Major robotic hepatectomies: technical considerations

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

Full robotic versus open ALPPS: a bi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

In primarily unresectable liver tumors, ALPPS (Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged hepatectomy) may offer curative two-stage hepatectomy trough a fast and extensive hypertrophy. However, concerns have been raised about the invasiveness of the procedure. Full robotic ALPPS has the potential to reduce the postoperative morbidity trough a less invasive access. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of open and full robotic ALPPS.

METHODS

The bicentric study included open ALPPS cases from the University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland and robotic ALPPS cases from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy from 01/2015 to 07/2022. Main outcomes were intraoperative parameters and overall complications.

RESULTS

Open and full robotic ALPPS were performed in 36 and 7 cases. Robotic ALPPS was associated with less blood loss after both stages (418 ± 237 ml vs. 319 ± 197 ml; P = 0.04 and 631 ± 354 ml vs. 258 ± 53 ml; P = 0.01) as well as a higher rate of interstage discharge (86% vs. 37%; P = 0.02). OT was longer with robotic ALPPS after both stages (371 ± 70 min vs. 449 ± 81 min; P = 0.01 and 282 ± 87 min vs. 373 ± 90 min; P = 0.02). After ALPPS stage 2, there was no difference for overall complications (86% vs. 86%; P = 1.00) and major complications (43% vs. 39%; P = 0.86). The total length of hospital stay was similar (23 ± 17 days vs. 26 ± 13; P = 0.56).

CONCLUSION

Robotic ALPPS was safely implemented and showed potential for improved perioperative outcomes compared to open ALPPS in an experienced robotic center. The robotic approach might bring the perioperative risk profile of ALPPS closer to interventional techniques of portal vein embolization/liver venous deprivation.

Robotic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases in a "referral centre Hub&Spoke learning program". A multicenter propensity score matching analysis of perioperative outcomes

Background

Surgical resection is still considered the optimal treatment for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). Although laparoscopic and robotic surgery demonstrated their reliability especially in referral centers, the comparison between perioperative outcomes of robotic liver resection (RLR) and open (OLR) liver resection are still debated when performed in referral centers for robotic surgery, not dedicated to HPB. Our study aimed to verify the efficacy and safety of perioperative outcomes after RLR and OLR for CRLM in an HUB&Spoke learning program (H&S) between a high volume center for liver surgery and high volume center for robotic surgery.

Methods

We analyzed prospective databases of Pineta Grande Hospital (Castel Volturno) and Robotic Surgical Units (Foligno-Spoleto and Arezzo) from 2011 to 2021. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed according to baseline characteristics of patients, solitary/multiple CRLM, anterolateral/posterosuperior location.

Results

383 patients accepted to be part of the study (268 ORL and 115 RLR). After PSM, 45 patients from each group were included. Conversion rate was 8.89 %. RLR group had a significantly lower blood loss (226 vs. 321 ml; p=0.0001), and fewer major complications (13.33 % vs. 17.78 %; p=0.7722). R0 resection was obtained in 100% of OLR (vs.95.55%, p =0.4944. Hospital stay was 8.8 days in RLR (vs. 15; p=0.0001).Conclusion: H&S represents a safe and effective program to train general surgeons also in Hepatobiliary surgery providing R0 resection rate, blood loss volume and morbidity rate superimposable to referral centers. Furthermore, H&S allow a reduction of health mobility with consequent money saving for patients and institutions.

Update on the Applications of Radiomics in Diagnosis, Staging, and Recurrence of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

This paper offers an assessment of radiomics tools in the evaluation of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for papers published in the English language no earlier than October 2022.

RESULTS

We found 236 studies, and 37 satisfied our research criteria. Several studies addressed multidisciplinary topics, especially diagnosis, prognosis, response to therapy, and prediction of staging (TNM) or pathomorphological patterns. In this review, we have covered diagnostic tools developed through machine learning, deep learning, and neural network for the recurrence and prediction of biological characteristics. The majority of the studies were retrospective.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to conclude that many performing models have been developed to make differential diagnosis easier for radiologists to predict recurrence and genomic patterns. However, all the studies were retrospective, lacking further external validation in prospective and multicentric cohorts. Furthermore, the radiomics models and the expression of results should be standardized and automatized to be applicable in clinical practice.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Primary Hepatobiliary Tumors-Possibilities and Limitations

Simple Summary

Primary liver malignancies are some of the most common and fatal tumors today. Robotic-assisted liver surgery is becoming increasingly interesting for both patients and surgeons alike. Up to date, prospective comparative studies around the topic are scarce. This leads us to an ever existing controversy about the efficacy, safety, and economic benefits of robotic surgery as an extension of traditional minimally invasive surgery over open liver surgery. However, there is evidence that robotic-assisted surgery is, after passing the learning curve, equivalent in terms of feasibility and safety, and in some cases superior to traditional laparoscopic hepatic resection. With this work, we want to provide an overview of the latest and most significant reviews and meta-analyses focusing on robotic hepatectomy in primary liver malignancies. We outline the technical aspects of robotic-assisted surgery and place them into the context of technical, surgical, and oncological outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open resection. When chosen per case individually, any hepatic resection can be performed robotically to overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery by an experienced team. In this paper, we propose that prospective studies are needed to prove efficacy for robotic-assisted resection in liver malignancy.

Abstract

Hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma are fatal primary hepatic tumors demanding extensive liver resection. Liver surgery is technically challenging due to the complex liver anatomy, with an intensive and variant vascular and biliary system. Therefore, major hepatectomies in particular are often performed by open resection and minor hepatectomies are often performed minimally invasively. More centers have adopted robotic-assisted surgery, intending to improve the laparoscopic surgical limits, as it offers some technical benefits such as seven degrees of freedom and 3D visualization. The da Vinci^® Surgical System has dominated the surgical robot market since 2000 and has shown surgical feasibility, but there is still much controversy about its economic benefits and real benefits for the patient over the gold standard. The currently available retrospective case studies are difficult to compare, and larger, prospective studies and randomized trials are still urgently missing. Therefore, here we summarize the technical, surgical, and economic outcomes of robotic versus open and laparoscopic hepatectomies for primary liver tumors found in the latest literature reviews and meta-analyses. We conclude that complex robotic liver resections (RLR) are safe and feasible after the steep learning curve of the surgical team has plateaued. The financial burden is lower in high volume centers and is expected to decrease soon as new surgical systems will enter the market.

Robotic liver partition and portal vein embolization for staged hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is one of the most complex challenges for hepatobiliary surgeons. Poor results and high incidence of morbidity after Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) for pCCA discouraged this indication. It has been proposed that minimally invasive approach for ALPPS first stage, as well as combination of surgical liver partition and radiologic portal vein embolization (PVE), may improve outcomes reducing interstage morbidity. We report a case of right trisectionectomy with enbloc caudatectomy ALPPS scheduled for pCCA with robotic approach at stage-1, the full video is provided as supplementary material. Due to intraoperative presence of portal vein tumor infiltration during hilar dissection (no evidence in the pre-operative work-up), a radiologic right PVE was performed after stage-1 instead of portal vein ligation, followed by portal vein resection and biductal hepatico-jejunostomy at stage-2 with open approach. The patient was a 74-year-old female diagnosed with 3-cm mass-forming pCCA. The total clean liver volume was 1231 cc, with future liver remnant (FLR) volume of 25.1% (segments II and III). She was discharged in the interstage interval on postoperative day (POD) 4; CT scan on POD 12 showed that FLR increased up to 33% (369 cc) (Fig. 1). ALPPS was completed on POD 17, the postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged in good general condition on POD 19 after stage-2. Besides the already demonstrated advantages in terms of reduced interstage morbidity, robotic ALPPS represents a promising strategy to expand surgical indication in patients with pCCA. The combination of liver partition and PVE may increase the opportunities to perform radical resections in selected patients with pCCA and portal vein infiltration.

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.