| Title |
Robotic Versus Open Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Matched Comparison
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-016-5638-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Po-Da Chen, Chao-Ying Wu, Rey-Heng Hu, Wei-Han Chou, Hong-Shiee Lai, Jin-Tung Liang, Po-Huang Lee, Yao-Ming Wu |
| Abstract |
Robotic hepatectomy has been suggested to be a safe and effective approach for liver disease; however, studies comparing robotic hepatectomy with the conventional open approach regarding oncologic outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are limited. Accordingly, we performed a matched comparison of surgical and oncological outcomes between robotic and open hepatectomy. Between January 2012 and October 2015, a total of 183 patients underwent robotic hepatectomy and 275 patients underwent open hepatectomy by the same surgical team in our center. Eighty-one newly diagnosed HCC cases in each group were compared under propensity score matching (PSM) in a 1:1 ratio. With robotic hepatectomy, the conversion rate was 1.6 % and the complication rate was 4.4 %. On PSM, the groups had a comparable percentage of major liver resections (41.9 vs. 39.5 %) and liver cirrhosis (45.7 vs. 46.9 %). Compared with the open group, the robotic group required longer operation times (343 vs. 220 min), shorter hospital stays (7.5 vs. 10.1 days), and lower dosages of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (350 vs. 554 ng/kg). The 3-year disease-free survival of the robotic group was comparable with that of the open group (72.2 % vs. 58.0 %; p = 0.062), as was the 3-year overall survival (92.6 vs. 93.7 %; p = 0.431). This is the first oncological study comparing robotic liver resection for HCC with open resection. Robotic hepatectomy can be applied for challenging major resections in patients with cirrhotic liver disease with less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays without compromising oncological outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 20 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,452,475
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#4,430
of 6,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,758
of 314,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#67
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,518 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.