Next Article in Journal
A New Treatment Protocol of Combined High-Dose Levothyroxine and Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Treatment of Rapid-Cycling Bipolar Spectrum Disorders: A Cohort Evaluation of 55 Patients
Previous Article in Journal
Association between Preoperative Medication Lists and Postoperative Hospital Length of Stay after Endoscopic Transsphenoidal Pituitary Surgery
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 19
10.3390/jcm11195831
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Laparoscopic versus Robotic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Taslim Aboudou
1,2,3,4,
Meixuan Li
3,4,
Zeliang Zhang
1,2,
Zhengfeng Wang
1,2,
Yanfei Li
3,4,
Lufang Feng
3,4,
Xiajing Chu
3,4,
Nan Chen
3,4,
Wence Zhou
1,2,* and
Kehu Yang
1,2,3,4,*
1
The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
2
The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
3
Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
4
Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(19), 5831; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195831
Submission received: 27 June 2022 / Revised: 28 August 2022 / Accepted: 24 September 2022 / Published: 30 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Gastroenterology & Hepatopancreatobiliary Medicine)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, with a special focus on the meta-analysis method. Original studies were collected from three Chinese databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Our systematic review was conducted on 682 patients with robotic liver resection, and 1101 patients were operated by laparoscopic platform. Robotic surgery has a long surgical duration (MD = 43.99, 95% CI: 23.45–64.53, p = 0.0001), while there is no significant difference in length of hospital stay (MD = 0.10, 95% CI: −0.38–0.58, p = 0.69), blood loss (MD = −20, 95% CI: −64.90–23.34, p = 0.36), the incidence of conversion (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.41–1.69, p = 0.62), and tumor size (MD = 0.30, 95% CI: −0–0.60, p = 0.05); the subgroup analysis of major and minor hepatectomy on operation time is (MD = −7.08, 95% CI: −15.22–0.07, p = 0.09) and (MD = 39.87, 95% CI: −1.70–81.44, p = 0.06), respectively. However, despite the deficiencies of robotic hepatectomy in terms of extended operation time compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy is still effective and equivalent to laparoscopic hepatectomy in outcomes. Scientific evaluation and research on one portion of the liver may produce more efficacity and more precise results. Therefore, more clinical trials are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy.

1. Introduction

In addition to other variables, the surgical method decided on by surgeons is an important factor capable of swaying the outcomes of hepatectomies. Laparoscopic liver resection has increasingly been proposed as a possible appropriate treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, especially for tumors in the anterior segments [1,2,3]. Having been considered suitable in diverse scenarios based on feasibility and efficacy, laparoscopy has since gained a significant reputation as a choice approach for liver resection in many parts of the world [3,4]. Many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of laparoscopic platforms compared to traditional open surgery in the repair of minor bleeding, hospital duration, and improved cosmetic recovery [5,6,7]. In terms of perioperative results, several studies have shown that laparoscopic liver resection might be better than open liver resection, especially in patients with cirrhosis [7,8,9]. A lower postoperative occurrence of ascites is reported when laparoscopic liver resection is used. Furthermore, since laparoscopic liver resection minimizes the interruption of the portosystemic collateral vessels because the incisions in the anterior abdominal wall are small, the rate of liver failure and the recurrence of ascites after this procedure in patients with severe cirrhosis are reduced [10,11,12,13].
The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system is an incorporated hepatocellular carcinoma staging device used commonly worldwide. It associates a patient diagnostic with an evidence-based treatment opportunity at any evolutionary stage, including the function of the liver, physical status, and tumor extension. In the BCLC staging system, the Child–Pugh–Turcotte (CPT) classification is used to evaluate the function of the liver. It is based on a score derived from five parameters: bilirubin and albumin serum concentration, prothrombin time, and the existence and complication of ascites and hepatic encephalopathy [14,15,16,17]. Some surgeons believe that laparoscopic liver resection can be safely used in CPT B patients and does not cause substantial postoperative complications, such as intractable ascites [16]. The fear that laparoscopic liver resection could reduce the surgical margin because palpation is not possible might be counterbalanced by the systematic use of intraoperative ultrasound, making it possible to maintain the intended margin. Five-year overall survival and recurrence of laparoscopic liver resection [16,18] are similar to those in other studies using conventional surgical resection [14,19]. Additionally, [7,8,9,10,11] emphasized the above-mentioned advantages associated with laparoscopy and also highlighted some obvious shortcomings of the procedure that require further research and innovation to overcome. Such research would be required to clarify the role of laparoscopic liver resection particularly in patients with CPT B cirrhosis, including prospective randomized controlled trials. It is, however, difficult to identify acceptable inclusion criteria on which all surgeons can agree.
Despite the characteristic limitations of laparoscopic equipment in terms of restrictions and challenges for surgical liver resection, i.e., the seven degrees of freedom of laparoscopic instruments and the two-dimensional view, poorer ergonomics are seen primarily through the extended nature of the procedure, hand tremor, and surgeon fatigue [9]. These apparent effects remain the most important interruption to its broader application in complex abdominal surgical platforms [20]. Recently, minimally invasive surgical techniques have emerged opening new perspectives for the surgical treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, including extended right and left hepatectomies. One such technique is the application of robotic-assisted computer surgery, which improves on the limitations of traditional laparoscopic surgery. First introduced in the 1990s, this is conducted by three-dimensional (3D) visualization and instruments with seven degrees of freedom. In addition, occurrence of hand tremor is less intense and surgeon siting position during the entire time period of the operation [21,22] is improved, contributing to an increased consideration of this approach. Therefore, more robotic hepatectomies have been performed due to the improvement of surgical instruments, while many research papers have been documented for comparative purposes.
Several reviews compare the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic liver resections, but without meta-analysis. Surgeons agree on the fact that significant achievements have been made in both robotic methods and laparoscopy; however, it remains a daunting challenge to decide which is better for liver surgery. The present study explores recent progress in this area of research with focus on studies that compare robotic platforms with laparoscopic techniques during hepatectomy procedures, and makes deep comparisons using meta-analysis for clearer observations on efficacy and safety.

2. Methods

2.1. Literature Search

A literature quest was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and three Chinese databases through the following search strategies to segregate studies (Figure 1) based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Section 2.2). The search strings were as follows: (“hepato [Title/Abstract]” OR “liver [Title/Abstract]” OR “liver [Mesh]”) AND (“Resection [Title/Abstract] OR “resections [Title/Abstract]” OR “segmentectomy [Title/Abstract]”) OR “segmentectomies [Title/Abstract]”) AND (“Robotic Surgical Procedures [Title/Abstract]” “Robotics [Title/Abstract]” OR “Robotics [Mesh]”). In addition, we checked the references of any related review articles or meta-analysis to find more eligible studies and all our research was performed in the English language.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they met the flowing criteria: (a) population: patients diagnosed with liver cancer; (b) intervention: robotic liver resection versus laparoscopic surgery. (c) outcomes: no restriction; (d) study design: no restriction. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) duplicate reports of a study; (b) studies with insufficient data and without the author’s response (e.g., protocols, conference proceedings or abstracts, among others).

2.3. Study Selection and Data Extraction

The screening and extraction of data were conducted separately by two independent reviewers [23]. In opposing views between the two reviewers, a third reviewer [24,25] was invited to reconcile the differences. Duplicate articles were detected and removed using EndNote X8 software (Thomson Corporation; Stamford, CT, USA). Subsequently, the reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of the selected articles. An article was denied further review when both reviewers excluded it. Article full text was obtained and examined for suitability when one reviewer only included it, or when the title and abstract did not provide sufficient information to make a decision. General data information about the year of publication, the author’s first name, trial design, sample size, as well as the patient’s characteristics, such as gender, type of disease and mean age, were extracted into a predesigned table. The details of the intervention, including the duration and treatment techniques and risk of bias and outcomes data were also extracted.

2.4. Publication Bias

The funnel plot of this study created on complication rates is shown in (Figure 2). Inside the limits of the 95 % CIs and distributed more evenly about the vertical, it suggests there is no publication bias because of pot symmetry.

2.5. Data Analysis

RevMan version 5.3 (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK) was used in conducting the meta-analysis. Variables that were dichotomous were assessed by the use of risk ratio (OR) at a confidence interval of 95% (95% CIs). Mean differences (MDs) were used in analyzing variables that were continuous, also at 95% CIs. Statistical algorithms were employed to generate the precise means and standards of continuous variables from studies that were presented in p values, ranges, and medians. To pool the studies, a random effect model was used. The Mantel–Haenszel method was used to conduct the meta-analysis on binary variables, while the inverse variance method was used for the continuous variables. The evaluation of heterogeneity was performed using I2 statistics and the Cochran Q test. Studies of low quality were excluded by sensitivity test.

2.6. Study Selection

A flow diagram of the literature selection process is presented in (Figure 1). A total of 2320 studies relevant to the search terms were retrieved; 66 of these were excluded based on duplication. Two thousand two hundred fifty-four records were excluded based on screening of titles or abstracts, of which 2206 were considered not eligible. The full texts of the remaining 48 articles were screened for a more accurate estimate, and 29 trials were excluded from our analysis. Finally, 19 studies met our inclusion criteria.

2.7. Study Characteristics

Nineteen studies [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44] elucidated the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery, with 682 and 1101 patients, respectively. The characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis are shown in (Table 1 and Table 2). All included studies were published between 2010–2021. Of the included trials, six trials (31.57%) were conducted in China, four in the United States (21.05%), with three studies in South Korea (15.8%), two in Germany (10.52%), one for Italy, Russia, Belgium-Italy, and France-Italy (5.26%) for each country and collaboration, respectively [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. Furthermore, for the characterisation of major hepatectomy resection of 3 Couinaud liver segments, additional hemihepatectomy was included in the analysis of the studies with major liver resection, as demonstrated in (Table 1 and Table 2). Moreover, in the subgroup of minor liver resection, we included studies such as right or left lateral hepatectomy (Table 2).

The Results of Meta-Analyses

  • Blood transfusion rate
We included ten studies [26,29,31,32,34,36,37,39,42,43], of 825 patients evaluating the blood transfusion rate of robotic surgery for Hepatectomy. Our meta-analysis results demonstrated that there was no significant difference between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in reducing the blood transfusion rate of hepatectomy patients (OR = 1.33, 95%CI: 0.69–2.56, p = 0.39). The heterogeneity was observed with low certainty, I2 = 13%, p = 0.33, presented in Figure 3.
  • Complications
Eleven trials [26,27,29,30,32,33,34,35,36,37,43], including 1206 patients, evaluated the outcomes of complications with patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy. Our meta-analysis results revealed that the difference between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in decreasing complications with patients undergoing hepatectomy was insignificant (OR = 0.94, 95%CI: 0.66–1.35, p = 0.75). The heterogeneity was observed with low certainty I2 = 0%, p = 0.75, Figure 4.
  • Conversion rate
We included thirteen trials [26,27,30,31,32,35,36,38,40,41,42,43,44] with 1220 patients that evaluated the conversion rate to open robotic platform liver patients. Our meta-analysis results demonstrated no significant difference between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in reducing the conversion rate for hepatectomy patients (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.41–1.69, p = 0.62). The heterogeneity was observed with moderate certainty, I2 = 39%, p = 0.09, and can be seen in Figure 5.
  • Reoperation rate
Three trials [26,27,29] in Figure 6, including 366 patients, evaluated the reoperation rate of robotic surgery for hepatectomy patients. Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in avoiding reoperation of hepatectomy patients (OR = 0.69, 95%CI: 0.25–1.90, p = 0.47). The heterogeneity was observed with low certainty, I2 = 0%, p = 0.63, Figure 6.
  • Blood loss
Figure 7, including 1754 patients in eighteen trials [26,27,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44], evaluated the blood lossof robotic surgery for liver resection patients. Our meta-analysis results showed no significant difference between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in decreasing the amount of blood loss during surgery for hepatectomy patients (MD = −20, 95% CI: −64.90–23.34, p = 0.36). The heterogeneity was observed with higher certainly, I2 = 84%, p < 0.00001.
  • Operation time
Nineteen trials [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44] (Figure 8) including 1783 patients evaluated the estimated operation time of robotic and laparoscopic platforms for liver surgery patients. Our meta-analysis results demonstrated a significant difference between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in reducing the operation time for liver surgery patients (MD = 43.99, 95%CI: 23.45–64.53, p < 0.0001). The heterogeneity observed was higher certainly, I2 = 86%, p < 0.00001.
  • Length of hospital stay
All seventeen studies of these 1672 patients [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,39,40,41,42,43] (Figure 9) assessed the length of hospital robotic surgery for hepatectomy patients. Our meta-analysis results showed that there was no significant difference between RH (robotic) and LH (laparoscopic) surgery in terms of length of hospital stay; we used a random effect model (MD = 0.10, 95% CI: −0.38–0.58, p = 0.69). The heterogeneity among studies was significant, and high, I2 = 75%, p < 0.00001.
  • Tumor size
Seven hundred seventy-five patients were included in twelve studies [28,29,32,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,44] (Figure 10) on the outcome of tumor size for liver resection in robotic surgery and using a laparoscopic platform. No significance was observed for either robotic or laparoscopic technique (MD = 0.30, 95% CI: −0–0.60, p = 0.05. Heterogeneity was observed with higher certainly, I2 = 71%, p = 0.0007.
  • Subgroup analyses
In this comparison subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy, no significance was established in the subgroup analysis of results between robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy, as shown in Figure 11. In the subgroup of minor operation time, nine studies were included [28,30,31,36,37,38,40,42,44], and MD = 39.87, 95% CI: −1.70–81.44, p = 0.06. The heterogeneity observed was considerable, I2 = 93%, p =0.06. In addition, in the subgroup of minor hospital stay, seven studies were included [28,30,31,36,37,40,42], and MD= 0.11, 95% CI: −0.32–0.54, p = 0.62. Heterogeneity was observed with lower certainly, I2 = 7%, p = 0.37. Figure 12 shows no significant difference between the two groups.
In the subgroup analysis (major hepatectomy) on operative time and blood loss (Figure 13 and Figure 14), respectively, a total of six studies [26,30,33,34,39,43] were included to compare robotic and laparoscopic techniques, and no significance was found (MD = −7.08, 95% CI: −15.22–0.07, p = 0.09). Heterogeneity was observed with substantial certainly, I2 = 65%, p = 0.01. Moreover, the value of the blood loss was (MD= −8.17 with 95%, CI = (−16.38–0.04), p = 0.05 and there was low heterogeneity, I2 = 31%, p = 0.20.
Figure 15 shows major hepatectomy subgroup analysis of complication rate, analysed in four studies [26,30,33,43]. Heterogeneity was low, I2 = 0%, p = 0.20. OR = 0.71.95%, CI= (0.42–1.19), p = 0.47. There was no significant difference between robotic and laparoscopic complication rate.
  • Number of patients with malignant liver tumors
Eight trials [29,30,32,35,36,38,41,42], including 865 patients, evaluated the number of patients with malignant liver tumors. Our meta-analysis results were similar in both techniques, robotic and laparoscopic platform, as shown in Figure 16. (OR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.60–1.64, p = 0.98). The heterogeneity was observed as low certainty, I2 = 55%, p = 0.03.
  • Body mass index (BMI)
The comparison of BMI for the overall group between robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy was insignificant in both techniques [26,27,28,30,33,35,36,39,41,42,43] (Figure 17), (MD = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.25–1.34, p = 0.005). The heterogeneity was observed with low certainty, I2 = 27%, p = 0.20.
A total of three studies [35,41,44] showed that all cases in the laparoscopic group were performed with a pure laparoscopic platform, without hybrid incision or hand assistance, and all robotic hepatectomy patients were operated on using a DaVinci robot with four arms. Tsung et al. [41], confirmed that 76% of patients were also operated on with pure laparoscopy, and only 41% of liver resection patients were operated on with hand-assisted laparoscopy.

3. Discussion

Recently, the laparoscopic approach has been highlighted as a technical advancement. In recent studies [20,45,46], the laparoscopic method has been shown to promote an improvement in various technicalities such as shorter period of hospitalization, lower morbidity, lower requirement for analgesic drugs after surgery, less blood loss during operation, and lower blood transfusion rate, compared with traditional open resection, which involves individual dissection and ligation of biliary and vascular structures. Meanwhile, robotic surgery has focused on improving outcomes of surgical procedures; this approach is exciting and attractive due to the application of improved technology, better image characteristic, the smaller size of robotic systems, and easy set-up. Robotic surgery has existed since the 1990s and continues in use in different specializations, especially cardiac surgery, urology, etc. However, although previous studies on general surgery have identified cost-effectiveness and extensive operation times as the main significant challenges in robotic surgery [47,48,49], robotic laparoscopic hepatectomy still offers an advanced and improved treatment opportunity. On the other hand, radiology procedures such as hepatocyte-specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) also provide a very important parametric detection tool for enhanced and sensitive diagnosis of patients with early stage HCC symptoms such as Gadoxetic acid, and precursor lesions [50,51,52].
Robotic assisted surgery is an alternative, minimally-invasive procedure, which is an innovative form of surgery and adopted in different medical specializations such as urology, gynecology, and other specialties [48]. Compared with traditional laparoscopic techniques, robotic surgery presents some benefits, especially deep manipulation into the abdominal cavity for treatment of anastomosis, and facilitates the handling of complex surgical procedures. Therefore, minimally-invasive procedures are the best choice for the treatment of HCC, metastases and tumors of benign conditions [15,17].
Several systematic review meta-analyses have demonstrated that the laparoscopic platform for liver surgery leads to earlier recovery, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduces postoperative pain compared to open liver surgery [8,53,54]. The initial objective of our study was to assess the clinical efficacity of robot-assisted hemi-hepatectomy versus laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy, which is one of the most complicated procedures using a robotic platform [55], but our effort was stalled by insufficient data. Only four trials that exceptionally involved laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy and robotic hemi-hepatectomy were included in our study with a total of 193 and 204 patients, respectively [26,30,33,34]. However, we re-focused our study by assessing the effective outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy.
A recent study with meta-analyses by Guan et al. [56] reported that the use of robotic and laparoscopic technologies is equally practical and effective in terms of oncologic outcomes; similarly, their study asserted that robotic liver surgery can lead to long operation time and their explanation was based on the major liver resection. However, their assertion could not be substantiated since they did not conduct a specific meta-analysis on major hepatectomy between robotic and laparoscopic procedures major liver resection. Therefore, in addition to the general laparoscopic hepatectomy meta-analysis, our study conducted a subgroup analysis between robotic and laparoscopic surgery on major liver resection.
This meta-analysis results showed that the robotic procedure was related to longer operation time. In addition, this study found significant differences between robotic and laparoscopic in operation time. In the subgroup analysis of the major hepatectomy, three outcomes were included: operation time, estimated blood loss and complication rate, however, no significant difference was observed between laparoscopic and robotic liver resection. From this evidence, our meta-analysis results showed that major liver resection is far away to lead a long operation in robotic hepatectomy, more experience from surgeon could decrease the operation time. Additionally, our subgroup analysis comparing minor hepatectomy using robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery the operation time and hospital stay showed no significant difference wherever a higher heterogeneity was generated.
However, there was more conversion laparoscopic groups compared to robotic groups and uncontrolled bleeding may lead to open conversion to the robotic hepatectomy [27,57]. Tsung reported the outcome of conversion rate to open surgical procedure was similar in robotic contrasted with laparoscopic groups [32]. A comparative study [35], found a significantly higher conversion rate to open surgical procedures in RH compared to LH with (20% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.034), respectively. Based on our knowledge, there were no significant differences between the two groups robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy in conversion rate and the oncological outcomes number of tumor and tumor size, the results were similar in both techniques. And was no important difference between laparoscopic hepatectomy and robotic hepatectomy in the length of stay, and also in the estimated blood loss. On the other hand, complications during surgery could lead to long operations and more blood loss and may raise the hospital stay because patients need more time to recover [58,59,60,61].
In this study, no difference was introduced for the complication rate. Different surgeon levels for hepatic resection and patient morbidity may be conducted [62]. A recent retrospective study based on left hemihepatectomy confirmed that RH was related to decreased intraoperative blood loss compared to LH and no significant difference in operation time [26]. According to our result with significantly higher heterogeneity in blood loss, operation time and length of hospital, difficult to accomplish due to several resection levels.
In terms of clinical comprehensiveness of real or potential cases, our work was limited in that we did not include any randomized control trial because it did not meet our inclusion criteria. If such is of particular interest to a physician in search of relevant decision, this aspect may be assessed based on other reports. Also, beyond the specific scope of this review was the cost of both techniques, which was not evaluated. For consideration of cost analysis for establishment of new health facilities or upward equipment of existing facilities, cost information is not covered here. For fewness of items documenting pure hemihepatectomy using robotic or laparoscopic methods; we could not pursue a meta-analysis. Further methodology in scientific research needs to achieve those limitations

4. Conclusions

The study results show that the outcome of operation time was significant, and robotics lead to extended operation time. No significant differences were observed between the two groups, robotic and laparoscopic, in blood transfusion rate, blood loss, conversion rate, length of hospital stay, and incidence of reoperation. Additionally, the subgroup analysis for major and minor robotic and laparoscopic liver resection were also not significantly different. Therefore, scientific evaluation research focusing on a specific portion of the liver may be better for more efficacity and precise results. More randomized study needs to be conducted to evaluate this field.

Funding

This research is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (lzujbky-2021-ct06).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Institutional as well as national research committee and in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later adjustments. Research involving human participants and/or animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.

References

  1. Liu, R.; Wakabayashi, G.; Kim, H.-J.; Choi, G.-H.; Yiengpruksawan, A.; Fong, Y.; He, J.; Boggi, U.; I Troisi, R.; Efanov, M.; et al. International consensus statement on robotic hepatectomy surgery in 2018. World J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 25, 1432–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hilal, M.A.; Aldrighetti, L.; Dagher, I.; Edwin, B.; Troisi, R.I.; Alikhanov, R.; Aroori, S.; Belli, G.; Besselink, M.; Briceno, J.; et al. The Southampton consensus guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery: From indication to implementation. Ann. Surg. 2018, 268, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Fiorentini, G.; Swaid, F.; Cipriani, F.; Ratti, F.; Heres, C.; Tsung, A.; Aldrighetti, L.; Geller, D.A. Propensity score-matched analysis of pure laparoscopic versus hand-assisted/hybrid major hepatectomy at two western centers. World J. Surg. 2019, 43, 2025–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Aldrighetti, L.; Cipriani, F.; Fiorentini, G.; Catena, M.; Paganelli, M.; Ratti, F. A stepwise learning curve to define the standard for technical improvement in laparoscopic liver resections: Complexity-based analysis in 1032 procedures. Updates Surg. 2019, 71, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Polignano, F.M.; Quyn, A.; De Figueiredo, R.S.M.; Henderson, N.A.; Kulli, C.; Tait, I.S. Laparoscopic versus open liver segmentectomy: Prospective, case-matched, intention-to-treat analysis of clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness. Surg. Endosc. 2008, 22, 2564–2570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Dagher, I.; O’Rourke, N.; Geller, D.A.; Cherqui, D.; Belli, G.; Gamblin, T.C.; Lainas, P.; Laurent, A.; Nguyen, K.T.; Marvin, M.R.; et al. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy: An evolution in standard of care. Ann Surg. 2009, 250, 856–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nguyen, K.T.; Marsh, J.W.; Tsung, A.; Steel, J.J.L.; Gamblin, T.C.; Geller, D.A. Comparative benefits of laparoscopic vs. open hepatic resection: A critical appraisal. Arch. Surg. 2011, 146, 348–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yin, Z.; Fan, X.; Ye, H.; Yin, D.; Wang, J. Short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A global systemic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2013, 20, 1203–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Usatoff, V.; Evans, P.M. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a safe procedure for cancer patients. HPB 2009, 11, 247–251. [Google Scholar]
  10. Simillis, C.; Constantinides, V.A.; Tekkis, P.P.; Darzi, A.; Lovegrove, R.; Jiao, L.; Antoniou, A. Laparoscopic versus open hepatic resections for benign and malignant neoplasms—A meta-analysis. Surgery 2007, 141, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Morino, M.; Morra, I.; Rosso, E.; Miglietta, C.; Garrone, C. Laparoscopic vs. open hepatic resection: A comparative study. Surg. Endosc. 2003, 17, 1914–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Dagher, I.; Di Giuro, G.; Dubrez, J.; Lainas, P.; Smadja, C.; Franco, D. Laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy: A comparative study. Am. J. Surg. 2009, 198, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Xiong, J.J.; Altaf, K.; Javed, M.A.; Huang, W.; Mukherjee, R.; Mai, G.; Sutton, R.; Liu, X.B.; Hu, W.M. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs. open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 18, 6657–6668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Brytska, N.; Han, H.S.; Shehta, A.; Yoon, Y.S.; Cho, J.Y.; Choi, Y. Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatitis B and C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with Child B or C cirrhosis. Hepatobiliary Surg. Nutr. 2015, 4, 373–378. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Memeo, R.; De’Angelis, N.; De Blasi, V.; Cherkaoui, Z.; Brunetti, O.; Longo, V.; Piardi, T.; Sommacale, D.; Marescaux, J.; Mutter, D.; et al. Innovative surgical approaches for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J. Hepatol. 2016, 8, 591–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Memeo, R.; De’Angelis, N.; Compagnon, P.; Salloum, C.; Cherqui, D.; Laurent, A.; Azoulay, D. Laparoscopic vs. open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of cirrhotic liver: A case-control study. World J. Surg. 2014, 38, 2919–2926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Morise, Z.; Ciria, R.; Cherqui, D.; Chen, K.H.; Belli, G.; Wakabayashi, G. Can we expand the indications for laparoscopic liver resection? A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and chronic liver disease. J. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Sci. 2015, 22, 342–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sposito, C.; Battiston, C.; Facciorusso, A.; Mazzola, M.; Muscarà, C.; Scotti, M.; Romito, R.; Mariani, L.; Mazzaferro, V. Propensity score analysis of outcomes following laparoscopic or open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Br. J. Surg. 2016, 103, 871–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tsinberg, M.; Tellioglu, G.; Simpfendorfer, C.H.; Walsh, M.R.; Vogt, D.; Fung, J.; Berber, E. Comparison of laparoscopic versus open liver tumor resection: A case controlled study. Surg. Endosc. 2009, 23, 847–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kitisin, K.; Packiam, V.; Bartlett, D.L.; Tsung, A. A current update on the evolution of robotic liver surgery. Minerva Chir. 2011, 66, 281. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ji, W.B.; Wang, H.G.; Zhao, Z.M.; Duan, W.D.; Lu, F.; Dong, J.H. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy in China: Initial experience. Ann. Surg. 2011, 253, 342–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Leung, U.; Fong, Y. Robotic liver surgery. Hepatobiliary Surg. Nutr. 2014, 3, 288–294. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Li, Y.; Cao, L.; Zhang, Z.; Hou, L.; Qin, Y.; Hui, X.; Li, J.; Zhao, H.; Cui, G.; Yang, K.; et al. Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: An evidence mapping. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 135, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Boonpheng, B.; Thongprayoon, C.; A Mao, M.; Wijarnpreecha, K.; Bathini, T.; Kaewput, W.; Ungprasert, P.; Cheungpasitporn, W. Risk of hip fracture in patients on hemodialysis versus peritoneal dialysis: A meta-analysis of observational studies. J. Evid.-Based Med. 2019, 12, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Duffles, L.F.; Hermont, A.P.; Abreu, L.G.; Pordeus, I.A.; Silva, T.A. Association between obesity and adipokines levels in saliva and gingival crevicular fluid: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Evid.-Based Med. 2019, 12, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Cai, J.-P.; Chen, W.; Chen, L.-H.; Wan, X.-Y.; Lai, J.-M.; Yin, X.-Y. Comparison between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic left hemi-hepatectomy. Asian J. Surg. 2021, 45, 265–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chong, C.C.N.; Lok, H.T.; Fung, A.K.Y.; Fong, A.K.W.; Cheung, Y.S.; Wong, J.; Lee, K.F.; Lai, P.B.S. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: Application of the difficulty scoring system. Surg. Endosc. 2019, 34, 2000–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Croner, R.S.; Perrakis, A.; Hohenberger, W.; Brunner, M. Robotic liver surgery for minor hepatic resections: A comparison with laparoscopic and open standard procedures. Langenbeck’s Arch. Surg. 2016, 401, 707–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Efanov, M.; Alikhanov, R.; Tsvirkun, V.; Kazakov, I.; Melekhina, O.; Kim, P.; Vankovich, A.; Grendal, K.; Berelavichus, S.; Khatkov, I. Comparative analysis of learning curve in complex robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection. HPB 2017, 19, 818–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, Z.; Tang, W.; Hu, M.; Zhao, Z.; Zhao, G.; Li, C.; Tan, X.; Zhang, X.; Lau, W.Y.; Liu, R. Robotic vs. laparoscopic hemihepatectomy: A comparative study from a single center. J. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 120, 646–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hu, M.; Liu, Y.; Li, C.; Wang, G.; Yin, Z.; Lau, W.Y.; Liu, R. Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection in complex cases of left lateral sectionectomy. Int. J. Surg. 2019, 67, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Tsung, A.; Geller, D.A.; Sukato, D.C.; Sabbaghian, S.; Tohme, S.; Steel, J.; Marsh, W.; Reddy, S.K.; Bartlett, D.L. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: A matched comparison. Ann. Surg. 2014, 259, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Fruscione, M.; Pickens, R.; Baker, E.H.; Cochran, A.; Khan, A.; Ocuin, L.; Iannitti, D.A.; Vrochides, D.; Martinie, J.B. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic major liver resection: Analysis of outcomes from a single center. HPB 2019, 21, 906–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hu, M.; Chen, K.; Zhang, X.; Li, C.; Song, D.; Liu, R. Robotic, laparoscopic or open hemihepatectomy for giant liver haemangiomas over 10 cm in diameter. BMC Surg. 2020, 20, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Troisi, R.I.; Patriti, A.; Montalti, R.; Casciola, L. Robot assistance in liver surgery: A real advantage over a fully laparoscopic approach? Results of a comparative bi-institutional analysis. Int. J. Med. Robot. Comput. Assist. Surg. 2013, 9, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lee, S.J.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, Y.J.; Kim, S.C.; Hwang, D.W.; Song, K.B.; Shin, S.H.; Kwon, J.W.; Park, G.S.; Park, Y.J.; et al. The feasibility of robotic left-side hepatectomy with comparison of laparoscopic and open approach: Consecutive series of single surgeon. Int. J. Med. Robot. Comput. Assist. Surg. 2019, 15, e1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kim, J.K.; Park, J.S.; Han, D.H.; Choi, G.H.; Kim, K.S.; Choi, J.S.; Yoon, D.S. Robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy of liver. Surg. Endosc. 2016, 30, 4756–4764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Berber, E.; Akyildiz, H.Y.; Aucejo, F.; Gunasekaran, G.; Chalikonda, S.; Fung, J. Robotic versus laparoscopic resection of liver tumours. HPB 2010, 12, 583–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lorenz, E.; Arend, J.; Franz, M.; Rahimli, M.; Perrakis, A.; Negrini, V.; Gumbs, A.A.; Croner, R.S. Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection—Comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2021, 406, 753–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yu, Y.D.; Kim, K.H.; Jung, D.H.; Namkoong, J.M.; Yoon, S.Y.; Jung, S.W.; Lee, S.K.; Lee, S.G. Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: A comparative study from a single center. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2014, 399, 1039–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Packiam, V.; Bartlett, D.L.; Tohme, S.; Reddy, S.; Marsh, J.W.; Geller, D.A.; Tsung, A. Minimally invasive liver resection: Robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2012, 16, 2233–2238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Tranchart, H.; Ceribelli, C.; Ferretti, S.; Dagher, I.; Patriti, A. Traditional versus robot-assisted full laparoscopic liver resection: A matched-pair comparative study. World J. Surg. 2014, 38, 2904–2909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Spampinato, M.G.; Coratti, A.; Bianco, L.; Caniglia, F.; Laurenzi, A.; Puleo, F.; Ettorre, G.M.; Boggi, U. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted major hepatectomies: An Italian multi-institutional comparative study. Surg. Endosc. 2014, 28, 2973–2979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Wu, Y.M.; Hu, R.H.; Lai, H.S.; Lee, P.H. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive liver resection. Asian J. Surg. 2014, 37, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Koffron, A.J.; Auffenberg, G.; Kung, R.; Abecassis, M. Evaluation of 300 minimally invasive liver resections at a single institution: Less is more. Ann. Surg. 2007, 246, 463–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Choi, S.B.; Park, J.S.; Kim, J.K.; Hyung, J.; Kim, K.S.; Yoon, D.S.; Lee, W.J.; Kim, B.R. Early experiences of robotic-assisted laparoscopic liver resection. Yonsei Med. J. 2008, 49, 632–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Boggi, U.; Moretto, C.; Vistoli, F.; D’Imporzano, S.; Mosca, F. Robotic suture of a large caval injury caused by endo-GIA stapler malfunction during laparoscopic wedge resection of liver segments VI and VII en-bloc with right hepatic vein. Minim. Invasive Allied Technol. 2009, 18, 306–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kang, S.W.; Jeong, J.J.; Yun, J.S.; Sung, T.Y.; Lee, S.C.; Lee, Y.S.; Nam, K.H.; Chang, H.S.; Chung, W.Y.; Park, C.S. Robot-assisted endoscopic surgery for thyroid cancer: Experience with the first 100 patients. Surg. Endosc. 2009, 23, 2399–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lee, K.E.; Rao, J.; Youn, Y.K. Endoscopic thyroidectomy with the da Vinci Robot System Using the Bilateral Axillary Breast Approach Technique: Our initial experience. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutan. Tech. 2009, 19, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Khalili, K.; Kim, T.K.; Jang, H.J.; Haider, M.A.; Khan, L.; Guindi, M.; Sherman, M. Optimization of imaging diagnosis of 1–2 cm hepatocellular carcinoma: An analysis of diagnostic performance and resource utilization. J. Hepatol. 2011, 54, 723–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lorusso, V.; Pascolo, L.; Fernetti, C.; Visigalli, M.; Anelli, P.; Tiribelli, C. In vitro and in vivo hepatic transport of the magnetic resonance imaging contrast agent B22956/1: Role of MRP proteins. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2002, 293, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Granito, A.; Galassi, M.; Piscaglia, F.; Romanini, L.; Lucidi, V.; Renzulli, M.; Borghi, A.; Grazioli, L.; Golfieri, R.; Bolondi, L. Impact of gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance on the non-invasive diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma: A prospective study. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2012, 37, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Rao, A.; Rao, G.; Ahmed, I. Laparoscopic or open liver resection? Let systematic review decide it. Am. J. Surg. 2012, 204, 222–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mirnezami, R.; Mirnezami, A.H.; Chandrakumaran, K.; Abu Hilal, M.; Pearce, N.W.; Primrose, J.; Sutcliffe, R. Short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic and open hepatic resection: Systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB 2011, 13, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Weinberg, L.; Wong, D.; Karalapillai, D.; Pearce, B.; Tan, C.O.; Tay, S.; Christophi, C.; McNicol, L.; Nikfarjam, M. The impact of fluid intervention on complications and length of hospital stay after pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple’s procedure). BMC Anesthesiol. 2014, 14, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Guan, R.; Chen, Y.; Yang, K.; Ma, D.; Gong, X.; Shen, B.; Peng, C. Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta analysis. Asian J. Surg. 2019, 42, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Marubashi, S.; Nagano, H. Laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy: Review of its current status. Ann. Gastroenterol. Surg. 2021, 5, 484–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nouri, M.; Mohsenpour, M.A.; Katsiki, N.; Ghobadi, S.; Jafari, A.; Faghih, S.; Banach, M.; Mazidi, M. Effect of Serum Lipid Profile on the Risk of Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 1,628,871 Women. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wakabayashi, G.; Sasaki, A.; Nishizuka, S.; Furukawa, T.; Kitajima, M. Our initial experience with robotic hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery. J. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Sci. 2011, 18, 481–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. McAleese, P.; Odling-Smee, W. The effect of complications on length of stay. Ann Surg. 1994, 220, 740–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Huebner, M.; Hubner, M.; Cima, R.R.; Larson, D.W. Timing of complications and length of stay after rectal cancer surgery. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2014, 218, 914–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Fong, Y.; Sun, R.L.; Jarnagin, W.; Blumgart, L.H. An analysis of 412 cases of hepatocellular carcinoma at a Western center. Ann. Surg. 1999, 229, 790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 11 05831 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the literature screening process and results.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the literature screening process and results.
Jcm 11 05831 g001
Jcm 11 05831 g002 550
Figure 2. Funnel plot of complication.
Figure 2. Funnel plot of complication.
Jcm 11 05831 g002
Jcm 11 05831 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot of blood transfusion [26,29,31,32,34,36,37,39,42,43].
Figure 3. Forest plot of blood transfusion [26,29,31,32,34,36,37,39,42,43].
Jcm 11 05831 g003
Jcm 11 05831 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot of complication rate [26,27,29,30,32,33,35,36,37,40,43].
Figure 4. Forest plot of complication rate [26,27,29,30,32,33,35,36,37,40,43].
Jcm 11 05831 g004
Jcm 11 05831 g005 550
Figure 5. Forest plot of conversion to open [26,27,30,31,32,35,36,38,40,41,42,43,44].
Figure 5. Forest plot of conversion to open [26,27,30,31,32,35,36,38,40,41,42,43,44].
Jcm 11 05831 g005
Jcm 11 05831 g006 550
Figure 6. Forest plot of reoperation rate [26,27,29].
Figure 6. Forest plot of reoperation rate [26,27,29].
Jcm 11 05831 g006
Jcm 11 05831 g007 550
Figure 7. Forest plot of estimated Blood loss [26,27,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44].
Figure 7. Forest plot of estimated Blood loss [26,27,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44].
Jcm 11 05831 g007
Jcm 11 05831 g008 550
Figure 8. Forest plot of operation time [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44].
Figure 8. Forest plot of operation time [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44].
Jcm 11 05831 g008
Jcm 11 05831 g009 550
Figure 9. Forest plot of length of hospital (day) [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,39,40,41,42,43].
Figure 9. Forest plot of length of hospital (day) [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,39,40,41,42,43].
Jcm 11 05831 g009
Jcm 11 05831 g010 550
Figure 10. Forest plot of tumor size for liver resection [28,29,32,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,44].
Figure 10. Forest plot of tumor size for liver resection [28,29,32,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,44].
Jcm 11 05831 g010
Jcm 11 05831 g011 550
Figure 11. Forest plot subgroup of minor operation time [28,30,31,36,37,38,40,42,44].
Figure 11. Forest plot subgroup of minor operation time [28,30,31,36,37,38,40,42,44].
Jcm 11 05831 g011
Jcm 11 05831 g012 550
Figure 12. Forest plot subgroup of minor hospital stay [28,30,31,36,37,40,42].
Figure 12. Forest plot subgroup of minor hospital stay [28,30,31,36,37,40,42].
Jcm 11 05831 g012
Jcm 11 05831 g013 550
Figure 13. Forest plot of subgroup analysis of major on operation time [26,30,33,34,39,43].
Figure 13. Forest plot of subgroup analysis of major on operation time [26,30,33,34,39,43].
Jcm 11 05831 g013
Jcm 11 05831 g014 550
Figure 14. Forest plot of subgroup analysis of major blood loss [26,30,33,34,39,43].
Figure 14. Forest plot of subgroup analysis of major blood loss [26,30,33,34,39,43].
Jcm 11 05831 g014
Jcm 11 05831 g015 550
Figure 15. Forest plot of Subgroup analysis of complication rates [26,30,33,43].
Figure 15. Forest plot of Subgroup analysis of complication rates [26,30,33,43].
Jcm 11 05831 g015
Jcm 11 05831 g016 550
Figure 16. Number of patients with malignant liver tumors [20,29,32,35,36,38,41,42].
Figure 16. Number of patients with malignant liver tumors [20,29,32,35,36,38,41,42].
Jcm 11 05831 g016
Jcm 11 05831 g017 550
Figure 17. BMI for the overall group [26,27,28,30,33,35,36,39,41,42,43].
Figure 17. BMI for the overall group [26,27,28,30,33,35,36,39,41,42,43].
Jcm 11 05831 g017
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies in the meta-analysis.
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies in the meta-analysis.
AuthorCountryPeriodDesignGroupTotalSex
n (M%)		Mean AgeBMI
(kg/m2)		Tumor Size(cm) mmPure Hemi Hepatectomy, n (%)
Cai [26], 2021China 2015–2020Retrospectives RH2512 (48.0%)56.4 ± 9.123.9 ± 3.15.5 ± 2.3YES
LH2718 (66.7%52.7 ± 11.622.2 ± 2.24.3 ± 1.9
Chong [27], 2019China2003–2017ProspectiveRH91NA58.7 ± 11.724.6 ± 3.7<3 cm, ≥3 cmNO
LH92NA59.8 ± 11.923.5 ± 3.5<3 cm, ≥3 cmNO
Croner [28], 2016Germany2011–2015Retrospectives RH10NA64 (45–7628 (28.3)4.8 (2.9–10.5NO
LH19NA59 (32–85)27 (26.6)4.1 (1.8–8.5)NO
Efanov [29], 2017Russia2010–2016RetrospectivesRH409 (NA)45(18–76)NA73 (17–142)NO
LH9136(NA) 51(21–77)NA64 (8–180)NO
Wang [30], 2019China 2011–2017Retrospectives RH9255 (59.8)54.1 ± 11.224.2 ± 3.9<5 cm, ≥5 cmYES
LH4824 (50.0)49.4 ± 13.023.7 ± 2.7<5 cm, ≥5 cm
Hu [31], 2019China2015–2017Retrospective RL583352.2 years24.7 NANO
LH542648.9 years23.8 NANO
Tsung [32], 2014USA2007–2011RetrospectiveRH5724 (42%)58.35 ± 14.6NA3.15 (2.05–5.00)NO
LH11447 (41%)58.72 ± 15.8NA3.50 (2.0–6.0)NO
Fruscione [33], 2018USA2011–2016Retrospective RH5720 (35.1)58.1 (15.7)28.1 (6.3)NAYES
LH11652 (44.8%) 53.2 (15.4)29.5 (7.3)NA
Hu [34], 2020China2011–2017RetrospectivelyRH19(10.5%)49.2 ± 10.61.6 ± 0.2>10 cmYES
LH13(7.7%)46.5 ± 8.91.6 ± 0.2>10 cm
Troisi [35], 2013Belgium-Italy2004–2010Retrospective-comparativeRH40(67.5%)64.6 ± 12.1NA51.8 ± 37.6 (1–19)NO
LH23343.9%55.3 ± 15.7NA49.7 ± 37.7 (1–20)NO
Lee [36], 2018South Korea2016–2018RetrospectiveRH13NA62.2 ± 9.24.6 ± 4.241.3 ± 23.8NO
LH10NA58.8 ± 11.223.5 ± 4.432.8 ± 18.0NO
Kim [37], 2016South Korea2007–2013RetrospectiveRH126 (50%) 54.1 ± 12.2NA2.3 (2.0–3.6)NO
LH3118 (58%)56.4 ± 11.6NA2.4 (1.7–3.0)
Berber [38], 2010USA2008–2009ProspectiveRH97 (77.8%)66.6 ± 6.4NA3.2 ± 1.3NO
LH2312 (52%)66.7 ± 9.6NA2.9 ± 1.3NO
Lorenz [39], 2021Germany2010–2020RetrospectiveRH4424 (54.5%)62.6 ± 14.526.5 ± 3.95.6 ± 2.7
LH11150 (45.0%)61 (55.0)27.0 ± 4.63.7 ± 2.4
Yu [40], 2014South Korea2007–2011Case ControlRH137 (53.9%)50.4 ± 12.2NA31.1 ± 16.0NO
LH179 (52.94%)52.5 ± 9.7NA34.8 ± 18.2NO
Packiam [41], 2012USA2009–2011Retrospective RH113 (27%)57 ± 1631 ± 75.5(2.4–6.5)NO
LH184 (22%)52 ± 1729 ± 74.4 (2.6–7.1)NO
Tranchart [42], 2014France-Italy2008–2013Matched designRH2813 (46.4%)66.5 (42–84)26.1 (16.7–36)35(6–115)NO
LH2813 (46.4%)66(41–78)23.2 (16–33)40(6–130)NO
Spampinato [43], 2014Italy2009–2012RetrospectiveRH2513 (52%)63 (32–80)24 (16.4–21.8)NANO
LH2510 (40%)62 (33–80)25 (20–28.5)NANO
Wu [44], 2014Taiwan2007–2011RetrospectiveRH3832 (84.2%)60.9 ± 14.9NA3.4 ± 1.7NO
LH4128 (68.3%)54.1 ± 14NA2.5 ± 1.6
NA: not available, LH: Laparoscopic hepatectomy, RH: Robotic hepatectomy.
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of included studies in the meta-analysis (continued).
Table 2. Characteristics of included studies in the meta-analysis (continued).
AuthorGroupSurgical Duration
(minute)		ComplicationsBlood Loss
(mL)		Conversion to OpenTransfusionReoperationLength of Hospital
(day)		Hepatectomy Extend
Cai [26], 2021RH303.578 ± 149.36241/25100 ± 37.0370/250/250/278 ± 3.1445left hemihepatectomy: 25(48.07%)
LH313.57 ± 117.404/27200 ± 1481/276/271/278.35 ± 2.34left hemihepatectomy: 27(51.92%)
Chong [27], 2019RH259.3 ± 127.09/91274.6 ± 568.17/91NA5/914.8 ± 1.8LLS:39 (42.9%) Wedge resection:31 (34.1%) Left hepatectomy:39 (42.9%)
Right hepatectomy:6 (6.6%)
CLR: 1 (1.1% MR: 2 (2.2%)
Major:19 (20.9%) Minor: 72 (79.1%)
LH216.8 ± 79.25/92212.4 ± 313.411/92NA8/924.9 ± 2.0LLS: 40 (43.5%) Wedge resection:47 (51.1%) Left hepatectomy: 7 (51.1%)
Right hepatectomy: 1 (1.1%)
CLR:0 MR:0 Major: 4 (4.3%)
Minor: 88 (95.7%)
Croner [28], 2016RH321 ± 80NA306 mL NANANANA7 ± 4Minor: 10 (34.48%)
LH242 ± 99.5NA356 mL (NA)NANANA8 ± 7.25Minor: 19 (65.515)
Efanov [29], 2017RH407 ± 223.735/40465 ± 500NA3/401/4011 ± 4RH-H:0 LH-H: 2 (5%) RPS: 5 (13%) S: 1 (3%) WRPS: 3 (8%)
ALS-S: 18 (45%) WRAS: 11 (28%)
LH296 ± 133.757/91302 ± 550NA4/911/919 ± 21.5RH-H: 9 (10%) LH-H: 2 (2%)
RPS: 6 (7%) S: 6 (7%)
WRPS: 23 (25%) ALS-S: 24 (26%) WRS: 21 (23%)
Wang [30], 2019RH195.53 ± 67.0012/92346.04 ± 234.17NANANA7.41 ± 2.64Left liver: 48 (52.2%) Right liver: 44 (47.8%)
LH198.98 ± 72.945/48243.04 ± 171.87NANANA7.06 ± 3.35Left liver: 29 (60.4%)
Right liver: 19 (21.6%)
Hu [31], 2019RL107.0 ± 45.2NA80.1 ± 144.40/58NANA4.3 ± 1.8Left lateral sectionectomy:51.17 %
LH95.7 ± 47.5NA108.9 ± 180.81/54NANA4.4 ± 1.8Left lateral sectionectomy:48.21%
Tsung [32],2014RH353.66 ± 143.7511/57195.58 ± 218.664/572\57NA4.1767± 1.90Major:21(NA) Minor:36(NA)
LH261.5 ± 98.929/114170.34 ± 225.2510/1147\114NA4 ± 1.50Major:42(NA) Minor:72(NA)
Fruscione [33], 2018RH195.537 ± 22.45716/57268.18 ± 103.56NANANA4 ± 0.4361Left: 20 (35.1) Patial: 17 (29.8)
Right: 20 (35.1)
LH205.0674 ± 25.679941/116405.08 ± 117.62NANANA4.9492 ± 0.5881Left: 22 (19.0) Patial: 48 (41.4)
Right: 46 (39.7)
Hu [34], 2020RH268.4 ± 93.6NA319.5 ± 206.0NA5\19NA5.5 ± 2.1Right:15 Left:4
LH268.4 ± 93.6NA476.9 ± 210.8NA4\13NA4.7 ± 1.7Right:8 Left:5
Troisi [35], 2013RH271 ± 1005/40NA8/40NANA6.1 ± 2.6Major hepatectomy:0 Left hepatectomy:0 Right hepatectomy:0
LH262 ± 11128/223NA17/223NANA5.9 ± 3.8Major hepatectomy: 37 (16.6%)
Left hepatectomy:16 (7.2%) Right hepatectomy:17 (7.6%)’& other extents
Lee [36], 2018RH248.6 ± 37.5NA320.3 ± 331.90/130/13NA7.0 ± 2.4left-sidehepatectomy
Left lateral sectionectomy
LH226.7 ± 26.6NA392.8 ± 374.51/100/10NA7.3 ± 2.9
Kim [37],2016RH403.8 ± 139.0NA206.6875 ± 125.79NA1/12NA7.36 ± 0.8386left lateral sectionectomy: (27.90%)
LH245.9 ± 100.7NA212.3508 ± 291.4453NA1/31NA6.6437 ± 2.3316left lateral sectionectomy: (72.09%)
Berber [38], 2010RH258.5 ± 27.9NA136 ± 611/9NANANASegmental liver resection:6
Left lateral sectionectomy:3
LH233.6 ± 16.4NA155 ± 540/23NANANASegmental liver resection:12
Left lateral sectionectomy:11
Lorenz [39], 2021RH330.5 ± 132.24/44439.8 ± 346.3NA7/44NA13.4 ± 12.5Major: 16, Minor: 25
LH181.3 ± 100.43/111425.4 ± 590.1NA7/111NA8.7 ± 5.8Major: 12, Minor: 60
Yu [40], 2014RH291.5 ± 85.10/13388.5 ± 65.00/130/13NA7.8 ± 2.3LLS:10, LH-H:3
LH240.9 ± 68.62/17342.6 ± 84.70/170/17NA9.5 ± 3.0LLS:6, LH-H:11
Packiam [41], 2012RH175 ± 85—30 ± 400/110NA4 ± 3LLS
LH188 ± 85—30 ± 350/180NA3 ± 2LLS
Tranchart [42], 2014RH210 ± 125NA200 ± 1504/284/28NA6 ± 2.5Bisegmentectomy:1,LLS:5, Segmentectomy:7, etc..
LH176 ± 125NA150 ± 1502/281/28NA5.5 ± 2.5Bisegmentectomy:1,LLS:5, Segmentectomy:7, etc..
Spampinato [43], 2014RH430 ± 1205/25250 ± 1551/251/25NA9.3 ± 4.7Major hepatectomy
LH360 ± 1209/25400 ± 1551/254/25NA8.7 ± 4.4Major hepatectomy
Wu [44], 2014RH380 ± 166NA325 ± 4802/38NANA—Major liver resection
LH227 ± 80NA173 ± 1655/41NANA—Right &Left lobe
NA: not available, LH: Laparoscopic hepatectomy, RH: Robotic hepatectomy, CLR: Caudate lobe resection, MR: Multiple resections, LLS: Left lateral sectionectomy, RH-H: Right hemi-hepatectomy, LH-H: Left hemi-hepatectomy, RPS: Right posterior sectionectomy, S: Segmentectomy, WRPS: Wedge resection of posterosuperior (1,4a,7,8) segment, ALS-S: Anterolateral segment/sectionectomy, WRAS: Wedge resection of anterolateral segments.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aboudou, T.; Li, M.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Li, Y.; Feng, L.; Chu, X.; Chen, N.; Zhou, W.; Yang, K. Laparoscopic versus Robotic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5831. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195831

AMA Style

Aboudou T, Li M, Zhang Z, Wang Z, Li Y, Feng L, Chu X, Chen N, Zhou W, Yang K. Laparoscopic versus Robotic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(19):5831. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195831

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aboudou, Taslim, Meixuan Li, Zeliang Zhang, Zhengfeng Wang, Yanfei Li, Lufang Feng, Xiajing Chu, Nan Chen, Wence Zhou, and Kehu Yang. 2022. "Laparoscopic versus Robotic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 19: 5831. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195831

APA Style

Aboudou, T., Li, M., Zhang, Z., Wang, Z., Li, Y., Feng, L., Chu, X., Chen, N., Zhou, W., & Yang, K. (2022). Laparoscopic versus Robotic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(19), 5831. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195831

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop