← Back to All Abstracts
Surgery

Minimally Invasive Robot-Assisted Hepatectomy vs. Conventional Laparoscopic Approach: Perioperative Outcomes

Dr. Vikram Pillai · Dr. Meghna Sharma · Dr. Rohan Desai · Dr. Anjali Rao
National GI Surgery Congress 2024 · 2024
DOI10.14302/omcar.2024.002

Abstract

Background

Robot-assisted hepatectomy offers improved dexterity and visualization in complex liver resections. However, comparative data with conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy in Indian surgical centres is limited, particularly regarding perioperative morbidity and oncological outcomes.

Methods

A prospective comparative study of 89 patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma or colorectal liver metastases from January 2022 to December 2023. Group A (n=44) underwent robot-assisted hepatectomy; Group B (n=45) underwent conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy. Outcomes assessed: operative time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥IIIa), and R0 resection rate.

Results

Robot-assisted hepatectomy demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss (210 ± 85 mL vs. 340 ± 130 mL; p=0.002), lower conversion rate (4.5% vs. 15.6%; p=0.04), and superior R0 resection rate (97.7% vs. 88.9%; p=0.03). Operative time was longer in the robotic group (285 ± 42 min vs. 218 ± 38 min; p<0.001). 90-day mortality was nil in both groups.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted hepatectomy demonstrates superior perioperative safety profile and oncological margin quality compared to conventional laparoscopy in experienced centres. Longer operative time and higher cost remain considerations for wider adoption.

robotic surgeryhepatectomylaparoscopyliver resectionminimally invasive

Author Affiliations

Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai

Lilavati Hospital, Mumbai

Ethics Statement

Approved by Institutional Ethics Committee, Tata Memorial Hospital (Ref: TMH-EC-2022/007). Informed consent obtained.

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Pillai serves on the advisory board of Intuitive Surgical (India). Remaining authors declare no conflicts.