Robotic versus open hemihepatectomy: a propensity score-matched study

Learning curve in robotic liver surgery: easily achievable, evolving from laparoscopic background and team-based

BACKGROUND

Limited and heterogeneous literature data necessitate a focused examination of the learning curve in robotic liver resections. This study aims to assess the learning curve of two surgeons from the same team with differing laparoscopic backgrounds.

METHODS

Since February 2021, San Raffaele Hospital in Milan has implemented a robotic liver surgery program, performing 250 resections by three trained console surgeons. Using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis, the learning curve was evaluated for a Pioneer Surgeon (PS) with around 1200 laparoscopic cases and a New Generation Surgeon (NGS) with approximately 100 laparoscopic cases. Cases were stratified by complexity (38 low, 74 intermediate, 85 high).

RESULTS

Both PS and NGS demonstrated a learning curve for operative time after 15 low-complexity and 10 intermediate-complexity cases, with high-complexity learning curves apparent after 10 cases for PS and 18 cases for NGS. Conversion rates remained unaffected, and neither surgeon experienced increased blood loss or postoperative complications. A "team learning curve" effect in terms of operative time emerged after 12 cases, suggesting the importance of a cohesive surgical team.

CONCLUSION

The robotic platform facilitated a relatively brief learning curve for low and intermediate complexity cases, irrespective of laparoscopic background, underscoring the benefits of team collaboration.

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.

Introduction of day-case robotic liver surgery: a case series from a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre

BACKGROUND

Liver surgery is associated with a significant hospital stay regardless the type of liver resection. A large incision is essential for open liver surgery which is a major factor in the course of the patient's recovery. For patients with small parenchyma liver lesions requiring surgical resection, robotic surgery potentially offers the opportunity to transform the patient's post-operative course. A day-case robotic liver resection pathway was formulated and implemented at our institution when patients were planned for discharge within 24 h of admission for liver surgery.

METHODS

Single surgeon case series of cases performed at a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre between September 2022 and November 2023. The inclusion criteria were non-anatomical wedge resections, < 2 anatomical segmental resections, left lateral hepatectomy and minimally invasive surgery.

RESULTS

This is the first series of robotic day-case minor liver resection in the United Kingdom. 20 patients were included in this case series. The mean operative time was 86.6 ± 30.9 min and mean console time was 58.6 ± 24.5 min. Thirteen patients (65%) were discharged within 24 h of surgery. The main cause of hospitalisation beyond 24 h was inadequate pain relief. There were no Clavien-Dindo grade III or above complications, no 30-day readmission and 90-day mortalities.

CONCLUSION

This case series demonstrates that robotic day-case liver resection is safe and feasible. Robust follow-up pathways must be in place to allow for the safe implementation of this approach, to monitor for any complications and to allow intervention as required in a timely manner.

A meta-analysis between robotic hepatectomy and conventional open hepatectomy

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

Comparative study of operative expenses: robotic vs. laparoscopic vs. open liver resections at a university hospital in the UK

Robotic liver resections (RLR) are increasingly being performed and has previously been considered more costly. The aim is to explore the cost of RLR compared with laparoscopic and open liver resection in a single National Health Service (NHS) hospital. A retrospective review of patients who underwent RLR, LLR, and OLR from April 2014 to December 2022 was conducted. The primary outcomes were the cost of consumables and median income, and the secondary outcomes were the overall length of stay and mortality at 90 days. Overall, 332 patients underwent liver resections. There were 204 males (61.4%) and 128 females (38.6%), with a median age of 62 years (IQR: 51-77 years). Of these, 60 patients (18.1%) underwent RLR, 21 patients (6.3%) underwent LLR, and 251 patients (75.6%) underwent OLR. Median consumables cost per case was £3863 (IQR: £3458-£5061) for RLR, £4326 (IQR: £4273-£4473) for LLR, and £4,084 (IQR: £3799-£5549) for the OLR cohort (p = 0.140). Median income per case was £7999 (IQR: £4509-£10,777) for RLR, £7497 (IQR: £2407-£14,576) for LLR, and £7493 (IQR: £2542-£14,121) for OLR. The median length of stay (LOS) for RLR was 3 days (IQR: 2-4.7 days) compared to 5 days for LLR (IQR: 4.5-7 days) and 6 days for OLR (IQR: 5-8 days, p < 0.001). Within the NHS, RLR has consumable costs comparable to OLR and LLR. It is also linked with a shorter LOS and generates similar income for patients undergoing OLR and LLR.

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: A single-center, propensity score- matched study

BACKGROUND

Although the effectiveness of robotic hepatectomy (RH) has been evaluated in several studies, the superiority of RH over other approaches has not been definitely established. Therefore, in the present propensity score-matched cohort study, we compared RH and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in terms of perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent RH or LH for benign and malignant liver lesions at a single center in Taiwan at any time between 2014 and 2020. Confounding factors, specifically age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, IWATE criteria, and Charlson comorbidity index, were adjusted through propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 329 patients were finally included in this study. Two homogeneous groups (RH and LH; n, 72 each) were formed using PSM. The RH group had a longer operative time (median: 231 vs.180 min, respectively; P = .001) and lower conversion (to open surgery) rate (9.7% vs.0.0%, respectively; P = .013) than did the LH group. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of other perioperative outcomes, specifically blood loss, hospital stay, intensive care unit admission, mortality, morbidity, or tumor margin status.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of conversion to open surgery is lower in RH than in LH. Although operative time is longer in RH than in LH, RH is feasible and safe for patients with benign or malignant liver lesion. Our study also demonstrated comparable oncological results in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma between LH and RH group.

International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023

The robotic liver resection (RLR) has been increasingly applied in recent years and its benefits shown in some aspects owing to the technical advancement of robotic surgical system, however, controversies still exist. Based on the foundation of the previous consensus statement, this new consensus document aimed to update clinical recommendations and provide guidance to improve the outcomes of RLR clinical practice. The guideline steering group and guideline expert group were formed by 29 international experts of liver surgery and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Relevant literature was reviewed and analyzed by the evidence evaluation group. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, the Guidance Principles of Development and Amendment of the Guidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in China 2022, a total of 14 recommendations were generated. Among them were 8 recommendations formulated by the GRADE method, and the remaining 6 recommendations were formulated based on literature review and experts' opinion due to insufficient EBM results. This international experts consensus guideline offered guidance for the safe and effective clinical practice and the research direction of RLR in future.

Robotic approach together with an enhanced recovery programme improve the perioperative outcomes for complex hepatectomy

Objective

Robotic surgery has more advantages than traditional surgical approaches to complex liver resection; however, the robotic approach is invariably associated with increased cost. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are beneficial in conventional surgeries.

Methods

The present study investigated the effects of robotic surgery combined with an ERAS protocol on perioperative outcomes and hospitalization costs of patients undergoing complex hepatectomy. Clinical data from consecutive robotic and open liver resections (RLR and OLR, respectively) performed in our unit in the pre-ERAS (January 2019-June 2020) and ERAS (July 2020-December 2021) periods were collected. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of ERAS and surgical approaches-alone or in combination-on LOS and costs.

Results

A total of 171 consecutive complex liver resections were analyzed. ERAS patients had a shorter median LOS and decreased total hospitalization cost, without a significant difference in the complication rate compared with the pre-ERAS cohort. RLR patients had a shorter median LOS and decreased major complications, but with increased total hospitalization cost, compared with OLR patients. Comparing the four combinations of perioperative management and surgical approaches, ERAS + RLR had the shortest LOS and the fewest major complications, whereas pre-ERAS + RLR had the highest hospitalization costs. Multivariate analysis found that the robotic approach was protective against prolonged LOS, whereas the ERAS pathway was protective against high costs.

Conclusions

The ERAS + RLR approach optimized postoperative complex liver resection outcomes and hospitalization costs compared with other combinations. The robotic approach combined with ERAS synergistically optimized outcome and overall cost compared with other strategies, and may be the best combination for optimizing perioperative outcomes for complex RLR.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting

PURPOSE

In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study.

METHODS

We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs.

RESULTS

RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9-41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7-5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs.

CONCLUSIONS

From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Short-Term Outcomes After Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver surgery is a novel technique expanding the field of minimally invasive approaches. An increasing number of studies assess the outcomes of robotic liver resections (RLR). The aim of our meta-analysis is to provide an up-to-date comparison of RLR versus open liver resections (OLR), evaluating its safety and efficacy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov for articles published from January 2000 until January 2022 was undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirteen non-randomized retrospective and one prospective clinical study enlisting 1801 patients met our inclusion criteria, with 640 patients undergoing RLR and 1161 undergoing OLR. RLR resulted in significantly lower overall morbidity (p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.002), and less intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001). Operative time was found to be significantly higher in the RLR group (p < 0.001). Blood transfusion requirements, R0 resection, and mortality rates presented no difference among the two groups. The cumulative rate of conversion was 5% in the RLR group.

CONCLUSION

The increasing experience in the implementation of the robot will undoubtedly generate more prospective randomized studies, necessary to assess its potential superiority over the traditional open approach, in a variety of hepatic lesions.

Based on the IWATE criteria: to investigate the influence of different surgical approaches on the perioperative outcomes of hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

In terms of perioperative outcomes, compared with traditional open surgery and laparoscopic surgery, studies of robotic liver resection have been limited and must be further clarified.

METHODS

Clinical data from 465 patients who underwent liver resection were collected in this retrospective study, and the IWATE criteria were used to evaluate the difficulty level of each operation. We compared perioperative outcomes of open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches for patients with uncomplicated and complex hepatectomy according to different IWATE scores. Among patients with uncomplicated hepatectomy, the median operation time was significantly longer in the robotic liver resection (RLR) group than in the open liver resection (OLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) groups; however, the RLR group had the shortest hospital stay. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, conversion rate, total complication rate, or serious complication rate among the three groups.

RESULTS

Among patients with complex hepatectomy, the RLR group had the smallest intraoperative blood loss and shortest mean length of stay. The cases converted to open hepatectomy were lower in the RLR group than in the laparoscopic group, mainly based on the IWATE score of expert hepatectomy. The incidence of general and serious postoperative complications in the RLR group was significantly lower than that in the OLR and LLR groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resection is a safe and feasible surgical method that is more advantageous than laparoscopic and open liver resection, especially in complex liver surgery.

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.

Trocar layouts in laparoscopic liver surgery

BACKGROUND

Since the first laparoscopic wedge resection reported by Reich, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed, acquiring safety and feasibility. The time has witnessed a milestone leap for laparoscopic hepatectomy from pure laparoscopic partial hepatectomy to anatomical hepatectomy and from minor liver resection to major liver resection. The numerous previous studies have paid more attention to the short-time and long-time surgical outcomes caused by surgical techniques corresponding to various segments and approaches. However, focus on trocar layouts remains poorly described, but it plays an indispensable role in surgical process.

METHODS

We have searched PubMed for English language articles with the key words "trocar," "laparoscopic liver resection," and "liver resection approaches."

RESULTS

This review highlighted each type of trocar layouts corresponding to specific circumstances, including targeted resection segments with various approaches. Notably, surgeon preferences and patients body habitus affect the trocar layouts to some extent as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there were fewer researches focus on trocar layouts, they determine the operation field and manipulation space and be likely to have an impact on outcomes of surgery. Therefore, further studies are warranted to firm the role of trocar layouts in LLR.

Robotic vs. laparoscopic liver surgery: a single-center analysis of 600 consecutive patients in 6 years

Background

While laparoscopic liver surgery has become a standard procedure, experience with robotic liver surgery is still limited. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate safety and feasibility of robotic liver surgery and compare outcomes with conventional laparoscopy.

Methods

We here report the results of a single-center, prospective, post-marketing observational study (DRKS00017229) investigating the safety and feasibility of robotic liver surgery. Baseline characteristics, surgical complexity (using the IWATE score), and postoperative outcomes were then compared to laparoscopic liver resections performed at our center between January 2015 and December 2020. A propensity score-based matching (PSM) was applied to control for selection bias.

Results

One hundred twenty nine robotic liver resections were performed using the da Vinci Xi surgical system (Intuitive) in this prospective study and were compared to 471 consecutive laparoscopic liver resections. After PSM, both groups comprised 129 cases with similar baseline characteristics and surgical complexity. There were no significant differences in intraoperative variables, such as need for red blood cell transfusion, duration of surgery, or conversion to open surgery. Postoperative complications were comparable after robotic and laparoscopic surgery (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3a: 23% vs. 19%, p = 0.625); however, there were more bile leakages grade B–C in the robotic group (17% vs. 7%, p = 0.006). Length of stay and oncological short-term outcomes were comparable.

Conclusions

We propose robotic liver resection as a safe and feasible alternative to established laparoscopic techniques. The object of future studies must be to define interventions where robotic techniques are superior to conventional laparoscopy.

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.

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.