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

Robotic Cholecystectomy Remains Safe and Effective After Regular Staffing Hours

Background Robotic-assisted surgery continues to grow in popularity. Access during evenings and weekends for non-elective operations can be restricted out of safety concerns. We sought to analyze and compare outcomes of patients undergoing robotic cholecystectomy, a common urgent procedure for acute calculous cholecystitis, during regular hours versus evenings or weekends. Based on this comparison, we sought to determine if this restriction is justified. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 46 patients who underwent robotic cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis per 2018 Tokyo criteria by a single surgeon at a single institution between 2021 and 2022. Patients were grouped as undergoing "after-hours" cholecystectomy if the operation started at five pm or later, or anytime during the weekend (Saturday, Sunday). Demographic, perioperative, and outcome variables were tabulated and analyzed. For illustrative purposes, the data presented as median ± standard deviation were applicable. Results After-hours cholecystectomy occurred in 26 patients and regular-hours cholecystectomy occurred in 20 patients. There were no significant differences in perioperative variables between the two cohorts in terms of body mass index, age, gender, cirrhotic status, American Society of Anesthesiology score, white blood cell count, or neutrophil percentage. The after-hours group had more prior abdominal operations. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of operative time, estimated blood loss, or length of stay. There were no mortalities. There was one readmission in the after-hours cohort unrelated to the operation. Conclusion Robotic cholecystectomy can be safely performed on the weekends and evenings. Hospitals should make the robotic platform available during this time.

The Role of ICG in Robot-Assisted Liver Resections

Introduction: Robotic-assisted liver surgery (RALS) with its known limitations is gaining more importance. The fluorescent dye, indocyanine green (ICG), is a way to overcome some of these limitations. It accumulates in or around hepatic masses. The integrated near-infrared cameras help to visualize this accumulation. We aimed to compare the influence of ICG staining on the surgical and oncological outcomes in patients undergoing RALS. Material and Methods: Patients who underwent RALS between 2014 and 2021 at the Department of General Surgery at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, were included. In 2019, ICG-supported RALS was introduced. Results: Fifty-four patients were included, with twenty-eight patients (50.9%) receiving preoperative ICG. Hepatocellular carcinoma (32.1%) was the main entity resected, followed by the metastasis of colorectal cancers (17%) and focal nodular hyperplasia (15.1%). ICG staining worked for different tumor entities, but diffuse staining was noted in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, ICG-supported RALS lasted shorter (142.7 ± 61.8 min vs. 246.4 ± 98.6 min, p < 0.001), tumors resected in the ICG cohort were significantly smaller (27.1 ± 25.0 mm vs. 47.6 ± 35.2 mm, p = 0.021) and more R0 resections were achieved by ICG-supported RALS (96.3% vs. 80.8%, p = 0.075). Conclusions: ICG-supported RALS achieve surgically and oncologically safe results, while overcoming the limitations of RALS.

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.

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.