Surgical outcomes after laparoscopic or robotic liver resection in hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity-score matched analysis with conventional open liver resection

Surgical risk stratification in patients with cirrhosis

Individuals with cirrhosis experience higher morbidity and mortality rates than the general population, irrespective of the type or scope of surgery. This increased risk is attributed to adverse effects of liver disease, encompassing coagulation dysfunction, altered metabolism of anesthesia and sedatives, immunologic dysfunction, hemorrhage related to varices, malnutrition and frailty, impaired wound healing, as well as diminished portal blood flow, overall hepatic circulation, and hepatic oxygen supply during surgical procedures. Therefore, a frequent clinical dilemma is whether surgical interventions should be pursued in patients with cirrhosis. Several risk scores are widely used to aid in the decision-making process, each with specific advantages and limitations. This review aims to discuss the preoperative risk factors in patients with cirrhosis, describe and compare surgical risk assessment models used in everyday practice, provide insights into the surgical risk according to the type of surgery and present recommendations for optimizing those with cirrhosis for surgical procedures. As the primary focus is on currently available risk models, the review describes the predictive value of each model, highlighting its specific advantages and limitations. Furthermore, for models that do not account for the type of surgical procedure to be performed, the review suggests incorporating both patient-related and surgery-related risks into the decision-making process. Finally, we provide an algorithm for the preoperative assessment of patients with cirrhosis before elective surgery as well as guidance perioperative management.

A meta-analysis between robotic hepatectomy and conventional open hepatectomy

Current meta-analysis was performed to compare robotic hepatectomy (RH) with conventional open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were all searched up for comparative studies between RH and OH. RevMan5.3 software and Stata 13.0 software were used for statistical analysis. Nineteen studies with 1747 patients who received RH and 23,633 patients who received OH were included. Pooled results indicated that patients who received RH were generally younger than those received OH (P < 0.00001). Moreover, RH was associated with longer operative time (P = 0.0002), less intraoperative hemorrhage (P < 0.0001), lower incidence of intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.003), lower incidence of postoperative any morbidity (P < 0.00001), postoperative major morbidity (P = 0.0001), mortalities with 90 days after surgery (P < 0.0001), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.00001). Comparable total hospital costs were acquired between RH and OH groups (P = 0.46). However, even at the premise of comparable R0 rate (P = 0.86), RH was associated with smaller resected tumor size (P < 0.00001). Major hepatectomy (P = 0.02) and right posterior hepatectomy (P = 0.0003) were less frequently performed in RH group. Finally, we concluded that RH was superior to OH in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. RH could lead to less intraoperative hemorrhage, less postoperative complications and an enhanced postoperative recovery. However, major hepatectomy and right posterior hepatectomy were still less frequently performed via robotic approach. Future more powerful well-designed studies are required for further exploration.

Current progress in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery at a high-volume center

There has been steady growth in the adoption of robotic HPB procedures world-wide over the past 20 years, but most of this increase has occurred only recently. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of robotics has been in the United States, with very few, select centers of adoption in Italy, South Korea, and Brazil, to name a few. We began our robotic HPB program in 2008, well before almost all other centers in the world, with the most notable exception of Giullianotti and colleagues. Our program began gradually, with smaller cases carefully selected to optimize the strengths of the original robotic platform and included complex biliary and pancreatic resections. We performed the first reported series of choledochojejunostomy for benign biliary strictures and first series of completion cholecystectomies. We began performing robotic distal pancreatectomies and longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomies, reporting our early experience for each of these procedures. Over time we progressed to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies. Initially, these were performed with planned conversions until we were able to optimize efficiency. Now we have performed over 200 robotic whipples, reaching a 100% robotic completion rate by 2020. Finally, we have added robotic major hepatectomies, including resections for hilar cholangiocarcinoma to our repertoire. Since the program began, we have performed over 1600 robotic HPB cases. Outcomes from our program have shown superior lymph node harvest, lower DGE rates, shorter hospitalizations, and fewer rehab admissions with similar overall complications to open and laparoscopic procedures, signifying that over time a robotic HPB program is not only feasible but advantageous as well.

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.

Robot-assisted versus open hepatectomy for liver tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted hepatectomy (RAH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) for liver tumors (LT).

METHODS

A computer-based literature search was conducted to identify all randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials of RAH and OH in the treatment of LT from January 2000 to July 2022. Study-specific effect sizes and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined to calculate the pooled values, using a fixed-effects or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included, with a combined total of 1079 patients. Compared with the OH group, the RAH group was found to involve less blood loss (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -152.52 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -266.85 to 38.18; p = 0.009), shorter hospital stay (SMD = -2.79; 95% CI = -4.19 to -1.40; p < 0.001), a lower rate of postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR] =0.67; 95% CI = 0.47-0.95; p = 0.02), and a lower recurrence rate (OR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.23-0.77; p = 0.005). However, operative time was longer in the RAH group than in the OH group (SMD = 70.55; 95% CI = 37.58-103.53; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows that RAH is safe and feasible in the treatment of LT.

Short- and long-term outcomes after robotic and open liver resection for elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver resection (RLR) has increasingly been accepted as it has overcome some of the limitations of open liver resection (OLR), while the outcomes following RLR in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the short and long-term outcomes of RLR vs. OLR in elderly HCC patients.

METHODS

Perioperative data of elderly patients (≥ 65 years) with HCC who underwent RLR or OLR between January 2010 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. A 1:2 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize the differences between RLR and OLR groups. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent prognosis factors for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of these patients.

RESULTS

Of the 427 elderly HCC patients included in this study, 113 underwent RLR and 314 underwent OLR. After the 1:2 PSM, there were 100 and 178 patients in the RLR and the OLR groups, respectively. The RLR group had a less estimated blood loss (EBL), a shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS), and a lower complications rate (all P < 0.05), compared with the OLR group before and after PSM. Univariable and multivariable analyses showed that advanced age and surgical approaches were not independent risk factors for long-term prognosis. The two groups of elderly patients who were performed RLR or OLR had similar OS (median OS 52.8 vs. 57.6 months) and RFS (median RFS 20.4 vs. 24.6 months) rates after PSM.

CONCLUSIONS

RLR was comparable to OLR in feasibility and safety. For elderly patients with HCC, RLR resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OLR.

Comparison of survival and post-operation outcomes for minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-matched studies

Background

With the rapid development of minimally invasive techniques and instruments, more and more patients begin to accept minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has obvious advantages in terms of surgical incision, but there is still no strong evidence of its long-term survival effect.

Purpose

The primary objective of this study was to compare long-term survival outcomes between MIH and Open hepatectomy (OH) in hepatocellular carcinoma based on high-quality case-control studies.

Methods

The study on the comparison of MIH (including RH or LH) and OH in the treatment of HCC from the date of establishment to June 1, 2022 was searched through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The main results were long-term overall and disease-free survival and short-term postoperative effect; All studies were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, and meta-analysis of random effect models was adopted.

Results

43 articles included 6673 patients. In these studies, the data from 44 studies need to be extracted and pooled in the meta-analysis. Our results showed that compared with OH group, OS (HR 1.17; 95%CI 1.02, 1.35; P=0.02) and DFS (HR 1.15; 95%CI 1.05, 1.26; P=0.002) in MIH group were slightly lower than those in OH group. The operation time (Z=2.14, P=0.03, MD8.01, 95% CI: 2.60–13.42) was longer than OH group. In terms of length of hospital stay (Z=10.76, p&lt;0.00001, MD -4.0, 95% CI: -4.72 to -3.27), intraoperative blood loss (Z=5.33, P&lt;0.00001, MD -108.33, 95% CI: -148.15 to -68.50), blood transfusion rate (Z=5.06, p&lt;0.00001, OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76, I2 = 0%), postoperative complications (Z=9.24, p&lt;0.00001, OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.55, I2 = 21%), major morbidity (Z=6.11, p&lt;0.00001, OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.59,I2 = 0%), R0 resection (Z=2.34, P=0.02, OR=1.46, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.0, I2 = 0%) and mortality(Z=2.71,P=0.007, OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85), the MIH group was significantly better than the OH group. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of major hepatectomy Z=0.47, P=0.64, OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, I2 = 0%), anatomical resection (Z=0.48, P=0.63, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.67 to 1.27), satellite nodules (Z=0.54, P=0.59, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.23, I2 = 0%), microvascular invasion (Z=1.15, P=0.25, OR=1.11, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.34, I2 = 0%) and recurrence (Z=0.71, p=0.48, OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12, I2 = 19%).

Conclusion

This study is the first to compare the clinical efficacy of MIH and OH in the treatment of HCC based on a high-quality propensity score matching study. The results show that in terms of long-term survival outcomes (OS and DFS), although the gap between MIH and OH is not obvious, OH was better than MIH on the whole. However, in terms of short-term postoperative outcomes (post-operation outcomes), MIH was slightly better than OH.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022332556.

Case report of pure single-port robotic left lateral sectionectomy using the da Vinci SP system

INTRODUCTION

Since its first appearance in the early 1990s, laparoscopic hepatic resection has become increasingly accepted and recognized as safe as laparotomy. The recent introduction of robotic surgery systems has brought new innovations to the field of minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoscopic surgery. The da Vinci line of surgical systems has recently released a true single-port platform called the da Vinci SP system, which has 3 fully wristed and elbowed instruments and a flexible camera in a single 2.5 cm cannula. We present the first case of robotic liver resection using the da Vinci SP system and demonstrate the technical feasibility of this platform.

PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSIS

A 63-year-old woman presented with elevated liver function test results and abdominal pain. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography showed multiple intrahepatic duct stones in the left lateral section and distal common bile duct stones near the ampulla of Vater.

INTERVENTIONS

The docking time was 8 minute. The patient underwent successful da Vinci SP with a total operation time of 135 minute. The estimated blood loss was 50.0 ml. No significant intraoperative events were observed.

OUTCOMES

The numerical pain intensity score was 3/10 in the immediate postoperative period and 1/10 on postoperative day 2. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 5 after verifying that the CT scan did not show any surgical complications.

CONCLUSION

We report a technique of left lateral sectionectomy, without the use of an additional port, via the da Vinci SP system. The present case suggests that minor hepatic resection is technically feasible and safe with the new da Vinci SP system in select patients. For the active application of the da Vinci SP system in hepatobiliary surgery, further device development and research are needed.

Implementing a robotic liver resection program does not always require prior laparoscopic experience

Background

Preliminary experience in laparoscopic liver surgery is usually suggested prior to implementation of a robotic liver resection program.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing robotic (RLR) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma at a center with concomitant initiation of robotic and laparoscopic programs

Results

A total of 92 consecutive patients operated on between May 2014 and February 2019 were included: 40 RLR versus 52 LLR. Median age (69 vs. 67; p = 0.74), male sex (62.5% vs. 59.6%; p = 0.96), incidence of chronic liver disease (97.5% vs.98.1%; p = 0.85), median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (8 vs. 9; p = 0.92), and median largest nodule size (22 vs. 24 mm) were similar between RLR and LLR. In the LLR group, there was a numerically higher incidence of nodules located in segment 4 (20.0% vs. 16.6%; p = 0.79); a numerically higher use of Pringle’s maneuver (32.7% vs. 20%; p = 0.23), and a shorter duration of surgery (median of 165.5 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.04). Incidence of complications (25% vs.32.7%; p = 0.49), blood transfusions (2.5% vs.9.6%; p = 0.21), and median length of stay (6 vs. 5; p = 0.54) were similar between RLR and LLR. The overall (OS) and recurrence-free (RFS) survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 100 and 79 and 95 and 26% for RLR versus 96.2 and 76.9 and 84.6 and 26.9% for LLR (log-rank p = 0.65 for OS and 0.72 for RFS).

Conclusions

Based on our results, concurrent implementation of a robotic and laparoscopic liver resection program appears feasible and safe, and is associated with similar oncologic long-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy Regarding the Anatomical Variation of the Portal Vein: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

This study is designed to analyze the feasibility of laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy in living donors with portal vein variation. Living donor liver transplantation cases using a right liver graft during the period of January 2014 to September 2019 were included. Computed tomographic angiographies of the donor were 3-dimensionally reconstructed, and the anatomical variation of the portal vein was classified. To reduce selection bias, a 1:1 ratio propensity score-matched analysis between the laparoscopy group and the open group was performed. Surgical and recovery-related outcomes as well as portal vein complication-free survival, graft survival, and overall survival rates were analyzed. After matching, 171 cases in each group from 444 original cases were compared. The laparoscopy group had a shorter operation time (P < 0.001), a smaller number of additional opioids required by the donor (P < 0.001), and a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001). There were no differences in the portal vein complication-free survival (P = 0.16), graft survival (P = 0.26), or overall survival rates (P = 0.53). Although portal vein complication-free survival was inferior in portal veins other than type I (P = 0.01), the laparoscopy group showed similar portal vein complication-free survival regardless of the anatomical variation of portal vein (P = 0.35 in type I and P = 0.30 in other types). Laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy can be performed as safely as open surgery regardless of the anatomical variation of the portal vein.

Robotic major liver resections: Surgical outcomes compared with open major liver resections

Backgrounds/Aims

Laparoscopic major liver resections are still considered innovative procedures despite the recent development of laparoscopic liver surgery. Robotic surgery has been introduced as an innovative system for laparoscopic surgery. In this study, we investigated surgical outcomes after major liver resections using robotic systems.

Methods

From January 2009 to October 2018, 70 patients underwent robotic major liver resections, which included conventional major liver resections and right sectionectomy. The short-term and long-term outcomes were compared with 252 open major resections performed during the same period.

Results

Operative time was longer in the robotic group (472 min vs. 349 min, p<0.001). However, estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic group compared with the open resection group (269 ml vs. 548 ml, p=0.009). The overall postoperative complication rate of the robotic group was lower than that of the open resection group (31.4% vs. 58.3%, p<0.001), but the major complication rate was similar between the two groups. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (9.5 days vs. 15.1 days, p=0.006). Among patients with HCC, cholangiocarcinoma, and colorectal liver metastasis, there was no difference in overall and disease-free survival between the two groups. After propensity score matching in 37 patients with HCC for each group, the robotic group still showed a shorter hospital stay and comparable long-term outcomes.

Conclusions

Robotic major liver resections provided improved perioperative outcomes and comparable long-term oncologic outcome compared with open resections. Therefore, robotic surgery should be considered one of the options for minimally invasive major liver resections.

Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection in Hepatocarcinoma: Surgical and Oncological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches are spreading in every field of surgery, including liver surgery. However, studies comparing robotic hepatectomy with the conventional open approach regarding oncologic outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma are limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed demographics characteristics, pathologic features, surgical, and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent robotic and conventional open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

RESULTS

No significant differences in demographics features, tumor size, tumor location, and type of liver resection were found. The morbidity rate was similar, 23% for the open group versus 17% of the robotic group (P=0.605). Perioperative data analysis showed a greater estimated blood loss in patients who underwent open resection, if compared with robotic group (P=0.003). R0 resection and disease-free resection margins showed no statistically significant differences. The 3-year disease-free survival of the robotic group was comparable with that of the open group (54% vs. 37%; P=0.592), as was the 3-year overall survival (87% vs. 78%; P=0.203).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical and the oncological outcomes seem to be comparable between minimally invasive and open hepatectomy. Robotic liver resections are effective, and do not compromise the oncological outcome, representing a reasonable alternative to the open approach.

The impact of robotics in liver surgery: A worldwide systematic review and short-term outcomes meta-analysis on 2,728 cases

BACKGROUND

The dissemination of robotic liver surgery is slow-paced and must face the obstacle of demonstrating advantages over open and laparoscopic (LLS) approaches. Our objective was to show the current position of robotic liver surgery (RLS) worldwide and to identify if improved short-term outcomes are observed, including secondary meta-analyses for type of resection, etiology, and cost analysis.

METHODS

A PRISMA-based systematic review was performed to identify manuscripts comparing RLS vs open or LLS approaches. Quality analysis was performed using the Newcatle-Ottawa score. Statistical analysis was performed after heterogeneity test and fixed- or random-effect models were chosen accordingly.

RESULTS

After removing duplications, 2728 RLS cases were identified from the final set of 150 manuscripts. More than 75% of the cases have been performed on malignancies. Meta-analysis from the 38 comparative reports showed that RLS may offer improved short-term outcomes compared to open procedures in most of the variables screened. Compared to LLS, some advantages may be observed in favour of RLS for major resections in terms of operative time, hospital stay and rate of complications. Cost analyses showed an increased cost per procedure of around US$5000.

CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of RLS still need to be demonstrated although early results are promising. Advantages vs open approach are demonstrated. Compared to laparoscopic surgery, minor perioperative advantages may be observed for major resections although cost analyses are still unfavorable to the robotic approach.

Safety and feasibility of robotic major hepatectomy for novice surgeons in robotic liver surgery: A prospective multicenter pilot study

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver resection has not yet been widely implemented. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic major liver resection by performing a prospective multicenter study.

METHODS

From July 2017 to December 2018, five surgeons from five tertiary hospitals who were novices in robotic liver resection but experienced in open and laparoscopic liver resection performed 46 cases of robotic major anatomical liver resections. Perioperative clinical data and surgical data, including detailed procedure times were prospectively collected. All operations were performed according to a protocol for unify surgical techniques and instruments.

RESULTS

Twenty-two cases of left hemihepatectomy, one case of extended left hemihepatectomy, 14 cases of right hemihepatectomy, two cases of right anterior sectionectomy, six cases of right posterior sectionectomy, and one case of central bisectionectomy were performed. The most common indications were hepatocellular carcinoma (21 cases) followed by intrahepatic duct stones (10 cases), intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma (7 cases), liver metastases (3 cases), intraductal papillary neoplasms (2 cases), sarcoma (1 case), mucinous cystic neoplasm (1 case), and hemangioma (1 case). Surgical resection margins for all tumor cases were negative. The mean operation time was 378.58 ± 124.31 (190-696) minutes and the estimated intraoperative blood loss was 276.67 ± 397.41 mL (range, 10-2600 mL). Overall complications developed in 16 cases (34.8%). There were three cases of severe surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo classification of III or more). Only one of 46 cases was converted to conventional open left hemihepatectomy because of bleeding. The mean hospital stay was 7.3 ± 2.5 (4-18) days.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that robotic anatomic major liver resection can be safely performed by robotic beginners who are advanced open and laparoscopic liver surgeons.

Liver resection in Cirrhotic liver: Are there any limits?

Liver resection remains one of the most technically challenging surgical procedure in abdominal surgery due to the complex anatomical arrangement in the liver and its rich blood supply that constitutes about 20% of the cardiac output per cycle. The challenge for resection in cirrhotic livers is even higher because of the impact of surgical stress and trauma imposed on borderline liver function and the impaired ability for liver regeneration in cirrhotic livers. Nonetheless, evolution and advancement in surgical techniques as well as knowledge in perioperative management of liver resection has led to a substantial improvement in surgical outcome in recent decade. The objective of this article was to provide updated information on the recent developments in liver surgery, from preoperative evaluation, to technicality of resection, future liver remnant augmentation and finally, postoperative management of complications.

Unplanned conversion during minimally invasive liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: risk factors and surgical outcomes

Purpose

Unplanned conversion is sometimes necessary during minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aims of this study were to compare surgical outcomes of planned MILR and unplanned conversion and to investigate the risk factors after unplanned conversion.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 286 patients who underwent MILR with HCC from January 2006 to December 2017. All patients were divided into a MILR group and an unplanned conversion group. The clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. In addition, surgical outcomes in the conversion group were compared with the planned open surgery group (n = 505). Risk factors for unplanned conversion were analyzed.

Results

Of the 286 patients who underwent MILR, 18 patients (6.7%) had unplanned conversion during surgery. The unplanned conversion group showed statistically more blood loss, higher transfusion rate and postoperative complication rate, and longer hospital stay compared to the MILR group, whereas no such difference was observed in comparison with the planned open surgery group. There were no significant differences in overall and disease-free survival among 3 groups. The right-sided sectionectomy (right anterior and posterior sectionectomy), central bisectionectomy and tumor size were risk factors of unplanned conversion.

Conclusion

Unplanned conversion during MILR for HCC was associated with poor perioperative outcomes, but it did not affect long-term oncologic outcomes in our study. In addition, when planning right-sided sectionectomy or central bisectionectomy for a large tumor (more than 5 cm), we should recommend open surgery or MILR with an informed consent for unplanned open conversions.

Robotic approach to the liver: Open surgery in a closed abdomen or laparoscopic surgery with technical constraints?

The application of the minimally invasive approach has shown to be safe and effective for liver surgery and is in constant growth. The indications for laparoscopic surgery are steadily increasing across the field. In the early 2000s, robotic surgery led to some additional improvements, such as tremor filtration, instrument stability, 3D view and more comfort for the surgeon. These techniques bring in some advantages compared to the traditional OLR: less blood loss, shorter admissions, fewer adhesions, and a faster postoperative recovery and better outcomes in case of further hepatectomy for tumor recurrence has been shown. Concerning which is the best minimally invasive approach between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, the evidence is still conflicting. The latter shows good potential, since the endo-wristed instruments work similarly to the surgeon's hands, even with an intact abdominal wall. However, the technique is still under development, burdened by important costs, and limited by the lack of some instruments available for the laparoscopic approach. The paucity of universally accepted and proven data, especially concerning long-term outcomes, hampers drawing univocal acceptance at present. Furthermore, the number of variables related both to the patient and the disease further complicates the decision leading to a treatment tailored to each patient with strict selection. This review aims to explore the main differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, focusing on indications, operative technique and current debated clinical issues in recent literature.

Early Morbidity and Mortality after Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Propensity-Score Matched Comparison with Open Resection

BACKGROUND

The impact of minimally invasive surgery on the short-term outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing liver resection remains poorly defined.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP-targeted hepatectomy database was used to identify patients who underwent liver resection for HCC during 2014-2016. A 1:1 propensity score matching was created between patients who underwent open (OLR) vs. minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) based on age, ASA score, liver resection type, liver texture, and stage of disease. The short-term outcomes of patients undergoing OLR vs. MILR were compared.

RESULTS

Among a total cohort of 1816 patients, propensity score matching resulted in 728 liver resections: 364 (50%) OLR and 364 (50%) MILR. Overall morbidity (29% vs. 23%, P = 0.04) was greater among patients undergoing OLR compared with MILR, whereas mortality did not differ between the two approaches (2% vs 1%, P = 0.57). MILR was associated with significant reductions in hospital LOS (6 vs. 4 days, P < 0.0001) but no difference in operative time (188 vs. 171 min, P = 0.13). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, age ≥ 65 (OR:1.6, 95%CI: 1.1-2.3, P = 0.0065), ASA class ≥ 3 (OR:2.7, 95%CI: 1.5-4.7, P = 0.0003), preoperative blood transfusion (OR:9.7, 95%CI: 1.06-90.3, P = 0.04), T ≥ 3 (OR:1.9, 95%CI: 1.09-3.4, P = 0.02), operative time > 200 min (OR:1.8, 95%CI: 1.2-2.5, P = 0.0011), and OLR (OR:1.4, 95%CI: 1.002-2.03, P = 0.04) were associated with increased odds of overall morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

MILR for HCC is associated with a shorter hospital LOS and reduced postoperative complication rates, even after controlling for important patient and clinicopathologic confounders, compared to OLR. Efforts to expand the use of MILR for hepatobiliary surgery are warranted.

Laparoscopic Hepatectomy Versus Open Hepatectomy for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Comparative Study Using a Propensity Score Matching

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the results between laparoscopic hepatectomy and open hepatectomy in two French university hospitals, for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using a propensity score matching.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A patient in the laparoscopic surgery group (LA) was randomly matched with another patient in the open approach group (OA) using a 1:1 allocated ratio with the nearest estimated propensity score. Matching criteria included age, presence of comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and resection type (major or minor). Patients of the LA group without matches were excluded. Intraoperative and postoperative data were compared in both groups. Survival was compared in both groups using the following matching criteria: number and size of lesions, alpha-fetoprotein rate, and cell differentiation.

RESULTS

From January 2012 to January 2017, a total of 447 hepatectomies were consecutively performed, 99 hepatectomies of which were performed for the management of hepatocellular carcinomas. Forty-nine resections were performed among the open approach (OA) group (49%), and 50 resections were performed among the laparoscopic surgery (LA) group (51%). Mortality rate was 2% in the LA group and 4.1% in the OA group. After propensity score matching, there was a statistical difference favorable to the LA group regarding medical complications (54.55% versus 27.27%, p = 0.04), and operating times were shorter (p = 0.03). Resection rate R0 was similar between both groups: 90.91% (n = 30) in the LA group and 84.85% (n =) in the OA group. There was no difference regarding overall survival (p = 0.98) and recurrence-free survival (p = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection for the management of HCC seems to provide the same short-term and long-term results as compared to the open approach. Laparoscopic liver resections could be considered as an alternative and become the gold standard in well-selected patients.

Robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. This review attempts to clarify the role of robotic surgery for HCC in terms of oncologic outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed according to the PRISMA statement including papers comparing open, robotic, and laparoscopic approach for liver surgery. If more than one study was reported by the same institute, only the most recent or the highest quality study was included.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 302 articles; titles and abstracts were reviewed for inclusion. Ten papers were finally included in this review for a total of 307 patients who underwent robotic resection for HCC.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resection for HCC is effective in terms of oncological results as compared with open and laparoscopic approach when performed in experienced centers and is accurate in terms of R0 rates and disease-free surgical margin.

Robot-assisted gallbladder-preserving hepatectomy for treating S5 hepatoblastoma in a child: A case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Hepatoblastoma (HB) is the most common hepatic malignant tumour in children, accounting for approximately 50%-60% of primary hepatic malignant tumours in children, mostly in children under 3 years old. In Western countries, the incidence of hepatoblastoma is approximately 1-2/100000. Da Vinci surgical system is fast becoming a key instrument in microinvasive surgery. The past decade has seen the rapid development of robot-assisted laparoscopy, which expends many fields including the liver surgery. This paper discusses the significance and feasibility of robot-assisted gallbladder-preserving hepatectomy for treating S5 hepatoblastoma in children. The aim of this essay is to compare the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery with conventional laparoscopic surgery, and explore the meaning of preservation of the gallbladder by sharing this case.

CASE SUMMARY

A 3-year-old child with a liver mass in the 5^th segment was treated using the Da Vinci surgical system, and the gallbladder was retained. The child was admitted to the hospital for 20 d for the discovery of the right hepatic lobe mass. Ultrasonography revealed a low echo mass, 46 mm × 26 mm × 58 mm in size, indicating hepatoblastoma in the right lobe, and enhanced computed tomography showed continuous enhancement of iso-low-density lesions with different sizes and nodules and unclear boundaries, without the dilation of the intrahepatic bile duct, no enlargement of the gallbladder, and uniform thickness of the wall. The diagnosis was “liver mass, hepatoblastoma”. It was decided to perform S5 liver tumour resection. During surgery, the tumour and gallbladder were isolated first, and the gallbladder could be completely separated from the tumour surface without obvious infiltration; therefore, the gallbladder was preserved. The cutting line was marked with an electric hook. The hepatic duodenal ligament was blocked with a urethral catheter using the Pringle method, and the tumour and part of the normal liver tissue were completely resected with an ultrasound knife along the incision. The hepatic portal interdiction time was approximately 25 min. An abdominal drainage tube was inserted. The auxiliary hole was connected to the lens, and the specimen was removed. The patient’s status was uneventful, and the operation time was 166 min. The robotic time was 115 min, and the bleeding amount was approximately 200 mL. In total, 300 mL of red blood cell suspension and 200 mL of plasma were injected. No serious complications occurred. Pathological findings confirmed fetal hepatoblastoma and R0 resection. A gallbladder contraction test was performed two weeks after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted S5 hepatectomy with gallbladder preservation is safe and feasible for specific patients.

Robotic hepatic surgery in malignancy: review of the current literature

The use of minimally invasive liver surgery, such as laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is increasing worldwide. Robot-assisted laparoscopy is a new surgical technique that improves surgical handling. The advantage of this technique is improved dexterity, which leads to increased surgical precision and no tremor or fatigue. Comparable oncological results were documented for laparoscopic and open surgery. Currently, "conventional" laparoscopic liver surgery has limitations with respect to the treatment of lesions in the posterior-superior segments, and there are limited technical features for the reconstruction steps. These limitations might be overcome with the use of robotic surgery. The use of robotic surgery for hepatic procedures originated because of the technical potential to overcome several of the major technical limitations known from conventional laparoscopy and the possibility of performing more extended liver resections. Additionally, there is increasing evidence indicating that robotic hepatic surgery is feasible and safe in resections of the posterior segments. Studies showed that using the robotic technique is associated with a decreased or at least equal amount of intraoperative blood loss compared to that of the conventional laparoscopic or open technique. There is increasing evidence that robotic liver surgery might be as safe as conventional laparoscopic procedures in cancer cases in terms of resection margins, disease-free and overall survival. Furthermore, robotic surgery might be more favorable with respect to postoperative patient recovery. Despite promising results, still large, multicenter, randomized and prospective studies are needed to analyze the exact value of robotic liver surgery in patients with malignant liver tumors.

Toward a fully robotic surgery: Performing robotic major liver resection with no table-side surgeon

BACKGROUND

Evidence has suggested that robotic system helps perform more major liver resections. However, the required table-side surgeon has remained a concern because of the uncertain performance and the incomplete control of console surgeon.

METHODS

Data were reviewed for consecutive 333 robotic liver resections, of which 56 patients underwent left liver resection with the usual setting, and 35 with no table-side surgeon.

RESULTS

No conversion was required in the setting with no table-side surgeon. The group without the table-side surgeon had similar complication rates, blood loss, and operative time compared with that of the normal settings, as well as focused analysis on major left hemihepatectomy.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that performing robotic major liver resection without the presence of the table-side surgeon is safe and feasible. The concise performance of robotic platforms might accelerate the machine learning process along with the ability to predict patterns of future autonomous surgery.

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes Following Robotic Liver Resections for Primary Hepatobiliary Malignancies: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

Robotic liver surgery (RLS) has emerged as a feasible alternative to laparoscopic or open resections with comparable perioperative outcomes. Little is known about the oncologic adequacy of RLS. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term oncologic outcomes for patients undergoing RLS for primary hepatobiliary malignancies.

METHODS

We performed an international, multicenter, retrospective study of patients who underwent RLS for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CC), or gallbladder cancer (GBC) between 2006 and 2016. Age, gender, histology, resection margin status, extent of surgical resection, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 61 included patients, 34 (56%) had RLS performed for HCC, 16 (26%) for CC, and 11 (18%) for GBC. The majority of resections were nonanatomical or segmental resections (39.3%), followed by central hepatectomy (18%), left-lateral sectionectomy (14.8%), left hepatectomy (13.1%), right hepatectomy (13.1%), and right posterior segmentectomy (1.6%). R0 resection was achieved in 94% of HCC, 68% of CC, and 81.8% of GBC patients. Median hospital stay was 5 days, and conversion to open surgery was needed in seven patients (11.5%). Grade III-IV Dindo-Clavien complications occurred in seven patients with no perioperative mortality. Median follow-up was 75 months (95% confidence interval 36-113), and 5-year OS and DFS were 56 and 38%, respectively. When stratified by tumor type, 3-year OS was 90% for HCC, 65% for GBC, and 49% for CC (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

RLS can be performed for primary hepatobiliary malignancies with long-term oncologic outcomes comparable to published open and laparoscopic data.

Minimally Invasive Approaches for Surgical Management of Primary Liver Cancers

The benefits of minimally invasive approaches in oncologic surgery are increasingly recognized, and laparoscopic liver surgery has become increasingly widespread. In light of the complexity and technical challenges of hepatobiliary procedures, robotic approaches are also employed. The utility, safety, and oncologic integrity of these methods in the management of primary liver cancers are reported. PubMed was used to search the medical literature for studies and articles pertaining to laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery. Studies that particularly addressed hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma were identified and reviewed. Laparoscopic liver surgery, including for major resections, has been shown to be safe in experienced hands without any compromise of oncologic outcomes for either hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Some studies show improved clinical outcomes including shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates when compared to open surgery, particularly for patients with cirrhosis. Robotic liver surgeries seem to have equally acceptable clinical outcomes; however, there is limited data regarding oncologic integrity and considerable additional expense. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections are both feasible and safe for the management of primary liver tumors. Future studies should aim to clarify specific indications and optimize applications of these approaches.

Oncological and surgical result of hepatoma after robot surgery

BACKGROUND

Most liver resections are currently performed using an open approach. Robotic hepatectomy has been suggested as a safe and effective approach for hepatocellular carcinoma; however, studies regarding oncological and surgical outcomes are still limited. Accordingly, we performed this study to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes between robotic and open approaches.

METHODS

Between June, 2013 and July, 2016, a total of 63 HCC patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy, and 177 patients undergoing open hepatectomy were included in this study to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes after hepatectomy. The data of demographic, clinical features, hepatitis profile, tumor characters, TNM stage, surgical type, pathological outcomes, and postoperative results were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The demographic and clinical features of patients with HCC in both groups were statistically comparable. The robotic group had longer operative times (296 ± 84 vs. 182 ± 51 min, p = 0.032). The postoperative complications rate was slightly lower in the robotic group (11.1 vs. 15.3%, p = 0.418). The rate of Ro resection was similar in both groups (93.7 vs. 96%, p = 0.56). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robotic group (6.21 ± 2.06 vs. 8.18 ± 6.99 days, p = 0.001). The overall recurrence rate of HCC was lower in the robotic group (27 vs. 37.3%, p = 0.140). The 1, 2, 3 year disease-free survival rates were 72.5, 64.3, and 61.6%, respectively, for the open group, while they were 77.8, 71.9, and 71.9%, respectively, for the robotic group, (p = 0.325). The 1, 2, 3 year overall survival rates were 95.4, 92.3, and 92.3%, respectively, for the open group, while they were 100, 97.7, and 97.7%, respectively, for the robotic group (p = 0.137).

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is a safe and feasible procedure for liver resection in selected patients. The oncological and surgical outcomes of robotic hepatectomy were comparable to open surgery. The robotic hepatectomy carried significantly shorter length of hospital stay.

Robotic hepatectomy: the Korean experience and perspective

Since the robotic surgical system was first introduced in 2005, the number of robotic surgery has been gradually increasing in Korea. The proportion of general robotic surgery is relatively higher compared to the western countries, but robotic liver resection is one of the most complex procedures among robotic general surgery. In this article, we introduce the development of robotic liver resection in Korea and describe our standardized techniques. The current data on robotic liver resection in our institute and other centers in Korea are also presented.

Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Conventional Approaches for Major or Challenging Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

The benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for low-risk or minor liver resection are well established. There is growing interest in MIS for major hepatectomy (MH) and other challenging resections, but there remain unanswered questions of safety that prevent broad adoption of this technique.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing hepatectomy at 65 hospitals participating in the NSQIP Hepatopancreatobiliary Collaborative in 2014. We assessed serious morbidity or mortality (SMM; including organ/space infection and organ failure). Secondary outcomes included transfusion, bile leak, liver failure, reoperation or intervention, and 30-day readmission. We also measured factors considered to make resection more challenging (ie large tumors, cirrhosis, ≥3 concurrent resections, previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and morbid obesity).

RESULTS

There were 2,819 patients who underwent hepatectomy (aged 58 ± 14 years; 53% female; 25% had MIS). After adjusting for clinical and operative factors, the odds of SMM (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.96; p = 0.03) and reoperation or intervention (OR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; p = 0.03) were significantly lower for patients undergoing MIS compared with open. In the MH group (n = 1,015 [13% MIS]), there was no difference in the odds of SMM after MIS (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.11; p = 0.08); however, minimally invasive MH met criteria for noninferiority. There were no differences in liver-specific complications or readmission between the groups. Odds of SMM were significantly lower after MIS among patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.70; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large study of minimally invasive MH, we found safety outcomes that are equivalent or superior to conventional open surgery. Although the decision to offer MIS might be influenced by factors not included in this evaluation (eg surgeon experience and other patient factors), these findings support its current use in MH.

Is laparoscopic hepatectomy superior to open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma?

The low perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay associated with laparoscopic hepatectomy have made it an often-used option at many liver centers, despite the fact that many patients with hepatocellular carcinoma have cirrhosis, which makes the procedure more difficult and dangerous. Type of surgical procedure proves not to be a primary risk factor for poor outcomes after hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, the available evidence clearly shows that laparoscopic hepatectomy is an effective alternative to the open procedure for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, even in the presence of cirrhosis. Whether the same is true for patients with intermediate or advanced disease is less clear, since laparoscopic major hepatectomy remains a technically demanding procedure.

Laparoscopic and robotic approach for hepatocellular carcinoma-state of the art

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common malignant tumor worldwide and the most common primary liver cancer, in over 80% of cases HCC grown on a cirrhotic liver. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now worldwide accepted considering the excellent results shown. Minimally invasive surgical approach for HCC is increasing continuously and in specialized centers seems to become the first-line approach for those patients. The aim of this review presents and discusses state of the art in the laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatment of HCC. An electronic search was performed to identify all studies dealing with HCC resected with laparoscopy or robotic approach. Indications for laparoscopic resection, robotic assisted and totally robotic resection of HCC will be doubtless increased in future years. LLR and robotic approach for HCC is safe and feasible.