Efficacy and safety of robotic liver surgery for the elderly: A propensity-score matched analysis of short-term outcomes with open liver surgery at a single center in Denmark

Daisuke Fukumori*, Christoph Tschuor, Takashi Hamada, Luit Penninga, Jens Hillingsø, Lars Bo Svendsen, Peter Nørgaard Larsen

*Corresponding author for this work

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The incidence of liver tumors requiring surgical treatment continues to increase in elderly patients. This study compared the short-term results of robotic liver surgery (RLS) versus open liver surgery (OLS) for liver tumors in elderly patients.

METHODS: A prospective database including all patients undergoing liver surgery at Copenhagen University Hospital between July 2019 and July 2022 was managed retrospectively. Short-term surgical outcomes of the two main cohorts (OLS and RLS) and subgroups were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) in elderly patients (age ≥ 70 years) with liver tumors.

RESULTS: A total of 42 matched patients from each group were investigated: the RLS group had significantly larger tumor diameters, less blood loss (821.2 vs. 155.2 mL, p < .001), and shorter hospital stays (6.6 vs. 3.4 days, p < .001). Overall morbidity was comparable, while operative times were longer in the RLS group. The advantages observed with the robotic approach were replicated in the subgroup of minor liver resections.

CONCLUSIONS: In patients ≥70 years, RLS for liver tumors results in significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stays than OLS. RLS, especially minor liver resection, is safe and feasible in elderly patients with liver tumors.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences
ISSN1868-6974
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 12 Jun 2024

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Efficacy and safety of robotic liver surgery for the elderly: A propensity-score matched analysis of short-term outcomes with open liver surgery at a single center in Denmark'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this