Robotic hepatectomy for benign and malignant liver tumors

Robotic Hepatic Parenchymal Transection Techniques: A Choice Between Imperfect Tools

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

Internal validation of the Tampa Robotic Difficulty Scoring System: real-time assessment of the novel robotic scoring system in predicting clinical outcomes after hepatectomy

INTRODUCTION

As the robotic approach in hepatectomy gains prominence, the need to establish a robotic-specific difficulty scoring system (DSS) is evident. The Tampa Difficulty Score was conceived to bridge this gap, offering a novel and dedicated robotic DSS aimed at improving preoperative surgical planning and predicting potential clinical challenges in robotic hepatectomies. In this study, we internally validated the recently published Tampa DSS by applying the scoring system to our most recent cohort of patients.

METHODS

The Tampa Difficulty Score was applied to 170 recent patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy in our center. Patients were classified into: Group 1 (score 1-8, n = 23), Group 2 (score 9-24, n = 120), Group 3 (score 25-32, n = 20), and Group 4 (score 33-49, n = 7). Key variables for each of the groups were analyzed and compared. Statistical significance was accepted at p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

Notable correlations were found between the Tampa Difficulty Score and key clinical parameters such as operative duration (p < 0.0001), estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001), and percentage of major resection (p = 0.00007), affirming the score's predictive capacity for operative technical complexity. The Tampa Difficulty Score also correlated with major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) (p < 0.0001), length of stay (p = 0.011), and 30-day readmission (p = 0.046) after robotic hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The Tampa Difficulty Score, through the internal validation process, has confirmed its effectiveness in predicting intra- and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy. The predictive capacity of this system is useful in preoperative surgical planning and risk categorization. External validation is necessary to further explore the accuracy of this robotic DSS.

A single institution's experience with robotic resections of biliary tract cancers: an analysis of the short-term outcomes and long-term survival

INTRODUCTION

Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and gall bladder cancer are difficult malignancies to treat and are characterized by a tendency for local recurrence and a generally unfavorable prognosis. Surgical resection offers the only potential cure, conventionally performed via the open approach. Although minimally invasive approaches show promise, data remain limited.

METHODS

With the institutional review board's approval, we prospectively followed 100 patients between 2013 and 2023 who underwent robotic surgical resection for perihilar, IHCC, and gallbladder cholangiocarcinoma. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Significance was accepted at P ≤ .05.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 70 years, and the median operative duration was 333 min, with an estimated blood loss of 200 mL. Importantly, no unplanned conversions occurred, and only 1 intraoperative complication occurred within the IHCC cohort. The median length of stay was 4 days. There were a total of 19 postoperative complications and 19 readmissions within 30 days. Additionally, there were 3 in-hospital mortalities and 5 90-day mortalities. R0 resection was achieved in 87% of patients and R1 resection in 13%. At a median follow-up of 36 months, 62% of patients demonstrated disease-free survival, whereas 6% continued to live with the disease, and 32% did not survive.

CONCLUSION

Our experience demonstrates the feasibility and safety of robotic resection for these complex malignancies, yielding promising short-term outcomes. Further investigation is required to ascertain the long-term oncologic outcomes.

A decade of experience with 530 minimally invasive robotic hepatectomies from a single tertiary hepatobiliary center: analysis of short-term outcomes and oncologic survival

BACKGROUND

This research is the first study in the United States to document more than a decade of experience with 530 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy at a single high-volume institution.

METHODS

With institutional review board approval, a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy from 2012 to January 2024 was reviewed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Of the 530 robotic hepatectomies, 231 (44.0%) were minor resections, 133 (25.0%) were technically major resections, and 166 (31.0%) were major resections. The patients were aged 63.0 (61.0 ± 14.7) years with a body mass index of 28.0 (29.0 ± 7.9) kg/m2. Cirrhosis was present in 80 patients (19.0%), with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3.0 (3.0 ± 0.5) and a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 7.0 (8.0 ± 3.0). Of note, 280 patients (53.0%) had previous abdominal operations, and 44 patients (8%) had previous liver resections. The operative time was 233.0 (260.0 ± 130.7) minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 100.0 (165.0 ± 205.0) mL. Moreover, 353 patients (66%) had hepatectomies for neoplastic disease, and 500 patients (95%) had an R0 resection margin. The tumor size was 4.0 (5.0 ± 3.6) cm. The total 90-day postoperative complications were 45 (8%), of which 21 (4%) were classified as major complications (Clavien-Dindo score of >III). The length of stay was 3.0 (4.0 ± 3.7) days, and the 30-day readmission rate was 86 (16%). The overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 82%, 65%, and 59% for colorectal liver metastases, 84%, 68%, and 60% for hepatocellular carcinoma, and 79%, 61%, and 50% for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, respectively.

CONCLUSION

After a decade of application and optimization at a high-volume institution, the robotic approach has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective approach to liver resection.

A comparative assessment of ACS NSQIP-predicted and actual surgical risk outcomes of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma resection at a high volume institution

Esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence is increasing in Western nations. There has been a shift toward minimally invasive approaches for transhiatal esophagectomy (THE). This study compares the outcomes of robotic THE for esophageal adenocarcinoma resection at our institution with the predicted metrics from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we prospectively followed 83 patients who underwent robotic THE from 2012 to 2023. Predicted outcomes were determined using the ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator. Our outcomes were compared with these predicted outcomes and with general outcomes for transhiatal esophagectomy reported in ACS NSQIP, which includes a mix of surgical approaches. The median age of patients was 70 years, with a body mass index (BMI) of 26.4 kg/m2 and a male prevalence of 82%. The median length of stay was 7 days. The rates of any complications and in-hospital mortality were 16% and 5%, respectively. Seven patients (8%) were readmitted within a 30-day postoperative window. The median survival is anticipated to surpass 95 months. Our outcomes were generally aligned with or surpassed the predicted ACS NSQIP metrics. The extended median survival of over 95 months highlights the potential effectiveness of robotic THE in the resection of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Further exploration into its long-term survival benefits and outcomes is warranted, along with studies that provide a more direct comparison between robotic and other surgical approaches.

Learning curve analysis after 500 robotic hepatectomies

BACKGROUND

The robotic platform is growing in popularity for hepatobiliary resections. Although the learning curve for basic competency has been reported, this is the first study to analyze the learning curve to achieve long-term mastery on a decade of experience with more than 500 robotic hepatectomies.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, 500 consecutive robotic hepatectomies from 2013 to 2023 were analyzed. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis using operative duration was used to determine the learning curves.

RESULTS

A total of 500 patients were included in this study: composed of 230 men (46.0 %) and 270 women (54.0 %), aged 63.0 (61.0 ± 14.6) years, with a body mass index of 28.0 (29.0 ± 8.0) kg/m2, a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 7 (8 ± 3.0), an albumin-bilirubin score of -3.0 (-3.0 ± 0.6), and a Child-Pugh score of 5.0 (5.0 ± 0.7). Operative duration was 235.0 (260.1 ± 131.9) minutes, estimated blood loss was 100.0 (165.0 ± 208.1) mL, tumor size was 4.0 (5.0 ± 3.5) cm, and 94.0 % of patients achieved R0 margins. The length of hospital stay was 3.0 (4.0 ± 3.7) days, with 4.0 % of patient having major complications. Of note, 30-day readmission was 17.0 %, 30-day mortality was 2.0 %, and 90-day mortality was 3.0 %. On CUSUM analysis, the learning curve for minor resection (n = 215) was 75 cases, major resection (n = 154) was 100 cases, and technically challenging minor resection (n = 131) was 57 cases. Gaining more experience in performing surgical procedures resulted in shorter operative duration, lower blood loss, higher R0 resections, and lower major postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

The minimum number of robotic hepatectomies to overcome the learning curves for mastery of minor, major, and technically challenging minor resections was significant. Our study can help guide surgeons in their early experience to optimize patient safety and outcomes.

Comparison of IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, and Southampton Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Scoring Systems for Predicting Intra and Postoperative Outcomes in Robotic Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM), and Southampton are established difficulty scoring systems (DSS) for laparoscopic hepatectomy, yet none specifically address robotic hepatectomy. Our study evaluates these 3 DSS for predicting perioperative outcomes in robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 359 consecutive patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies, assessing categorical metrics like conversions to open, intra/postoperative issues, Clavien-Dindo Score (≥III), 30 and 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmissions using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Area Under the Curve (AUC) to determine efficacy in predicting their occurrence for each DSS. Continuous metrics such as operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, and total cost were analyzed using Spearman's correlation and regression. Predictive strength was significant with an AUC or correlation ≥.700 and P-value ≤.05.

RESULTS

IMM had highest predictive accuracy for conversions to open (AUC = .705) and postoperative complications (AUC = .481). Southampton was most accurate in predicting Clavien Dindo ≥ III complications (AUC = .506). IWATE excelled in predicting 30-day mortality (AUC = .552), intraoperative issues (AUC = .798), In-hospital mortality (AUC = .450), 90-day mortality (AUC = .596), and readmissions (AUC = .572). Regression showed significant relationships between operative duration, EBL, and hospital cost with increasing scores for all DSS (P ≤ .05).

DISCUSSION

Statistical analysis of the 3 DSS indicates that each has specific strengths that can best predict intra- and/or postoperative outcomes. However, all showed inaccuracies and conflicting relationships with the variables, indicating lack of substantial hierarchy between DSS. Given these inconsistencies, a dedicated comprehensive DSS should be created for robotic hepatectomy.

Robotic Major Hepatectomy in Elderly Patient

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Validation of the IWATE Criteria in Robotic-Assisted Liver Resections

Background/Objectives: The IWATE criteria are well-established as a helpful tool to preoperatively estimate the difficulty and perioperative outcome of laparoscopic liver resections. We evaluated the relationship between the IWATE criteria and the perioperative outcomes in robotic-assisted liver resections (RARLs). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 58 patients who underwent robotic-assisted liver surgery at our center between July 2019 and April 2023. The operative difficulty of every patient was graded according to the IWATE criteria and compared to the perioperative outcome. Results: The median operation time was 236.5 min (range 37-671 min), and the median length of stay was 6 days (range 3-37 min). The majority had no complications (65.5%; n = 38), 18 (31.0%) patients suffered from mild complications (CD ≤ 3A) and 2 patients (3.4%) suffered from relevant complications (CD ≥ 3B). We observed no deaths within 30 postoperative days. The surgery time, postoperative ICU stay and perioperative blood transfusions increased significantly with a higher difficulty level (p = < 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.016). The length of stay, conversion to open surgery (n = 2) and complication rate were not significantly linked to the resulting IWATE group. Conclusions: The IWATE criteria can be implemented in robotic-assisted liver surgery and can be helpful in preoperatively estimating the difficulty of robotic liver resections. Whether there is a "robotic effect" in minimally invasive liver resections has to be further clarified. The IWATE criteria can help to develop curricula for robotic training.

Tampa Difficulty Score: a novel scoring system for difficulty of robotic hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Difficulty scoring system (DSS) has been established for laparoscopic hepatectomy and serves as useful tools to predict difficulty and guide preoperative planning. Despite increased adoption of robotics and its unique technical characteristics compared with laparoscopy, no DSS currently exists for robotic hepatectomy. We aimed to introduce a new DSS for robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

A total of 328 patients undergoing a robotic hepatectomy were identified. After removing the first 24 major and 30 minor hepatectomies using cumulative-sum analysis, 274 patients were included in this study. Relevant clinical variables underwent linear regression using operative time and/or estimated blood loss (EBL) as markers for operative difficulty. Score distribution was analyzed to develop a difficulty-level grouping system.

RESULTS

Of the 274 patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; tumor location, size, and type; the extent of parenchymal resection; the need for portal lymphadenectomy; and the need for biliary resection with hepaticojejunostomy were significantly associated with operative time and/or EBL. They were used to develop the difficulty scores from 1 to 49. Grouping system results were group 1 (less demanding/beginner), 1 to 8 (n = 39); group 2 (intermediate), 9 to 24 (n = 208); group 3 (more demanding/advanced), 25 to 32 (n = 17); and group 4 (most demanding/expert), 33 to 49 (n = 10). When stratified by group, age, previous abdominal operation, Child-Pugh score, operative duration, EBL, major resection, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and length of stay were significantly different among the groups.

CONCLUSION

In addition to established variables in laparoscopic systems, new factors such as the need for portal lymphadenectomy and biliary resection specific to the robotic approach have been identified in this new robotic DSS. Internal and external validations are the next steps in maturing this robotic DSS.

A propensity score matched analysis of robotic and open hepatectomy for treatment of liver tumors. Clinical outcomes, oncological survival, and costs comparison

Minimally invasive robotic hepatectomy is gaining popularity with a faster rate of adoption when compared to laparoscopic approach. Technical advantages brought by the robotic surgical system facilitate a transition from open to minimally invasive technique in hepatic surgery. Published matched data examining the results of robotic hepatectomy using the open approach as a benchmark are still limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, survival, and costs between robotic and open hepatectomy undertaken in our tertiary hepatobiliary center. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 285 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for neoplastic liver diseases between 2012 and 2020. Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open hepatectomy was conducted by 1:1 ratio. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The matching process assigned 49 patients to each arm, open and robotic hepatectomy. There were no differences in R1 resection rates (4% vs 4%; p = 1.00). Differences in perioperative variables between open and robotic hepatectomy included postoperative complications (16% vs 2%; p = 0.02) and length of stay (LOS) [6 (7 ± 5.0) vs 4 (5 ± 4.0) days; p = 0.002]. There were no differences between open and robotic hepatectomy regarding postoperative hepatic insufficiency (10% vs 2%; p = 0.20). No difference was seen in long-term survival outcomes. While there were no differences in costs, robotic hepatectomy was associated with lower reimbursement [$20,432 (39,191 ± 41,467.81) vs $33,190 (67,860 ± 87,707.81); p = 0.04] and lower contribution margin [$-11,229 (3902 ± 42,572.43) vs $8768 (34,690 ± 89,759.56); p = 0.03]. Compared to open approach, robotic hepatectomy robotic offers lower rates of postoperative complications, shorter LOS and similar costs, while not compromising long-term oncological outcomes. Robotic hepatectomy may eventually become the preferred approach in minimally invasive treatment of liver tumors.

Analysis of Clinical Outcomes After Robotic Hepatectomy Applying the Western-Model Southampton Laparoscopic Difficulty Scoring System. An Experience From a Tertiary US Hepatobiliary Center

BACKGROUND

Identification of resections with high risk of intraoperative complications is critical in guiding case selection for minimally invasive liver surgery. Several Japanese and European difficulty scoring systems have been proposed for laparoscopic liver surgery. However, the applicability of these systems for robotic liver resections has not been fully investigated. This study considers the Southampton system and examines its validity when applied to robotic hepatectomies.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of 372 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomies for various indications between 2013 and 2022. Of these patients, 63 operations were classified as low risk, 91 as moderate risk, 198 as high risk and 20 as extremely high risk based on Southampton criteria. Patient outcomes were compared by utilizing an ANOVA of repeated measures. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

The Southampton difficulty scoring system was a strong predictor of intraoperative variables including tumor size, operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), and incidence of major vs minor resection (all P < .0001). In contrast, the Southampton system was a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes including 30-day mortality (P = .15), length of stay (P = .13), and readmissions within 30 days (P = .38).

CONCLUSION

The Southampton difficulty scoring system is a valid system for classifying robotic liver resections and is a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes. However, the system was found to be a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes. This finding may suggest the need for proposal of a new difficulty scoring system for robotic hepatectomies.

Implementation and Outcome of Robotic Liver Surgery in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the nationwide implementation and surgical outcome of minor and major robotic liver surgery (RLS) and assess the first phase of implementation of RLS during the learning curve.

BACKGROUND

RLS may be a valuable alternative to laparoscopic liver surgery. Nationwide population-based studies with data on implementation and outcome of RLS are lacking.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients who underwent RLS for all indications in 9 Dutch centers (August 2014-March 2021). Data on all liver resections were obtained from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit (DHBA) including data from all 27 centers for liver surgery in the Netherlands. Outcomes were stratified for minor, technically major, and anatomically major RLS. Learning curve effect was assessed using cumulative sum analysis for blood loss.

RESULTS

Of 9437 liver resections, 400 were RLS (4.2%) procedures including 207 minor (52.2%), 141 technically major (35.3%), and 52 anatomically major (13%). The nationwide use of RLS increased from 0.2% in 2014 to 11.9% in 2020. The proportion of RLS among all minimally invasive liver resections increased from 2% to 28%. Median blood loss was 150 mL (interquartile range 50-350 mL] and the conversion rate 6.3% (n=25). The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 7.0% (n=27), median length of hospital stay 4 days (interquartile range 2-5) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 0.8% (n=3). The R0 resection rate was 83.2% (n=263). Cumulative sum analysis for blood loss found a learning curve of at least 33 major RLS procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The nationwide use of RLS in the Netherlands has increased rapidly with currently one-tenth of all liver resections and one-fourth of all minimally invasive liver resections being performed robotically. Although surgical outcomes of RLS in selected patient seem favorable, future prospective studies should determine its added value.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Left and Extended Left Hepatectomy: An International Multicenter Study Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversies exist among liver surgeons regarding clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic versus the robotic approach for major complex hepatectomies. The authors therefore designed a study to examine and compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (L-LH/L-ELH) versus robotic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (R-LH/R-ELH) using a large international multicenter collaborative database.

METHODS

An international multicenter retrospective analysis of 580 patients undergoing L-LH/L-ELH or R-LH/R-ELH at 25 specialized hepatobiliary centers worldwide was undertaken. Propensity score-matching (PSM) was used at a 1:1 nearest-neighbor ratio according to 15 perioperative variables, including demographics, tumor characteristics, Child-Pugh score, presence of portal hypertension, multiple resections, histologic diagnosis, and Iwate difficulty grade.

RESULTS

Before the PSM, 190 (32 %) patients underwent R-LH/R-ELH, and 390 (68 %) patients underwent L-LH/L-ELH. After the matching, 164 patients were identified in each arm without significant differences in demographics, preoperative variables, medical history, tumor pathology, tumor characteristics, or Iwate score. Regarding intra- and postoperative outcomes, the rebotic approach had significantly less estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 ml [IQR 200 ml] vs 200 ml [IQR 235 ml]; p = 0.029), fewer conversions to open operations (n = 4 [2.4 %] vs n = 13, [7.9 %]; p = 0.043), and a shorter hospital stay (6 days [IQR 3 days] vs 7 days [IQR 3.3 days]; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Both techniques are safe and feasible in major hepatic resections. Compared with L-LH/L-ELH, R-LH/R-ELH is associated with less EBL, fewer conversions to open operations, and a shorter hospital stay.

Robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis of surgical margins and clinical outcomes from a western tertiary hepatobiliary center

This study was undertaken to determine surgical outcomes of patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to investigate the correlation between tumor distance to margin and perioperative outcomes, as well as overall survival (OS). To our knowledge, this study represents the largest series of robotic liver resection for HCC in North America. We retrospectively analyzed 58 consecutive patients who underwent robotic liver resection for HCC. Patients were further stratified by tumor distance to margin (≤ 1 mm, 1.1-9.9 mm, ≥ 10 mm) and their clinical outcomes including OS were compared. A majority of patients attained a greater than 1 mm tumor distance to margin (81%). There were no differences in tumor size between patient cohorts who attained ≤ 1 mm, 1.1-9.9 mm, and ≥ 10 mm margins. There were no differences in pre-, intra-, and postoperative outcomes among the three cohorts. Cost variables of interest were also similar. OS was highest in the > 10 mm margin cohort, and this was statistically significant at 3 and 5 years. Robotic HCC resection was associated with adequate tumor distance to margin. Wide margins ≥ 10 mm are associated with the best OS.

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.

Robot-assisted radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer: A review

BACKGROUND

Radical cholecystectomy (RC) is recommended for Gallbladder cancer (GbC) patients with resectable T1b or higher stage. Traditionally, open RC is preferred over minimally invasive approach. Robotic surgery is increasingly gaining popularity and there are reports of robotic RC (RRC) for GbC. RRC is still new and mostly performed in high-volume centers with access to robotic technology.

AIM

This study aims to review the current literature on the safety and feasibility of RRC for GbC.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of RRC for GbC using PubMed and Embase until December 2020. The primary endpoint was major complications, while the secondary endpoints were conversion to open, R0 resection, and early recurrence.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 74 patients were included in the study. Overall, four patients (5.41%) required open conversion. Five out of 74 patients (6.76%) experienced post-operative complications. There was no post-operative mortality. Among the patients with surgical margins reported (n = 63), 61 patients had negative margins (96.8%) and only two patients had positive margins. Two-year survival outcomes were reported as 60.5-100%.

RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS

This is the first review that summarizes the current evidence on RRC for GbC. The endpoints suggest that RRC is feasible and safe in selected patients and when done in experienced centers. Understanding the strengths and limitations of RRC compared to other established therapeutic options may potentially aid surgeons in formulating the optimal treatment plan for GbC patients.

Simultaneous Resection of Colorectal Carcinoma and Hepatic Metastases is Safe and Effective: Examining the Role of the Robotic Approach

BACKGROUNDS AND OBJECTIVES

Up to 50% of patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) present with liver metastases (CLM) throughout their course. Complete resection of both sites provides the only chance for cure. Either a staged or simultaneous resection is feasible. The latter avoids delays in adjuvant systemic chemotherapy but may increase technical complexity and perioperative complications. We aim to evaluate our initial outcomes of simultaneous CRC and CLM resections with a focus on the robotic technique.

METHOD

With institutional review board approval, we followed 26 consecutive patients who underwent simultaneous/concomitant liver and colorectal resection. Major liver resection is defined as resection of ≥3 contiguous Couinaud segments. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Patients were 64 (63 ± 14.0) years old. Body mass index was 29 (29 ± 5.7) kg/m². 54% of patients had prior abdominal operation(s). A majority of patients were >ASA class III (73%), underwent major liver resection (62%) with robotic approach (77%). In the robotic cohort, there were no unplanned conversions to open. Estimated blood loss was 150 (210 ± 181.8) ml. Total operative duration was 446 (463 ± 93.6) minutes. Negative margins (R0) were obtained in all patients. Postoperative complication of Clavien-Dindo≥3 occurred in three patients, including one requiring reoperation with end ileostomy for anastomotic leak. Length of stay was 5 (6 ± 3.5) days. Three patients were readmitted within 30 days after discharge, none for reoperation. There was no 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our cohort of concomitant CRC and CLM resection demonstrates safety and efficacy via both the open and robotic approach.

Analysis of surgical approach and tumor distance to margin after liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis

This study was undertaken to compare tumor distance to margin after robotic vs. open hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) and to determine the relationship between perioperative variables, surgical approach and tumor distance to margin with overall survival. With IRB approval, we followed 56 patients who underwent a robotic or open hepatectomy for treatment of CLM. The relationships between the tumor distance to margin, operative approach, perioperative variables and survival was determined. The robotic approach yielded greater margins than the open approach (p = 0.04). The robotic vs. open approach had an operative duration of 375 vs. 269 min (p = 0.05), ICU length of stay (LOS) of 0 vs. 1 day (p = 0.01), and hospital LOS of 4 vs. 7 days (p = 0.04). Patients with a tumor distance to margin of ≤ 1 mm and 1.1-9.9 mm had an estimated median survival of 49 months and 24 months, respectively. Estimated median survival for patients with tumor distance to margin of ≥ 10 mm has not been reached but is > 84 months. The use of the robotic approach is associated with greater tumor distance to margin and shorter hospital LOS, but with longer operations. The robotic approach does not compromise oncological margins during resection for CLM.

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.

The effect of the robotic platform in hepatectomy after prior liver and non-liver abdominal operations: a comparative study of clinical outcomes

Improvements in outcomes after primary hepatectomy have increased the eligibility of patients for reoperative hepatectomies, but this can be fraught with technical difficulties, particularly via a minimally invasive approach. The robotic approach provides superior visualization, articulated instrumentation, platform stability, and increased dexterity when compared to conventional laparoscopy. We sought to investigate the effect brought by the robotic system in the outcome of these operations. We followed 234 patients who underwent robotic liver resection from 2012 to 2021 for retrospective analysis. Patients were classified as: no prior abdominal operation, prior abdominal operation(s), and prior liver resection. Cohorts were compared by one-way ANOVA and 2 × 3 contingency table analyses. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Significance was accepted at p < 0.05. Of the 234 patients studied, 114 underwent primary hepatectomy, 105 had a prior laparoscopic or open abdominal operation (cholecystectomy, herniorrhaphy, colectomy, and appendectomy), and 15 had a redo hepatectomy. Demographic and preoperative ASA, MELD, neoplasm size, and extent of liver resection were similar among the cohorts. There were no statistically significant differences between the three cohorts for all outcome variables including blood loss, operative duration, intensive care unit length of stay, overall length of stay, morbidity, mortality, and readmission rate. There were no differences in morbidity nor mortality between patients undergoing primary nor reoperative robotic hepatectomy. The advantages afforded by the robotic platform may have contributed to the equalization of outcomes.

The effect of diabetes on major robotic hepatectomy

Studies regarding the influence of diabetes on perioperative outcomes after major hepatectomy are conflicting. The objective of this study is to analyze the effects of diabetes on patients undergoing robotic major hepatectomy. With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, 94 patients undergoing major hepatectomy were prospectively followed. Demographic data and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared between diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Data were presented as median (mean ± SD). Patients were of age 62 (61 ± 13.0) years, BMI of 29 (29 ± 5.9) kg/m², and ASA class of 3 (3 ± 0.55). The mass size was 5 (5 ± 3.0) cm. Operative duration was 252 (277 ± 106.6) min with estimated blood loss (EBL) was 175 (249 ± 275.9) mL. One operation was converted to 'open' due to bleeding, accounting for one intraoperative complication. Postoperatively, nine patients required ICU admission, with a duration of 1 (4 ± 5.9) day. Seven patients had postoperative complications. Length of stay (LOS) was 4 (4 ± 2.6) days. Fourteen patients were readmitted within 30 days. There were no deaths in-hospital or within 30 days. Of the 94 patients, 22 were diabetic and 72 were nondiabetic. Diabetic patients were older (70 (69 ± 11.3) years versus 58 (58 ± 12.4) years (p = 0.004)). Intraoperatively, operative duration, EBL, and complications were not significantly different. Postoperatively, LOS, ICU admission, ICU duration, complications, in-hospital mortality, readmission in 30 days, and death after 30 days showed no significant difference between diabetics and nondiabetics. In our experience, diabetes has no significant effect on perioperative outcomes after a robotic major hepatectomy.

Robotic Major Hepatectomy: Influence of Age on Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study was undertaken to determine if age influences postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing robotic major hepatectomy.

METHODS

Ninety-four patients undergoing robotic major hepatectomy were prospectively followed. With regression analysis, demographic data and postoperative outcomes were compared to age. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Overall, the patients were of age 62 (61 ± 13) years, body mass index (BMI) of 29 (29 ± 5.9) kg/m², and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class of 3 (3 ± 0.5). The mass size was 5 (5 ± 3.0) cm. The operative duration was 252 (276 ± 106) minutes with an estimated blood loss (EBL) of 175 (249 ± 275.9) mL. One operation was converted to "open" due to bleeding, accounting for the only intraoperative complication. Nine patients required intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Postoperatively, 7 patients had complications with no in-hospital mortalities, and a length of stay (LOS) of 4 (5 ± 2.6) days. Thirteen patients were readmitted within 30 days with 0 deaths within 30 days.A significant relationship was found between age and ASA class (P = .001) and LOS (P = .03). No correlation was found when comparing age to operative duration, EBL, ICU admission, ICU duration, complications, and readmission within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

For patients undergoing robotic major hepatectomy, there was no significant correlation between age and perioperative outcomes, with the exception of LOS. Increasing age is not associated with increased morbidity or perioperative mortality. With the application of innovative technology, that is, the robotic approach, surgeons should be encouraged to undertake major hepatectomy in elderly patients deemed candidates for surgery.

Robotic choledochoduodenostomy for benign distal common bile duct stricture: how we do it

Benign bile duct stricture poses a significant challenge for gastroenterologists and general surgeons due to the inherent nature of the disease, difficulty in sustaining long-term solutions and fear of pitfalls in performing biliary tract operations. Operative management with an open biliary bypass is mainly reserved for patients who have failed multiple attempts of endoscopic and percutaneous treatments. However, recent advances in minimally invasive technology, notably in the form of the robotics, have provided a new approach to tackling biliary disease. In this technical report, we describe our standardized method of robotic choledochoduodenostomy in a 59-year-old woman with history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass who presents with benign distal common bile duct stricture following failure of non-operative management. Key steps in this approach involved adequate duodenal Kocherization, robotic portal dissection and creation of a side-to-side choledochoduodenal anastomosis. The operative time was 200 min with no intraoperative complications and estimated blood loss was less than 50 mL. No abdominal drains were placed. The patient was discharged home on postoperative day 1 tolerating regular diet and able to resume her usual activities within 1 week of her operation. A video is attached to this report.