OUTCOMES OF ROBOTIC LIVING DONOR RIGHT HEPATECTOMY FROM 52 CONSECUTIVE CASES: COMPARISON WITH OPEN AND LAPAROSCOPY-ASSISTED DONOR HEPATECTOMY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the feasibility and safety of an alternative robotic living-donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) technique. Summary Background Data: Data for minimally invasive living-donor right hepatectomy, especially RLDRH, in a relatively large donor cohort have not been reported yet. Methods: From March 2016 to March 2019, 52 liver donors underwent RLDRH. The clinical and perioperative outcomes of RLDRH were compared with those of conventional open donor right hepatectomy (CODRH; n=62) and laparoscopy-assisted donor right hepatectomy (LADRH; n=118). Donor satisfaction with cosmetic results was compared between RLDRH and LADRH using a body image questionnaire. Results: Although RLDRH had a longer operative time (RLDRH, 493.6 min; CODRH, 404.4 min; LADRH, 355.9 min, p<0.001), its mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower (RLDRH, 109.8 mL; CODRH, 287.1 mL; LADRH, 265.5 mL; p=0.001). The postoperative complication rates were similar among the three groups (RLDRH, 23.1%; CODRH, 35.5%; LADRH, 28.0%; p=0.420). Regarding donor satisfaction, the body image and cosmetic appearance scores were significantly higher in RLDRH than in LADRH. There was no significant difference in hospital stay among the three groups (p=0.105). After propensity score matching, RLDRH showed a shorter hospital stay and similar complication rate comparing CODRH. Conclusions: RLDRH resulted in a similar postoperative complication rate and shorter length of hospital stay compared with those of CODRH and provided better body image and cosmetic results compared with those of LADRH. RLDRH is feasible and can be safely performed by expert surgeons in both robotic systems and open hepatectomy.References: 1. Adam R, Karam V, Delvart V, et al. Evolution of indications and results of liver transplantation in Europe. A report from the European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR). J Hepatol. 2012;57:675-688. 2. Chen C-L, Kabiling CS, Concejero AM. Why does living donor liver transplantation flourish in Asia? Nature Reviews Gastroenterology &Amp; Hepatology. 2013;10:746. 3. Barr ML, Belghiti J, Villamil FG, et al. A report of the Vancouver Forum on the care of the live organ donor: lung, liver, pancreas, and intestine data and medical guidelines. Transplantation. 2006;81:1373-1385. 4. Ratner LE, Sandoval PR. When disaster strikes: death of a living organ donor. Am J Transplant. 2010;10:2577-2581. 5. Cheah YL, Simpson MA, Pomposelli JJ, et al. Incidence of death and potentially life-threatening near-miss events in living donor hepatic lobectomy: a world-wide survey. Liver Transpl. 2013;19:499-506. 6. Rossler F, Sapisochin G, Song G, et al. Defining Benchmarks for Major Liver Surgery: A multicenter Analysis of 5202 Living Liver Donors. Ann Surg. 2016;264:492-500. 7. Shirabe K, Eguchi S, Okajima H, et al. Current Status of Surgical Incisions Used in Donors During Living Related Liver Transplantation-A Nationwide Survey in Japan. Transplantation. 2018;102:1293-1299. 8. Wang SH, Lin PY, Wang JY, et al. Mental health status after living donor hepatectomy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e6910 9. Ciria R, Cherqui D, Geller DA, et al. Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing. Ann Surg. 2016;263:761-777. 10. Koffron AJ, Kung R, Baker T, et al. Laparoscopic-assisted right lobe donor hepatectomy. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:2522-2525. 11. Suh KS, Hong SK, Lee KW, et al. Pure laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: Focus on 55 donors undergoing right hepatectomy. Am J Transplant. 2018;18:434-443.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".