Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections: propensity-matched comparison of two-center experience

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Liver Resections for Colorectal Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, and the liver is the most common localization of metastatic disease. The incidence of minimally invasive liver surgery is increasing, and robotic surgery (RLR) is believed to overcome some limitations of a laparoscopic approach (LRL). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of operative and short-term oncologic outcomes of the laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted liver resection for colorectal liver metastases. An online search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases was performed. Eight studies involving 3210 patients were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. In the LRL group, a higher conversion to open rate (12.4%) was observed compared to the RLR (6.7%; p = <0.001). 30-day mortality was 0.7% for the LRL group compared to 0.5% for the RLR group (p = 0.76). Mortality in longer periods among LLR and RLR amounted to 18.2% vs. 8.0% for 1-year mortality (p = 0.07), 34.1% vs. 26.7% for 2-year mortality (p = 0.13), and 52.3% vs. 48.3% for 3-year mortality (p = 0.46). The length of hospital stay was 5.6 ± 2.5 vs. 5.8 ± 2.1 days, respectively (p = 0.47). There were no significant differences between the incidence of individual complications in the LRL and RLR groups (p = 0.78). Laparoscopic or robotic approaches for colorectal liver metastases are comparable in terms of safety and effectiveness. There are significant advantages to robotic surgery, although there is still no long-term evidence concerning overall survival, and the number of patients operated on using RLR remains small.

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

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