4.5 Article

A New Era of Bile Duct Repair: Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Hepaticojejunostomy

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 451-459

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-018-4018-0

Keywords

Bile duct injury; Bile duct repair; Cholecystectomy complication; Laparoscopic surgery; Robotic surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundDespite scientific evidence of the safety, efficacy, and in some cases superiority of minimally invasive surgery in hepato-pancreato-biliary procedures, there are scarce publications about bile duct repairs. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery versus laparoscopic surgery on bile duct repair in patients with post-cholecystectomy bile duct injury.MethodsThis is a retrospective comparative study of our prospectively collected database of patients with bile duct injury who underwent robotic or laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy.ResultsSeventy-five bile duct repairs (40 by laparoscopic and 35 by robotic-assisted surgery) were treated from 2012 to 2018. Injury types were as follows: E1 (7.5% vs. 14.3%), E2 (22.5% vs. 14.3%), E3 (40% vs. 42.9%), E4 (22.5% vs. 28.6%), and E5 (7.5% vs. 0), for laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy (LHJ) and robotic-assisted hepaticojejunostomy (RHJ) respectively. The overall morbidity rate was similar (LHJ 27.5% vs. RHJ 22.8%, P=0.644), during an overall median follow-up of 28 (14-50) months. In the LHJ group, the actuarial primary patency rate was 92.5% during a median follow-up of 49 (43.2-56.8) months. While in the RHJ group, the actuarial primary patency rate was 100%, during a median follow-up of 16 (12-22) months. The overall primary patency rate was 96% (LHJ 92.5% vs. RHJ 100%, log-rank P=0.617).ConclusionOur results showed that the robotic approach is similar to the laparoscopic regarding safety and efficacy in attaining primary patency for bile duct repair.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available