Robotic hepatectomy: Initial experience of a single institution in Singapore

15Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction In this study, we report our initial experience with robotic hepatectomy. Methods Consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy at Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, from February 2013 to February 2015 were enrolled in this study. The difficulty level of operations was graded using a novel scoring system for laparoscopic hepatectomies. Results During the two-year period, five consecutive robotic hepatectomies were performed (one left lateral sectionectomy, one non-anatomical segment II/III resection, one anatomical segment V resection with cholecystectomy, one extended right posterior sectionectomy and one non-anatomical segment V/VI resection). Two hepatectomies were performed for suspected hepatocellular carcinoma, two for solitary liver metastases and one for a large symptomatic haemangioma. The median age of the patients was 53 (range 38–66) years and the median tumour size was 2.5 (range 2.1–7.3) cm. The median total operation time was 340 (range 155–825) minutes and the median volume of blood loss was 300 (range 50–1,200) mL. There were no open conversions and no mortalities or major morbidities (> Clavien-Dindo Grade II). The difficulty level of the operations was graded as low in one case (Score 2), intermediate in three cases (Score 5, 6 and 6) and high in one case (Score 10). There was one minor morbidity, where the patient experienced Grade A bile leakage, which resolved spontaneously. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 5 (range 4–7) days. Conclusion Our initial experience confirmed the feasibility and safety of robotic hepatectomy.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kam, J. H., Goh, B. K. P., Chan, C. Y., Wong, J. S., Lee, S. Y., Cheow, P. C., … Ooi, L. L. P. J. (2016). Robotic hepatectomy: Initial experience of a single institution in Singapore. Singapore Medical Journal, 57(4), 209–214. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2016024

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free