Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy in North America: Laparoscopic Versus Robotic

Evolution of minimally invasive liver surgery in France over the last decade

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence of benefits on postoperative outcomes, minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) had a very low diffusion up to 2014, and recent evolution is unknown. Our aim was to analyze the recent diffusion and adoption of MILS and compare the trends in indications, extent of resection, and institutional practice with open liver surgery (OLS).

METHODS

We analyzed the French nationwide, exhaustive cohort of all patients undergoing a liver resection in France between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2022. Average annual percentage changes (AAPC) in the incidence of MILS and OLS were compared using mixed-effects log-linear regression models. Time trends were analyzed in terms of extent of resection, indication, and institutional practice.

RESULTS

MILS represented 25.2% of 74,671 liver resections and year incidence doubled from 16.5% in 2013 to 35.4% in 2022. The highest AAPC were observed among major liver resections [+ 22.2% (19.5; 24.9) per year], primary [+ 10.2% (8.5; 12.0) per year], and secondary malignant tumors [+ 9.9% (8.2; 11.6) per year]. The highest increase in MILS was observed in university hospitals [+ 14.7% (7.7; 22.2) per year] performing 48.8% of MILS and in very high-volume (> 150 procedures/year) hospitals [+ 12.1% (9.0; 15.3) per year] performing 19.7% of MILS. OLS AAPC decreased for all indications and institutions and accelerated over time from - 1.8% (- 3.9; - 0.3) per year in 2013-2018 to - 5.9% (- 7.9; - 3.9) per year in 2018-2022 (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first reported trend reversal between MILS and OLS. MILS has considerably increased at a national scale, crossing the 20% tipping point of adoption rate as defined by the IDEAL framework.

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.

Role of ablation therapy in conjunction with surgical resection for neuroendocrine tumors involving the liver

BACKGROUND

Resection of hepatic metastasis from neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) improves quality of life and prolongs 5-year survival. Ablation can be utilized with surgery to achieve complete resection. Although several studies report long-term outcomes for patients undergoing ablation, none have explored perioperative effects of ablation in patients with metastatic NETs.

AIM

To determine if intra-operative ablation during hepatectomy increases risk of adverse outcomes such as surgical site infections (SSIs), bleeding, and bile leak.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the hepatectomy National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2015-2019 was performed to determine the odds of SSIs, bile leaks, or bleeding in patients undergoing intraoperative ablation when compared to hepatectomy alone.

RESULTS

Of the 966 patients included in the study, 298 (30.9%) underwent ablation during hepatectomy. There were 78 (11.7%) patients with SSIs in the hepatectomy alone group and 39 (13.1%) patients with a SSIs in the hepatectomy with ablation group. Bile leak occurred in 41 (6.2%) and 14 (4.8%) patients in the two groups, respectively; bleeding occurred in 117 (17.5%) and 33 (11.1%), respectively. After controlling for confounding variables, ablation did not increase risk of SSI (P = 0.63), bile leak (P = 0.34) or bleeding (P = 0.07) when compared to patients undergoing resection alone on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative ablation with hepatic resection for NETs is safe in the perioperative period without significant increased risk of infection, bleeding, or bile leak. Surgeons should utilize this modality when appropriate to achieve optimal disease control and outcomes.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Procedure-specific risks of robotic simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases

An estimated 25% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis, the most common site being the liver. Although prior studies have reported that a simultaneous approach to resections in these patients can lead to increased rates of complications, emerging literature shows that minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches can mitigate this additional morbidity. This is the first study utilizing a large national database to investigate colorectal and hepatic procedure-specific risks in robotic simultaneous resections for CRC and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Utilizing the ACS-NSQIP targeted colectomy, proctectomy, and hepatectomy files, 1,721 patients were identified who underwent simultaneous resections of CRC and CRLM from 2016 to 2021. Of these patients, 345 (20%) underwent resections by an MIS approach, defined as either laparoscopic (n = 266, 78%) or robotic (n = 79, 23%). Patients who underwent robotic resections had lower rates of ileus compared to those who had open surgeries. The robotic group had similar rates of 30-day anastomotic leak, bile leak, hepatic failure, and post-operative invasive hepatic procedures compared to both the open and laparoscopic groups. The rate of conversion to open (8% vs. 22%, p = 0.004) and median LOS (5 vs. 6 days, p = 0.022) was significantly lower for robotic compared to laparoscopic group. This study, which is the largest national cohort of simultaneous CRC and CRLM resections, supports the safety and potential benefits of a robotic approach in these patients.

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.

Major hepatectomy in elderly patients: possible benefit from robotic platform utilization

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has been increasingly utilized, yet its application for hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) procedures remains low due to technical complexity, perceived financial burden, and unproven clinical benefits. We hypothesized that the robotic approach would be associated with improved clinical outcomes following major hepatectomy compared with the laparoscopic approach among elderly patients who would benefit from the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent major hepatectomy between January 2010 and December 2021 at Carolinas Medical Center was performed. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 65 years and major hepatectomy of three segments or more. Patients who underwent multiple liver resections, vascular/biliary reconstruction, or concomitant extrahepatic procedures (except cholecystectomy) were excluded. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test when more than 20% of cells had expected frequencies less than five, and Wilcoxon two-sample or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for continuous or ordinal variables. Results are described as median and interquartile range (IQR). Multivariate analyses were used on postoperative admission days.

RESULTS

There were 399 major hepatectomies performed during this time period, of which 125 met the criteria and were included. There were no differences in perioperative demographics among patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy (RH, n = 39) and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH, n = 32). There was no difference in operative time, blood loss, or major complication rates. However, RH had lower rates of conversion to an open procedure (2.6% versus 31.3%, p = 0.002), shorter length of hospital stay [LOS, 4 (3-7) versus 6 (4-8.5) days, p ≤ 0.0001], cumulative LOS [4 (3-7) versus 6 (4.5-9) days, p ≤ 0.0001], and lower rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (7.7% versus 75%, p ≤ 0.001), with a trend toward fewer rehabilitation requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot major hepatectomy shows clinical advantages in elderly patients, including shorter hospital and ICU stays. These advantages, as well as reduced rehabilitation requirements associated with minimally invasive surgery, could overcome the current perceived financial disadvantages of robotic hepatectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Transatlantic registries for minimally invasive liver surgery: towards harmonization

BACKGROUND

Several registries focus on patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). This study compared transatlantic registries focusing on the variables collected and differences in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment in patients undergoing MILS. Furthermore, key variables were identified.

METHODS

The five registries for liver surgery from North America (ACS-NSQIP), Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, and Europe were compared. A set of key variables were established by consensus expert opinion and compared between the registries. Anonymized data of all MILS procedures were collected (January 2014-December 2019). To summarize differences for all patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, the relative and absolute largest differences (RLD, ALD) between the smallest and largest outcome per variable among the registries are presented.

RESULTS

In total, 13,571 patients after MILS were included. Both 30- and 90-day mortality after MILS were below 1.1% in all registries. The largest differences in baseline characteristics were seen in ASA grade 3-4 (RLD 3.0, ALD 46.1%) and the presence of liver cirrhosis (RLD 6.4, ALD 21.2%). The largest difference in treatment was the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RLD 4.3, ALD 20.6%). The number of variables collected per registry varied from 28 to 303. From the 46 key variables, 34 were missing in at least one of the registries.

CONCLUSION

Despite considerable variation in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment of patients undergoing MILS in the five transatlantic registries, overall mortality after MILS was consistently below 1.1%. The registries should be harmonized to facilitate future collaborative research on MILS for which the identified 46 key variables will be instrumental.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Short- and long-term outcomes following robotic and open resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A national cohort study

BACKGROUND

Curative-intent liver resection with porta hepatis lymphadenectomy provides the best chance for long-term survival for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). While the robotic approach has been increasingly utilized, its impact on perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients with ICC are largely unknown.

METHODS

Patients with stages I-III ICC who underwent surgical resection between 2004 and 2017 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Descriptive statistics and multivariate models were constructed to examine the association between surgical approach and surgical and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1876 patients with ICC who underwent open (n = 1804, 96.2%) and robotic-assisted (n = 72, 3.8%) resection were identified. Following surgery, patients who underwent a robotic-assisted resection had a shorter length of hospital stay yet there was no difference in 30-day readmission or 90-day mortality. Older age, disease stage, and higher comorbidity were associated with worse OS. Patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery had no difference in long-term risk of death compared with patients who underwent an open procedure.

CONCLUSION

This national cohort study demonstrated that the robotic approach for patients undergoing resection for ICC resulted in a shorter hospitalization while not compromising oncological outcomes such as negative margins, postoperative mortality, and long-term survival.

Analysis of Oncological Outcomes After Robotic Liver Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding minimally invasive liver resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) include inadequate resection margins and inferior long-term overall survival (OS) when compared to an "open" approach. Limited data exists to address these issues. We aimed to compare perioperative variables, tumor distance to margin, and long-term outcomes after IHCC resection based on surgical approach (robotic vs open) in our hepatobiliary center to address these concerns.

METHODS

With IRB approval, 34 patients who underwent robotic or open hepatectomy for IHCC were prospectively followed. Patients were stratified by tumor distance to resection margin (≤1 mm, 1.1-9.9 mm, ≥10 mm) for illustrative purposes and by approach (robotic vs open). Where appropriate, regression analysis and cox model of proportional hazards were utilized. Survival was stratified by margin distance and approach utilizing Kaplan-Meier curves. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Patients undergoing robotic vs open hepatectomy had similar demographics. Patients undergoing the robotic approach had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL). Tumor distance to margin between the two approaches were similar (P = .428). Median OS between the two approaches was similar in patients of any margin distance.In the subgroup analysis by margin distance, the robotic approach yielded less EBL for patients in the 1.1-9.9 mm and ≥10 mm margin groups, and a shorter ICU length of stay for patients with ≥10 mm margin.

DISCUSSION

Similar margins were attained via either approach, translating into oncological non-inferiority of robotic IHCC resection. Robotic approach for the treatment of IHCC should be considered an alternative to an open approach.

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.

Robotic and laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy and central hepatectomy: multicentre propensity score-matched analysis

Both robotic and laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy and central hepatectomy can be performed safely in expert centres, with excellent outcomes. The robotic approach was associated with statistically significant less blood loss compared with laparoscopy, although the clinical relevance of this finding remains unclear.

A chronological review of 500 minimally invasive liver resections in a North American institution: overcoming stagnation and toward consolidation

BACKGROUND

Although interest in expanding the application of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is high the world over, most of the extensive experience in MILR has been reported from Far East Asia and Europe and its adoption in North America is limited. The aim of this study was to review the experience of MILR in a single North American institute over a 15-year period, highlighting both the obstacles encountered and strategies adopted to overcome the stagnation in its uptake.

METHODS

This study included 500 MILR cases between 2006 and 2020. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, surgical technique, and perioperative outcomes are summarized. The major hepatectomy rate and conversion rate were assessed according to case numbers (first 100, 101-300, and 301-500 cases) to assess chronological trends.

RESULTS

Of 500, 402 MILRs were done by pure laparoscopic (80.4%), 67 were hand assisted (13.4%), and 31 were robotic (6.2%). The majority (64%) of cases were performed for malignancy (n = 320; 100 Hepatocellular carcinoma, 153 Colorectal metastases, 27 Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and others, 40, 64%). A total of 71 cases were converted to open (14.2%). The annual case number gradually increased over the first few years; however, case numbers stayed around 30 between 2009 and 2017. In this period, despite accumulating MILR experience, open conversion rates increased despite no change in major hepatectomy rate. After this period of long-term stagnation, we introduced crucial changes in team composition and laparoscopic instrumentation. Our MILR case number and major hepatectomy rate thereafter increased significantly without increasing conversion or complication rates.

CONCLUSION

Our recovery from long-term stagnation by instituting key changes as detailed in this study could be used as a guidepost for programs that are contemplating transitioning their MILR program from minor to advanced resections. Establishing a formal MILR training model through proper mentorship/proctorship and building a dedicated MILR team would be imperative to this strategy.

Cost analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy: Is the robotic platform more expensive?

The robotic platform is perceived to be more expensive when compared to laparoscopic and open operations. We aimed to compare the perioperative costs of robotic vs. open hepatectomy for the treatment of liver tumors at our facility. We followed 370 patients undergoing robotic and open hepatectomy for benign and malignant liver tumors. Demographic, perioperative, cost and payment data were collected and analyzed. For illustrative purposes, the data were presented as median (mean ± SD). Two hundred sixty-seven robotic and 104 open hepatectomies were analyzed. There were no significant differences in perioperative variables between the two cohorts. The robotic group had a significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (135 [208 ± 244.8] vs 300 [427 ± 502.5] ml, p < 0.0001), smaller lesion size (4 [5 ± 3.6] vs 5[6 ± 4.9] cm, p = 0.0052), shorter length of stay (LOS) (4 [4 ± 3.4] vs 6[8 ± 5.7] days, p < 0.0001) and decreased 90-day mortality (3 vs 7 p = 0.0028). There were no significant differences between the two groups any cost variable. The open group received significantly higher reimbursement ($29,297 [62,962 ± 75,377.96] vs $19,102 [38,975 ± 39,362.11], p < 0.001) and profit ($5005 [30,981 ± 79,541.09] vs $- 6682 [6146 ± 40,949.65], p < 0.001). Robotic hepatectomy is associated with lower EBL, shorter LOS and less mortality. There was no greater cost associated with the robotic platform despite a reduced reimbursement and profit.

Frailty in elderly patients with acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

Acute appendicitis in the elderly is becoming increasingly recognized for its often severe course. For various elective and urgent operations in older patients, frailty is a risk factor for poor outcomes. However, there is a lack of data on frailty in elderly patients with acute appendicitis.

METHODS

Patients over 65 years old who underwent surgery for acute appendicitis in three hospitals between January 2015 and September 2020 were assessed with the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) and the modified Frailty Index (mFI). Outcomes of interest, including morbidity, mortality, and length of stay, were recorded.

RESULTS

While frailty can be measured with both tests, the mFI has better applicability and takes significantly less time to implement compared to the HFRS (21.6 s vs. 80.3 s, p < 0.0001) while providing the same information value. Patients who exhibited frailty according to either assessment had a significantly higher rate of milder (OR 5.85/2.87, p < 0.0001/0.009) and serious (OR 4.92/3.61, p < 0.011/0.029) complications, more admissions to the intensive care unit (OR 5.16/7.36, p < 0.0001), and an almost doubled length of stay (12.7 days vs. 6.6 days, p < 0.005). Up to 31% of these patients required institutional care after discharge, which is significantly more than those without frailty (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the mortality rate in frail patients was significantly elevated to 17%, compared to less than 1% in non-frail patients (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

In elderly patients, frailty is a significant risk factor for negative outcomes. Frailty can be assessed more quickly and reliably with the mFI compared to the HFRS.

International multicentre propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) is a technically challenging procedure. This study was designed to determine outcomes following robotic RPS (R-RPS) and laparoscopic RPS (L-RPS).

METHODS

An international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing R-RPS versus those who had purely L-RPS at 21 centres from 2010 to 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed retrospectively from a central database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, with analysis of 1 : 2 and 1 : 1 matched cohorts.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and forty patients, including 96 who underwent R-RPS and 244 who had L-RPS, met the study criteria and were included. The median operating time was 295 minutes and there were 25 (7.4 per cent) open conversions. Ninety-seven (28.5 per cent) patients had cirrhosis and 56 (16.5 per cent) patients required blood transfusion. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 22.1 per cent and major morbidity rate was 6.8 per cent. The median postoperative stay was 6 days. After 1 : 1 matching of 88 R-RPS and L-RPS patients, median (i.q.r.) blood loss (200 (100-400) versus 450 (200-900) ml, respectively; P < 0.001), major blood loss (> 500 ml; P = 0.001), need for intraoperative blood transfusion (10.2 versus 23.9 per cent, respectively; P = 0.014), and open conversion rate (2.3 versus 11.4 per cent, respectively; P = 0.016) were lower in the R-RPS group. Similar results were found in the 1 : 2 matched groups (66 R-RPS versus 132 L-RPS patients).

CONCLUSION

R-RPS and L-RPS can be performed in expert centres with good outcomes in well selected patients. R-RPS was associated with reduced blood loss and lower open conversion rates than L-RPS.

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.

Robotic liver surgery: literature review and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) have been gaining popularity over the last decades. MILR provides superior peri-operative outcome. Despite these advantages, the penetrance of MILR in the clinical setting has been limited, and it was slowed down, among other factors, also by the laparoscopic technological limitations.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature review has been carried out (Pubmed, Embase and Scopus platforms) focusing on the role of robotic surgery in MILR.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The literature review results are presented and our additional remarks on the topic are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic MILR has been helping to expand the penetrance of MIS in liver surgery by making possible increasingly more challenging procedures. Minor resections still represent most of the robotic liver surgery data currently available. Robotic liver surgery is safe and effective, and it shows perioperative outcomes comparable with laparoscopic and open surgery. The oncological efficacy, within the limitations of the current level of evidence (mostly retrospective studies and literature heterogeneity), seems to show promising result. High quality prospective randomized studies, the use of prospective registry data, and multi-institutional efforts are needed.

Peri-operative Mortality Following Cholecystectomy in Australia: Potential Preventability of Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Cholecystectomy is a commonly performed procedure; however, it is not without risks. It is crucial to constantly audit surgical outcomes in order to improve quality of care. The aim of this retrospective population-based cohort study is to identify preventable issues of clinical management associated with adverse occurrences in order to reduce mortality of cholecystectomy patients.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Australian and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality (ANZASM). It encompasses peer-reviewed first and second line assessments of management of cholecystectomy patients who died from 2005 to 2015 in Australia. Clinical Management Issues (CMIs) were identified from text in assessments and grouped into communication failures, pre-operative, intra-operative and post-operative categories. These were further classified into subthemes using thematic analysis with a data-driven approach.

RESULTS

There were 359 deaths in the study period. CMIs were present in 71 cases, with a reported total of 124 concerns or adverse events. Post-operative CMIs were the most prevalent issue [50% (62/124)], with the most common theme being delay to recognise complications (19/124). Pre-operative concerns were the second most common (n = 34). Decision to operate was questioned in 14 cases, and delay to surgery was reported in 12 cases.

CONCLUSION

ANZASM analysis has allowed us to identify modifiable adverse occurrences. This audit shows that delay to recognise complications is the most common assessment recorded. Preventive measures should be taken to improve outcomes and reduce peri-operative mortality, with an emphasis on post-operative management and enhancing communication between members of the multidisciplinary team.