Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: application of the difficulty scoring system

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-Assisted Versus Open Hemi-Hepatectomy: A Propensity Score Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The robotic-assisted surgical system has been widely used in hepatectomy. However, the effectiveness and feasibility of robotic-assisted hemi-hepatectomy (RH) has not been well-documented.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RH or open hemi-hepatectomy (OH) performed by a single surgeon at our hospital between January 2010 and August 2023 were included in this study. A stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 163 consecutive patients identified, 60 underwent RH, and 103 underwent OH. After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment, RH demonstrated less blood loss than OH. In subgroup analyses, robotic-assisted left hemi-hepatectomy was associated with a shorter postoperative stay, a lower postoperative complication rate, and less blood loss compared with open left hemi-hepatectomy. While robotic-assisted right hemi-hepatectomy (RRH) was associated with less blood loss and a lower intraoperative blood transfusion rate, but a longer operation time compared with open right hemi-hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

RH is a safe and effective technique. In addition to less blood loss, robotic-assisted left hemi-hepatectomy had advantages in postoperative complications and postoperative stay, while RRH had advantages in intraoperative blood transfusions. However, operation time was longer for RRH than for open right hemi-hepatectomy.

Factors Associated with and Impact of Open Conversion in Laparoscopic and Robotic Minor Liver Resections: An International Multicenter Study of 10,541 Patients

INTRODUCTION

Despite the increasing widespread adoption and experience in minimally invasive liver resections (MILR), open conversion occurs not uncommonly even with minor resections and as been reported to be associated with inferior outcomes. We aimed to identify risk factors for and outcomes of open conversion in patients undergoing minor hepatectomies. We also studied the impact of approach (laparoscopic or robotic) on outcomes.

METHODS

This is a post-hoc analysis of 20,019 patients who underwent RLR and LLR across 50 international centers between 2004-2020. Risk factors for and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analysed. Multivariate and propensity score-matched analysis were performed to control for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Finally, 10,541 patients undergoing either laparoscopic (LLR; 89.1%) or robotic (RLR; 10.9%) minor liver resections (wedge resections, segmentectomies) were included. Multivariate analysis identified LLR, earlier period of MILR, malignant pathology, cirrhosis, portal hypertension, previous abdominal surgery, larger tumor size, and posterosuperior location as significant independent predictors of open conversion. The most common reason for conversion was technical issues (44.7%), followed by bleeding (27.2%), and oncological reasons (22.3%). After propensity score matching (PSM) of baseline characteristics, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with successful MILR cases as evidenced by longer operative times, more blood loss, higher requirement for perioperative transfusion, longer duration of hospitalization and higher morbidity, reoperation, and 90-day mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple risk factors were associated with conversion of MILR even for minor hepatectomies, and open conversion was associated with significantly poorer perioperative outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver malignancies (ROC'N'ROLL): a single-centre, randomised, controlled, single-blinded clinical trial

Background

Robotic hepatectomy (RH) has been increasingly adopted for the treatment of liver malignancies despite lacking evidence from randomised trials. We aimed to determine the effect of RH compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) on quality of life in patients undergoing minimally invasive hepatectomy for liver malignancies.

Methods

This single-blinded, randomised trial was conducted at a tertiary care academic centre (DRKS00027531). Patients with resectable liver malignancies were assessed for eligibility and randomly assigned to either RH or LH with stratification by type of malignancy and difficulty of resection. Patients were blinded to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the mean quality of life within 90 days after surgery, measured with the role functioning scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included operating time, morbidity, blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative recovery, and resection margin status.

Findings

Between February 21, 2022, and Sep 18, 2023, 80 patients (RH: n = 41, LH: n = 39) were included and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Role functioning scores did not differ between RH and LH (mean [SD], 74.3 [23.3] versus 79.6 [22.3]; mean difference -5.3, 95% CI -15.6 to 5.1, p = 0.547). The comprehensive complication index was not significantly different between the study groups (8.9 [23.1] versus 15.5 [23.9], p = 0.137). There were no differences in other perioperative outcomes.

Interpretation

RH yielded similar outcomes in quality of life and can be considered a safe alternative to LH.

Funding

None.

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.

Comparison of clinical outcome between laparoscopic and open hepatectomy of high difficulty score for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of high difficulty score is technically challenging. There is a lack of clinical evidence to support its applicability in terms of the long-term survival benefits. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes between LLR and the open liver resection of high difficulty score for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2010 to 2020, using Iwate criteria, 424 patients underwent liver resection of high difficulty score by the laparoscopic (n = 65) or open (n = 359) approach. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed between the two groups. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared between PS-matched groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors affecting survival.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic group had significantly fewer severe complications (3% vs. 10.8%), and shorter median hospital stays (6 days vs. 8 days) than the open group. Meanwhile, the long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between the two groups, in terms of the tumor recurrence rate (40% vs. 46.1%), the 5-year overall survival rate (75.4% vs. 76.2%), and the 5-year recurrence-free survival rate (50.3% vs. 53.5%). The high preoperative serum alpha-fetoprotein level, multiple tumors, and severe postoperative complications were the independent poor prognostic factors associated with worse overall survival. The surgical approach (Laparoscopic vs. Open) did not influence the survival.

CONCLUSION

LLR of high difficulty score for selected patients with HCC has better short-term outcomes than the open approach. More importantly, it can achieve similar long-term survival outcomes as the open approach.

Early outcomes of single-port robotic left lateral sectionectomy in patients with hepatic tumor

Purpose

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) stands as a cornerstone procedure in hepatobiliary minimal surgery, frequently employed for various benign and malignant liver lesions. This study aimed to analyze the peri- and postoperative surgical outcomes of single-port robotic left lateral sectionectomy (SPR-LLS) vs. those of L-LLS in patients with hepatic tumors.

Methods

From January 2020 through June 2023, 12 patients underwent SPR-LLS. During the same period, 30 L-LLS procedures were performed. In total, 12 patients in the robotic group and 24 patients in the laparoscopic group were matched.

Results

When the SPR-LLS and L-LLS groups were compared, the operation time was longer in the SPR-LLS group with less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Postoperative complications were observed in 3 patients in the L-LLS group (12.5%) and 1 patient in the SPR-LLS group (8.3%).

Conclusion

SPR-LLS using the da Vinci SP system was comparable to laparoscopic LLS in terms of surgical outcomes. SPR-LLS was associated with lower blood loss and less postoperative length of stay compared to L-LLS. These findings suggest that left lateral sectionectomy is technically feasible and safe with the da Vinci SP system in select patients.

[The Russian consensus on the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma]

The Russian consensus on the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma was prepared by the group of experts consisting of surgeons, interventional radiologists, radiation therapists and oncologists. The purposes of this consensus are clarification and consolidation of opinions of multidisciplinary team on the following issues of management of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: indications for surgical treatment, features of therapeutic tactics for mechanical jaundice, technical aspects of liver resection, prevention of post-resection liver failure, indications for liver resection using transplantation technologies, laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resection, perioperative systemic chemotherapy, local non-resection/non-radiotherapy methods of treatment, radiotherapy, follow-up and choice of treatment for recurrence.

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.

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.

Robotic hepatectomy: current evidence and future directions

Minimally invasive hepatectomy continues to gain popularity and acceptance for treatment of benign and malignant liver disease. Robotic hepatectomy offers potential advantages over open and conventional laparoscopic approaches. Review of the literature on robotic hepatectomy was performed. Search terms included "robotic hepatectomy" and "minimally invasive hepatectomy." Search was further customized to include articles related to robotic surgical technology. Across many parameters in liver surgery, robotic liver resection appears to have comparable outcomes with respect to laparoscopic resection. The benefits over open resection are largely related to less morbidity and faster recovery times. There is evidence that the robotic approach may have a shorter learning curve and enable more difficult resections to be performed minimally invasively. The robotic platform may have the potential to achieve superior margin status or parenchymal sparing resection in oncologic resections, but numerous obstacles remain. The robotic platform has not been applied to liver surgery to the same extent as either laparoscopic or open surgery. Robotic surgical technology will need to continue developing to deliver on its potential advantages.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches

INTRODUCTION

Despite the advances in minimally invasive (MI) liver surgery, most major hepatectomies (MHs) continue to be performed by open surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and outcomes of open conversion during MI MH, including the impact of the type of approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) on the occurrence and outcomes of conversions.

METHODS

Data on 3880 MI conventional and technical (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) MHs were retrospectively collected. Risk factors and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analyzed. Multivariate analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis were performed to control for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Overall, 3211 laparoscopic MHs (LMHs) and 669 robotic MHs (RMHs) were included, of which 399 (10.28%) had an open conversion. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that male sex, laparoscopic approach, cirrhosis, previous abdominal surgery, concomitant other surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3/4, larger tumor size, conventional MH, and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification III procedures were associated with an increased risk of conversion. After matching, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with non-converted cases, as evidenced by the increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative morbidity/major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality. Although RMH showed a decreased risk of conversion compared with LMH, converted RMH showed increased blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality compared with converted LMH.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple risk factors are associated with conversion. Converted cases, especially those due to intraoperative bleeding, have unfavorable outcomes. Robotic assistance seemed to increase the feasibility of the MI approach, but converted robotic procedures showed inferior outcomes compared with converted laparoscopic procedures.

Development and validation of a preoperative difficulty scoring system for endoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor: a multi-center study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection (ER) is a promising technique for resecting gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gGISTs); however, ER is technically challenging. This study aimed to develop and validate a difficulty scoring system (DSS) to determine the difficulty for ER of a gGIST.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 555 patients with gGISTs in multi-centers from December 2010 to December 2022. Data on patients, lesions, and outcomes of ER were collected and analyzed. A difficult case was defined as an operative time ≥ 90 min, or the occurrence of severe intraoperative bleeding, or conversion to laparoscopic resection. The DSS was developed in the training cohort (TC) and validated in the internal validation cohort (IVC) and external validation cohort (EVC).

RESULTS

The difficulty occurred in 97 cases (17.5%). The DSS comprised the following: tumor size ≥ 3.0 cm (3 points) or 2.0-3.0 cm (1 point); location in the upper third of the stomach (2 points); invasion depth beyond the muscularis propria (2 points); lack of experience (1 point). The area under the curve (AUC) of DSS in IVC and EVC was 0.838 and 0.864, respectively, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.923 and 0.972, respectively. The proportions of difficult operation in easy (score 0-3), intermediate (score 4-5), and difficult (score 6-8) categories were 6.5%, 29.4%, and 88.2% in the TC, 7.7%, 45.8%, and 85.7% in the IVC, and 7.0%, 29.4%, and 85.7% in the EVC, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and validated a preoperative DSS for ER of gGISTs based on tumor size, location, invasion depth, and endoscopists' experience. This DSS can be used to grade the technical difficulty before surgery.

Minimally invasive versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis of 224 patients

PURPOSE

To compare the peri-operative and long-term survival outcomes of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) (robotic or laparoscopic) with open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent liver resection for HCC were reviewed from a prospectively collected database. Outcomes of MILR were compared with those of OLR. A propensity score matching analysis with a ratio of 1:1 was performed to minimise the potential bias in clinical pathological factors.

RESULTS

From January 2003 to December 2017, a total of 705 patients underwent liver resection for HCC. Amongst them, 112 patients received MILR and 593 patients received OLR. After propensity score matching, there were 112 patients in each of the MILR and OLR groups. Patients were matched by age, sex, hepatitis status, presence of cirrhosis, platelet count, albumin level, bilirubin level, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level, alanine transferase (ALT) level, creatinine level, tumour differentiation, tumour size, tumour number, presence of tumour rupture, presence of vascular invasion, extent of liver resection (minor/major) and difficulty score. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 94.4%, 90.4% and 82.3% in the MILR group vs 95.4%, 80.5% and 71.8% in the open group (p = 0.240). The 1-, 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 81.0%, 63.1% and 55.8% in the MILR group vs 79.1%, 58.1% and 45.7 in the open group (p = 0.449). The MILR group demonstrated significantly less blood loss (p < 0.001), less blood transfusion (p = 0.004), lower post-operative complications (p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) when compared with the OLR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data shows MILR yielded superior post-operative outcomes to OLR, with comparable survival outcomes.

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.

A novel difficulty scoring system of laparoscopic liver resection for liver tumor

Objectives

To develop a novel difficulty scoring system (NDSS) to predict the surgical difficulty of laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Patients and methods

A total of 138 patients with liver tumors performed liver resection (LLR) between March 2017 to June 2022 were selected from Affiliated Hospital of Jiangnan University and Wujin Hospital Affiliated with Jiangsu University.

Patient demographics, laboratory tests, intraoperative variables, pathological characteristics were assessed. We also assessed the Child Pugh score and the DSS-B score.

Results

Patients were divided into training and testing cohort according to their hospital. Patients in training cohort were divided into high and low difficult groups based on operation time, blood loss and conversion. Higher percentage of patients with malignant liver tumor (87.0% vs. 58.1%; P = 0.003) or history of hepatobiliary surgery (24.1% vs. 7.0%; P = 0.043) in high difficult group than in low difficult group. To improve the difficulty scoring system, we incorporated the history of hepatobiliary surgery and nature of the tumor. A novel difficulty scoring system was established. The results showed that the operation time (P < 0.001), blood loss (P < 0.001), ALT (P < 0.001) and AST (P = 0.001) were associated with the novel difficulty score significantly. Compared with DSS-B, the NDSS has a higher area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) (0.838 vs. 0.814). The nomogram was established according to the NDSS. The AUROCs of the nomogram in training and testing cohort were 0.833 and 0.767. The calibration curves for the probability of adverse event showed optimal agreement between the probability as predicted by the nomogram and the actual probability.

Conclusions

We developed a nomogram with the NDSS that can predict the difficulty of LLR. This system could more accurately reflect the difficulty of surgery and help liver surgeons to make the surgical plan and ensure the safety of the operation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic liver resection in ordinary cases of left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy was considered the standard method of left lateral sectionectomy. The robotic approach showed advantages in complex cases of left lateral sectionectomy. However, the impact of the robotic system on ordinary cases is still unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive robotic left lateral sectionectomy (R-LLS) and laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) from January 2015 to December 2019. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the effects of surgical method and surgical complexity on postoperative length of stay, surgical and overall cost.

RESULTS

258 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy were analyzed. L-LLS had comparable outcomes and decreased surgery (USD 2416.3 vs 4624.5; p < 0.001) and overall costs (USD 8004.5 vs 11897.1; p < 0.001) compared with R-LLS in the ordinary-case group, whereas R-LLS was associated with shorter postoperative LOS (5.0 vs 3.5 days; p = 0.004) in the complex-case group. On multivariable analysis, R-LLS was predictive of shorter postoperative LOS [odds ratio (OR) 0.388, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.198-0.760, p = 0.006], whereas R-LLS was predictive of higher surgery (OR 65.640, 95% CI 17.406-247.535, p < 0.001) and overall costs (OR 102.233, 95% CI 22.241-469.931, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Results of this study showed no clinical benefit to the R-LLS compared with L-LLS in ordinary cases. R-LLS had potential advantages in selected complex cases.

Minimally invasive versus open living donors right hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive technology has been widely used in hepatectomy, it remains controversial with regards to liver transplantation, especially in donors right hepatectomy. Herein, we compared the short-term safety and efficacy of minimally invasive donors right hepatectomy (MIDRH) with open donors right hepatectomy (ODRH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library database in order to identify comparison studies of MIDRH and ODRH. Next, we obtained the relevant data, and carried out the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 12 studies, which included 1755 cases that underwent donors right hepatectomy. Compared to ODRH, patients that underwent MIDRH had less bleeding (SWD = -0.52, p<0.001), shorter hospital stays (SWD = -0.58, p < 0.001) and lower overall postoperative complications of donors (RR = 0.74, p = 0.008). However, MIDRH was found to be associated with prolonged operative times (SWD = 0.74, p < 0.001), as well as a higher rate of biliary complications in donors (RR = 2.26, p = 0.007) and recipients (RR = 1.69, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between MIDRH and ODRH in postoperative liver function, rate of major complications and vascular complications of both donors and recipients and overall postoperative complications.

DISCUSSION

MIDRH is superior to ODRH with regards to intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay and overall donor complications. Although biliary-related complications are higher, it is feasible to develop MIDRH in experienced liver transplant centers. However, higher-quality research is still needed for corroboration.

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.

Robotic Surgery: At the Crossroads of a Data Explosion

BACKGROUND

For the last 20 years, controversies in robotic surgery focused on cost reduction, development of new platforms and technologies, creation and validation of curriculum and virtual simulators, and conduction of randomized clinical trials to determine the best applications of robotics [Leal Ghezzi and Campos in World J Surg 40:2550-2557, 2016].

METHODS

This review explores the robotic systems which are currently indicated for use or development in gastrointestinal/abdominal surgery. These systems are reviewed and analyzed for clinical impact in these areas. In a MEDLINE search of articles with the search terms abdominal, gastrointestinal, review and robotic surgery, a total of 4306 total articles as of 2021 were assessed. Publicly available information, highest cited articles and reviews were assessed by the authors to determine the most significant regarding clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Despite this increased number of articles related to robotic surgery, ongoing controversies have led to limitation in the use of current and future robotic surgery platforms [Connelly et al. in J Robotic Surg 14:155-165, 2020]. Newer robotic platforms have limited studies or analysis that would allow meaningful definite conclusions. A multitude of new scenarios are possible due to this limited information.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is in evolution to a larger conceptual field of computationally enhanced surgery (CES). Various terms have been used in the literature including computer-assisted surgery or digital Surgery [Ranev and Teixeira in Surg Clin North Am 100:209-218, 2020]. With the growth of technological changes inherent in CES, the ability to validate these improvements in outcomes will require new metrics and analytic tools. This learning feedback and metric analysis will generate the new opportunities in simulation, training and application [Julian and Smith in Int J Med Robot 15:e2037, 2019].

Minimally invasive liver surgery: the Charité experience

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) was established as last abdominal surgical specialty through the 1990s. With a shift from mainly benign to malignant indications, MILS was shown to be equal to open liver surgery in terms of oncological outcomes, with benefits in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain, postoperative complication rates, hospital length of stay and quality of life. With colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma as the most common indications, most liver resection can be performed minimally invasive nowadays, including patients with liver cirrhosis. Initially perceived limitations of laparoscopic liver surgery were weakened by gaining experience, technical progress and pioneering of new resection approaches. Lately robotic liver surgery was adopted to the field of MILS to further push the limits. To simplify first resections, technical variations of the minimally invasive approach can be utilized, and difficulty scores help to select resections suitable to the level of experience. We hereby give an overview of the establishing of a minimally invasive liver surgery program at our center.

Pure laparoscopic versus robotic liver resections: Multicentric propensity score-based analysis with stratification according to difficulty scores

BACKGROUND

The benefits of pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resections (LLR and RALR) are known in comparison to open surgery. The aim of the present retrospective comparative study is to investigate the role of RALR and LLR according to different levels of difficulty.

METHODS

The institutional databases of six high-volume hepatobiliary centers were retrospectively reviewed. The study population was divided in two groups: LLR and RALR. The procedures were stratified for difficulty levels accordingly to three classifications. A propensity score matching was implemented to mitigate selection bias. Short-term outcomes were the object of comparison.

RESULTS

Nine hundred and thirty-six LLR and 403 RALR were collected. RALR exhibited fewer cases of intraoperative blood loss, lower transfusion and conversion rates (especially for oncological radicality) than LLR in the setting of highly difficult operations, whereas LLR had lower postoperative morbidity and fewer low-grade complications. For intermediate and low-difficulty resections, the intraoperative advantages of RALR gradually decreased to nonsignificant results and LLR remained associated with lower postoperative morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted liver resections do not show operative nor clinically significant benefits over LLR for low- and intermediate-difficulty resections. By reducing conversion rates, RALR can favour the operative feasibility of difficult resections possibly extending the indications of minimally invasive approaches for liver resection.

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

Backgrounds/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

IWATE criteria are associated with perioperative outcomes in robotic hepatectomy: a retrospective review of 225 resections

Background

Robotic hepatectomy (RH) is increasingly utilized for minor and major liver resections. The IWATE criteria were developed to classify minimally invasive liver resections by difficulty. The objective of this study was to apply the IWATE criteria in RH and to describe perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RH over the last decade at our institution.

Methods

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of patients who underwent RH between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively collected. The difficulty level of each operation was assessed using the IWATE criteria, and outcomes were compared at each level. Univariate linear regression was performed to characterize the relationship between IWATE criteria and perioperative outcomes (OR time, EBL, and LOS), and a multivariable model was also developed to address potential confounding by patient characteristics (age, sex, BMI, prior abdominal surgery, ASA class, and simultaneous non-hepatectomy operation).

Results

Two hundred and twenty-five RH were performed. Median IWATE criteria for RH were 6 (IQR 5–9), with low, intermediate, advanced, and expert resections accounting for 23% (n = 51), 34% (n = 77), 32% (n = 72), and 11% (n = 25) of resections, respectively. The majority of resections were parenchymal-sparing approaches, including anatomic segmentectomies and non-anatomic partial resections. 30-day complication rate was 14%, conversion to open surgery occurred in 9 patients (4%), and there were no deaths within 30 days postoperatively. In the univariate linear regression analysis, IWATE criteria were positively associated with OR time, EBL, and LOS. In the multivariable model, IWATE criteria were independently associated with greater OR time, EBL, and LOS. Two-year overall survival for hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma was 94% and 50%, respectively.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the IWATE criteria are associated with surgical outcomes after RH. This series highlights the utility of RH for difficult hepatic resections, particularly parenchymal-sparing resections in the posterosuperior sector, extending the indication of minimally invasive hepatectomy in experienced hands and potentially offering select patients an alternative to open hepatectomy or other less definitive liver-directed treatment options.

Simultaneous robotic-assisted resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: a systematic review

Simultaneous resections of primary colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) have emerged as safe and efficient procedures for selected patients. Besides the traditional open approach for simultaneous resections, similar outcomes have been reported for minimally invasive approaches. Over the past years, a number of studies have sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of simultaneous robotic-assisted resections (SRAR) for patients with synchronous CRC and CRLM. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the safety, technical feasibility and outcomes of SRAR of the primary CRC and CRLM. A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken. Nine studies comprising a total of 29 patients (16 males) who underwent SRAR were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary tumor site was the rectum in 22 (76%) patients and the colon in 7 (24%) patients. A minor liver resection was performed in the majority of the cases (n = 24; 82%). The median operative time and estimated blood loss were 399.5 min (range 300-682) and 274 ml (range 10-780 ml), respectively. No cases of conversion to open were reported. The median LOS was 7 days (range 2-28 days). All patients reportedly underwent R0 resection. Overall and major morbidity rates were 38% and 7%, respectively, while no perioperative deaths were reported. Despite the limited number of studies, SRAR seems to be a safe and efficient minimally invasive approach for highly selected patients always implemented in the context of multidisciplinary patient management.

[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.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic major hepatectomies: Systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Major hepatectomy is still regarded as a technically demanding procedure for which minimally invasive surgery remains limited to selected cases in experienced centres and robotic platforms may provide some advantages over conventional laparoscopy in this setting. We aimed to combine and meta-analyse the available literature upon this topic.

METHODS

The PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were appraised to find all available studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomies. According to a pre-established pattern preoperative settings, operative and postoperative outcomes were assessed. The meta-analysis was performed by using the Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 485 patients from eight studies were included in the analysis. Robotic major hepatectomies showed a significantly lower conversion rate and estimated blood loss as compared to laparoscopic ones. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies patients experienced significant shorter postoperative hospitalisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery appears as competent as conventional laparoscopy to perform major hepatectomies, with possible advantages on conversion rate and perioperative blood loss, despite slightly prolonged postoperative hospitalisation.

Major robotic hepatectomies: technical considerations

Robotic approach to the liver may allow to perform difficult resections with a minimally invasive strategy in an easier way as compared to standard laparoscopy. The aim of this study is to review our experience with robotic major hepatectomies, reporting technical considerations, and describing the outcomes of patients that underwent either left (LRH) or right robotic hepatectomy (RRH). Our prospectively maintained database was screened to identify all patients that received a major liver resection for benign or malignant disease. Preoperative data and postoperative short-term and long-term outcomes were reported. 261 robotic procedures were performed in our Center between May 2014 and October 2020. 12 patients underwent robotic left hepatectomy (RLH) and 10 patients were treated by robotic right hepatectomy (RRH). In the RLH group, median operative time (OT) was 383 min, median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 300 ml, and median in-hospital stay was of 3 days. In the RRH group, median OT was 490 min, median EBL 725 ml, and median hospital stay was 5 days. Although one of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery is to obtain radical resections with parenchyma sparing strategies, patients that need a major hepatectomy may benefit of a robotic resection with good postoperative outcomes. Team learning curve and growth instead of personal progression is crucial to expand the limits of novel surgical techniques.

Adoption of Robotic Liver, Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery in Singapore: A Single Institution Experience with Its First 100 Consecutive Cases

Introduction: Presently, robotic hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (RHPBS) is increasingly adopted worldwide. This study reports our experience with the first 100 consecutive cases of RHPBS in Singapore. Methods: Retrospective review of a single-institution prospective database of the first 100 consecutive RHPBS performed over 6 years from February 2013 to February 2019. Eighty-six cases were performed by a single surgeon. Results: The 100 consecutive cases included 24 isolated liver resections, 48 pancreatic surgeries (including 2 bile duct resections) and 28 biliary surgeries (including 8 with concomitant liver resections). They included 10 major hepatectomies, 15 pancreaticoduodenectomies, 6 radical resections for gallbladder carcinoma and 8 hepaticojejunostomies. The median operation time was 383 minutes, with interquartile range (IQR) of 258 minutes and there were 2 open conversions. The median blood loss was 200ml (IQR 350ml) and 15 patients required intra-operative blood transfusion. There were no post-operative 90-day nor in-hospital mortalities but 5 patients experienced major (> grade 3a) morbidities. The median post-operative stay was 6 days (IQR 5 days) and there were 12 post-operative 30-day readmissions. Comparison between the first 50 and the subsequent 50 patients demonstrated a significant reduction in blood loss, significantly lower proportion of malignant indications, and a decreasing frequency in liver resections performed. Conclusion: Our experience with the first 100 consecutive cases of RHPBS confirms its feasibility and safety when performed by experienced laparoscopic hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons. It can be performed for even highly complicated major hepatopancreatobiliary surgery with a low open conversion rate. Keywords: Biliary surgery, hepaticojejunostomy, liver resection, pancreas, pancreaticoduodenectomy

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.

Robotic isolated partial and complete hepatic caudate lobectomy: A single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Current reports on robotic hepatic caudate lobectomy are limited to Spiegel lobectomy. This study aimed to compare the safety and feasibility of robotic isolated partial and complete hepatic caudate lobectomy.

METHODS

Clinical data of 32 patients who underwent robotic resection of the hepatic caudate lobe in our department from May 2016 to January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into three groups according to the lobectomy location: left dorsal segment lobectomy (Spiegel lobectomy), right dorsal segment lobectomy (caudate process or paracaval portion lobectomy), and complete caudate lobectomy. General information and perioperative results of the three groups were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 32 patients, none had conversion to laparotomy, three received intraoperative blood transfusion (9.38%), and none had complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher or died in the perioperative period. Among them, 17 patients (53.13%) underwent Spiegel lobectomy, 7 (21.88%) underwent caudate process or paracaval portion lobectomy, and 8 (25.00%) underwent complete caudate lobectomy. The operative time and blood loss in the left dorsal segment lobectomy group were significantly better than those in the right dorsal segment lobectomy and complete caudate lobectomy groups (operative time: P = 0.010 and P = 0.005; blood loss: P = 0.005 and P = 0.017, respectively). The postoperative hospital stay in the left dorsal segment lobectomy group was significantly shorter than that in the complete caudate lobectomy group (P = 0.003); however, there was no difference in the postoperative hospital stay between the left dorsal segment lobectomy group and right dorsal segment lobectomy group (P = 0.240).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic isolated partial and complete caudate lobectomy is safe and feasible. Spiegel lobectomy is relatively straightforward and suitable for beginners.

Robotic anatomic isolated complete caudate lobectomy: Left-side approach and techniques

BACKGROUND

To demonstrate the surgical procedures and techniques of the robotic anatomical isolated complete caudate lobectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on the demographic, operative, postoperative outcomes of seven patients who underwent robotic anatomical isolated complete caudate lobectomy at our department from January 2018 to November 2019. Mobilization of the left lateral and Spiegel lobe, dissection of the short hepatic veins and liver parenchyma transection from the dorsal plane of middle and right hepatic vein were crucial procedures for the robotic left-side approach. Anatomic complete caudate lobectomy was defined as total removal of the caudate lobe, in which the dorsal middle and right hepatic vein, the inferior vena cava and its right side were fully exposed on the raw surface.

RESULTS

All patients successfully underwent the robotic anatomical isolated caudate lobectomy with a left-side approach without conversion to laparotomy, and without Clavien-Dindo Grade III or higher complications. The average tumor diameter was 65.00 ± 10.61 mm, the average operation time was 212.00 ± 74.53 min, the median bleeding loss was 100 mL, and the average postoperative hospital stay was 8.71 ± 4.89 d, respectively. There were four patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma, one with tumor recurrence five months after surgery and three patients were free of recurrence. All patients survived at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Robotic anatomical isolated complete caudate lobectomy with a left-sided approach is safe and feasible for selected patients.

Successful robotic radical resection of hepatic echinococcosis located in posterosuperior liver segments

BACKGROUND

Radical resection is an important treatment method for hepatic echinococcosis. The posterosuperior segments of the liver remain the most challenging region for laparoscopic or robotic hepatectomy.

AIM

To demonstrate the safety and preliminary experience of robotic radical resection of cystic and alveolar echinococcosis in posterosuperior liver segments.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 5 patients with a median age of 37 years (21-56 years) with cystic and alveolar echinococcosis in difficult liver lesions admitted to two centers from September to December 2019. The surgical methods included total pericystectomy, segmental hepatectomy, or hemihepatectomy.

RESULTS

Among the 5 patients, 4 presented with cystic echinococcosis and 1 presented with alveolar echinococcosis, all of whom underwent robotic radical operation successfully without conversion to laparotomy. Total caudate lobectomy was performed in 2 cases, hepatectomy of segment VII in 1 case, total pericystectomy of segment VIII in 1 case, and right hemihepatectomy in 1 case. Operation time was 225 min (175-300 min); blood loss was 100 mL (50-600 mL); and postoperative hospital stay duration was 10 d (5-19 d). The Clavien-Dindo complication grade was I in 4 cases and II in 1 case. No recurrence of echinococcosis was found in any patient at the 3 mo of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Robotic radical surgery for cystic and selected alveolar echinococcosis in posterosuperior liver segments is safe and feasible.

Robotic Liver Resection

Robotic surgery has rapidly evolved. It is particularly attractive as an alternative minimally invasive approach in liver surgery because of improvements in visualization and articulated instruments. Limitations include increased operative times and lack of tactile feedback, but these have not been shown in studies. Considerations unique to robotic surgery, including safety protocols, must be put in place and be reviewed at the beginning of every procedure to ensure safety in the event of an emergent conversion. Despite the lack of early adoption by many hepatobiliary surgeons, robotic liver surgery continues to evolve and find its place within hepatobiliary surgery.