Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Right and Extended Right Hepatectomy

Recommendations on Robotic Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery. The Paris Jury-Based Consensus Conference

OBJECTIVE

To establish the first consensus guidelines on the safety and indications of robotics in Hepato-Pancreatic-Biliary (HPB) surgery. The secondary aim was to identify priorities for future research.

BACKGROUND

HPB robotic surgery is reaching the IDEAL 2b exploration phase for innovative technology. An objective assessment endorsed by the HPB community is timely and needed.

METHODS

The ROBOT4HPB conference developed consensus guidelines using the Zurich-Danish model. An impartial and multidisciplinary jury produced unbiased guidelines based on the work of 10 expert panels answering predefined key questions and considering the best-quality evidence retrieved after a systematic review. The recommendations conformed with the GRADE and SIGN50 methodologies.

RESULTS

Sixty-four experts from 20 countries considered 285 studies, and the conference included an audience of 220 attendees. The jury (n=10) produced recommendations or statements covering 5 sections of robotic HPB surgery: technology, training and expertise, outcome assessment, and liver and pancreatic procedures. The recommendations supported the feasibility of robotics for most HPB procedures and its potential value in extending minimally invasive indications, emphasizing, however, the importance of expertise to ensure safety. The concept of expertise was defined broadly, encompassing requirements for credentialing HPB robotics at a given center. The jury prioritized relevant questions for future trials and emphasized the need for prospective registries, including validated outcome metrics for the forthcoming assessment of HPB robotics.

CONCLUSIONS

The ROBOT4HPB consensus represents a collaborative and multidisciplinary initiative, defining state-of-the-art expertise in HPB robotics procedures. It produced the first guidelines to encourage their safe use and promotion.

Symptom Cluster Trajectories Among Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Partial Hepatectomy: A Longitudinal Study

AIMS

To investigate types of symptom clusters in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after partial hepatectomy and explore symptom cluster trajectories over time.

DESIGN

A longitudinal observational study was conducted.

METHODS

Symptoms of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma were assessed on the second day, seventh day, third week, fourth week and twelfth week post-operation using the MD Anderson Symptom Assessment Inventory and the Symptom Module for Primary Liver Cancer. Symptom clusters were extracted using exploratory factor analysis, and symptom cluster trajectories were analysed using a latent class growth model.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty patients with hepatocellular carcinoma completed the five-point investigation after partial hepatectomy. Three symptom clusters were identified: general somatic, psychological and liver impairment. Each symptom cluster was further categorised into three groups: severe, moderate and low. The severity of the three symptom clusters and subgroups decreased over time.

CONCLUSION

Three symptom clusters were identified in patients who underwent partial hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma, and symptom cluster trajectories decreased over time during the 12-week postoperative period. These findings will assist healthcare professionals in providing prompt symptom management and improve patient quality of life.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Healthcare professionals should evaluate symptom clusters and their trajectories in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after partial hepatectomy.

REPORTING METHOD

This report was prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for Reporting Cohort Research.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Hepatobiliary surgery nurses worked closely with the research team to ensure the questionnaires were fully assessed before being sent to patients. The active participation of patients provided valuable information for the study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2400084232).

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A Nationwide Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Objective

To compare nationwide outcomes of robotic liver resection (RLR) with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

Background

Minimally invasive liver resection is increasingly performed using the robotic approach as this could help overcome inherent technical limitations of laparoscopy. It is unknown if this translates to improved patient outcomes.

Methods

Data from the mandatory Dutch Hepatobiliary Audit were used to compare perioperative outcomes of RLR and LLR in 20 centers in the Netherlands (2014-2022). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate selection bias. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of the learning curve (≥50 procedures for LLR and ≥25 procedures for RLR), concurrent noncholecystectomy operations, high-volume centers, and conversion on outcomes.

Results

Overall, 792 RLR and 2738 LLR were included. After PSM (781 RLR vs 781 LLR), RLR was associated with less blood loss (median: 100 mL [interquartile range (IQR): 50-300] vs 200 mL [IQR: 50-500], P = 0.002), less major blood loss (≥500 mL,18.6% vs 25.2%, P = 0.011), less conversions (4.9% vs 12.8%, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (median: 3 days [IQR: 2-5] vs 4 days [IQR: 2-6], P < 0.001), compared with LLR. There were no significant differences in overall and severe morbidity, readmissions, mortality, and R0 resection rate. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. When excluding conversions, RLR was only associated with a reduction in reoperations (1.1% vs 2.7%, P = 0.038).

Conclusion

In this nationwide analysis, RLR was associated with a reduction in conversion, blood loss and length of hospital stay without compromising patient safety, also when excluding a learning curve effect. The benefits of RLR seem to be mostly related to a reduction in conversions.

A European expert consensus surgical technique description for robotic hepatectomy

The robotic platform enables surgeons to operate with a similar level of freedom and control as in open surgery, while still providing the patient with the benefits of a minimally invasive approach. More centres continue to adopt robotic liver surgery however standardized training materials and consensus on the surgical technique are currently lacking. The availability of a standardized surgical protocol could benefit the further dissemination of the robotic approach while promoting safe and effective operating techniques. We present a comprehensive surgical technique description for robotic hepatectomy agreed upon by seven expert robotic liver surgeons in Europe. They contributed insights from their extensive experience with the robot to develop this report, highlighting the key steps and important considerations for performing robotic hepatectomy. We describe the surgical technique for four most common hepatectomy types with varying complexity: partial anterolateral resections, partial posterosuperior resections, left hepatectomy and right hepatectomy. This report encompasses recommendations from the experts, covering the preparatory steps such as patient selection and pre-operative imaging, and extending through to care in the postoperative phase. The step-by-step surgical technique description serves as a compendium of best practice methods presently utilized in robotic liver surgery. Although some variations in technique cannot be eliminated from practice, general recommendations in a structured form will help to homogenize the technique, safeguarding surgical quality. This paper aims to inform and advise surgeons in the process of adopting robotic liver surgery and can act as a starting point for further optimization and refinement of the technique.

Advances in minimally invasive liver surgery

As in many surgical branches, minimally invasive methods are becoming increasingly prominent in hepatobiliary surgery. Nowadays, robotic and laparoscopic methods are among the hot topics in the current literature. Both laparoscopic and robotic surgery have better short-term results than open surgery in terms of the blood loss, need for blood transfusion, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, and postoperative major complication rate. In addition to cosmetic benefits, minimally invasive methods have similar results to open surgery in terms of oncologic outcomes. Minimally invasive techniques for hepatocellular carcinoma, colorectal cancer liver metastasis and cholangiocarcinoma, which are the most common indications for surgery, also for donor and recipient surgeries in organ transplantation, can be safely applied in high-volume centers and by experienced surgeons. The use of robotic surgery is increasing especially in major hepatectomy operations. The main advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery are less bleeding, less conversion rate and a shorter learning curve. However, there is a need for studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery, the production of devices such as robotic ultrasonographic dissectors, and the establishment of structured minimally invasive hepatobiliary surgery training programs. The aim of this review is to evaluate the recent findings and current evidence on minimally invasive hepatobiliary surgery.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver metastasis from clitoral malignant melanoma: a case report

INTRODUCTION

Malignant melanomas occur most commonly in the skin, mucous membranes, or choroid. Clitoral malignant melanomas are extremely rare. Stage IV malignant melanomas have a poor prognosis, and molecularly targeted agents or immune checkpoint inhibitors are recommended. However, surgical resection is reportedly a valid option for improving the prognosis of patients with oligometastases, defined as a small number of metastases that can be completely resected. In this report, we describe hepatic resection for a recurrent liver metastasis in a patient who had undergone removal of a clitoral malignant melanoma 9 years previously.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 82 year-old woman presented with a black nodule on her clitoris. Total resection of the nodule resulted in a diagnosis of clitoral malignant melanoma (pT4bN0M0, pStage IIC; UICC 8th edition). A follow-up computed tomography scan 4 years later revealed a single 5 mm mass in the lower lobe of the right lung, prompting partial resection of the right lung. Pathological examination of the operative specimen revealed a pulmonary metastasis of malignant melanoma. The patient was treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy as adjuvant chemotherapy for 1 year. A follow-up computed tomography scan 9 years after surgical removal of the primary lesion revealed an 18 mm mass in segment II of the liver, prompting robot-assisted laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy. The provisional diagnosis of metastatic malignant melanoma in the liver was confirmed by histopathological examination of the operative specimen. The patient was treated with pembrolizumab monotherapy as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for 1 year. No further recurrence was detected at the 1.5 year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

We performed hepatectomy for oligometastasis of clitoral malignant melanoma, an extremely rare entity. Surgery has the potential to prolong the prognosis of patients with oligometastasis.

Initial Experience With Robotic Liver Resection in the United States

BACKGROUND

This study's aim was to show the feasibility and safety of robotic liver resection (RLR) even without extensive experience in major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

METHODS

A single center, retrospective analysis was performed for consecutive liver resections for solid liver tumors from 2014 to 2022.

RESULTS

The analysis included 226 liver resections, comprising 127 (56.2%) open surgeries, 28 (12.4%) LLR, and 71 (31.4%) RLR. The rate of RLR increased and that of LLR decreased over time. In a comparison between propensity score matching-selected open liver resection and RLR (41:41), RLR had significantly less blood loss (384 ± 413 vs 649 ± 646 mL, P = .030) and shorter hospital stay (4.4 ± 3.0 vs 6.4 ± 3.7 days, P = .010), as well as comparable operative time (289 ± 123 vs 290 ± 132 mins, P = .954). A comparison between LLR and RLR showed comparable perioperative outcomes, even with more surgeries with higher difficulty score included in RLR (5.2 ± 2.7 vs 4.3 ± 2.5, P = .147). The analysis of the learning curve in RLR demonstrated that blood loss, conversion rate, and complication rate consistently improved over time, with the case number required to achieve the learning curve appearing to be 60 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that RLR is a feasible, safe, and acceptable platform for liver resection, and that the safe implementation and dissemination of RLR can be achieved without solid experience of LLR.

Learning curve in robotic liver surgery: easily achievable, evolving from laparoscopic background and team-based

BACKGROUND

Limited and heterogeneous literature data necessitate a focused examination of the learning curve in robotic liver resections. This study aims to assess the learning curve of two surgeons from the same team with differing laparoscopic backgrounds.

METHODS

Since February 2021, San Raffaele Hospital in Milan has implemented a robotic liver surgery program, performing 250 resections by three trained console surgeons. Using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis, the learning curve was evaluated for a Pioneer Surgeon (PS) with around 1200 laparoscopic cases and a New Generation Surgeon (NGS) with approximately 100 laparoscopic cases. Cases were stratified by complexity (38 low, 74 intermediate, 85 high).

RESULTS

Both PS and NGS demonstrated a learning curve for operative time after 15 low-complexity and 10 intermediate-complexity cases, with high-complexity learning curves apparent after 10 cases for PS and 18 cases for NGS. Conversion rates remained unaffected, and neither surgeon experienced increased blood loss or postoperative complications. A "team learning curve" effect in terms of operative time emerged after 12 cases, suggesting the importance of a cohesive surgical team.

CONCLUSION

The robotic platform facilitated a relatively brief learning curve for low and intermediate complexity cases, irrespective of laparoscopic background, underscoring the benefits of team collaboration.

Current status and future perspectives of robotic liver surgery

Robotic liver resection has been reported in case series since the early 2000s. The surgical robot is capable of precise operation using articulated forceps with seven degrees of freedom. The robot also eliminates tremors and provides a good surgical field with highly detailed 3D high-definition images. The clinical results demonstrating their usefulness have been increasing year by year. Initially, a shorter hospital stay was observed in comparison with open hepatectomy. Recent reports have also shown lower conversion and complication rates in comparison with laparoscopic hepatectomy. The clamp and crush method with bipolar forceps, sealing devices, ultrasonic shears, and the combined procedure of Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator and robotic forceps as hybrid procedures have been reported as effective methods of parenchymal transection in robotic surgery. Theoretically, the advantages of the robotic platform allow for more complex liver resection around hilar structures and major blood vessels, as well as for vascular reconstruction or biliary reconstruction. The application of robotic liver surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma, living donor hepatectomy, and living donor liver transplantation has been reported. Robotic liver surgery is becoming more popular for certain indications; however, it is important to further evaluate its long-term surgical and oncological outcomes and costs in comparison with conventional laparoscopic and open liver surgery, based on accumulated experience.

Perioperative impact of liver cirrhosis on robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of robotic liver resection (RLR) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been reported worldwide. However, the exact role of RLR in HCC patients with liver cirrhosis is not sufficiently determined.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study on consecutive patients with cirrhosis or non-cirrhosis who received RLR for HCC from 2018 to 2023. Data on patients' demographics and perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the risk factors of prolonged postoperative length of stay (LOS) and morbidity.

RESULTS

Of the 571 patients included, 364 (64%) had cirrhosis. Among the cirrhotic patients, 48 (13%) were classified as Child-Pugh B. After PSM, the cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis group (n = 183) had similar operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion, LOS, overall morbidity (p > 0.05). In addition, the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar between the two groups in the subgroup analyses of patients with tumor size ≥ 5 cm, major hepatectomy, and high/expert IWATE difficulty grade. However, patients with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis had longer LOS and more overall morbidity than that of Child-Pugh A. Child-Pugh B cirrhosis, ASA score > 2, longer operative time, and multiple tumors were risk factors of prolonged LOS or morbidity in patients with cirrhosis.

CONCLUSION

The presence of Child-Pugh A cirrhosis didn't significantly influence the difficulty and perioperative outcomes of RLR for selected patients with HCC. However, even in high-volume center, Child-Pugh B cirrhosis was a risk factor for poor postoperative outcomes.

Factors Associated with and Impact of Open Conversion in Laparoscopic and Robotic Minor Liver Resections: An International Multicenter Study of 10,541 Patients

INTRODUCTION

Despite the increasing widespread adoption and experience in minimally invasive liver resections (MILR), open conversion occurs not uncommonly even with minor resections and as been reported to be associated with inferior outcomes. We aimed to identify risk factors for and outcomes of open conversion in patients undergoing minor hepatectomies. We also studied the impact of approach (laparoscopic or robotic) on outcomes.

METHODS

This is a post-hoc analysis of 20,019 patients who underwent RLR and LLR across 50 international centers between 2004-2020. Risk factors for and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analysed. Multivariate and propensity score-matched analysis were performed to control for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Finally, 10,541 patients undergoing either laparoscopic (LLR; 89.1%) or robotic (RLR; 10.9%) minor liver resections (wedge resections, segmentectomies) were included. Multivariate analysis identified LLR, earlier period of MILR, malignant pathology, cirrhosis, portal hypertension, previous abdominal surgery, larger tumor size, and posterosuperior location as significant independent predictors of open conversion. The most common reason for conversion was technical issues (44.7%), followed by bleeding (27.2%), and oncological reasons (22.3%). After propensity score matching (PSM) of baseline characteristics, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with successful MILR cases as evidenced by longer operative times, more blood loss, higher requirement for perioperative transfusion, longer duration of hospitalization and higher morbidity, reoperation, and 90-day mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple risk factors were associated with conversion of MILR even for minor hepatectomies, and open conversion was associated with significantly poorer perioperative outcomes.

Healthcare cost expenditure for robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a bottom-up economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is increasingly performed via the robot-assisted approach but may be associated with increased costs. This study is a post-hoc comparison of healthcare cost expenditure for robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a high-volume center.

METHODS

In-hospital and 30-day postoperative healthcare costs were calculated per patient in a retrospective series (October 2015-December 2022).

RESULTS

Overall, 298 patients were included (143 RLR and 155 LLR). Benefits of RLR were lower conversion rate (2.8% vs 12.3%, p = 0.002), shorter operating time (167 min vs 198 min, p = 0.044), and less blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, p < 0.001). Total per-procedure costs of RLR (€10260) and LLR (€9931) were not significantly different (mean difference €329 [95% bootstrapped confidence interval (BCI) €-1179-€2120]). Lower costs with RLR due to shorter surgical and operating room time were offset by higher disposable instrumentation costs resulting in comparable intraoperative costs (€5559 vs €5247, mean difference €312 [95% BCI €-25-€648]). Postoperative costs were similar for RLR (€4701) and LLR (€4684), mean difference €17 [95% BCI €-1357-€1727]. When also considering purchase and maintenance costs, RLR resulted in higher total per-procedure costs.

DISCUSSION

In a high-volume center, RLR can have similar per-procedure cost expenditure as LLR when disregarding capital investment.

Efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Evidence concerning long-term outcome of robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients is scarce.

METHODS

This study enrolled all patients who underwent RLR and LLR for resectable HCC between July 2016 and July 2021. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to create a 1:3 match between the RLR and LLR groups. A comprehensive collection and analysis of patient data regarding efficacy and safety have been conducted, along with the evaluation of the learning curve for RLR.

RESULTS

Following PSM, a total of 341 patients were included, with 97 in the RLR group and 244 in the LLR group. RLR group demonstrated a significantly longer operative time (median [IQR], 210 [152.0-298.0] min vs. 183.5 [132.3-263.5] min; p = 0.04), with no significant differences in other perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes. Overall survival (OS) was similar between the two groups (p = 0.43), but RLR group exhibited improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) (median of 65 months vs. 56 months, p = 0.006). The estimated 5-year OS for RLR and LLR were 74.8% (95% CI: 65.4-85.6%) and 80.7% (95% CI: 74.0-88.1%), respectively. The estimated 5-year RFS for RLR and LLR were 58.6% (95% CI: 48.6-70.6%) and 38.3% (95% CI: 26.4-55.9%), respectively. In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, RLR (HR: 0.586, 95% CI (0.393-0.874), p = 0.008) emerged as an independent predictor of reducing recurrence rates and enhanced RFS. The operative learning curve indicates that approximately after the 11th case, the learning curve of RLR stabilized and entered a proficient phase.

CONCLUSIONS

OS was comparable between RLR and LLR, and while RFS was improved in the RLR group. RLR demonstrates oncological effectiveness and safety for resectable HCC.

Radiofrequency ablation versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are the 2 principal minimally invasive surgical approaches and the first line of treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It is not clear which one has greater safety and efficacy. In this meta-analysis, we aim to compare the safety and effectiveness of LH versus RFA for patients with HCC, especially where perioperative and postoperative outcomes differrent.

METHODS

In PROSPERO, a meta-analysis with registration number CRD42021257575 was registered. Using an established search strategy, we systematically searched Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase to identify eligible studies before June 2023. Data on operative times, blood loss, length of stay, overall complications, overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, the present meta-analysis included 8 retrospective and 6 PSM studies comprising 1,848 patients (810 and 1,038 patients underwent LH and RFA). In this meta-analysis, neither LH nor RFA showed significant differences in 1-year and 3-year OS rate and 5-year RFS rate. Despite this, in comparison to the RFA group, LH resulted in significantly higher 1-year(p<0.0001) and 3-year RFS rate (p = 0.005), higher 5-year OS rate (p = 0.008), lower local recurrence rate (p<0.00001), longer length of stay(LOS) (p<0.0001), longer operative time(p<0.0001), more blood loss (p<0.0001), and higher rate of complications (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparative studies indicate that LH seemed to provide better OS and lower local recurrence rate, but higher complication rate and longer hospitalization.

Effect of IWATE laparoscopic difficulty score on postoperative outcomes and costs for robotic hepatectomy: Are complex resections more expensive?

BACKGROUND

The IWATE criteria, a four-level classification system for laparoscopic hepatectomy, measures technical complexity but lacks studies on its impact on outcomes and costs, especially in robotic surgeries. This study evaluated the effects of technical complexity on perioperative outcomes and costs in robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

Since 2013, we prospectively followed 500 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Patients were classified into four levels of IWATE scores; (low [0-3], intermediate [4-6], advanced [7-9], and expert [10-12]) determined by tumor characteristics, liver function and resection extent. Perioperative variables were analyzed with significance accepted at a p-value ≤.05.

RESULTS

Among 500 patients, 337 (67%) underwent advanced to expert-level operations. Median operative duration was 213 min (range: 16-817 min; mean ± SD: 240 ± 116.1 min; p < .001) and estimated blood loss (EBL) was 95 mL (range: 0-3500 mL; mean ± SD:142 ± 171.1 mL; p < .001). Both operative duration and EBL showed positive correlations with increasing IWATE scores. Median length of stay (LOS) of 3 days (range: 0-34; mean ± SD:4 ± 3.0 days; p < .001) significantly correlated with IWATE score. Total cost of $25 388 (range: $84-354 407; mean ± SD: 29752 ± 20106.8; p < .001) also significantly correlated with operative complexity, however hospital reimbursement did not. No correlation was found between IWATE score and postoperative complications or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical variables such as operative duration, EBL, and LOS correlate with IWATE difficulty scores in robotic hepatectomy. Financial metrics such as costs but not reimbursement received by the hospital correlate with IWATE scores.

New trends in surgery for colorectal liver metastasis

By presenting the most up-to-date findings and incorporating the latest evidence, this article seeks to present a comprehensive guide for navigating the complexities inherent in the management of colorectal liver metastasis. It aims to serve as a valuable resource offering clinicians and healthcare professionals an understanding of the diverse modalities and approaches available for treating this challenging and multifaceted disease. In an era of rapidly evolving medical knowledge, this article examines the latest insights to make informed decisions in the realm of colorectal liver metastasis management. The article does not only highlight the up-to-date knowledge but also provides the evidence for existing therapeutic strategies. This practical tool provides evidence-based recommendations to clinicians, thereby contributing to the ongoing advancement of effective treatment strategies for this challenging disease.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

Comparison of IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, and Southampton Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Scoring Systems for Predicting Intra and Postoperative Outcomes in Robotic Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM), and Southampton are established difficulty scoring systems (DSS) for laparoscopic hepatectomy, yet none specifically address robotic hepatectomy. Our study evaluates these 3 DSS for predicting perioperative outcomes in robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 359 consecutive patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies, assessing categorical metrics like conversions to open, intra/postoperative issues, Clavien-Dindo Score (≥III), 30 and 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmissions using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Area Under the Curve (AUC) to determine efficacy in predicting their occurrence for each DSS. Continuous metrics such as operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, and total cost were analyzed using Spearman's correlation and regression. Predictive strength was significant with an AUC or correlation ≥.700 and P-value ≤.05.

RESULTS

IMM had highest predictive accuracy for conversions to open (AUC = .705) and postoperative complications (AUC = .481). Southampton was most accurate in predicting Clavien Dindo ≥ III complications (AUC = .506). IWATE excelled in predicting 30-day mortality (AUC = .552), intraoperative issues (AUC = .798), In-hospital mortality (AUC = .450), 90-day mortality (AUC = .596), and readmissions (AUC = .572). Regression showed significant relationships between operative duration, EBL, and hospital cost with increasing scores for all DSS (P ≤ .05).

DISCUSSION

Statistical analysis of the 3 DSS indicates that each has specific strengths that can best predict intra- and/or postoperative outcomes. However, all showed inaccuracies and conflicting relationships with the variables, indicating lack of substantial hierarchy between DSS. Given these inconsistencies, a dedicated comprehensive DSS should be created for robotic hepatectomy.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Various Settings: An International Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study of 10.075 Patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings.

BACKGROUND

Clear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined.

METHODS

In this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: (1) minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or (2) posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and (3) major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥grade 2, postoperative bile leak ≥grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+.

RESULTS

Among the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After propensity score matching, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs 71.8%, P < 0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs 50.4%, P = 0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs 47.1%, P < 0.001), blood loss (100 vs 200 milliliters, P < 0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs 7.9%, P = 0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P < 0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs 25.7%, P < 0.001), and microscopically irradical resection margins (10.1% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.015), and shorter operative times (190 vs 210 minutes, P = 0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared with LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n = 431 per group, 75.9% vs 71.2%, P = 0.184) and major resections (n = 321 per group, 72.9% vs 67.5%, P = 0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

While both produce excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.

Challenges and Opportunities for Precision Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases

The incidence of colorectal cancer and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is increasing globally due to an interaction of environmental and genetic factors. A minority of patients with CRLM have surgically resectable disease, but for those who have resection as part of multimodal therapy for their disease, long-term survival has been shown. Precision surgery-the idea of careful patient selection and targeting of surgical intervention, such that treatments shown to be proven to benefit on a population level are the optimal treatment for each individual patient-is the new paradigm of care. Key to this is the understanding of tumour molecular biology and clinically relevant mutations, such as KRAS, BRAF, and microsatellite instability (MSI), which can predict poorer overall outcomes and a poorer response to systemic therapy. The emergence of immunotherapy and hepatic artery infusion (HAI) pumps show potential to convert previously unresectable disease to resectable disease, in addition to established systemic and locoregional therapies, but the surgeon must be wary of poor-quality livers and the spectre of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). Volume modulation, a cornerstone of hepatic surgery for a generation, has been given a shot in the arm with the advent of liver venous depletion (LVD) ensuring significantly more hypertrophy of the future liver remnant (FLR). The optimal timing of liver resection for those patients with synchronous disease is yet to be truly established, but evidence would suggest that those patients requiring complex colorectal surgery and major liver resection are best served with a staged approach. In the operating room, parenchyma-preserving minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can dramatically reduce the surgical insult to the patient and lead to better perioperative outcomes, with quicker return to function.

Evolution of minimally invasive liver surgery in France over the last decade

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence of benefits on postoperative outcomes, minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) had a very low diffusion up to 2014, and recent evolution is unknown. Our aim was to analyze the recent diffusion and adoption of MILS and compare the trends in indications, extent of resection, and institutional practice with open liver surgery (OLS).

METHODS

We analyzed the French nationwide, exhaustive cohort of all patients undergoing a liver resection in France between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2022. Average annual percentage changes (AAPC) in the incidence of MILS and OLS were compared using mixed-effects log-linear regression models. Time trends were analyzed in terms of extent of resection, indication, and institutional practice.

RESULTS

MILS represented 25.2% of 74,671 liver resections and year incidence doubled from 16.5% in 2013 to 35.4% in 2022. The highest AAPC were observed among major liver resections [+ 22.2% (19.5; 24.9) per year], primary [+ 10.2% (8.5; 12.0) per year], and secondary malignant tumors [+ 9.9% (8.2; 11.6) per year]. The highest increase in MILS was observed in university hospitals [+ 14.7% (7.7; 22.2) per year] performing 48.8% of MILS and in very high-volume (> 150 procedures/year) hospitals [+ 12.1% (9.0; 15.3) per year] performing 19.7% of MILS. OLS AAPC decreased for all indications and institutions and accelerated over time from - 1.8% (- 3.9; - 0.3) per year in 2013-2018 to - 5.9% (- 7.9; - 3.9) per year in 2018-2022 (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first reported trend reversal between MILS and OLS. MILS has considerably increased at a national scale, crossing the 20% tipping point of adoption rate as defined by the IDEAL framework.

Implementing a robotic hepatopancreatobiliary program for new faculty: safety, feasibility and lessons learned

Robotic surgery is increasingly utilized in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery, but the learning curve is a substantial obstacle hindering implementation. Comprehensive robotic training can help to surmount this obstacle; however, despite the expansion of robotic training into residency and fellowship programs, limited data are available about how this translates into successful incorporation in faculty practice. All operations performed during the first three years of practice of a surgical oncologist at a tertiary care academic institution were retrospectively reviewed. The surgeon underwent comprehensive robotic training during residency and fellowship. 137 HPB operations were performed during the initial three years of practice. Over 80% were performed robotically each year across a spectrum of HPB procedures with a 6% conversion rate. Median operative time, a metric for operative proficiency and evaluation for a learning curve, was similar throughout the study period for each major operation and below several reported optimized operative time benchmarks. The major complications, defined as a Clavien-Dindo of 3 or more, were similar across the experience and comparable to published series. Comprehensive robotic training in residency and fellowship as well as a dedicated, well-trained operative team allows for early attainment of optimized outcomes in a new HPB robotic practice.

Resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in octogenarians: a single-center analysis

The rapidly aging population in industrialized countries comes with an increased incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC) which presents new challenges for oncological treatments especially in elderly patients. Thus, the question arises to what extent the benefit of surgical resections, as the only curative treatment option, outweighs possible perioperative risks in patients ≥ 80 years of age (octogenarians). We therefore retrospectively analyzed 311 patients who underwent resection for iCC at Hannover Medical School between January 1996 and December 2022. In total, there were 11 patients older than 80 years in our collective. Despite similar tumor size, octogenarians underwent comparatively less extensive surgery (54.5% major resections in octogenarians vs. 82.7% in all other patients; p = 0.033) with comparable rates of lymphadenectomy and tumor-free resection margins. Furthermore, we did not observe increased major postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIa complications: 27.3% vs. 34.3% in all other patients; p = 0.754) or mortality (estimated 1-year OS of 70.7% vs. 72.5% in all other patients, p = 0.099). The length of intensive care unit (ICU) or intermediate care unit (IMC) stay was significantly longer in octogenarians, however, with a comparable length in total hospital stay. The estimated overall survival (OS) did also not differ significantly, although a trend towards reduced long-term survival was observed (14.5 months vs. 28.03 months in all other patients; p = 0.099). In conclusion, primary resection is a justifiable and safe therapeutic option even in octogenarians but requires an even more thorough preoperative patient selection.

Robotic Major Hepatectomy in Elderly Patient

BACKGROUND

the role of minimally invasive liver surgery has been progressively developed, with the practice increasing in safety and feasibility also with respect to major liver resections. The aim of this study was to analyze the feasibility and safety of major liver resection in elderly patients.

METHODS

data from a multicentric retrospective database including 1070 consecutive robotic liver resections in nine European hospital centers were analyzed. Among these, 131 were major liver resections. Patients were also divided in two groups (<65 years old and ≥65 years old) and perioperative data were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

a total of 131 patients were included in the study. Operative time was 332 ± 125 min. Postoperative overall complications occurred in 27.1% of patients. Severe complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ 3) were 9.9%. Hospital stay was 6.6 ± 5.3 days. Patients were divided into two groups based on their age: 75 patients < 65 years old and 56 patients ≥ 65 years old. Prolonged pain, lung infection, intensive care stay, and 90-day readmission were worse in the elderly group. The two groups were matched for ASA and Charlson comorbidity score and, after statistical adjustment, postoperative data were similar between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

robotic major liver resection in elderly patients was associated with satisfying short-term outcomes.

Robotic sectionectomy versus robotic hemihepatectomy for anatomic liver resection: a comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes

Sectionectomy is a parenchma-sparing alternative to (extended) right or left hemihepatectomy. However, the effectiveness and safety of robotic sectionectomy (RS) versus robotic (extended) hemihepatectomy (RH) for the treatment of liver tumors remains unclear. We reviewed our prospective database for consecutive patients who had undergone robotic hepatectomies between March 2021 and July 2023 and included all patients with RS and RH. Demographic data, perioperative outcomes and long-term outcomes were analyzed and compared between both groups. Thirty patients met our inclusion criteria, of whom 16 patients underwent RS as opposed to 14 patients who underwent RH. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the study groups. The duration of Pringle maneuver was significantly longer in the RS group, while the remaining operative details were comparable. There were no significant differences in posthepatectomy outcomes between the study groups. All patients had negative resection margins. RS is a safe and effective parenchyma-sparing treatment modality.

Robotic and laparoscopic right lobe living donation compared to the open approach: A multicenter study on 1194 donor hepatectomies

Due to the success of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive donor hepatectomies (MIDH) are increasingly performed worldwide. We conducted a retrospective, multicentre, propensity score-matched analysis on right lobe MIDH by comparing the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches to assess the feasibility, safety, and early outcomes of MIDHs. From January 2016 until December 2020, 1194 donors underwent a right donor hepatectomy performed with a robotic (n = 92), laparoscopic (n = 306), and open approach (n = 796) at 6 high-volume centers. Donor and recipients were matched for different variables using propensity score matching (1:1:2). Donor outcomes were recorded, and postoperative pain was measured through a visual analog scale. Recipients' outcomes were also analyzed. Ninety-two donors undergoing robotic surgery were matched and compared to 92 and 184 donors undergoing laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Conversions to open surgery occurred during 1 (1.1%) robotic and 2 (2.2%) laparoscopic procedures. Robotic procedures had a longer operative time (493 ± 96 min) compared to laparoscopic and open procedures (347 ± 120 and 358 ± 95 min; p < 0.001) but were associated with reduced donor blood losses ( p < 0.001). No differences were observed in overall and major complications (≥ IIIa). Robotic hepatectomy donors had significantly less pain compared to the 2 other groups ( p < 0.001). Fifty recipients of robotic-procured grafts were matched to 50 and 100 recipients of laparoscopic and open surgery procured grafts, respectively. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative complications, and recipients' survival was similar ( p =0.455). In very few high-volume centers, robotic right lobe procurement has shown to be a safe procedure. Despite an increased operative and the first warm ischemia times, this approach is associated with reduced intraoperative blood losses and pain compared to the laparoscopic and open approaches. Further data are needed to confirm it as a valuable option for the laparoscopic approach in MIDH.

Implementing a Robotic Hepatopancreatobiliary Program for New Faculty: Safety, Feasibility and Lessons Learned

Background

Robotic surgery is increasingly utilized in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery, but the learning curve is a substantial obstacle hindering implementation. Comprehensive robotic training can help to surmount this obstacle; however, despite the expansion of robotic training into residency and fellowship programs, limited data is available about how this translates into successful incorporation in faculty practice.

Methods

All operations performed during the first three years of practice of a complex general surgical oncology-trained surgical oncologist at a tertiary care academic institution were retrospectively reviewed. The surgeon underwent comprehensive robotic training during residency and fellowship.

Results

137 HPB operations were performed during the initial three years of practice. Over 80% were performed robotically each year across a spectrum of HPB procedures with a 6% conversion rate. Median operative time, the optimal metric for operative proficiency and evaluation for a learning curve, was similar throughout the study period for each major operation and below several reported optimized operative times. Major complications were similar across the experience and comparable to published series.

Conclusion

Comprehensive robotic training in residency and fellowship as well as a dedicated, well-trained operative team allows for early attainment of optimized outcomes in a new HPB robotic practice.

Comparing indications, complexity and outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection between centers with and without a liver transplant program: a French nationwide study

BACKGROUND

There are no data to evaluate the difference in populations and impact of centers with liver transplant programs in performing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

METHODS

This was a multicenter study including patients undergoing LLR for benign and malignant tumors at 27 French centers from 1996 to 2018. The main outcomes were postoperative severe morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3154 patients were included, and 14 centers were classified as transplant centers (N = 2167 patients, 68.7 %). The transplant centers performed more difficult LLRs and more resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who more frequently had cirrhosis. A higher rate of performing the Pringle maneuver, a lower rate of blood loss and a higher rate of open conversion (all p < 0.05) were observed in the transplant centers. There was no association between the presence of a liver transplant program and either postoperative severe morbidity (<10 % in each group; p = 0.228) or mortality (1 % in each group; p = 0.915).

CONCLUSIONS

Most HCCs, difficult LLRs, and cirrhotic patients are treated in transplant centers. We show that all centers can achieve comparable safety and quality of care in LLR independent of the presence of a liver transplant program.

Robotic Complete ALPPS (rALPPS)-First German Experiences

BACKGROUND

ALPPS leads to fast and effective liver hypertrophy. This enables the resection of extended tumors. Conventional ALPPS is associated with high morbidity and mortality. MILS reduces morbidity and the robot adds technical features that make complex procedures safe.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The MD-MILS was screened for patients who underwent rALPPS. Demographic and perioperative data were evaluated retrospectively. Ninety days postoperative morbidity was scored according to the CD classification. The findings were compared with the literature.

RESULTS

Since November 2021, five patients have been identified. The mean age and BMI of the patients were 50.0 years and 22.7 kg/m2. In four cases, patients suffered from colorectal liver metastases and, in one case, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Prior to the first operation, the mean liver volume of the residual left liver was 380.9 mL with a FLR-BWR of 0.677%. Prior to the second operation, the mean volume of the residual liver was 529.8 mL with a FLR-BWR of 0.947%. This was an increase of 41.9% of the residual liver volume. The first and second operations were carried out within 17.8 days. The mean time of the first and second operations was 341.2 min and 440.6 min. The mean hospital stay was 27.2 days. Histopathology showed the largest tumor size of 39 mm in diameter with a mean amount of 4.7 tumors. The mean tumor-free margin was 12.3 mm. One complication CD > 3a occurred. No patient died during the 90-day follow up.

CONCLUSION

In the first German series, we demonstrated that rALPPS can be carried out safely with reduced morbidity and mortality in selected patients.

Robotic or laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy after open hepatectomy: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomies are technically complex procedures. The evidence of robotic or laparoscopic (= minimally invasive) repeat hepatectomies (MIRH) after previous open hepatectomy is poor. Therefore, we compared postoperative outcomes of MIRH vs open repeat hepatectomies (ORH) in patients with liver tumors after previous open liver resections.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent repeat hepatectomies after open liver resections were identified from a prospective database between April 2018 and May 2023. Postoperative complications were graded in line with the Clavien-Dindo classification. We stratified patients by intention to treat into MIRH or ORH and compared outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was performed to define variables associated with the utilization of a minimally invasive approach.

RESULTS

Among 46 patients included, 20 (43%) underwent MIRH and 26 (57%) ORH. Twenty-seven patients had advanced or expert repeat hepatectomies (59%) according to the IWATE criteria. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the study groups. The use of a minimally invasive approach was not dependent on preoperative or intraoperative variables. All patients had negative resection margins on final histology. MIRH was associated with less blood loss (450 ml, IQR (interquartile range): 200-600 vs 600 ml, IQR: 400-1500 ml, P = 0.032), and shorter length of stay (5 days, IQR: 4-7 vs 7 days, IQR: 5-9 days, P = 0.041). Postoperative complications were similar between the groups (P = 0.298).

CONCLUSIONS

MIRH is feasible after previous open hepatectomy and a safe alternative approach to ORH. (German Clinical Trials Register ID: DRKS00032183).

Microfracture-coagulation for the real robotic liver parenchymal transection

The use of the robotic approach in liver surgery is exponentially increasing. Although technically the robot introduces several innovative features, the instruments linked with the traditional laparoscopic approach for the liver parenchymal transection are not available, which may result in multiple technical variants that may bias the comparative analysis between the different series worldwide. A real robotic approach, minimally efficient for the liver parenchymal transection, with no requirement of external tool, available for the already existing platforms, and applicable to any type of liver resection, counting on the selective use of the plugged bipolar forceps and the monopolar scissors, or "microfracture-coagulation" (MFC) transection method, is described in detail. The relevant aspects of the technique, its indications and methodological basis are discussed.

Robotic Cholecystectomy Remains Safe and Effective After Regular Staffing Hours

Background Robotic-assisted surgery continues to grow in popularity. Access during evenings and weekends for non-elective operations can be restricted out of safety concerns. We sought to analyze and compare outcomes of patients undergoing robotic cholecystectomy, a common urgent procedure for acute calculous cholecystitis, during regular hours versus evenings or weekends. Based on this comparison, we sought to determine if this restriction is justified. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 46 patients who underwent robotic cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis per 2018 Tokyo criteria by a single surgeon at a single institution between 2021 and 2022. Patients were grouped as undergoing "after-hours" cholecystectomy if the operation started at five pm or later, or anytime during the weekend (Saturday, Sunday). Demographic, perioperative, and outcome variables were tabulated and analyzed. For illustrative purposes, the data presented as median ± standard deviation were applicable. Results After-hours cholecystectomy occurred in 26 patients and regular-hours cholecystectomy occurred in 20 patients. There were no significant differences in perioperative variables between the two cohorts in terms of body mass index, age, gender, cirrhotic status, American Society of Anesthesiology score, white blood cell count, or neutrophil percentage. The after-hours group had more prior abdominal operations. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of operative time, estimated blood loss, or length of stay. There were no mortalities. There was one readmission in the after-hours cohort unrelated to the operation. Conclusion Robotic cholecystectomy can be safely performed on the weekends and evenings. Hospitals should make the robotic platform available during this time.

Short-term and long-term outcomes after robotic versus open hepatectomy in patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatectomy (RH) is currently widely accepted and it is associated with some benefits when compared to open hepatectomy (OH). However, whether such benefits can still be achieved for patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing RH or OH.

METHODS

Perioperative and survival data from patients with large HCC who underwent RH or OH between January 2010 and December 2020 were collected from eight centres. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimise potential biases.

RESULTS

Using predefined inclusion criteria, 797 patients who underwent OH and 309 patients who underwent RH were enroled in this study. After PSM, 280 patients in the robotic group had shorter operative time (median 181 vs. 201 min, P <0.001), lower estimated blood loss (median 200 vs. 400 ml, P <0.001), and shorter postoperative length of stay (median 6 vs. 9 days, P <0.001) than 465 patients in the open group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall survival and recurrence-free survival. Cox analysis showed AFP greater than 400 ng/ml, tumour size greater than 10 cm, and microvascular invasion were independent risk factors for overall survival and recurrence-free survival. After PSM, subgroup analysis showed that patients with a huge HCC (diameter >10 cm) who underwent RH had significantly lower estimated blood loss (median 200.0 vs. 500.0 min, P <0.001), and shorter length of stay (median 7 vs. 10 days, P <0.001) than those who underwent OH.

CONCLUSION

Safety and feasibility of RH and OH for patients with large HCC were comparable. RH resulted in similar long-term survival outcomes as OH.

Propensity Score-Matching Analysis Comparing Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Limited Liver Resections of the Posterosuperior Segments: An International Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic limited liver resections (RLLR) versus laparoscopic limited liver resections (LLLR) of the posterosuperior segments.

BACKGROUND

Both laparoscopic and robotic liver resections have been used for tumors in the posterosuperior liver segments. However, the comparative performance and safety of both approaches have not been well examined in the existing literature.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 5446 patients who underwent RLLR or LLLR of the posterosuperior segments (I, IVa, VII, and VIII) at 60 international centers between 2008 and 2021. Data on baseline demographics, center experience and volume, tumor features, and perioperative characteristics were collected and analyzed. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis (in both 1:1 and 1:2 ratios) was performed to minimize selection bias.

RESULTS

A total of 3510 cases met the study criteria, of whom 3049 underwent LLLR (87%), and 461 underwent RLLR (13%). After PSM (1:1: and 1:2), RLLR was associated with a lower open conversion rate [10 of 449 (2.2%) vs 54 of 898 (6.0%); P =0.002], less blood loss [100 mL [IQR: 50-200) days vs 150 mL (IQR: 50-350); P <0.001] and a shorter operative time (188 min (IQR: 140-270) vs 222 min (IQR: 158-300); P <0.001]. These improved perioperative outcomes associated with RLLR were similarly seen in a subset analysis of patients with cirrhosis-lower open conversion rate [1 of 136 (0.7%) vs 17 of 272 (6.2%); P =0.009], less blood loss [100 mL (IQR: 48-200) vs 160 mL (IQR: 50-400); P <0.001], and shorter operative time [190 min (IQR: 141-258) vs 230 min (IQR: 160-312); P =0.003]. Postoperative outcomes in terms of readmission, morbidity and mortality were similar between RLLR and LLLR in both the overall PSM cohort and cirrhosis patient subset.

CONCLUSIONS

RLLR for the posterosuperior segments was associated with superior perioperative outcomes in terms of decreased operative time, blood loss, and open conversion rate when compared with LLLR.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to compare short-term outcomes between robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) using data collected from propensity score-matched studies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to collect propensity score-matched studies comparing RLR and LLR. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models. Meta-regression analysis was performed for primary outcome measures. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed for outcomes exhibiting high heterogeneity. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-two propensity score-matched studies were included to comprise 5272 patients (RLR group, 2422 cases; LLR group, 2850 cases). Intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-0.31 ml, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; P =0.0005), open conversion (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.37-0.58; P <0.0001), and severe complications (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.95; P =0.02) were significantly lower in the RLR group. Operation time, odds of use, and duration of Pringle maneuver, length of hospital stay, and odds of intraoperative blood transfusion, overall complications, R0 resection, reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality did not significantly differ between the groups. Further subgroup and sensitivity analyses suggested that the results were stable. Meta-regression analysis did not suggest a correlation between primary outcomes and study characteristics. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was medium or low, while that for the secondary outcomes was medium, low, or very low.

CONCLUSION

Although some short-term outcomes are similar between RLR and LLR, RLR is superior in terms of less blood loss and lower odds of open conversion and severe complications. In the future, RLR may become a safe and effective replacement for LLR.

Impact of Minimally Invasive Surgery on Anatomic Liver Segmentectomy Using the Extrahepatic Glissonean Approach

Accurate minimally invasive anatomic liver (sub)segmentectomy (MIAS) is technically demanding and not yet standardized, and its surgical outcomes are undefined. To study the impact of the minimally invasive approach on perioperative outcomes of anatomic liver (sub)segmentectomy (AS), we retrospectively studied and compared perioperative outcomes of 99 open AS (OAS) and 112 MIAS (laparoscopic 77, robotic 35) cases using the extrahepatic Glissonean approach, based on the 1:1 propensity score matched analyses. After matching (71:71), MIAS was superior to OAS in terms of blood loss (p < 0.0001), maximum postoperative serum total bilirubin (p < 0.0001), C-reactive protein (p = 0.034) levels, R0 resection rate (p = 0.021), bile leak (p = 0.049), and length of hospital stay (p < 0.0001). The matched robotic and laparoscopic AS groups (30:30) had comparable outcomes in terms of operative time, blood loss, transfusion, open conversion, postoperative morbidity and mortality, R0 resection, and hospital stay, although the rate of Pringle maneuver application (p = 0.0002) and the postoperative aspartate aminotransferase level (p = 0.002) were higher in the robotic group. Comparing the matched posterosuperior (sub)segmentectomy cases or unmatched repeat hepatectomy cases between MIAS and OAS, we observed significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stays in MIAS. Robotic AS yielded comparable outcomes with laparoscopic AS in the posterosuperior (sub)segmentectomy and repeat hepatectomy settings, despite the worse tumor and procedural backgrounds in robotic AS. In conclusion, various types of MIAS standardized by the extrahepatic Glissonean approach were feasible and safe with more favorable perioperative outcomes than those of OAS. Although robotic AS had almost comparable outcomes with laparoscopic AS, robotics may serve to decrease the surgical difficulty of MIAS in selected patients undergoing posterosuperior (sub)segmentectomy and repeat hepatectomy.

Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Resection for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A First, Multicenter, Trans-Atlantic, Expert-Center, Collaborative Study

INTRODUCTION

Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is a difficult cancer to treat with frequent vascular invasion, local recurrence, and poor survival. Due to the need for biliary anastomosis and potential vascular resection, the standard approach is an open operation. Suboptimal outcomes after laparoscopic resection had been sporadically reported by high-volume centers. In this first, Trans-Atlantic, multicenter study, we report our outcomes of robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. This is the largest study of its kind in the Western hemisphere.

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2023, we prospectively followed patients undergoing robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma at three, high-volume, robotic, liver-surgery centers.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients underwent perihilar cholangiocarcinoma utilizing the robotic technique; Klatskin type-3 was the most common. The median age was 72 years, and 82% of the patients underwent preoperative biliary drainage. Median operative time was 481 minutes with a median estimated blood loss of 200 mL. The number of harvested lymph nodes was seven, and 11 (28%) patients yielded positive lymph nodes. Three patients required vascular reconstruction; 18% of patients had >1 biliary anastomosis. R0 resection margins were achieved in 82% of patients. Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥3 complications were seen in 16% of patients. The length of stay was 6 days. Five patients had an unplanned readmission within 30 days. One patient died within 30 days. With a median follow-up of 15 months, 68% of patients are alive without disease, 13% recurred, and 19% died.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the robotic platform for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is safe and feasible with acceptable short-term clinical and oncological outcomes.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic platform has been increasingly applied in major hepatectomy. However, the role or advantage of robotic approach comparing with laparoscopic approach in major hepatectomy remains controversial. This meta-analysis compares perioperative outcomes of robotic major hepatectomy (RMH) to laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatic neoplasms.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify comparative studies compared RMH versus LMH for hepatic neoplasms. The search timeframe was set before May 2023. Main outcomes were mortality, overall morbidities, serious complications, and conversion to open surgery. Secondary outcomes were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative length of hospital stay, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. Studies were evaluated for quality by Cochrane risk of bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023410951).

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective cohort studies concerning total 1657 patients (796 RMH, 861 LMH) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR=1.23, 95% CI=0.50-2.98, P =0.65), overall postoperative complications (OR=0.83, 95% CI=0.65-1.06, P =0.14), operative time (MD=6.47, 95% CI=-14.72 to 27.65, P =0.55), blood transfusion (OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.55-1.08, P =0.13), R0 resection (OR=1.45, 95% CI=0.91-2.31, P =0.12), reoperation (OR=0.76, 95% CI=0.31-1.88, P =0.56), and readmission (OR=0.63, 95% CI=0.28-1.44, P =0.27) between RMH and LMH. Incidence of serious complications (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.40-0.90, P =0.01), conversion to open surgery (OR=0.41, 95% CI=0.27-0.63, P <0.0001), blood loss (MD=-91.42, 95% CI=-142.18 to -40.66, P =0.0004), and postoperative hospital stay (MD=-0.64, 95% CI=-0.78 to -0.49, P <0.00001) were reduced for RMH versus LMH.

CONCLUSIONS

RMH is associated with comparable short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to LMH when performed by experienced surgeons at large centres. RMH may result in reduced major morbidities, conversion rate, blood loss, and hospital stay, but these results were volatile. Further randomized studies should address the potential advantages of RMH over LMH.

Propensity-score Matched and Coarsened-exact Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study of 4822 Cases

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH).

BACKGROUND

Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047].

CONCLUSIONS

This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.

Robotic liver surgery: A new reality. Descriptive analysis of 220 cases of minimally invasive liver surgery in 182 patients

INTRODUCTION

The level of recommendation of the robotic approach in liver surgery is controversial. The objective of the study is to carry out a single-center retrospective descriptive analysis of the short-term results of the robotic and laparoscopic approach in liver surgery during the same period.

METHODS

Descriptive analysis of the short-term results of the robotic and laparoscopic approach on 220 resections in 182 patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery.

RESULTS

Between April 2018 and June 2022, a total of 92 robotic liver resections (RLR) were performed in 83 patients and 128 laparoscopic (LLR) in 99 patients. The LLR group showed a higher proportion of major surgery (P < .001) and multiple resections (P = .002). The two groups were similar in anatomical resections (RLR 64.1% vs. LLR 56.3%). In the LLS group, the average operating time was 212 min (SD 52.1). Blood loss was 276.5 mL (100-1000) and conversion 12.1%. Mean hospital stay was 5.7 (SD 4.9) days. Morbidity was 27.3% and 2% mortality. In the RLS group, the mean operative time was 217 min (SD 53.6), blood loss 169.5 mL (100.900), and conversion 2.5%. Mean hospital stay was 4.1 (SD 2.1) days. Morbidity was 15%, with no mortality.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive liver surgery is a safe technique, and in particular, RLS allows liver resections to be performed safely and reproducibly; it appears to be a non-inferior technique to LLS, but randomized studies are needed to determine the minimally invasive approach of choice in liver surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections: propensity-matched comparison of two-center experience

BACKGROUND

The advantages of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) are still debated. This study compares the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) liver resections in propensity score matched cohorts.

METHODS

Data regarding minimally invasive liver resections in two liver surgery units were retrospectively reviewed. A propensity score matched analysis (1:1 ratio) identified two groups of patients with similar characteristics. Intra- and post-operative outcomes were then compared. The difficulty of MILS was based on the IWATE criteria.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-nine patients underwent MILS between January 2014 and December 2021 (LLR = 192; RLR = 77). Propensity score matching identified 148 cases (LLR = 74; RLR = 74) consisting of compensated cirrhotic patients (100%) underwent non-anatomic resection of IWATE 1-2 class (90.5%) for a solitary tumor < 5 cm in diameter (93.2%). In such patients, RLRs had shorter operative time (227 vs. 250 min, p = 0.002), shorter Pringle's cumulative time (12 vs. 28 min, p < 0.0001), and less blood loss (137 vs. 209 cc, p = 0.006) vs. LLRs. Conversion rate was nihil (both groups). In RLRs compared to LLRs, R0 rate (93 vs. 96%, p > 0.71) and major morbidity (4.1 vs. 5.4%, p > 0.999) were similar, without post-operative mortality. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (6.2 vs. 6.6, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study supports the non-inferiority of RLR over LLR. In compensated cirrhotic patients underwent resection of low-to-intermediate difficulty for a solitary nodule < 5 cm, RLR was faster, with less blood loss despite the shorter hilar clamping, and required shorter hospitalization compared to LLR.

Impact of liver cirrhosis, the severity of cirrhosis, and portal hypertension on the outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies for primary liver malignancies

BACKGROUND

The impact of cirrhosis and portal hypertension on perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies remains unclear. We aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes between patients with preserved and compromised liver function (noncirrhotics versus Child-Pugh A) when undergoing minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies. In addition, we aimed to determine if the extent of cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A versus B) and the presence of portal hypertension had a significant impact on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

This was an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 1,526 patients who underwent minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies for primary liver malignancies at 60 centers worldwide between 2004 and 2021. In the study, 1,370 patients met the inclusion criteria and formed the final study group. Baseline clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes of these patients were compared. To minimize confounding factors, 1:1 propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching were performed.

RESULTS

The study group comprised 559, 753, and 58 patients who did not have cirrhosis, Child-Pugh A, and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis, respectively. Six-hundred and thirty patients with cirrhosis had portal hypertension, and 170 did not. After propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching, Child-Pugh A patients with cirrhosis undergoing minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies had longer operative time, higher intraoperative blood loss, higher transfusion rate, and longer hospital stay than patients without cirrhosis. The extent of cirrhosis did not significantly impact perioperative outcomes except for a longer duration of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Liver cirrhosis adversely affected the intraoperative technical difficulty and perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies.

Ten years of Italian mini-invasiveness: the I Go MILS registry as a tool of dissemination, characterization and networking

Purposes of this study are to evaluate the main changes that have occurred in the Italian MILS activity in the last decade in terms of indications, approaches and outcomes as reported in the national registry and to provide specific details on the main areas of development of MILS. Data from patients undergoing minimally invasive liver resections at centers included in the I Go MILS Registry from its start-up (November 2014) to March 2023 were analyzed for the purposes of this study. The registry is intention-to-treat and prospective. Global recruitment trends stratified by indication to surgery and type of approach were analysed. 7413 MILS procedures were performed across all centers (median number of procedures per center: 63). Years (2020-2023) displayed a significantly higher proportion of treated patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (38.2% vs. 28.9% and 33.9%, p < 0.001) and cholangiocarcinoma (6.7% vs. 6.5% and 4.2%, p < 0.001) compared to the preceding triennial periods. Additionally, technical complexity demonstrated an increased prominence in Years (2019-2023) with a significantly higher percentage of grade III cases compared to the earlier periods (39.3% vs. 21.7% and 25.6%, p < 0.001). Annual case trends focusing on laparoscopic and robotic techniques demonstrated a steadily increase in the use of these techniques for complex case mix of indications. Overall, attitude and attention to MILS approach has evolved, so that currently indications to hepatic mini-invasiveness have expanded and surgical technique has been refined: Areas mainly involved in increasing growth trends are hepatocellular carcinoma, possible applications of MILS in transplant setting, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and robotic approach.

Analysis of Clinical Outcomes After Robotic Hepatectomy Applying the Western-Model Southampton Laparoscopic Difficulty Scoring System. An Experience From a Tertiary US Hepatobiliary Center

BACKGROUND

Identification of resections with high risk of intraoperative complications is critical in guiding case selection for minimally invasive liver surgery. Several Japanese and European difficulty scoring systems have been proposed for laparoscopic liver surgery. However, the applicability of these systems for robotic liver resections has not been fully investigated. This study considers the Southampton system and examines its validity when applied to robotic hepatectomies.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of 372 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomies for various indications between 2013 and 2022. Of these patients, 63 operations were classified as low risk, 91 as moderate risk, 198 as high risk and 20 as extremely high risk based on Southampton criteria. Patient outcomes were compared by utilizing an ANOVA of repeated measures. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

The Southampton difficulty scoring system was a strong predictor of intraoperative variables including tumor size, operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), and incidence of major vs minor resection (all P < .0001). In contrast, the Southampton system was a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes including 30-day mortality (P = .15), length of stay (P = .13), and readmissions within 30 days (P = .38).

CONCLUSION

The Southampton difficulty scoring system is a valid system for classifying robotic liver resections and is a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes. However, the system was found to be a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes. This finding may suggest the need for proposal of a new difficulty scoring system for robotic hepatectomies.

International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023

The robotic liver resection (RLR) has been increasingly applied in recent years and its benefits shown in some aspects owing to the technical advancement of robotic surgical system, however, controversies still exist. Based on the foundation of the previous consensus statement, this new consensus document aimed to update clinical recommendations and provide guidance to improve the outcomes of RLR clinical practice. The guideline steering group and guideline expert group were formed by 29 international experts of liver surgery and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Relevant literature was reviewed and analyzed by the evidence evaluation group. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, the Guidance Principles of Development and Amendment of the Guidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in China 2022, a total of 14 recommendations were generated. Among them were 8 recommendations formulated by the GRADE method, and the remaining 6 recommendations were formulated based on literature review and experts' opinion due to insufficient EBM results. This international experts consensus guideline offered guidance for the safe and effective clinical practice and the research direction of RLR in future.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches

INTRODUCTION

Despite the advances in minimally invasive (MI) liver surgery, most major hepatectomies (MHs) continue to be performed by open surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and outcomes of open conversion during MI MH, including the impact of the type of approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) on the occurrence and outcomes of conversions.

METHODS

Data on 3880 MI conventional and technical (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) MHs were retrospectively collected. Risk factors and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analyzed. Multivariate analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis were performed to control for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Overall, 3211 laparoscopic MHs (LMHs) and 669 robotic MHs (RMHs) were included, of which 399 (10.28%) had an open conversion. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that male sex, laparoscopic approach, cirrhosis, previous abdominal surgery, concomitant other surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3/4, larger tumor size, conventional MH, and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification III procedures were associated with an increased risk of conversion. After matching, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with non-converted cases, as evidenced by the increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative morbidity/major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality. Although RMH showed a decreased risk of conversion compared with LMH, converted RMH showed increased blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality compared with converted LMH.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple risk factors are associated with conversion. Converted cases, especially those due to intraoperative bleeding, have unfavorable outcomes. Robotic assistance seemed to increase the feasibility of the MI approach, but converted robotic procedures showed inferior outcomes compared with converted laparoscopic procedures.

Impact of body mass index on perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic major hepatectomies

BACKGROUND

Data on the effect of body mass index on laparoscopic liver resections are conflicting. We performed this study to investigate the association between body mass index and postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic major hepatectomies.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 4,348 laparoscopic major hepatectomies at 58 centers between 2005 and 2021, of which 3,383 met the study inclusion criteria. Concomitant major operations, vascular resections, and previous liver resections were excluded. Associations between body mass index and perioperative outcomes were analyzed using restricted cubic splines. Modeled effect sizes were visually rendered and summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 1,810 patients (53.5%) had normal weight, whereas 1,057 (31.2%) were overweight and 392 (11.6%) were obese. One hundred and twenty-four patients (3.6%) were underweight. Most perioperative outcomes showed a linear worsening trend with increasing body mass index. There was a statistically significant increase in open conversion rate (16.3%, 10.8%, 9.2%, and 5.6%, P < .001), longer operation time (320 vs 305 vs 300 and 266 minutes, P < .001), increasing blood loss (300 vs 300 vs 295 vs 250 mL, P = .022), and higher postoperative morbidity (33.4% vs 26.3% vs 25.0% vs 25.0%, P = .009) in obese, overweight, normal weight, and underweight patients, respectively (P < .001). However, postoperative major morbidity demonstrated a "U"-shaped association with body mass index, whereby the highest major morbidity rates were observed in underweight and obese patients.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy was associated with poorer outcomes with increasing body mass index for most perioperative outcome measures.

Postoperative infectious complications following laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter propensity score analysis of 3876 patients

OBJECTIVES

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common indication for hepatectomy that is often complicated by postoperative complication. The authors sought to investigate the relationship between the open with laparoscopic approach of hepatectomy and incidences of postoperative infectious complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using a multicenter database, HCC patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) or open hepatectomy (OH) were reviewed and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM), inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW), and multivariate logistic regression analyses were utilized to assess the association of the operative approach with postoperative infectious complications, including incisional surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, and remote infection (RI).

RESULTS

Among 3876 patients, 845 (21.8%) and 3031 (78.2%) patients underwent LH and OH, respectively. The overall incidence of infection was 6.9 versus 14.6% among patients who underwent LH versus OH, respectively ( P <0.001). Of note, the incidences of incisional SSI (1.8 vs. 6.3%, P <0.001), organ/space SSI (1.8 vs. 4.6%, P <0.001), and RI (3.8 vs. 9.8%, P <0.001) were all significantly lower among patients who underwent LH versus OH. After PSM (6.9, 1.8, 1.8, and 3.8% vs. 18.5, 8.4, 5.2, and 12.8%, respectively) and IPTW (9.5, 2.3, 2.1, and 5.5% vs. 14.3, 6.3, 4.5, and 9.8%, respectively), LH remained associated with statistically lower incidences of all types of infectious complications. After adjustment for other confounding factors on multivariate analyses, LH remained independently associated with lower incidences of overall infection, incisional SSI, organ/space SSI, and RI in the overall, PSM, and IPTW cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Compared with open approach, laparoscopic approach was independently associated with lower incidences of postoperative infectious complications following hepatectomy for HCC.