Objective To investigate the perioperative efficacy of robot surgical system assisted anatomic and non‑anatomic hepatectomy.

Methods The propensity score matching and retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinical data of 103 patients who underwent robot surgical system assisted hepatectomy in Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Affiliated with the Zhejiang University School of Medicine from March 2016 to December 2021 were collected. There were 54 males and 49 females, aged 56(range, 44‒64)years. Of the 103 patients, 55 cases undergoing robot surgical system assisted anatomic hepatectomy were divided into the anatomic group, and 48 cases undergoing robot surgical system assisted non-anatomic hepatectomy were divided into the non-anatomic group. Observation indicators: (1) propensity score matching and comparison of general data of patients between the two groups after matching; (2) intraoperative conditions; (3) perioperative complications. Propensity score matching was done by the 1:1 nearest neighbor matching method. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean±SD, and comparison between groups was conducted using the t test. Measurement data with skewed distribution were expressed as M(range), and comparison between groups was conducted using the Mann‑Whitney U test. Count data were described as absolute numbers or percentages, and comparison between groups was conducted using the chi‑square test or Fisher exact probability. Comparison of ordinal data was conducted using the rank sum test.

Results (1) Propensity score matching and compari-son of general data of patients between the two groups after matching. Of the 103 patients, 94 cases were successfully matched, including 47 cases in the anatomic group and 47 cases in the non-anatomic group. The elimination of preoperative body mass index, preoperative platelet and preoperative albumin confounding bias ensured comparability between the two groups after propensity score matching. (2) Intraoperative conditions. After propensity score matching, the operation time and volume of intraoperative blood loss were 175(range, 120‒240)minutes and 50(range, 50‒100)mL in patients of the anatomic group, versus 155(range, 105‒190)minutes and 100(range, 50‒200)mL in patients of the non‑anatomic group, showing significant differences in the above indicators between the two groups (Z=1.97, 2.49, P<0.05). (3) Perioperative complications. After propensity score matching, cases with pleural fluid and/or ascites, case with biliary fistula, case with thrombosis, case with peritoneal infection, case with incision infection were 11, 1, 2, 4, 1 in patients of the anatomic group, versus 12, 0, 4, 1, 0 in patients of the non‑anatomic group, showing no significant difference in the above indicators between the two groups (P>0.05). Cases with complications classified as grade Ⅰ, grade Ⅱ, grade Ⅲ, grade Ⅳ of the Clavien‑Dindo classification were 33, 14, 0, 0 in patients of the anatomic group, versus 28, 14, 3, 2 in patients of the non‑anatomic group, showing no significant difference in the above indicators between the two groups (Z=‒1.38, P>0.05).

Conclusions Robotic surgical system assisted anatomic and non-anatomic hepatectomy are safe and feasible for clinical application. Compared with robot surgical system assisted non‑anatomic hepatectomy, patients under-going robot surgical system assisted anatomic hepatectomy have long operation time and less volume of intraoperative blood loss.