An international multicenter propensity-score matched and coarsened-exact matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic partial liver resections of the anterolateral segments

Caudate lobe and posterosuperior segment hepatectomy using the robotic approach. Outcome analysis of liver resection in difficult locations

BACKGROUND

Caudate and posterosuperior hepatectomy are technically challenging resections, especially in a minimally invasive approach. We aimed to analyze the outcomes of isolated caudate resection (ICR), en-bloc caudate resection with right/left hepatic lobectomy (ECR), and posterosuperior segment resection (PSR) using our institutional database.

METHODS

Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 500 consecutive patients between 2013 and 2023 who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Posterosuperior segments include segment 4 ​A, 7, and 8. The data are presented as median (mean ​± ​standard deviation).

RESULTS

Of the 500 patients included in this study, 19 (4 ​%) underwent ICR, 65 (13 ​%) underwent ECR, and 131 (26 ​%) patients underwent PSR. ECR was associated with significantly longer operative time, increased EBL, and longer LOS when compared with those of ICR and PSR. The patients who underwent ICR had the shortest operation duration, lowest EBL, and shortest LOS compared to ECR and PSR.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic resection of liver tumors located in difficult segments is safe and feasible with excellent clinical and oncological outcomes. With appropriate expertise, a minimally invasive approach to those operations should not be avoided.

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.

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.

Internal validation of the Tampa Robotic Difficulty Scoring System: real-time assessment of the novel robotic scoring system in predicting clinical outcomes after hepatectomy

INTRODUCTION

As the robotic approach in hepatectomy gains prominence, the need to establish a robotic-specific difficulty scoring system (DSS) is evident. The Tampa Difficulty Score was conceived to bridge this gap, offering a novel and dedicated robotic DSS aimed at improving preoperative surgical planning and predicting potential clinical challenges in robotic hepatectomies. In this study, we internally validated the recently published Tampa DSS by applying the scoring system to our most recent cohort of patients.

METHODS

The Tampa Difficulty Score was applied to 170 recent patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy in our center. Patients were classified into: Group 1 (score 1-8, n = 23), Group 2 (score 9-24, n = 120), Group 3 (score 25-32, n = 20), and Group 4 (score 33-49, n = 7). Key variables for each of the groups were analyzed and compared. Statistical significance was accepted at p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

Notable correlations were found between the Tampa Difficulty Score and key clinical parameters such as operative duration (p < 0.0001), estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001), and percentage of major resection (p = 0.00007), affirming the score's predictive capacity for operative technical complexity. The Tampa Difficulty Score also correlated with major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) (p < 0.0001), length of stay (p = 0.011), and 30-day readmission (p = 0.046) after robotic hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The Tampa Difficulty Score, through the internal validation process, has confirmed its effectiveness in predicting intra- and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy. The predictive capacity of this system is useful in preoperative surgical planning and risk categorization. External validation is necessary to further explore the accuracy of this robotic DSS.

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.

A decade of experience with 530 minimally invasive robotic hepatectomies from a single tertiary hepatobiliary center: analysis of short-term outcomes and oncologic survival

BACKGROUND

This research is the first study in the United States to document more than a decade of experience with 530 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy at a single high-volume institution.

METHODS

With institutional review board approval, a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy from 2012 to January 2024 was reviewed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Of the 530 robotic hepatectomies, 231 (44.0%) were minor resections, 133 (25.0%) were technically major resections, and 166 (31.0%) were major resections. The patients were aged 63.0 (61.0 ± 14.7) years with a body mass index of 28.0 (29.0 ± 7.9) kg/m2. Cirrhosis was present in 80 patients (19.0%), with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3.0 (3.0 ± 0.5) and a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 7.0 (8.0 ± 3.0). Of note, 280 patients (53.0%) had previous abdominal operations, and 44 patients (8%) had previous liver resections. The operative time was 233.0 (260.0 ± 130.7) minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 100.0 (165.0 ± 205.0) mL. Moreover, 353 patients (66%) had hepatectomies for neoplastic disease, and 500 patients (95%) had an R0 resection margin. The tumor size was 4.0 (5.0 ± 3.6) cm. The total 90-day postoperative complications were 45 (8%), of which 21 (4%) were classified as major complications (Clavien-Dindo score of >III). The length of stay was 3.0 (4.0 ± 3.7) days, and the 30-day readmission rate was 86 (16%). The overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 82%, 65%, and 59% for colorectal liver metastases, 84%, 68%, and 60% for hepatocellular carcinoma, and 79%, 61%, and 50% for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, respectively.

CONCLUSION

After a decade of application and optimization at a high-volume institution, the robotic approach has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective approach to liver resection.

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.

Tampa Difficulty Score: a novel scoring system for difficulty of robotic hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Difficulty scoring system (DSS) has been established for laparoscopic hepatectomy and serves as useful tools to predict difficulty and guide preoperative planning. Despite increased adoption of robotics and its unique technical characteristics compared with laparoscopy, no DSS currently exists for robotic hepatectomy. We aimed to introduce a new DSS for robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

A total of 328 patients undergoing a robotic hepatectomy were identified. After removing the first 24 major and 30 minor hepatectomies using cumulative-sum analysis, 274 patients were included in this study. Relevant clinical variables underwent linear regression using operative time and/or estimated blood loss (EBL) as markers for operative difficulty. Score distribution was analyzed to develop a difficulty-level grouping system.

RESULTS

Of the 274 patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; tumor location, size, and type; the extent of parenchymal resection; the need for portal lymphadenectomy; and the need for biliary resection with hepaticojejunostomy were significantly associated with operative time and/or EBL. They were used to develop the difficulty scores from 1 to 49. Grouping system results were group 1 (less demanding/beginner), 1 to 8 (n = 39); group 2 (intermediate), 9 to 24 (n = 208); group 3 (more demanding/advanced), 25 to 32 (n = 17); and group 4 (most demanding/expert), 33 to 49 (n = 10). When stratified by group, age, previous abdominal operation, Child-Pugh score, operative duration, EBL, major resection, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and length of stay were significantly different among the groups.

CONCLUSION

In addition to established variables in laparoscopic systems, new factors such as the need for portal lymphadenectomy and biliary resection specific to the robotic approach have been identified in this new robotic DSS. Internal and external validations are the next steps in maturing this robotic DSS.

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.

Analysis of survival outcomes following robotic hepatectomy for malignant liver diseases

BACKGROUND

Despite increased adoption of the robotic platform for complex hepatobiliary resections for malignant disease, little is known about long-term survival outcomes. This is the first study to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, and short- and long-term survival rates after a robotic hepatectomy for five major malignant disease processes.

METHODS

A prospectively collected database of patients who underwent a robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease was reviewed. Pathologies included colorectal liver metastases (CLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), Klatskin tumor, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and gallbladder cancer (GC). Data are presented as median (mean ​± ​standard deviation) for illustrative purposes.

RESULTS

Of the 210 consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease, 75 (35 ​%) had CLM, 69 (33 ​%) had HCC, 27 (13 ​%) had Klatskin tumor, 20 (10 ​%) had IHCC, and 19 (9 ​%) had GC. Patients were 66 (65 ​± ​12.4) years old with a BMI of 29 (29 ​± ​6.5) kg/m2. R0 resection was achieved in 91 ​%, and 65 ​% underwent a major hepatectomy. Postoperative major complication rate was 6 ​%, length of stay was four (5 ​± ​4.3) days, and 30-day readmission rate was 17 ​%. Survival at 1, 3, and 5-years were 93 ​%/75 ​%/72 ​% for CLM, 84 ​%/71 ​%/64 ​% for HCC, 73 ​%/55 ​%/55 ​% for Klatskin tumor, 80 ​%/69 ​%/69 ​% for IHCC, 79 ​%/65 ​%/65 ​% for GC.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests a favorable 5-year overall survival benefit with use of the robotic platform in hepatic resection for colorectal metastases, hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Klatskin tumor, and gallbladder cancer. The robotic platform facilitates fine dissection in complex hepatobiliary operations, with a high rate of R0 resections and excellent perioperative clinical outcomes.

Robotic Hepatectomy plus Biliary Reconstruction for Bismuth Type III and Type IV Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: State of the Art and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

In Bismuth type III and IV Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma (III-IV HC), surgical resection is the only chance for long-term survival. As the surgical procedure is complex and Robotic-Assisted Surgery (RAS) may be particularly suitable in this setting, the aim of this study is to evaluate the potential benefits of RAS in III-IV HC in terms of post-operative outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using the PRISMA checklist for article selection. We searched the PubMed database and included only studies with clinical data about the treatment of III-IV HC using RAS.

RESULTS

A total of 12 papers involving 50 patients were included. All cases were Bismuth IIIa (n = 18), IIIb (n = 27) or IV type (n = 5) and underwent hepatectomy with biliary confluence resection and reconstruction. The mean operative time was 500 minutes with a conversion rate of 4%. The mean hospital stay was 12.2 days, and the morbidity and 30-day mortality rate were 61.9% and 2%, respectively. Over a mean follow up period of 10.1 months, 9/18 cases experienced recurrence (50%).

CONCLUSIONS

RAS for III-IV HC is safe and feasible, at least if performed by experienced surgeons on selected cases. The oncological outcomes appear acceptable, given the aggressiveness of this pathology, but further studies are needed to fully elucidate the exact role of robotics in this setting.

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.

Impact of liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension on minimally invasive limited liver resection for primary liver malignancies in the posterosuperior segments: An international multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

To assess the impact of cirrhosis and portal hypertension (PHT) on technical difficulty and outcomes of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) in the posterosuperior segments.

METHODS

This is a post-hoc analysis of patients with primary malignancy who underwent laparoscopic and robotic wedge resection and segmentectomy in the posterosuperior segments between 2004 and 2019 in 60 centers. Surrogates of difficulty (i.e, open conversion rate, operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion, and use of the Pringle maneuver) and outcomes were compared before and after propensity-score matching (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM).

RESULTS

Of the 1954 patients studied, 1290 (66%) had cirrhosis. Among the cirrhotic patients, 310 (24%) had PHT. After PSM, patients with cirrhosis had higher intraoperative blood transfusion (14% vs. 9.3%; p = 0.027) and overall morbidity rates (20% vs. 14.5%; p = 0.023) than those without cirrhosis. After coarsened exact matching (CEM), patients with cirrhosis tended to have higher intraoperative blood transfusion rate (12.1% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.059) and have higher overall morbidity rate (22.8% vs. 12.5%; p = 0.007) than those without cirrhosis. After PSM, Pringle maneuver was more frequently applied in cirrhotic patients with PHT (62.2% vs. 52.4%; p = 0.045) than those without PHT.

CONCLUSION

MILR in the posterosuperior segments in cirrhotic patients is associated with higher intraoperative blood transfusion and postoperative morbidity. This parameter should be utilized in the difficulty assessment of MILR.

Operative and Hepatic Function Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Liver resection is a pivotal treatment for various liver diseases, and the choice between laparoscopic (LR) and open (OR) methods is debatable. This study aims to compare their respective complications and hepatic outcomes comprehensively, providing critical insights to guide clinical decisions and optimize patient results. We conducted a comprehensive review across PubMed, SCOPUS, WOS, and the Cochrane Library until September 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic (LR) and open (OR) liver resections were included. Data screening, extraction, and quality assessments utilized the Risk of Bias (ROB-2). We conducted our analysis using Review Manager (RevMan 5.4) software, and the data were presented as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our comprehensive research yielded 3,192 relevant records, and 9 RCTs were finally included. LR exhibited reduced operative bleeding (MD = -82.87 ml, 95% CI: -132.45 to -33.30, P=0.001) and shorter hospital stays (MD = -2.32 days, 95% CI: -3.65 to -0.98, P=0.0007). The risk of complications was significantly lower in the LR group (RR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43-0.76, P<0.0001), especially in Clavian-Dindo classification degree 1 and 2 complications (RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28-0.79, P=0.005). LR patients also had lower postoperative AST levels at one day (MD = -123.16 U/L, 95% CI: -206.08 to -40.24, P=0.004) and three days (MD = -35.95 U/L, 95% CI: -65.83 to -6.06, P=0.02). These findings underscore LR's superiority, emphasizing its potential to significantly enhance patient outcomes, reduce complications, and improve recovery in liver resection procedures.

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.

[Robotics in Liver Surgery - Tips and Tricks]

Since minimally invasive liver surgery has proven benefits over open surgery, this technique should also be implemented more broadly in Germany. With the dramatic development in minimally invasive and robotic liver surgery, this approach has been established in recent years. Most recent analyses suggest lower complication rates, blood loss and hospital stay compared to open and laparoscopic liver surgery. In contrast to laparoscopic surgery, the technical setting of robotic liver surgery is widely independent of the type of resection. The laparoscopic and robotic technologies should be considered to be equal at the moment, although most recent analyses even suggest additional advantages of robotic over laparoscopic liver surgery. Moreover, robotics has a greater potential for technical refinements, including the inclusion of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Most steps can be transferred from open and laparoscopic liver surgery, but a dissection device such as the CUSA has not yet been developed. Consequently, different techniques have been reported for parenchymal transsection. Due to the special technical features of robotic surgery, intensive training programs should be used prior to the establishment of a robotic liver surgery program.

An international multicentre propensity score matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive liver resections. While laparoscopic (L)-LLS is a well-established technique, over traditional open resection, it remains controversial if robotic (R)-LLS provides any advantages of L-LLS.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of 997 patients from 21 international centres undergoing L-LLS or R-LLS from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. A total of 886 cases (214 R-LLS, 672 L-LLS) met study criteria. 1:1 and 1:2 propensity score matched (PSM) comparison was performed between R-LLS & L-LLS. Further subset analysis by Iwate difficulty was also performed. Outcomes measured include operating time, blood loss, open conversion, readmission rates, morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Comparison between R-LLS and L-LLS after PSM 1:2 demonstrated statistically significantly lower open conversion rate in R-LLS than L-LLS (0.6% versus 5%, p = 0.009) and median blood loss was also statistically significantly lower in R-LLS at 50 (80) versus 100 (170) in L-LLS (p = 0.011) after PSM 1:1 although there was no difference in the blood transfusion rate. Pringle manoeuvre was also found to be used more frequently in R-LLS, with 53(24.8%) cases versus to 84(12.5%) L-LLS cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other key perioperative outcomes such as operating time, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity and 90-day mortality between both groups.

CONCLUSION

R-LLS was associated with similar key perioperative outcomes compared to L-LLS. It was also associated with significantly lower blood loss and open conversion rates compared to L-LLS.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots' abilities.