg 41:516–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Montalti R, Scuderi V, Patriti A, Vivarelli M, Troisi RI (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver: a propensity score-matched comparison. Surg Endosc 30:1004–1013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tsung A, Geller DA, Sukato DC, Sabbaghian S, Tohme S, Steel J, Marsh W, Reddy SK, Bartlett DL (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison. Ann Surg 259:549–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kam JH, Goh BK, Chan CY, Wong JS, Lee SY, Cheow PC, Chung AY, Ooi LL (2016) Robotic hepatectomy: initial experience of a single institution in Singapore. Singapore Med J 57:209–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mr. Philip Ip for his assistance with data processing and statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Charing C. N. Chong, H. T. Lok, Andrew K. Y. Fung, Anthony K. W. Fong, Y. S. Cheung, John Wong, K. F. Lee & Paul B. S. Lai

Authors
  1. Charing C. N. Chong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. T. Lok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew K. Y. Fung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anthony K. W. Fong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Y. S. Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. K. F. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Paul B. S. Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul B. S. Lai.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Charing Chong, H. T. Lok, Andrew Fung, Anthony K. W. Fong, Y. S. Cheung, John Wong, K. F. Lee and Pau Lai have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chong, C.C.N., Lok, H.T., Fung, A.K.Y. et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: application of the difficulty scoring system. Surg Endosc 34, 2000–2006 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06976-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06976-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation