Robotic versus laparoscopic resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver: a propensity score-matched comparison

Robotic Hepatic Parenchymal Transection Techniques: A Choice Between Imperfect Tools

Regardless of approach, safe and effective parenchymal transection is critical for hepatectomies.1 In robotic surgery, this can be accomplished via several methods. The authors highlight some of the more common tools and techniques used to transect the liver. The Vessel Sealer Extend is a console-controlled device with bipolar energy, mechanical cutting, full-wristed articulation, and grasping abilities that allow it to replicate the clamp-crush technique while sealing small vessels. However, the jaw is bulky and suboptimal for firm/fibrotic livers.2,3 The Synchroseal shares many features of the Vessel Sealer Extend but has thinner jaws, making it easier to advance in firm livers, and lacks a cutting blade, relying instead on a cut electrode to divide tissue. Proteinaceous char can accumulate on the jaws, impairing its effectiveness, but intermittent irrigation can mitigate this. The robotic Harmonic Scalpel coagulates, transects, and precisely dissects parenchyma. However, it is limited in length and lacks wristed articulation.4,5 Ultrasonic surgical aspiratory devices allow for precise, atraumatic dissection around vasculobiliary structures, but no robotic-integrated versions currently exist. Therefore, application of this technology in robotic surgery requires an experienced bedside assistant operating the laparoscopic version while the console surgeon uses robotic instruments to coagulate, clip, and divide larger structures.6-9 The dual bipolar technique is useful for spot coagulation and dissection but has limited transection ability.10 It often is an adjunct to other transection techniques.11-13 Several methods exist for robotic parenchymal transection, and although none are perfect, they can be combined for safe and effective transection.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for posterosuperior segments: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy for difficult lesions located in posterosuperior segments (segments I, IVa, VII and VIII) remains challenging. The value of robotic liver resection (RLR) compared with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for posterosuperior segments is controversial. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to validate the safety and efficacy of RLR in posterosuperior segments.

METHODS

The Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched to identify available research published up to October 2023. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan software version 5.3.

RESULTS

Six studies with a total of 2289 patients (RLR: n = 749; LLR: n = 1540) were included in this meta-analysis. The RLR group had less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -119.54 ml, 95% CI: -178.89 to -60.19, P < 0.0001), fewer blood transfusions (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.80, P = 0.001), a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.61, P < 0.0001), and a shorter operative time (WMD = -27.16 min, 95% CI: -35.95 to -18.36, P < 0.00001).

DISCUSSION

Compared with LLR, RLR for lesions in the posterosuperior segments could be safe and effective, and it has superior surgical outcomes.

Robotic Major Hepatectomy in Elderly Patient

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic Complete ALPPS (rALPPS)-First German Experiences

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Awake robotic liver surgery: A case report

BACKGROUND

In recent years, minimally invasive liver resection has become a standard of care for liver tumors. Considering the need to treat increasingly fragile patients, general anesthesia is sometimes avoided due to respiratory complications. Therefore, surgical treatment with curative intent is abandoned in favor of a less invasive and less radical approach. Epidural anesthesia has been shown to reduce respiratory complications, especially in elderly patients with pre-existing lung disease.

CASE SUMMARY

A 77-year-old man with hepatitis-C-virus-related chronic liver disease underwent robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. The patient was suffering from hypertension, diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program score for developing pneumonia was 9.2%. We planned a combined spinal-epidural anesthesia with conscious sedation to avoid general anesthesia. No modification of the standard surgical technique was necessary. Hemodynamics were stable and bleeding was minimal. The postoperative course was uneventful.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery in locoregional anesthesia with conscious sedation could be considered a safe and suitable approach in specialized centers and in selected patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Role of preoperative 3D rendering for minimally invasive parenchyma sparing liver resections

BACKGROUND

3D rendering (3DR) represents a promising approach to plan surgical strategies. The study aimed to compare the results of minimally invasive liver resections (MILS) in patients with 3DR versus conventional 2D CT-scan.

METHODS

We performed 118 3DR for various indications; the patients underwent a preoperative tri-phasic CT-scan and rendered with Synapse3D® Software. Fifty-six patients undergoing MILS with pre-operative 3DR were compared to a similar cohort of 127 patients undergoing conventional pre-operative 2D CT-scan using the propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

RESULTS

The 3DR mandated pre-operative surgical plan variations in 33.9% cases, contraindicated surgery in 12.7%, providing a new surgical indication in 5.9% previously excluded cases. PSM identified 39 patients in both groups with comparable results in terms of conversion rates, blood loss, blood transfusions, parenchymal R1-margins, grade ≥3 Clavien-Dindo complications, 90-days mortality, and hospital stay respectively in 3DR and conventional 2D. Operative time was significantly increased in the 3DR group (402 vs. 347 min, p = 0.020). Vascular R1 resections were 25.6% vs 7.7% (p = 0.068), while the conversion rate was 0% vs 10.2% (p = 0.058), respectively, for 3DR group vs conventional 2D.

CONCLUSION

3DR may help in surgical planning increasing resectability rate while reducing conversion rates, allowing the precise identification of anatomical landmarks in minimally invasive parenchyma-preserving liver resections.

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.

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection for cavernous hemangioma: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques have increasingly been adopted for liver resection. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for liver cavernous hemangioma and to evaluate the treatment feasibility and safety.

METHODS

A retrospective study of prospectively collected data was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent RALR (n = 43) and LLR (n = 244) for liver cavernous hemangioma between February 2015 and June 2021 at our institution. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter (P = 0.016) in the RALR group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rates, conversion to open surgery or complication rates. There was no perioperative mortality. Multivariate analysis showed that hemangiomas located in posterosuperior liver segments and those in close proximity to major vascular structures were independent predictors of increased intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.013 and P = 0.001, respectively). For patients with hemangioma in close proximity to major vascular structures, there were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between the two groups, with the exception that intraoperative blood loss in the RALR group was significantly less than that in the LLR group (350 ml vs. 450 ml, P = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Both RALR and LLR were safe and feasible for treating liver hemangioma in well-selected patients. For patients with liver hemangioma in close proximity to major vascular structures, RALR was better than conventional laparoscopic surgery in reducing intraoperative blood loss.

Robotic liver resection in the posterosuperior segments as a way to extent the mini-invasive arsenal: a comparison with transthoracic laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

The field of robotic liver resection (RLR) has developed in the past decades. This technique seems to improve the access to the posterosuperior (PS) segments. Evidence of a possible advantage over transthoracic laparoscopy (TTL) is not yet available. We aimed to compare RLR to TTL for tumors located in the PS segments of the liver in terms of feasibility, difficulty scoring, and outcome.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared patients undergoing robotic liver resections and transthoracic laparoscopic resections of the PS segments between January 2016 and December 2022 in a high-volume HPB center. Patients' characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 30 RLR and 16 TTL were included. Only wedge resections were performed in the TTL group, while 43% of the patients in the RLR group had an anatomical resection (p < 0.001). The difficulty score according to the IWATE difficulty scoring system was significantly higher in the RLR group (p < 0.001). Total operative time was similar between the two groups. Complication rates, either overall or major, were comparable between the two techniques and hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RLR group. Patients in the TTL group were found to have more pulmonary complications (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

RLR may provide some advantages over TTL for the resection of tumors located in the PS segments.

A Comparison between Open and Minimally Invasive Techniques for the Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastasis

The liver is the most common site of colorectal cancer metastasis. Liver surgery is a cornerstone in treatment, with progressive expansion of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). This study aims to compare short- and long-term outcomes of open surgery and MIS for the treatment of colorectal adenocarcinoma liver metastasis during the first three years of increasing caseload and implementation of MIS use in liver surgery. All patients treated between November 2018 and August 2021 at Careggi Teaching Hospital in Florence, Italy, were prospectively entered into a database and retrospectively reviewed. Fifty-one patients were resected (41 open, 10 MIS). Considering that patients with a significantly higher number of lesions underwent open surgery and operative results were similar, postoperative morbidity rate and length of hospital stay were significantly higher in the open group. No differences were found in the pathological specimen. The postoperative mortality rate was 2%. Mean overall survival and disease-free survival were 46 months (95% CI 42-50) and 22 months (95% CI 15.6-29), respectively. The use of minimally invasive techniques in liver surgery is safe and feasible if surgeons have adequate expertise. MIS and parenchymal sparing resections should be preferred whenever technically feasible.

Limited liver resections in the posterosuperior segments: international multicentre propensity score-matched and coarsened exact-matched analysis comparing the laparoscopic and robotic approaches

Background

Limited liver resections (LLRs) for tumours located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver are technically demanding procedures. This study compared outcomes of robotic (R) and laparoscopic (L) LLR for tumours located in the posterosuperior liver segments (IV, VII, and VIII).

Methods

This was an international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients who underwent R-LLR or L-LLR at 24 centres between 2010 and 2019. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed; 1 : 3 propensity score matching (PSM) and 1 : 1 coarsened exact matching (CEM) were performed.

Results

Of 1566 patients undergoing R-LLR and L-LLR, 983 met the study inclusion criteria. Before matching, 159 R-LLRs and 824 L-LLRs were included. After 1 : 3 PSM of 127 R-LLRs and 381 L-LLRs, comparison of perioperative outcomes showed that median blood loss (100 (i.q.r. 40–200) versus 200 (100–500) ml; P = 0.003), blood loss of at least 500 ml (9 (7.4 per cent) versus 94 (27.6 per cent); P &lt; 0.001), intraoperative blood transfusion rate (4 (3.1 per cent) versus 38 (10.0 per cent); P = 0.025), rate of conversion to open surgery (1 (0.8 per cent) versus 30 (7.9 per cent); P = 0.022), median duration of Pringle manoeuvre when applied (30 (20–46) versus 40 (25–58) min; P = 0.012), and median duration of operation (175 (130–255) versus 224 (155–300); P &lt; 0.001) were lower in the R-LLR group compared with the L-LLR group. After 1 : 1 CEM of 104 R-LLRs with 104 L-LLRs, R-LLR was similarly associated with significantly reduced blood loss and a lower rate of conversion to open surgery.

Conclusion

Based on a matched analysis of well selected patients, both robotic and laparoscopic access could be undertaken safely with good outcomes for tumours in the posterosuperior liver segments.

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.

Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: −0.7 95%CI −1.0, −0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: −0.8 95%CI −1.4, −0.3), Clavien−Dindo complications I−II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.6 95%CI −1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.4 95%CI −0.8, −0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: −0.5 95%CI −0.9, −0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: −6.4 95%CI −11.3, −1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.

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

Importance

Laparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH).

Objective

To compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included.

Interventions

Robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results

Of 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P = .01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.0 [5.0-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.11 [7.52] days vs median [IQR], 7.0 [5.75-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.94 [8.99] days; P = .048). On subset analysis of cases performed between 2015 and 2020 after a center's learning curve (50 cases), robotic RH/ERH was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 6.0 [5.0-9.0] days vs 7.0 [6.0-9.75] days; P = .04) with a similar conversion rate (12 of 220 [7.6%] vs 17 of 220 [10.8%]; P = .46).

Conclusion and Relevance

Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with laparoscopic RH/ERH. The difference in open conversion rate was associated with a significant decrease for laparoscopic but not robotic RH/ERH after a center had mounted the learning curve. Use of robotic platform may help to overcome the initial challenges of minimally invasive RH/ERH.

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

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver resections RLR may have the ability to address some of the drawbacks of laparoscopic(L)LR but few studies have done a head-to-head comparison of the outcomes after anterolateral segment resections by the two techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted of 3202 patients who underwent minimally-invasive LR of the anterolateral liver segments at 26 international centres from 2005 to 2020. 2606 cases met study criteria of which there were 358 RLR and 1868 LLR. Peri-operative outcomes were compared between the two groups using a 1:3 Propensity Score Matched(PSM) and 1:1 Coarsened Exact Matched(CEM) analysis.

RESULTS

Patients matched after 1:3 PSM(261 RLR vs. 783 LLR) and 1:1 CEM(296 RLR vs. 296 LLR) revealed no significant differences in length of stay, readmission rates, morbidity, mortality and involvement of or close oncological margins. RLR surgeries were associated with significantly less blood loss(50ml vs. 100ml, p<0.001) and lower rates of open conversion on both PSM(1.5% vs. 6.8%, p=0.003) and CEM(1.4% vs. 6.4%, p=0.004) compared to LLR. Though PSM analysis showed RLR to have a longer operating time than LLR(170 min vs. 160 min, p=0.036), this difference proved to be insignificant on CEM(167 min vs. 163 min. p=0.575).

CONCLUSION

This multicentre international combined PSM and CEM study showed that both RLR and LLR have equivalent perioperative outcomes when performed in selected patients at high volume centres. The robotic approach was associated with significantly lower blood loss and allowed more surgeries to be completed in a minimally-invasive fashion.

The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdominal adhesions are a risk factor for conversion to open surgery. An advantage of robotic surgery is the lower rate of unplanned conversions. A systematic review was conducted using the terms “laparoscopic” and “robotic”. Inclusion criteria were: comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery; reporting data on conversion to open surgery for each group due to adhesions and studies including at least five patients in each group. The main outcomes were the conversion rates due to adhesions and surgeons’ expertise (novice vs. expert). The meta-analysis included 70 studies from different surgical specialities with 14,329 procedures (6472 robotic and 7857 laparoscopic). The robotic approach was associated with a reduced risk of conversion (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12–2.10, p = 0.007). The analysis of the procedures performed by “expert surgeons” showed a statistically significant difference in favour of robotic surgery (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03–2.12, p = 0.03). A reduced conversion rate due to adhesions with the robotic approach was observed in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.20–5.72, p = 0.02). The robotic approach could be a valid option in patients with abdominal adhesions, especially in the subgroup of those undergoing colorectal cancer resection performed by expert surgeons.

Three-Device (3D) Technique for Liver Parenchyma Dissection in Robotic Liver Surgery

Background: The implementation of robotics in liver surgery offers several advantages compared to conventional open and laparoscopic techniques. One major advantage is the enhanced degree of freedom at the tip of the robotic tools compared to laparoscopic instruments. This enables excellent vessel control during inflow and outflow dissection of the liver. Parenchymal transection remains the most challenging part during robotic liver resection because currently available robotic instruments for parenchymal transection have several limitations and there is no standardized technique as of yet. We established a new strategy and share our experience. Methods: We present a novel technique for the transection of liver parenchyma during robotic surgery, using three devices (3D) simultaneously: monopolar scissors and bipolar Maryland forceps of the robot and laparoscopic-guided waterjet. We collected the perioperative data of twenty-eight patients who underwent this procedure for minor and major liver resections between February 2019 and December 2020 from the Magdeburg Registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). Results: Twenty-eight patients underwent robotic-assisted 3D parenchyma dissection within the investigation period. Twelve cases of major and sixteen cases of minor hepatectomy for malignant and non-malignant cases were performed. Operative time for major liver resections (≥ 3 liver segments) was 381.7 (SD 80.6) min vs. 252.0 (70.4) min for minor resections (p < 0.01). Intraoperative measured blood loss was 495.8 (SD 508.8) ml for major and 256.3 (170.2) ml for minor liver resections (p = 0.090). The mean postoperative stay was 13.3 (SD 11.1) days for all cases. Liver surgery-related morbidity was 10.7%, no mortalities occurred. We achieved an R0 resection in all malignant cases. Conclusions: The 3D technique for parenchyma dissection in robotic liver surgery is a safe and feasible procedure. This novel method offers an advanced locally controlled preparation of intrahepatic vessels and bile ducts. The combination of precise extrahepatic vessel handling with the 3D technique of parenchyma dissection is a fundamental step forward to the standardization of robotic liver surgery for teaching purposing and the wider adoption of robotic hepatectomy into routine patient care.

Maturation of robotic liver resection during the last decade: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy techniques have developed rapidly since 2000. Pure laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become the primary approach for managing liver tumors and procuring donor organs for liver transplantation. Robotic liver resection (RLR) has emerged during the last decade. The technical status of RLR seems to be improving.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short-term clinical outcomes of LLR and RLR over two 5-year periods.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Medline, including the Cochrane Library. The following inclusion criteria were set for the meta-analysis: (1) Studies comparing LLR vs RLR; and (2) Studies that described clinical outcomes, such as the operative time, intraoperative bleeding, intraoperative conversion rate, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 25 articles were included in this meta-analysis after 40 articles had been subjected to full-text evaluations. The studies were divided into early (n = 14) and recent (n = 11) groups. In the recent group, the operative time did not differ significantly between LLR and RLR (P = 0.70), whereas in the early group the operative time of LLR was significantly shorter than that of RLR (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The initial disadvantages of RLR, such as its long operation time, have been overcome during the last 5 years. The other clinical outcomes of RLR are comparable to those of LLR. The cost and quality-of-life outcomes of RLR should be evaluated in future studies to promote its routine clinical use.

Systematic Review Comparing the Effectiveness of Robotic verse Laparoscopic Liver Surgery in Colorectal Liver Metastasis (CRLM)

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the world. The liver is the most common site of metastasis with 15 to 25% of patients presenting with synchronous colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). This study is aimed at evaluating the long- and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic CRLM surgery, and directly comparing their respective effectiveness. Methodology: A literature search was performed and all studies that reported on operative characteristics, oncological outcomes for CRLM, morbidity or mortality and cost-effectiveness on robotic or laparoscopic surgery were included. The study design was in keeping with the PRISMA guidelines. Results: From the initial 606 manuscripts identified, 19 studies were included in the final qualitative analysis. A total of 1340 patients with 1194 LLR (Laparoscopic Liver Resection) and 146 RLR (Robotic Liver Resection) cases were analysed. Within the LLR group, the average tumour size excised was 32.1 mm compared to the RLR group of 33.8 mm. The average operative time in the LLR was 193 min, CI of 95% (147.4 min to 238.6 min) compared to RLR 257 min, CI of 95% (201.5 min to 313.8 min) with a p-value < 0.0001. Estimated blood loss was lower in the RLR group (210 mL) compared with the LLR group (246 mL). Conclusion: Despite the higher operative cost, RLRs do not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss and excision of larger CRLMs. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favourable with LLRs. Our study has shown that robotic liver surgery is safe and feasible in well-selected patients.

Laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases - short- and long-term outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

For well-selected patients and procedures, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become the gold standard for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) when performed in specialized centers. However, little is currently known concerning patient-related and peri-operative factors that could play a role in survival outcomes associated with LLR for CRLM.

AIM

To provide an extensive summary of reported outcomes and prognostic factors associated with LLR for CRLM.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library using the keywords "colorectal liver metastases", "laparoscopy", "liver resection", "prognostic factors", "outcomes" and "survival". Only publications written in English and published until December 2019 were included. Furthermore, abstracts of which no accompanying full text was published, reviews, case reports, letters, protocols, comments, surveys and animal studies were excluded. All search results were saved to Endnote Online and imported in Rayyan for systematic selection. Data of interest were extracted from the included publications and tabulated for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 1064 articles retrieved by means of a systematic and grey literature search, 77 were included for qualitative analysis. Seventy-two research papers provided data concerning outcomes of LLR for CRLM. Fourteen papers were eligible for extraction of data concerning prognostic factors affecting survival outcomes. Qualitative analysis of the collected data showed that LLR for CRLM is safe, feasible and provides oncological efficiency. Multiple research groups have reported on the short-term advantages of LLR compared to open procedures. The obtained results accounted for minor LLR, as well as major LLR, simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection, LLR of posterosuperior segments, two-stage hepatectomy and repeat LLR for CRLM. Few research groups so far have studied prognostic factors affecting long-term outcomes of LLR for CRLM.

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR for CRLM provides good short- and long-term outcomes, independent of the complexity of the procedure.

Comprehensive analysis of laparoscopic, robotic, and open hepatectomy outcomes using the nationwide readmissions database

Although open resections have been the most prevalent method of hepatectomies in the United States, laparoscopic and robotic methods of liver resection have since gained significant traction. Given the augmenting role of minimally invasive techniques in liver resection, a study that explores and analyzes the surgical outcomes of the approaches mentioned above to liver resection on a national basis is warranted. A retrospective analysis was performed in this study using the 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). Patients who underwent liver resections via one of the following methods were selected and grouped: open, laparoscopic, or robotic. Our primary outcome variable of interest was the 45-day readmission rate. 11,186 patients were included in the analysis. The 45-day readmission rate was 13.5%, 12.9%, and 8.7% in the open, laparoscopic, and robotic groups, respectively (p < 0.001). A significantly lower complication rate (7.3%) was seen in the robotic group than its counterparts (11.4% in open vs. 9.1% in the laparoscopic group). Patients undergoing hepatectomies may benefit from the robotic approach given that it is associated with a shorter hospital length of stay and lower readmission rates.

Robotic minor hepatectomy: optimizing outcomes and cost of care

BACKGROUND

The advantages of robotic liver surgery are strongest for minor resections, where incision size drives recovery time, but cost remains a concern. We hypothesized that patients who underwent robotic minor liver resections would have superior peri-operative outcomes resulting in decreased cost.

METHODS

We queried the medical record and cost data for patients who underwent open or robotic minor (1-2 segment) liver resection from 1/2016-8/2019. Financial data were normalized to Medicare reimbursements.

RESULTS

There were 87 patients who underwent minor liver resections (robotic n = 46, open n = 41). Specimen size (173 ± 203 vs 257 ± 481 cm³), surgical duration (233 ± 87 vs 227 ± 83 min), estimated blood loss (187 ± 236 vs 194 ± 165 mL), and margin status (89% vs 93% R0) were similar for robotic and open resections respectively, yet complications (3/46, 7% vs 10/41, 24%, p = 0.02) and length of stay (2.2 ± 2.2 vs 6.2 ± 2.9, p < 0.001) were significantly lower for patients who underwent robotic resection. These factors contributed to minor robotic liver resections costing $534 less than open resections ($3597 ± 1823 vs $4131 ± 1532, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing robotic minor hepatectomy had superior peri-operative outcomes resulting in lower total cost of care when compared to open minor hepatectomy. Financial considerations should not adversely influence selection of a robotic approach for minor hepatectomy.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery are the most minimally invasive surgical approaches for the removal of liver lesions. Minor hepatectomy is a common surgical procedure. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies on robot-assisted vs. laparoscopicminor hepatectomy up to February, 2020. The odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies involving 751 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 297 patients were in the robot-assisted minor hepatectomy (RMH) group and 454 patients were in the LMH group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P = .43), transfusion rates (P = .14), length of hospital stay (P > .64), conversion rate (P = .62), R0 resection rate (P = .56), complications (P = .92), or mortaliy (P = .37) between the 2 groups. However, the RMH group was associated with a longer operative time (P = .0003), and higher cost (P < .00001) compared to the LMH group. No significant differences in overall survival or disease free survival between the 2 groups were observed. In the subgroup analysis of left lateral sectionectomies, RMH was still associated with a longer operative time, but no other differences in clinical outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although RMH is associated with longer operation times and higher costs, it exhibits the same safety and effectiveness as LMH. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials should now be considered to obtain better evidence for clinical consensus.

Hospitalization Costs and Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Liver Resections

INTRODUCTION

Most liver resections performed in the United States are open. With the ever-increasing role of robotic surgery, our study's role is to assess national outcomes based on the surgical approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the 2015 National Readmission Database (NRD). We selected patients undergoing open, laparoscopic, and robotic hepatectomy. Propensity score matching was performed to match the three groups in terms of demographics, hospital characteristics, and resection type. Our primary outcome was 6-month readmission rates and associated costs.

RESULTS

3,872 patients were included in the analysis (open = 3,420, laparoscopic = 343, and robotic = 109). Robotic liver resection has lower 6-month readmission rates (18.3%) than the laparoscopic (26.7%) and open (30%) counterparts. The robotic approach was more cost-effective ($127,716.56 ± 12,567.31) than the open ($157,880.82 ± 18,560.2) and laparoscopic approach ($152,060.78 ± 8,890.13) in terms of the total cost which includes cost per readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a financial benefit of using robotics in terms of cost, hospital length of stay, and readmission rates in patients undergoing liver resection, cost.

[Possibilities and limits of robotic liver surgery - Current status 2020]

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver surgery is now the standard procedure at experienced centers, whereby the techniques and strategies are continuously evolving.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An analysis of English language literature on minimally invasive and robotic liver surgery was performed. The current scientific status was summarized and evaluated on the basis of experience at our own center.

RESULTS

The advantages of the minimally invasive technique compared to the conventional open technique are shown in liver surgery by improved perioperative results. Concerns about intraoperative complications and possible compromises in oncological radicality have been addressed in a number of publications. First reports on the robot-assisted technique seem to confirm the known advantages of laparoscopic liver surgery. The data available on robot-assisted liver surgery are still limited due to the short period of experience of a few centers and do not yet allow final conclusions; however, an increase in intraoperative safety and an expansion of the surgical spectrum towards highly complex liver resections seems likely.

CONCLUSION

Even during the learning curve the known advantages of laparoscopic liver surgery seem to be confirmed also for robot-assisted liver surgery. According to the center's own experience, minimally invasive liver surgery will in future be meaningfully supplemented by robotic technology. In particular, technically highly complex resections with reconstruction are made possible.

Changing trends in hepatocellular carcinoma management: Results from a nationwide database in the last decade

OBJECTIVE

The therapeutic strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have greatly expanded in recent years. However, the actual usage of each of these treatments in clinical routine remains unknown. Here, we analysed the distribution and changes of the main surgical and radiological therapeutic procedures nationwide during the last decade.

METHODS

Retrospectively, analysis of the data on all >18-year-old patients with a diagnosis of HCC identified in the French Program for the Medicalization of Information Systems database that contains all discharge summaries from all French hospitals. The number and percentage of the therapeutic procedures performed from January 2010 to December 2019 were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 68,416 therapeutic procedures were performed in 34,000 HCC patients. Whereas HCC incidence remained stable, the annual number of procedures frankly increased over the decade (from 4267 to 8042). Trans-arterial chemoembolization was the most frequently performed technical procedure, with a double-digit annual growth from 2010 (n = 1932) to 2015 (n = 4085), before stabilization from 2016. Selective internal radiation therapy displayed the highest increase in the decade (+475%). Among curative treatments, the annual number of percutaneous tumour ablations more than doubled in 10 years, till representing 64% of curative treatments in cirrhotic patients in 2019. Surgical tumour resections showed a 1.5-fold increase in 10 years, due to the great increase in minimally invasive approaches, whereas the proportion of open resection progressively decreased.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive procedures have gained major importance in HCC management during the last decade. Percutaneous thermal ablation has emerged as the first curative treatment performed for patients with HCC.

Placenta previa with posterior extrauterine adhesion: clinical features and management practice

Background

A diagnostic sign on magnetic resonance imaging, suggestive of posterior extrauterine adhesion (PEUA), was identified in patients with placenta previa. However, the clinical features or surgical outcomes of patients with placenta previa and PEUA are unclear. Our study aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics of placenta previa with PEUA and determine whether an altered management strategy improved surgical outcomes.

Methods

This single institution retrospective study examined patients with placenta previa who underwent cesarean delivery between 2014 and 2019. In June 2017, we recognized that PEUA was associated with increased intraoperative bleeding; thus, we altered the management of patients with placenta previa and PEUA. To assess the relationship between changes in practice and surgical outcomes, a quasi-experimental method was used to examine the difference-in-difference before (pre group) and after (post group) the changes. Surgical management was modified as follows: (i) minimization of uterine exteriorization and adhesion detachment during cesarean delivery and (ii) use of Nelaton catheters for guiding cervical passage during Bakri balloon insertion. To account for patient characteristics, propensity score matching and multivariate regression analyses were performed.

Results

The study cohort (n = 141) comprised of 24 patients with placenta previa and PEUA (PEUA group) and 117 non-PEUA patients (control group). The PEUA patients were further categorized into the pre (n = 12) and post groups (n = 12) based on the changes in surgical management. Total placenta previa and posterior placentas were more likely in the PEUA group than in the control group (66.7% versus 42.7% [P = 0.04] and 95.8% versus 63.2% [P < 0.01], respectively). After propensity score matching (n = 72), intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the PEUA group (n = 24) than in the control group (n = 48) (1515 mL versus 870 mL, P < 0.01). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that PEUA was a significant risk factor for intraoperative bleeding before changes were implemented in practice (t = 2.46, P = 0.02). Intraoperative blood loss in the post group was successfully reduced, as opposed to in the pre group (1180 mL versus 1827 mL, P = 0.04).

Conclusions

PEUA was associated with total placenta previa, posterior placenta, and increased intraoperative bleeding in patients with placenta previa. Our altered management could reduce the intraoperative blood loss.

Long-Term and Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter, Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases as compared to a propensity-matched cohort of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). Although safety and short-term outcomes of RLR have been described and previously compared to LLR, long-term and oncologic data are lacking.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed of all patients who underwent RLR and LLR for CRC metastases at six high-volume centers in the USA and Europe between 2002 and 2017. Propensity matching was used to match baseline characteristics between the two groups. Data were analyzed with a focus on postoperative and oncologic outcomes, as well as long-term recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

RLR was performed in 115 patients, and 514 patients underwent LLR. Following propensity matching 115 patients in each cohort were compared. Perioperative outcomes including mortality, morbidity, reoperation, readmission, intensive care requirement, length-of-stay and margin status were not statistically different. Both prematching and postmatching analyses demonstrated similar overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between RLR and LLR at 5 years (61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.87, and 38 vs. 31% DFS, p = 0.25, prematching; 61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.78, and 38 vs. 44% DFS, p = 0.62, postmatching).

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity score matching with a large, multicenter database demonstrates that RLR for colorectal metastases is feasible and safe, with perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes and survival that are largely comparable to LLR.

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.

State of the art in robotic liver surgery: a meta-analysis

Although the number of robotic hepatectomy (RH) performed is increasing, few studies have reported its efficacy in comparison with the conventional surgical modalities. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative results of RH vs. open hepatectomy (OH) and RH vs. laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH). We systematically searched for English papers published in PubMed (Medline), Embase, and Cochrane library before March 1, 2020. A total of 39 papers and 2999 patients were eventually included. Among the included patients, 1249, 1010, and 740 underwent RH, LH, and OH, respectively. Compared with OH, the operation time was significantly increased but the intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, incidence of severe complications, and length of postoperative hospitalization were significantly reduced in patients with RH. However, there was no significant difference in the use of Pringle maneuver and overall incidence of complications. Compared with LH, the operation time was significantly increased, and the intraoperative blood loss was also more in RH. However, there were no differences in blood transfusion rate, use of Pringle maneuver, incidence of complications, incidence of severe complications, and length of postoperative hospitalization between the two groups. A longer operation time remains the main shortcoming of RH. However, based on the perioperative clinical efficacy, we conclude that RH is comparable to LH but is better than OH for selected patients.

Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As an emerging technology, robot-assisted surgical system has some potential merits in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted liver resection is still a controversial problem on its advantages compared with laparoscopic liver resection. We aimed to perform the meta-analysis to assess and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase databases, Clinicaltrials, and Opengrey through March 24, 2020, including references of qualifying articles. English-language, original investigations in humans about robot-assisted and laparoscopic hepatectomy were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers. Continuous and dichotomous variables were compared by the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR), respectively.

RESULTS

Of 936 titles identified in our original search, 28 articles met our criteria, involving 3544 patients. Compared with laparoscopy, the robot-assisted groups had longer operative time (WMD: 36.93; 95% CI, 19.74-54.12; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (OR: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87; P = 0.005), higher transfusion rate (WMD: 2.39; 95% CI, 1.51-3.76; P < 0.001) and higher total cost (WMD:0.49; 95% CI, 0.42-0.55; P < 0.001). In addition, the baseline characteristics of patients about largest tumor size was larger (WMD: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < 0.001) and malignant lesions rate was higher (WMD: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86; P < 0.001) in the robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. The subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 36.00; 95% CI, 12.59-59.41; P = 0.003), longer length of stay (WMD: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.02-1.01; p = 0.04) and higher total cost (WMD: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P < 0.001) (Table 3); while the subgroup analysis of major hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with lower estimated blood loss (WMD: -122.43; 95% CI, -151.78--93.08; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis revealed that robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time, lower conversion rate, higher transfusion rate and total cost, and robot-assisted has certain advantages in major hepatectomy compared with laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Robotic hepatic resection in postero-superior region of liver

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic hepatectomy in the posterosuperior hepatic region is technically challenging and demanding. However, minimally invasive procedures carried out using the Da Vinci robot provide potential advantages in complex hepatectomy. This study reported the experience of a single center on robotic hepatectomy in the posterosuperior hepatic region.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated the general characteristics and perioperative outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy in the posterosuperior hepatic region at our center from March 2015 to January 2020.

RESULTS

For 100 patients who were included into this study, 53 underwent anatomical segmentectomy or subsegmentectomy and 47 non-anatomical partial hepatectomy. There was no conversion to laparotomy. The R0 resection rate was 100%. The following perioperative outcomes were compared between patients who underwent anatomical segmentectomy/subsegmentectomy versus those who underwent non-anatomical partial hepatectomy: operation times of 160 versus 126 min, intraoperative blood losses of 100 versus 50 ml, intraoperative blood transfusion rates of 7.54% versus 4.26%, postoperative lengths of hospital stay of 5 versus 4 days, Clavien-Dindo Grade I-II complications rates of 15.09% versus 19.15%, Grade III-V complications rates of 3.77% versus 0%, bile leakage rates of 4% versus 7% and pleural effusion rates of also 4% versus 7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated the safety and feasibility of robotic anatomical and non-anatomical liver resections in the posterosuperior hepatic region. The robotic transabdominal approach is an option for hepatectomy in the posterosuperior hepatic region.

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.

Is minimally invasive surgery of lesions in the right superior segments of the liver justified? A multi-institutional study of 245 patients

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists regarding the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive resection for lesions in segments 7 or 8. We compare outcomes of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and Open parenchymal sparing liver resections at two high-volume centers.

METHODS

From 2003 to 2016 we identified patients who underwent MIS or Open resections for lesions in segments 7 or 8 at two institutions (MSKCC and SGH). Outcomes were compared using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and forty-five patients underwent resection of lesions in segments 7 or 8 (MIS 30% and Open 70%). Compared to the Open group, the MIS group had longer operative time (223 ± 88 vs 188 ± 72 minutes, P = .003), lower blood loss (297 ± 287 vs 448 ± 670 mL, P = .03), and shorter mean length of stay (5.2 ± 7.4 vs 8.3 ± 11.7 days, P < .001), which remained significant on multivariate analysis. No differences in Pringle time, rate of postoperative complications, or R0 resections were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

With appropriately selected patients treated by experienced MIS hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons, MIS resection of segments 7 or 8 is safe with similar rates of complications and R0 resections, with significantly less blood loss and shorter length of stay.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Liver Resections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model.

RESULT

Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.