National Trends and Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic-assisted Hepatectomy in the USA: A Propensity-score Matched Analysis from the National Cancer Database

Robotic anatomical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma located within segment 7 using the Glissonean approach

Worldwide use of robotic-assisted hepatectomy has increased dramatically over the past two decades. The role of robotic liver surgery is still controversial, especially with respect to its long-term oncological outcomes in treating early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The Glissonean approach is a fundamental technique for anatomical resection using open and laparoscopic liver surgery. To our knowledge, there have been few reports on purely robotic anatomical segmentectomy 7 for HCC using the Glissonean approach have been described. The present study describes the technical details and surgical outcomes of totally robotic segmentectomy 7 using the Glissonean approach. Fourteen patients with HCC limited to segment 7 underwent segmentectomy 7 from January 2019 through April 2023 in our hospital. The surgical techniques, peri-operative, and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Purely robotic anatomical segmentectomy 7 using the Glissonean approach was safe and feasible with the technology described herein in all of the 14 patients. The peri-operative and oncological outcomes were better and/or comparable with those of other similar hepatic resections using open approach and/or laparoscopic approach. The median follow-up time was 18 months. Intrahepatic recurrence occurred in 2 (14.3%) patient within one year following surgery. The 3-year overall survival rate was 81%. Although technically challenging, the purely robotic segmentectomy 7 could be performed safely and simultaneously with oncological radicality using the Glissonean approach.

Textbook outcome in liver surgery: open vs minimally invasive hepatectomy among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

We sought to investigate whether minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) was superior to open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of achieving textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS) after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection of HCC between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international database. TOLS was defined by the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 events, R1 resection margin, posthepatectomy liver failure, bile leakage, major complications, in-hospital mortality, and readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 1039 patients who underwent HCC resection were included in the analysis. Although most patients underwent OH (n = 724 [69.7%]), 30.3% (n = 315) underwent MIH. Patients who underwent MIH had a lower tumor burden score (3.6 [IQR, 2.6-5.2] for MIH vs 6.1 [IQR, 3.9-10.1] for OH) and were more likely to undergo minor hepatectomy (84.1% [MIH] vs 53.6% [OH]) than patients who had an OH (both P < .001). After propensity score matching to control for baseline differences between the 2 cohorts, the incidence of TOLS was comparable among patients who had undergone MIH (56.6%) versus OH (64.8%) (P = .06). However, MIH was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (6.0 days [IQR, 4.0-8.0] for MIH vs 9.0 days [IQR, 6.0-12.0] for OH). Among patients who had MIH, the odds ratio of achieving TOLS remained stable up to a tumor burden score of 4; after which the chance of TOLS with MIH markedly decreased.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HCC who underwent resection with MIH versus OH had a comparable likelihood of TOLS, although MIH was associated with a short length of stay.

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.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

A propensity score matched analysis of robotic and open hepatectomy for treatment of liver tumors. Clinical outcomes, oncological survival, and costs comparison

Minimally invasive robotic hepatectomy is gaining popularity with a faster rate of adoption when compared to laparoscopic approach. Technical advantages brought by the robotic surgical system facilitate a transition from open to minimally invasive technique in hepatic surgery. Published matched data examining the results of robotic hepatectomy using the open approach as a benchmark are still limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, survival, and costs between robotic and open hepatectomy undertaken in our tertiary hepatobiliary center. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 285 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for neoplastic liver diseases between 2012 and 2020. Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open hepatectomy was conducted by 1:1 ratio. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The matching process assigned 49 patients to each arm, open and robotic hepatectomy. There were no differences in R1 resection rates (4% vs 4%; p = 1.00). Differences in perioperative variables between open and robotic hepatectomy included postoperative complications (16% vs 2%; p = 0.02) and length of stay (LOS) [6 (7 ± 5.0) vs 4 (5 ± 4.0) days; p = 0.002]. There were no differences between open and robotic hepatectomy regarding postoperative hepatic insufficiency (10% vs 2%; p = 0.20). No difference was seen in long-term survival outcomes. While there were no differences in costs, robotic hepatectomy was associated with lower reimbursement [$20,432 (39,191 ± 41,467.81) vs $33,190 (67,860 ± 87,707.81); p = 0.04] and lower contribution margin [$-11,229 (3902 ± 42,572.43) vs $8768 (34,690 ± 89,759.56); p = 0.03]. Compared to open approach, robotic hepatectomy robotic offers lower rates of postoperative complications, shorter LOS and similar costs, while not compromising long-term oncological outcomes. Robotic hepatectomy may eventually become the preferred approach in minimally invasive treatment of liver tumors.

Persistent poverty impacts access to minimally invasive surgery among patients with hepatopancreatobiliary cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been successfully adopted in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) cancer, and has been associated with improved perioperative and comparable oncological outcomes. We sought to define the impact of county-level duration of poverty on access to MIS and clinical outcomes among patients with HPB cancer undergoing surgical treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on patients diagnosed with HPB cancer were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data (2010-2016). County-level poverty data were obtained from the American Community Survey and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and categorized into three groups: never high poverty (NHP), intermittent high poverty (IHP), and persistent poverty (PP). Multivariable regression was used to assess the relationship between PP and MIS.

RESULTS

Among 8098 patients, 82% (n = 664) resided in regions with NHP, 13.6% (n = 1104) resided in regions with IHP, and 4.4% (n = 350) resided in regions with PP. Median age at the diagnosis was 71 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 67-77). Patients from IHP and PP counties had lower odds of undergoing MIS (IHP/PP vs. NHP, odds ratio [OR]: 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-0.96, p = 0.034) and being discharged home (IHP/PP vs. NHP, OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43-0.99, p = 0.043), as well as a higher risk of 1-year mortality (IHP/PP vs. NHP, HR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.036-2.209, p = 0.032) compared with patients residing in NHP counties.

CONCLUSIONS

Duration of county-level poverty was associated with lower receipt of MIS and unfavorable clinical and survival outcomes among patients with HPB cancer. There is a need to improve access to modern surgical treatment options among vulnerable, PP populations.

Pure Laparoscopic Donor Left Hepatectomy Reduces Postoperative Analgesic Use and Pain Scale

BACKGROUND

Many recent reports have described the efficacy and safety of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH). Here we investigated the extent to which this technique could reduce patients' experienced pain.

METHODS

Among donor left hepatectomy procedures performed between July 2011 and November 2022, we retrospectively analyzed 20 open donor hepatectomy (ODH), 20 laparoscopy-assisted donor hepatectomy (LADH), and 5 PLDH cases. We compared these 3 procedures regarding the total amount of postoperative analgesic use (narcotics and non-narcotics) and the first date when the donor was completely pain-free, as evaluated by the patients using a pain scale.

RESULTS

Total postoperative fentanyl use did not significantly differ among the 3 procedures: median (range), ODH, 0.5 mg (0-2 mg); LADH 1.2 mg (0-7 mg); PLDH, 0.5 mg (0-3.5; P = .172). The percentage of patients who completely discontinued analgesics on postoperative day (POD) 5 was significantly higher for PLDH (80%) than for ODH (35%) or LADH (20%) (P = .041). The day when 50% of donors were completely pain-free on a pain scale was POD9 for ODH, POD11 for LADH, and POD5 for PLDH, significantly shorter in the PLDH group (P = .004).

CONCLUSION

At our institution, we found that PLDH was a useful technique for postoperative pain management compared with PDH and LADH. Our results suggest that PLDH effectively reduces the duration of postoperative analgesia use. Further studies are warranted as the number of PLDH cases gradually increases.

Hospital Volume and Textbook Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hospital volume affects outcomes of patients who underwent resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We sought to assess the impact of minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) volume on short- and long-term outcomes among patients with HCC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MIH for HCC from 2010 to 2018 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Multivariable modeling with restricted cubic splines (RCS) was utilized to identify the MIH hospital volume threshold. Textbook outcome (TO) was defined as no conversion to open resection, negative margins after resection (R0), no extended length-of-stay, no readmission, and no 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Among 3268 patients who underwent MIH for HCC, median age was 65.0 (IQR 59.0-72.0) and the majority was male (n = 2308, 70.6%). MIH hospital volume ranged from 1 to 87 cases, with a median of 13 (IQR 7-23). Overall, 2151 (60.9%) patients achieved TO after resection. While particularly high rates of achievement were found for no 90-day mortality (n = 3106, 95.0%), no readmission (n = 3153, 96.5%), and R0 resection (n = 3,017, 92.3%), other TO components including no conversion to open (n = 2778, 85.0%) and no prolonged LOS (n = 2584, 79.1%) were achieved less frequently. Patients treated at high-volume centers (≥50 MIH cases) were more likely to experience TO (high volume centers, n = 334, 68.7% vs. low volume centers, n = 1656, 59.5%, p < 0.001) and better long-term survival (5-year OS; high volume centers, 64.7% vs. low volume centers, 54.6%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

MIH hospital volume was associated with a higher likelihood of achieving TO and improved long-term survival among patients undergoing resection of HCC.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Left and Extended Left Hepatectomy: An International Multicenter Study Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversies exist among liver surgeons regarding clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic versus the robotic approach for major complex hepatectomies. The authors therefore designed a study to examine and compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (L-LH/L-ELH) versus robotic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (R-LH/R-ELH) using a large international multicenter collaborative database.

METHODS

An international multicenter retrospective analysis of 580 patients undergoing L-LH/L-ELH or R-LH/R-ELH at 25 specialized hepatobiliary centers worldwide was undertaken. Propensity score-matching (PSM) was used at a 1:1 nearest-neighbor ratio according to 15 perioperative variables, including demographics, tumor characteristics, Child-Pugh score, presence of portal hypertension, multiple resections, histologic diagnosis, and Iwate difficulty grade.

RESULTS

Before the PSM, 190 (32 %) patients underwent R-LH/R-ELH, and 390 (68 %) patients underwent L-LH/L-ELH. After the matching, 164 patients were identified in each arm without significant differences in demographics, preoperative variables, medical history, tumor pathology, tumor characteristics, or Iwate score. Regarding intra- and postoperative outcomes, the rebotic approach had significantly less estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 ml [IQR 200 ml] vs 200 ml [IQR 235 ml]; p = 0.029), fewer conversions to open operations (n = 4 [2.4 %] vs n = 13, [7.9 %]; p = 0.043), and a shorter hospital stay (6 days [IQR 3 days] vs 7 days [IQR 3.3 days]; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Both techniques are safe and feasible in major hepatic resections. Compared with L-LH/L-ELH, R-LH/R-ELH is associated with less EBL, fewer conversions to open operations, and a shorter hospital stay.