Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection-comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center

Robot-assisted hemihepatectomy is superior to laparoscopic hemihepatectomy through dorsal approach: A propensity score-matched study (with videos)

BACKGROUND

Dorsal approach is the potentially effective strategy for minimally invasive liver resection. This study aimed to compare the outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic hemihepatectomy through dorsal approach.

METHODS

We compared the patients who underwent robot-assisted hemihepatectomy (Rob-HH) and who had laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (Lap-HH) through dorsal approach between January 2020 and December 2022. A 1:1 propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize bias and confounding factors.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients were included, 41 with Rob-HH and 55 with Lap-HH. Among them, 58 underwent left hemihepatectomy (LHH) and 38 underwent right hemihepatectomy (RHH). Compared with Lap-HH group, patients with Rob-HH had less estimated blood loss (median: 100.0 vs. 300.0 mL, P = 0.016), lower blood transfusion rates (4.9% vs. 29.1%, P= 0.003) and postoperative complication rates (26.8% vs. 54.5%, P = 0.016). These significant differences consistently existed after PSM and in the LHH subgroups. Furthermore, robot-assisted LHH was associated with decreased Pringle duration (45 vs. 60 min, P = 0.047). RHH subgroup analysis showed that compared with Lap-RHH, Rob-RHH was associated with less estimated blood loss (200.0 vs. 400.0 mL, P = 0.013). No significant differences were found in other perioperative outcomes among pre- and post-PSM cohorts, such as Pringle duration, operative time, and hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The dorsal approach was a safe and feasible strategy for hemi-hepatectomy with favorable outcomes under robot-assisted system in reducing intraoperative blood loss, transfusion, and postoperative complications.

An updated meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopy hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy in the treatment of liver tumors

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy (RALH) with laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in the treatment of liver tumors.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of English-language literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to June 2024. Studies comparing RALH and LH for liver tumors were identified, and after qualitative evaluation, a meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 software.

RESULTS

After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 articles were included, including 29,969 patients, with 5673 in the RALH group and 24,296 in the LH group. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the LH group, surgery time was longer in the RALH group (MD = 55.33; 95% CI: 34.84-75.83; P < .001), the conversion to open surgery rate was higher (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.05; P < .001), the total cost was higher (MD = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.14-0.73; P = .004), and the tumor diameter was larger (MD = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.24-0.49; P < .001). Additionally, the R1 resection rate was higher in the RALH group (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.06; P < .001). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative transfusion rate, hepatic hilar occlusion rate, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, mortality rate, malignancy rate, or R0 resection rate (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, RALH is safe and effective, although it is associated with higher total costs, increased blood transfusion rates, and longer operative times. However, there were no significant differences between RALH and LH in terms of other outcome indicators, suggesting that both procedures offer similar surgical efficacy and safety. Further clinical randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Initial Experience With Robotic Liver Resection in the United States

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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

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

Concomitant training in robotic and laparoscopic liver resections of low-to-intermediate difficulty score: a retrospective analysis of the learning curve

In the setting of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), training in robotic liver resections (RLR) usually follows previous experience in laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). The aim of our study was to assess the learning curve of RLR in case of concomitant training with LLR. We analyzed consecutive RLRs and LLRs by a surgeon trained simultaneously in both techniques (Surg1); while a second surgeon trained only in LLRs was used as control (Surg2). A regression model was used to adjust for confounders and a Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) analysis was carried out to assess the learning phases according to operative time and difficulty of the procedures (IWATE score). Two-hundred-forty-five procedures were identified (RobSurg1, n = 75, LapSurg1, n = 102, LapSurg2, n = 68). Mean IWATE was 4.0, 4.3 and 5.8 (p < 0.001) in each group. The CUSUM analysis of the adjusted operative times estimated the learning phase in 40 cases (RobSurg1), 40 cases (LapSurg1), 48 cases (LapSurg2); for IWATE score it was 38 cases (RobSurg1), 33 cases (LapSurg1), 38 cases (LapSurg2) respectively. Our preliminary experience showed a similar learning curve of 40 cases for low and intermediate difficulty RLR and LLR. Concomitant training in both techniques was safe and may be a practical option for starting a MILS program.

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.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection in posterosuperior region: a retrospective study of consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection of the posterosuperior region is considered a challenging procedure due to poor exposure and difficult bleeding control. A robotic approach is supposed to be advantageous in posterosuperior segmentectomy. Its benefits over laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) remain undetermined. This study compared robotic liver resection (RLR) and LLR in the posterosuperior region performed by a single surgeon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive RLR and LLR performed by a single surgeon between December 2020 and March 2022. Patient characteristics and perioperative variables were compared. A 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) analysis was performed between both groups.

RESULTS

The analysis included 48 RLR and 57 LLR procedures in the posterosuperior region. After PSM analysis, 41 cases of both groups were retained. In pre-PSM cohort, the operative time in the RLR group was significantly shorter than in the LLR group (160 vs. 208 min, P = 0.001), especially in radical resection of malignant tumors (176 vs. 231 min, P = 0.004). The total Pringle maneuver duration was also markedly shorter (40 vs. 51 min, P = 0.047), and the estimated blood loss in the RLR group was lower (92 vs. 150 mL, P = 0.005). The postoperative hospital stay (POHS) in the RLR group was significantly shorter (5.4 vs. 7.5 days, P = 0.048). In PSM cohort, operative time in the RLR group was also significantly shorter (163 vs. 193 min, P = 0.036), and the estimated blood loss was lower (92 vs. 144 mL, P = 0.024). However, the total Pringle maneuver duration and POHS showed no significant difference. The complications were similar between two groups in both pre-PSM and PSM cohorts.

CONCLUSION

RLR in the posterosuperior region was as safe and feasible as LLR. RLR was associated with reduced operative time and blood loss than LLR.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic liver surgery: clinical outcomes, learning curve effect, and cost-effectiveness

The reproducibility of the implementation of robotic liver surgery (RLS) is still debated. The aim of the present study is to evaluate short-term outcomes and cost differences during the implementation of RLS, performed by an early adopter in laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS). Patients undergoing RLS between February 2020 and May 2021 were included. Short-term outcomes of the robotic group (RG) were compared to the "Initial Phase" group (IP) of 120 LLS cases and the 120 most recent laparoscopic cases or "Mastery Phase" group (MP). A cost analysis per procedure for the three groups was performed. Seventy-one patients underwent RLS during the study period. Median operative time in the RG was comparable to the IP, but significantly shorter in the MP (140 vs 138 vs 120 min, p < 0.001). Median intraoperative blood loss in the RG was lower than in both laparoscopic groups (40 ml [20-90 ml] vs 150 ml [50-250 ml] vs 80 ml [30-150 ml], p < 0.001). Median hospital stay in the RG was significantly shorter than the IP group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative complication, conversion, or readmission rates. Procedural cost analysis was in favor of robotic surgery (€5008) compared to the IP (€ 6913) and the MP (€6099). Surgeons with sufficient experience in LLS can rapidly overcome the learning curve for RLS. In our experience, the short-term outcomes of the implementation phase of RLS are similar to the mastery phase of LLS. The total average cost per procedure is lower for RLS compared to LLS.

Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through international consensus conferences and the development of difficulty classifications. LLR has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for HCC. However, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, the elderly, HCC recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection must be considered for LLR for HCC. Some systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, and large cohort studies indicated that LLR is technically feasible for selected patients with HCC with these factors that led to less intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions and postoperative complication incidences, and shorter hospital stays than OLR. Furthermore, some reported LLR prevents postoperative loss of independence. No difference was reported in long-term outcomes among patients with HCC who underwent LLR and OLR; however, some recent reports indicated better long-term outcomes with LLR. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for HCC are not different from those of LLR. Additionally, RALR is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

Robotic major and minor hepatectomy: critical appraisal of learning curve and its impact on outcomes

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatectomy has gained increasing acceptance across the US. Although the robotic approach offers significant technical advantages, it is still bound by the individual surgeon's learning curve. Proficiency in this approach should theoretically lead to improved peri-operative outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2020, data on 148 consecutive robotic hepatectomies performed by a single surgeon was retrospectively analyzed. Using cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, intraoperative blood loss (EBL) and operative time were used to assess learning curves for robotic major (n = 58) and minor (n = 90) hepatectomy patients. Perioperative outcomes were compared in regards with proficiency.

RESULTS

Proficiency for robotic major and minor hepatectomy was achieved after 22 cases and 34 cases, respectively. No significant differences were observed in patient demographics or tumor characteristics. For robotic major hepatectomy, when compared to early experience, proficiency was associated with a significant improvement in mean EBL (242 mL vs 118 mL, p = 0.0004), operative time (330 min vs 247 min, p = 0.0002), decreased overall complication rate (23% vs 3%, p = 0.039), and length of hospital stay (5.7 days vs 4.1 days, p = 0.004). No difference in conversion rate, mortality or 30 day readmission was seen. For robotic minor hepatectomy, proficiency was associated with significantly decreased mean EBL (115 mL vs 54 mL, p = 0.005), operative time (168 vs 125 min, p = 0.014), and length of hospital stay (2.8 days vs 2.1 days, p = 0.021). No difference was observed in conversion rate, overall complications, mortality or 30 day readmission.

CONCLUSION

In the modern era, robotic hepatectomy offers a safe approach with excellent perioperative outcomes. Post learning curve proficiency is associated with significant improvements in perioperative outcomes in both major and minor hepatectomy. Results from our study can serve as a guide to surgeons and programs looking to adopt this technique.

Laparoscopic versus Robotic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, with a special focus on the meta-analysis method. Original studies were collected from three Chinese databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Our systematic review was conducted on 682 patients with robotic liver resection, and 1101 patients were operated by laparoscopic platform. Robotic surgery has a long surgical duration (MD = 43.99, 95% CI: 23.45-64.53, p = 0.0001), while there is no significant difference in length of hospital stay (MD = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.38-0.58, p = 0.69), blood loss (MD = -20, 95% CI: -64.90-23.34, p = 0.36), the incidence of conversion (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.41-1.69, p = 0.62), and tumor size (MD = 0.30, 95% CI: -0-0.60, p = 0.05); the subgroup analysis of major and minor hepatectomy on operation time is (MD = -7.08, 95% CI: -15.22-0.07, p = 0.09) and (MD = 39.87, 95% CI: -1.70-81.44, p = 0.06), respectively. However, despite the deficiencies of robotic hepatectomy in terms of extended operation time compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy is still effective and equivalent to laparoscopic hepatectomy in outcomes. Scientific evaluation and research on one portion of the liver may produce more efficacity and more precise results. Therefore, more clinical trials are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Does Robotic Liver Surgery Enhance R0 Results in Liver Malignancies during Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery?—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Robotic procedures are an integral part of modern liver surgery. However, the advantages of a robotic approach in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic approach are the subject of controversial debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic and laparoscopic liver resection with particular attention to the resection margin status in malignant cases. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Cochrane Library in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Only studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resections were considered for this meta-analysis. Furthermore, the rate of the positive resection margin or R0 rate in malignant cases had to be clearly identifiable. We used fixed or random effects models according to heterogeneity. Results: Fourteen studies with a total number of 1530 cases were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Malignancies were identified in 71.1% (n = 1088) of these cases. These included hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal liver metastases and other malignancies of the liver. Positive resection margins were noted in 24 cases (5.3%) in the robotic group and in 54 cases (8.6%) in the laparoscopic group (OR = 0.71; 95% CI (0.42–1.18); p = 0.18). Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group (MD = 6.92; 95% CI (2.93–10.91); p = 0.0007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robotic procedure (MD = 28.12; 95% CI (3.66–52.57); p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches regarding the intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, overall and severe complications and conversion rate. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the robotic and laparoscopic procedures regarding the resection margin status. Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group. However, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate the benefits of robotics in liver surgery.

Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. However, the added benefit of the robotic platform over conventional laparoscopy is a matter of ongoing investigation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an up-to-date and balanced evaluation of the benefits and shortcomings of robotic liver surgery for the modern hepatobiliary surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Advantages of a robotic approach to liver resection include a shortened learning curve, the ability to complete more extensive or complex minimally invasive operations, and integrated fluorescence guidance. However, the robotic platform remains limited by a paucity of parenchymal transection devices, complete lack of haptic feedback, and added operating time associated with docking and instrument exchange. Like laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy may provide patients with more rapid recovery and a shorter hospital stay, which can help offset the substantial costs of robot acquisition and maintenance. The oncologic outcomes of robotic hepatectomy appear to be equivalent to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for appropriately selected patients.

Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-CRLM)

(1) Background: Here we report on a retrospective study of an international multicentric cohort after minimally invasive liver resection (SIMMILR) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) from six centers. (2) Methods: Resections were divided by the approach used: open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR). Patients with macrovascular invasion, more than three metastases measuring more than 3 cm or a solitary metastasis more than 5 cm were excluded, and any remaining heterogeneity found was further analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) to decrease any potential bias. (3) Results: Prior to matching, 566 patients underwent OLR, 462 LLR and 36 RLR for CRLM. After PSM, 142 patients were in each group of the OLR vs. LLR group and 22 in the OLR vs. RLR and 21 in the LLR vs. RLR groups. Blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity rates were all highly statistically significantly increased in the OLR compared to the LLR group, 636 mL vs. 353 mL, 9 vs. 5 days and 25% vs. 6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Only blood loss was significantly decreased when RLR was compared to OLR and LLR, 250 mL vs. 597 mL, and 224 mL vs. 778 mL, p < 0.008 and p < 0.04, respectively. (4) Conclusions: SIMMILR indicates that minimally invasive approaches for CRLM that follow the Milan criteria may have short term advantages. Notably, larger studies with long-term follow-up comparing robotic resections to both OLR and LLR are still needed.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Primary Hepatobiliary Tumors-Possibilities and Limitations

Simple Summary

Primary liver malignancies are some of the most common and fatal tumors today. Robotic-assisted liver surgery is becoming increasingly interesting for both patients and surgeons alike. Up to date, prospective comparative studies around the topic are scarce. This leads us to an ever existing controversy about the efficacy, safety, and economic benefits of robotic surgery as an extension of traditional minimally invasive surgery over open liver surgery. However, there is evidence that robotic-assisted surgery is, after passing the learning curve, equivalent in terms of feasibility and safety, and in some cases superior to traditional laparoscopic hepatic resection. With this work, we want to provide an overview of the latest and most significant reviews and meta-analyses focusing on robotic hepatectomy in primary liver malignancies. We outline the technical aspects of robotic-assisted surgery and place them into the context of technical, surgical, and oncological outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open resection. When chosen per case individually, any hepatic resection can be performed robotically to overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery by an experienced team. In this paper, we propose that prospective studies are needed to prove efficacy for robotic-assisted resection in liver malignancy.

Abstract

Hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma are fatal primary hepatic tumors demanding extensive liver resection. Liver surgery is technically challenging due to the complex liver anatomy, with an intensive and variant vascular and biliary system. Therefore, major hepatectomies in particular are often performed by open resection and minor hepatectomies are often performed minimally invasively. More centers have adopted robotic-assisted surgery, intending to improve the laparoscopic surgical limits, as it offers some technical benefits such as seven degrees of freedom and 3D visualization. The da Vinci^® Surgical System has dominated the surgical robot market since 2000 and has shown surgical feasibility, but there is still much controversy about its economic benefits and real benefits for the patient over the gold standard. The currently available retrospective case studies are difficult to compare, and larger, prospective studies and randomized trials are still urgently missing. Therefore, here we summarize the technical, surgical, and economic outcomes of robotic versus open and laparoscopic hepatectomies for primary liver tumors found in the latest literature reviews and meta-analyses. We conclude that complex robotic liver resections (RLR) are safe and feasible after the steep learning curve of the surgical team has plateaued. The financial burden is lower in high volume centers and is expected to decrease soon as new surgical systems will enter the market.