A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for difficult posterosuperior segments: a systematic review with a meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of minimally invasive liver surgery for posterosuperior segments (PS) are still debated. Since the results of ongoing trials focusing on the results of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR) in this setting are still awaited, the best evidence currently comes from retrospective propensity-score matched (PSM) studies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the outcomes of RLR for difficult located lesions and to provide evidence for its use in clinical practice.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LLR and RLR for PS segments. The Medline, Embase and Web of Science Library electronic databases were searched to identify available research published up to June 2024.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 2907 patients (RLR: n = 1084; LLR: n = 1823) were included in the meta-analysis. The RLR group had less estimated blood loss (EBL) (MD: - 88.3, 95% CI - 144.2-- 32.3; p = 0.012), fewer blood transfusions (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39-0.80, p = 0.033), and a shorter operative time (MD - 27.3, 95% CI - 49.4-- 5.1; p = 0.027). No differences in postoperative morbidity, mortality and R1 resection rates were observed.

CONCLUSION

RLR for lesions in the PS segments are safe and effective, and may have superior surgical outcomes than LLR.

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounting for approximately 90% of primary liver cancers. Advances in diagnostic and therapeutic tools, along with improved understanding of their application, are transforming patient treatment. Integrating these innovations into clinical practice presents challenges and necessitates guidance. These clinical practice guidelines offer updated advice for managing patients with HCC and provide a comprehensive review of pertinent data. Key updates from the 2018 EASL guidelines include personalised surveillance based on individual risk assessment and the use of new tools, standardisation of liver imaging procedures and diagnostic criteria, use of minimally invasive surgery in complex cases together with updates on the integrated role of liver transplantation, transitions between surgical, locoregional, and systemic therapies, the role of radiation therapies, and the use of combination immunotherapies at various stages of disease. Above all, there is an absolute need for a multiparametric assessment of individual risks and benefits, considering the patient's perspective, by a multidisciplinary team encompassing various specialties.

Extent of resection and underlying liver disease influence the accuracy of the preoperative risk assessment with the American College of Surgeons Risk Calculator

BACKGROUND

Liver surgery is associated with a significant risk of postoperative complications, depending on the extent of liver resection and the underlying liver disease. Therefore, adequate patient selection is crucial. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the American College of Surgeons Risk Calculator (ACS-RC) by considering liver parenchyma quality and the type of liver resection.

METHODS

Patients who underwent open or minimally invasive liver resection for benign or malignant indications between January 2019 and March 2023 at the University Hospital Basel were included. Brier score and feature importance analysis were performed to investigate the accuracy of the ACS-RC.

RESULTS

A total of 376 patients were included in the study, 214 (57%) who underwent partial hepatectomy, 89 (24%) who underwent hemihepatectomy, and 73 (19%) who underwent trisegmentectomy. Most patients had underlying liver diseases, with 143 (38%) patients having fibrosis, 75 patients (20%) having steatosis, and 61 patients (16%) having cirrhosis. The ACS-RC adequately predicted surgical site infection (Brier score of 0.035), urinary tract infection (Brier score of 0.038), and death (Brier score of 0.046), and moderate accuracy was achieved for serious complications (Brier score of 0.216) and overall complications (Brier score of 0.180). Compared with the overall cohort, the prediction was limited in patients with cirrhosis, fibrosis, and steatosis and in those who underwent hemihepatectomy and trisegmentectomy. The inclusion of liver parenchyma quality improved the prediction accuracy.

CONCLUSION

The ACS-RC is a reliable tool for estimating 30-day postoperative morbidity, particularly for patients with healthy liver parenchyma undergoing partial liver resection. However, accurate perioperative risk prediction should be adjusted for underlying liver disease and extended liver resections.

A propensity score matched cost analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Cost-effectiveness of Robotic-assisted hepatectomy compared to the open approach is scrutinized. We compared the costs of robotic versus open hepatectomy at a large cancer center.

METHODS

Patients undergoing hepatectomy (1/2019-2/2022) were collected from a prospectively maintained database and 1:1 propensity score matched for 61 robotic and 61 open hepatectomy patients by complexity, tumor diagnosis, and age >65. Financial data was collected and converted to a ratio of service cost to average OR cost. Short-term and economic outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Median length of stay (2 vs. 3 days), major complication rates (0% vs. 8.2%), and 90-day readmission rates (3.3% vs. 11.5%) were lower for robotic hepatectomy (all p < 0.05). Total 90-day perioperative costs were lower by 19.5% for the robotic cohort (mean 6.89 vs 8.56; p < 0.01). Intraoperative costs were higher in the robotic cohort (mean 2.75 vs. 2.44; p < 0.01). Cost reduction drivers during postoperative care were supplies (mean 0.26 vs. 0.75), laboratory (mean 0.27 vs. 0.49), regular surgery unit (mean 0.19 vs. 0.32), recovery room (mean 0.26 vs. 0.29) and pharmacy cost (median 0.21 vs. 0.32; all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Hospital costs of robotic hepatectomy were lower than those of open hepatectomy due to significantly reduced postoperative costs.

Initial Experience With Robotic Liver Resection in the United States

BACKGROUND

This study's aim was to show the feasibility and safety of robotic liver resection (RLR) even without extensive experience in major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

METHODS

A single center, retrospective analysis was performed for consecutive liver resections for solid liver tumors from 2014 to 2022.

RESULTS

The analysis included 226 liver resections, comprising 127 (56.2%) open surgeries, 28 (12.4%) LLR, and 71 (31.4%) RLR. The rate of RLR increased and that of LLR decreased over time. In a comparison between propensity score matching-selected open liver resection and RLR (41:41), RLR had significantly less blood loss (384 ± 413 vs 649 ± 646 mL, P = .030) and shorter hospital stay (4.4 ± 3.0 vs 6.4 ± 3.7 days, P = .010), as well as comparable operative time (289 ± 123 vs 290 ± 132 mins, P = .954). A comparison between LLR and RLR showed comparable perioperative outcomes, even with more surgeries with higher difficulty score included in RLR (5.2 ± 2.7 vs 4.3 ± 2.5, P = .147). The analysis of the learning curve in RLR demonstrated that blood loss, conversion rate, and complication rate consistently improved over time, with the case number required to achieve the learning curve appearing to be 60 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that RLR is a feasible, safe, and acceptable platform for liver resection, and that the safe implementation and dissemination of RLR can be achieved without solid experience of LLR.

Learning curve in robotic liver surgery: easily achievable, evolving from laparoscopic background and team-based

BACKGROUND

Limited and heterogeneous literature data necessitate a focused examination of the learning curve in robotic liver resections. This study aims to assess the learning curve of two surgeons from the same team with differing laparoscopic backgrounds.

METHODS

Since February 2021, San Raffaele Hospital in Milan has implemented a robotic liver surgery program, performing 250 resections by three trained console surgeons. Using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis, the learning curve was evaluated for a Pioneer Surgeon (PS) with around 1200 laparoscopic cases and a New Generation Surgeon (NGS) with approximately 100 laparoscopic cases. Cases were stratified by complexity (38 low, 74 intermediate, 85 high).

RESULTS

Both PS and NGS demonstrated a learning curve for operative time after 15 low-complexity and 10 intermediate-complexity cases, with high-complexity learning curves apparent after 10 cases for PS and 18 cases for NGS. Conversion rates remained unaffected, and neither surgeon experienced increased blood loss or postoperative complications. A "team learning curve" effect in terms of operative time emerged after 12 cases, suggesting the importance of a cohesive surgical team.

CONCLUSION

The robotic platform facilitated a relatively brief learning curve for low and intermediate complexity cases, irrespective of laparoscopic background, underscoring the benefits of team collaboration.

The Liver Transection Area Is a Novel Predictor for Surgical Difficulty in Laparoscopic Liver Resection

Background: A difficulty scoring system was developed to estimate the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS); however, the effect of the liver transection area (LTA) on LLS outcomes have not been previously examined. Therefore, this study investigated the predictive significance of the LTA for LLS. Methods: This retrospective study included 106 patients who underwent LLS in our hospital between January 2012 and December 2023. The association of the LTA with the surgical difficulty level and operative time was investigated. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors predicting surgical difficulty in LLS. Results: The median LTA and operative time were 62.5 (IQR, 36.0-91.8) cm2 and 250 (IQR, 195-310) minutes, respectively. The LTA was significantly associated with surgical difficulty as evaluated using the IWATE Criteria. Moreover, the LTA significantly correlated with operative time (r2 = 0.19, p < 0.001). The multivariable analyses found that the LTA (≥59 cm2) (odds ratio [OR], 6.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.38-16.6; p < 0.001) and the type of LLS (≥segmentectomy) (OR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.35-11.4; p = 0.01) were significant factors associated with surgical difficulty. Conclusions: The LTA is a useful parameter that reflects the difficulty of LLS.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for posterosuperior segments: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy for difficult lesions located in posterosuperior segments (segments I, IVa, VII and VIII) remains challenging. The value of robotic liver resection (RLR) compared with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for posterosuperior segments is controversial. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to validate the safety and efficacy of RLR in posterosuperior segments.

METHODS

The Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched to identify available research published up to October 2023. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan software version 5.3.

RESULTS

Six studies with a total of 2289 patients (RLR: n = 749; LLR: n = 1540) were included in this meta-analysis. The RLR group had less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -119.54 ml, 95% CI: -178.89 to -60.19, P < 0.0001), fewer blood transfusions (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.80, P = 0.001), a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.61, P < 0.0001), and a shorter operative time (WMD = -27.16 min, 95% CI: -35.95 to -18.36, P < 0.00001).

DISCUSSION

Compared with LLR, RLR for lesions in the posterosuperior segments could be safe and effective, and it has superior surgical outcomes.

Association between quality metric adherence and overall survival among patients undergoing resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Process-based quality metrics are important for improving long-term outcomes after surgical resection. We sought to develop a practical surgical quality score for patients diagnosed with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma undergoing curative-intent resection.

METHODS

Patients who underwent surgical resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2017 were identified using the National Cancer Database. Five surgical quality metrics were defined: minimally invasive approach, adequate lymphadenectomy, negative surgical margins, receipt of adjuvant therapy, and no prolonged hospitalization. Log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression analysis were used to determine the association of quality metrics with overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 38,228 patients underwent curative-intent resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Median age at diagnosis was 68 years (interquartile range = 61-75), and roughly half the cohort was male (n = 19,562; 51.2%). Quality metrics were achieved on a varied basis: minimally invasive approach (n = 5,701; 14.9%), adequate lymphadenectomy (n = 27,122; 80.0%), negative surgical margin (n = 29,248; 76.5%), receipt of adjuvant therapy (n = 26,006; 68.0%), and absence of prolonged hospitalization (n = 26,470; 69.2%). An integer-based surgical quality score from 0 (no quality metrics) to 16 (all quality metrics) was calculated. Patients with higher scores had progressively better overall survival. Median overall survival differed substantially among the score categories (score = 0-4 points, 8.7 [8.0-9.6] months; 5-8 points, 17.5 [16.9-18.2] months; 9-12 points, 22.1 [21.6-22.8] months; and 13-16 points, 30.8 [30.2-31.3] months; P <  .001). On multivariable analysis, risk-adjusted mortality hazards decreased in a stepwise manner with higher scores (0-4 points: reference; 5-8 points: multivariable adjusted hazard ratio = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.57-0.63; 9-12 points: adjusted hazard ratio = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.47-0.52; 13-16 points: and adjusted hazard ratio = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.34-0.40; all P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Adherence to quality metrics may be associated with improved overall survival. Efforts aimed at increasing compliance with quality metric measures may help optimize long-term outcomes among patients undergoing surgical resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Textbook oncologic outcomes among patients undergoing laparoscopic, robotic and open surgery for intrahepatic and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Textbook oncologic outcome (TOO) serves as a composite, oncologic metric for surgical quality of care. We sought to evaluate variations in TOO among patients undergoing laparoscopic, robotic, and open surgery for intrahepatic (iCCA) and perihilar (pCCA) cholangiocarcinoma.

METHODS

Patients who underwent liver resection for iCCA and pCCA between 2010 and 2018 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Entropy balancing was performed for covariate balancing and multivariable regression was used to evaluate the association between surgical approach and TOO.

RESULTS

Among 5434 patients who underwent hepatic resection between 2010 and 2018, 3888 (71.6%) had iCCA, and 1546 (28.4%) had pCCA. TOO was achieved in 11.7% (n = 454), and 18.8% (n = 291) of patients with iCCA and pCCA, respectively. There was a difference in achievement of TOO relative to operative approach among patients with iCCA (robotic: 6.2% vs. laparoscopic: 8.1% vs. open: 12.5%; p = 0.002). After entropy balancing, patients with iCCA undergoing laparoscopic surgery had 32% reduced odds of achieving TOO (Ref: open surgery; laparoscopic, OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.49-0.93; p = 0.016; robotic, OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.34-1.39; p = 0.298).

CONCLUSIONS

Usage of composite oncologic measures such as TOO may allow for a holistic assessment of different approaches to hepatic resection among patients with CCA.

A Comprehensive Review on Comparative Analysis of Operative Efficiency and Postoperative Recovery in Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy

Minimally invasive liver surgery, particularly hepatectomy, has evolved significantly with the advent of laparoscopic and robotic techniques. These approaches offer potential benefits over traditional open surgery, including reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, faster recovery, and improved cosmetic outcomes. This comprehensive review aims to compare the operative efficiency and postoperative recovery outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy. It seeks to provide an in-depth analysis of the advantages and limitations of each technique, assess their cost-effectiveness, and explore emerging trends and future directions in minimally invasive liver surgery. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy. The review includes an analysis of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, complication rates, oncological outcomes, and overall cost. Additionally, advancements in technology and future research directions were explored to provide a comprehensive overview of the current landscape and future potential of these surgical techniques. Both robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy have demonstrated comparable outcomes in terms of oncological safety and effectiveness. However, robotic hepatectomy offers advantages in terms of precision and dexterity, particularly in complex cases, due to its advanced visualization and instrumentation. Laparoscopic hepatectomy, while associated with shorter operative times and lower costs, is limited by technical challenges, especially in major liver resections. The review also highlights the increasing adoption of robotic systems, despite their higher costs and the need for specialized training. Robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy are both viable options for minimally invasive liver surgery, each with distinct advantages and limitations. The choice between the two should be based on patient-specific factors, the complexity of the procedure, and the surgeon's expertise. Ongoing advancements in technology, including the integration of artificial intelligence and augmented reality, are expected to further refine these techniques, enhancing their efficacy and accessibility. Future research should focus on large-scale, multicenter trials to provide more definitive comparisons and guide clinical decision-making.

Effect of IWATE laparoscopic difficulty score on postoperative outcomes and costs for robotic hepatectomy: Are complex resections more expensive?

BACKGROUND

The IWATE criteria, a four-level classification system for laparoscopic hepatectomy, measures technical complexity but lacks studies on its impact on outcomes and costs, especially in robotic surgeries. This study evaluated the effects of technical complexity on perioperative outcomes and costs in robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

Since 2013, we prospectively followed 500 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Patients were classified into four levels of IWATE scores; (low [0-3], intermediate [4-6], advanced [7-9], and expert [10-12]) determined by tumor characteristics, liver function and resection extent. Perioperative variables were analyzed with significance accepted at a p-value ≤.05.

RESULTS

Among 500 patients, 337 (67%) underwent advanced to expert-level operations. Median operative duration was 213 min (range: 16-817 min; mean ± SD: 240 ± 116.1 min; p < .001) and estimated blood loss (EBL) was 95 mL (range: 0-3500 mL; mean ± SD:142 ± 171.1 mL; p < .001). Both operative duration and EBL showed positive correlations with increasing IWATE scores. Median length of stay (LOS) of 3 days (range: 0-34; mean ± SD:4 ± 3.0 days; p < .001) significantly correlated with IWATE score. Total cost of $25 388 (range: $84-354 407; mean ± SD: 29752 ± 20106.8; p < .001) also significantly correlated with operative complexity, however hospital reimbursement did not. No correlation was found between IWATE score and postoperative complications or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical variables such as operative duration, EBL, and LOS correlate with IWATE difficulty scores in robotic hepatectomy. Financial metrics such as costs but not reimbursement received by the hospital correlate with IWATE scores.

New trends in surgery for colorectal liver metastasis

By presenting the most up-to-date findings and incorporating the latest evidence, this article seeks to present a comprehensive guide for navigating the complexities inherent in the management of colorectal liver metastasis. It aims to serve as a valuable resource offering clinicians and healthcare professionals an understanding of the diverse modalities and approaches available for treating this challenging and multifaceted disease. In an era of rapidly evolving medical knowledge, this article examines the latest insights to make informed decisions in the realm of colorectal liver metastasis management. The article does not only highlight the up-to-date knowledge but also provides the evidence for existing therapeutic strategies. This practical tool provides evidence-based recommendations to clinicians, thereby contributing to the ongoing advancement of effective treatment strategies for this challenging disease.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Various Settings: An International Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study of 10.075 Patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings.

BACKGROUND

Clear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined.

METHODS

In this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: (1) minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or (2) posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and (3) major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥grade 2, postoperative bile leak ≥grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+.

RESULTS

Among the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After propensity score matching, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs 71.8%, P < 0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs 50.4%, P = 0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs 47.1%, P < 0.001), blood loss (100 vs 200 milliliters, P < 0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs 7.9%, P = 0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P < 0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs 25.7%, P < 0.001), and microscopically irradical resection margins (10.1% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.015), and shorter operative times (190 vs 210 minutes, P = 0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared with LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n = 431 per group, 75.9% vs 71.2%, P = 0.184) and major resections (n = 321 per group, 72.9% vs 67.5%, P = 0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

While both produce excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.

The method of using robotic Harmonic ACE curved shears for parenchymal transection in robotic hepatectomy

Robotic liver surgery is emerging as a minimally invasive surgery to overcome the disadvantages of laparoscopy. The two biggest barriers to the uptake of robotic hepatectomy are the high cost and instrument limitations. Transection of the liver parenchyma is the main issue in robotic hepatectomy. Nonetheless, with adequate experience and the aid of reliable and enhanced three-dimensional visualization, many robotic surgeons have successfully used robotic Harmonic ACE curved shears (Intuitive Surgical Inc.) for parenchymal transection of the liver. Herein, we share a method of using robotic Harmonic ACE curved shears for parenchymal transection using a video clip.

Is surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma at high-volume centers worth the additional cost?

BACKGROUND

Case volume has been associated with improved outcomes for patients undergoing treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma, often with higher hospital expenditures. We sought to define the cost-effectiveness of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment at high-volume centers.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma from 2013 to 2017 were identified from Medicare Standard Analytic Files. High-volume centers were defined as the top decile of facilities performing hepatectomies in a year. A multivariable generalized linear model with gamma distribution and a restricted mean survival time model were used to estimate costs and survival differences relative to high-volume center status. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to define the additional cost incurred for a 1-year incremental gain in survival.

RESULTS

Among 13,666 patients, 8,467 (62.0%) were treated at high-volume centers. Median expenditure was higher ($19,148, interquartile range $15,280-$29,128) among patients treated at high-volume centers versus low-volume centers ($18,209, interquartile range $14,959-$29,752). Despite similar median length-of-stay (6 days, interquartile range 4-9), a slightly higher proportion of patients were discharged to home from high-volume centers (n = 4,903, 57.9%) versus low-volume centers (n = 2,868, 55.2%) (P = .002). A 0.14-year (95% confidence interval 0.06-0.22) (1 month and 3 weeks) survival benefit was associated with an incremental cost of $1,070 (95% confidence interval $749-$1,392) among patients undergoing surgery at high-volume centers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for treatment at a high-volume center was $7,951 (95% confidence interval $4,236-$21,217) for an additional year of survival, which was below the cost-effective threshold of $21,217.

CONCLUSION

Surgical care at high-volume centers offers the potential to deliver cancer care in a more cost-effective and value-based manner.

Short-term and long-term outcomes after robotic versus open hepatectomy in patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatectomy (RH) is currently widely accepted and it is associated with some benefits when compared to open hepatectomy (OH). However, whether such benefits can still be achieved for patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing RH or OH.

METHODS

Perioperative and survival data from patients with large HCC who underwent RH or OH between January 2010 and December 2020 were collected from eight centres. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimise potential biases.

RESULTS

Using predefined inclusion criteria, 797 patients who underwent OH and 309 patients who underwent RH were enroled in this study. After PSM, 280 patients in the robotic group had shorter operative time (median 181 vs. 201 min, P <0.001), lower estimated blood loss (median 200 vs. 400 ml, P <0.001), and shorter postoperative length of stay (median 6 vs. 9 days, P <0.001) than 465 patients in the open group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall survival and recurrence-free survival. Cox analysis showed AFP greater than 400 ng/ml, tumour size greater than 10 cm, and microvascular invasion were independent risk factors for overall survival and recurrence-free survival. After PSM, subgroup analysis showed that patients with a huge HCC (diameter >10 cm) who underwent RH had significantly lower estimated blood loss (median 200.0 vs. 500.0 min, P <0.001), and shorter length of stay (median 7 vs. 10 days, P <0.001) than those who underwent OH.

CONCLUSION

Safety and feasibility of RH and OH for patients with large HCC were comparable. RH resulted in similar long-term survival outcomes as OH.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for liver malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

How different surgical procedures, including the robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), can affect the prognosis of patients with liver malignancies is unclear. Thus, in this study, we compared the effects of RLR and LLR on the surgical and oncological outcomes in patients with liver malignancies through propensity score-matched cohort studies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched using Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords from inception until May 31, 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. The mean difference with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used for analysis of continuous variables; the risk ratio with 95% CI was used for dichotomous variables; and the hazard ratio with 95% CI was used for survival-related variables. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five high-quality cohort studies with 986 patients were included (370 and 616 cases for RLR and LLR, respectively). In terms of surgical outcomes, there were no significant differences in the operation time, conversion rate to open surgery, overall complication rate, major complication rate, and length of hospital stay between the RLR and LLR groups. In terms of oncological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Surgical and oncological outcomes are comparable between RLR and LLR on patients with liver malignancies. Therefore, the benefits of applying RLR in patients with liver malignancies need to be further explored.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic platform has been increasingly applied in major hepatectomy. However, the role or advantage of robotic approach comparing with laparoscopic approach in major hepatectomy remains controversial. This meta-analysis compares perioperative outcomes of robotic major hepatectomy (RMH) to laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatic neoplasms.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify comparative studies compared RMH versus LMH for hepatic neoplasms. The search timeframe was set before May 2023. Main outcomes were mortality, overall morbidities, serious complications, and conversion to open surgery. Secondary outcomes were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative length of hospital stay, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. Studies were evaluated for quality by Cochrane risk of bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023410951).

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective cohort studies concerning total 1657 patients (796 RMH, 861 LMH) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR=1.23, 95% CI=0.50-2.98, P =0.65), overall postoperative complications (OR=0.83, 95% CI=0.65-1.06, P =0.14), operative time (MD=6.47, 95% CI=-14.72 to 27.65, P =0.55), blood transfusion (OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.55-1.08, P =0.13), R0 resection (OR=1.45, 95% CI=0.91-2.31, P =0.12), reoperation (OR=0.76, 95% CI=0.31-1.88, P =0.56), and readmission (OR=0.63, 95% CI=0.28-1.44, P =0.27) between RMH and LMH. Incidence of serious complications (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.40-0.90, P =0.01), conversion to open surgery (OR=0.41, 95% CI=0.27-0.63, P <0.0001), blood loss (MD=-91.42, 95% CI=-142.18 to -40.66, P =0.0004), and postoperative hospital stay (MD=-0.64, 95% CI=-0.78 to -0.49, P <0.00001) were reduced for RMH versus LMH.

CONCLUSIONS

RMH is associated with comparable short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to LMH when performed by experienced surgeons at large centres. RMH may result in reduced major morbidities, conversion rate, blood loss, and hospital stay, but these results were volatile. Further randomized studies should address the potential advantages of RMH over LMH.

Robotic liver surgery: A new reality. Descriptive analysis of 220 cases of minimally invasive liver surgery in 182 patients

INTRODUCTION

The level of recommendation of the robotic approach in liver surgery is controversial. The objective of the study is to carry out a single-center retrospective descriptive analysis of the short-term results of the robotic and laparoscopic approach in liver surgery during the same period.

METHODS

Descriptive analysis of the short-term results of the robotic and laparoscopic approach on 220 resections in 182 patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery.

RESULTS

Between April 2018 and June 2022, a total of 92 robotic liver resections (RLR) were performed in 83 patients and 128 laparoscopic (LLR) in 99 patients. The LLR group showed a higher proportion of major surgery (P < .001) and multiple resections (P = .002). The two groups were similar in anatomical resections (RLR 64.1% vs. LLR 56.3%). In the LLS group, the average operating time was 212 min (SD 52.1). Blood loss was 276.5 mL (100-1000) and conversion 12.1%. Mean hospital stay was 5.7 (SD 4.9) days. Morbidity was 27.3% and 2% mortality. In the RLS group, the mean operative time was 217 min (SD 53.6), blood loss 169.5 mL (100.900), and conversion 2.5%. Mean hospital stay was 4.1 (SD 2.1) days. Morbidity was 15%, with no mortality.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive liver surgery is a safe technique, and in particular, RLS allows liver resections to be performed safely and reproducibly; it appears to be a non-inferior technique to LLS, but randomized studies are needed to determine the minimally invasive approach of choice in liver surgery.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of open versus laparoscopy-assisted versus pure laparoscopic versus robotic living donor hepatectomy

The value of minimally invasive approaches for living donor hepatectomy remains unclear. Our aim was to compare the donor outcomes after open versus laparoscopy-assisted versus pure laparoscopic versus robotic living donor hepatectomy (OLDH vs. LALDH vs. PLLDH vs. RLDH). A systematic literature review of the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement (up to December 8, 2021). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed separately for minor and major living donor hepatectomy. The risk of bias in nonrandomized studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 31 studies were included. There was no difference in donor outcomes after OLDH versus LALDH for major hepatectomy. However, PLLDH was associated with decreased estimated blood loss, length of stay (LOS), and overall complications versus OLDH for minor and major hepatectomy, but also with increased operative time for major hepatectomy. PLLDH was associated with decreased LOS versus LALDH for major hepatectomy. RLDH was associated with decreased LOS but with increased operative time versus OLDH for major hepatectomy. The scarcity of studies comparing RLDH versus LALDH/PLLDH did not allow us to meta-analyze donor outcomes for that comparison. There seems to be a marginal benefit in estimated blood loss and/or LOS in favor of PLLDH and RLDH. The complexity of these procedures limits them to transplant centers with high volume and experience. Future studies should investigate self-reported donor experience and the associated economic costs of these approaches.

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

BACKGROUND

The advantages of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) are still debated. This study compares the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) liver resections in propensity score matched cohorts.

METHODS

Data regarding minimally invasive liver resections in two liver surgery units were retrospectively reviewed. A propensity score matched analysis (1:1 ratio) identified two groups of patients with similar characteristics. Intra- and post-operative outcomes were then compared. The difficulty of MILS was based on the IWATE criteria.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-nine patients underwent MILS between January 2014 and December 2021 (LLR = 192; RLR = 77). Propensity score matching identified 148 cases (LLR = 74; RLR = 74) consisting of compensated cirrhotic patients (100%) underwent non-anatomic resection of IWATE 1-2 class (90.5%) for a solitary tumor < 5 cm in diameter (93.2%). In such patients, RLRs had shorter operative time (227 vs. 250 min, p = 0.002), shorter Pringle's cumulative time (12 vs. 28 min, p < 0.0001), and less blood loss (137 vs. 209 cc, p = 0.006) vs. LLRs. Conversion rate was nihil (both groups). In RLRs compared to LLRs, R0 rate (93 vs. 96%, p > 0.71) and major morbidity (4.1 vs. 5.4%, p > 0.999) were similar, without post-operative mortality. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (6.2 vs. 6.6, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study supports the non-inferiority of RLR over LLR. In compensated cirrhotic patients underwent resection of low-to-intermediate difficulty for a solitary nodule < 5 cm, RLR was faster, with less blood loss despite the shorter hilar clamping, and required shorter hospitalization compared to LLR.

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.

Robotic Approach for Lymphadenectomy in Biliary Tumors: The Missing Ring Between the Benefits of Laparoscopic and Reproducibility of Open Approach?

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the oncological adequacy of lymphadenectomy (LND) for biliary tumors and surgical outcomes of resections performed using robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches and to compare the techniques within a weighted propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND

The need to perform formal LND is considered a limit for the applicability of minimally invasive liver surgery.

METHODS

Overall, 25 robotic resections with LND (2021-2022) from a single-center constituted the study group (Rob group), matched by inverse probability treatment weighting with 97 laparoscopic (Lap group) and 113 open (Open group) procedures to address the primary endpoint. A "per-period" analysis was performed comparing the characteristics and outcomes of the Rob group with the first 25 consecutive laparoscopic liver resections with associated LND (LapInit group).

RESULTS

Minimally invasive techniques performed equally well regarding the number of harvested nodes, blood transfusions, functional recovery, length of stay, and major morbidity and provided a short-term benefit to patients when compared with the open technique. A better performance of the robotic approach over laparoscopic approach (and both approaches over the open technique) was recorded for patients achieving LND with retrieval of >6 nodes. The open approach reduced both the operative time and time for LND, and robotic surgery performed better than laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive techniques are excellent tools for the management of LND in patients with biliary tumors, showing feasibility, and oncological adequacy. Robotics could contribute to the large-scale diffusion of these procedures with a high profile of complexity.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: A single-center, propensity score- matched study

BACKGROUND

Although the effectiveness of robotic hepatectomy (RH) has been evaluated in several studies, the superiority of RH over other approaches has not been definitely established. Therefore, in the present propensity score-matched cohort study, we compared RH and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in terms of perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent RH or LH for benign and malignant liver lesions at a single center in Taiwan at any time between 2014 and 2020. Confounding factors, specifically age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, IWATE criteria, and Charlson comorbidity index, were adjusted through propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 329 patients were finally included in this study. Two homogeneous groups (RH and LH; n, 72 each) were formed using PSM. The RH group had a longer operative time (median: 231 vs.180 min, respectively; P = .001) and lower conversion (to open surgery) rate (9.7% vs.0.0%, respectively; P = .013) than did the LH group. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of other perioperative outcomes, specifically blood loss, hospital stay, intensive care unit admission, mortality, morbidity, or tumor margin status.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of conversion to open surgery is lower in RH than in LH. Although operative time is longer in RH than in LH, RH is feasible and safe for patients with benign or malignant liver lesion. Our study also demonstrated comparable oncological results in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma between LH and RH group.

[Robotics in Liver Surgery - Tips and Tricks]

Since minimally invasive liver surgery has proven benefits over open surgery, this technique should also be implemented more broadly in Germany. With the dramatic development in minimally invasive and robotic liver surgery, this approach has been established in recent years. Most recent analyses suggest lower complication rates, blood loss and hospital stay compared to open and laparoscopic liver surgery. In contrast to laparoscopic surgery, the technical setting of robotic liver surgery is widely independent of the type of resection. The laparoscopic and robotic technologies should be considered to be equal at the moment, although most recent analyses even suggest additional advantages of robotic over laparoscopic liver surgery. Moreover, robotics has a greater potential for technical refinements, including the inclusion of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Most steps can be transferred from open and laparoscopic liver surgery, but a dissection device such as the CUSA has not yet been developed. Consequently, different techniques have been reported for parenchymal transsection. Due to the special technical features of robotic surgery, intensive training programs should be used prior to the establishment of a robotic liver surgery program.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) after open hepatectomy compared to minimally invasive liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Even though the risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) after liver resection is well recognized, the association between surgical approach and VTE risk is unknown. This study aims to compare VTE rates following open liver resection (OLR) and minimally invasive liver resection (MILR).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web Of Sciences and EMBASE databases were interrogated to identify eligible studies published between February 2016 and August 2022. Studies were considered suitable if they reported a comparison between OLR and MILR (including laparoscopic liver resection [LLR] or robotic liver resection [RLR]).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies including 11 356 patients met the inclusion criteria. 5622 patients underwent OLR and 5734 patients underwent MILR. The VTE rate was higher among patients who underwent OLR compared to MILR (2.8% vs 1.4%, OR (95% CI) = 1.84, p=<00001). Similarly, the subgroup analysis showed a higher rate of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (1.4% vs 0.7%, OR (95% CI) = 1.98, p = 0.02) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (1.3% vs 0.7%, OR (95% CI) = 1.88, p = 0.002) in patients who underwent OLR compared to MILR.

DISCUSSION

Patients who undergo open hepatectomy have a higher incidence of postoperative VTE when compared to those undergoing minimally invasive liver resection. This finding was consistent for both DVT and PE.

Occlusion-robust scene flow-based tissue deformation recovery incorporating a mesh optimization model

PURPOSE

Tissue deformation recovery is to reconstruct the change in shape and surface strain caused by tool-tissue interaction or respiration, which is essential for providing motion and shape information that benefits the improvement of the safety of minimally invasive surgery. The binocular vision-based approach is a practical candidate for deformation recovery as no extra devices are required. However, previous methods suffer from limitations such as the reliance on biomechanical priors and the vulnerability to the occlusion caused by surgical instruments. To address the issues, we propose a deformation recovery method incorporating mesh structures and scene flow.

METHODS

The method can be divided into three modules. The first one is the implementation of the two-step scene flow generation module to extract the 3D motion from the binocular sequence. Second, we propose a strain-based filtering method to denoise the original scene flow. Third, a mesh optimization model is proposed that strengthens the robustness to occlusion by employing contextual connectivity.

RESULTS

In a phantom and an in vivo experiment, the feasibility of the method in recovering surface deformation in the presence of tool-induced occlusion was demonstrated. Surface reconstruction accuracy was quantitatively evaluated by comparing the recovered mesh surface with the 3D scanned model in the phantom experiment. Results show that the overall error is 0.70 ± 0.55 mm.

CONCLUSION

The method has been demonstrated to be capable of continuously recovering surface deformation using mesh representation with robustness to the occlusion caused by surgical forceps and promises to be suitable for the application in actual surgery.

Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Low-Risk Surgical Candidates: A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to perform a multicenter comparison between robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD).

BACKGROUND

Previous comparisons of RPD versus OPD have only been carried out in small, single-center studies of variable quality.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent RPD (n = 1032) or OPD (n = 1154) at 7 centers in China between July 2012 and July 2020 were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed.

RESULTS

After PSM, 982 patients in each group were enrolled. The RPD group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (190.0 vs 260.0 mL; P < 0.001), and a shorter postoperative 1length of hospital stay (LOS) (12.0 (9.0-16.0) days vs 14.5 (11.0-19.0) days; P < 0.001) than the OPD group. There were no significant differences in operative time, major morbidity including clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF), bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), reoperation, readmission or 90-day mortality rates. Multivariable analysis showed R0 resection, CR-POPF, PPH and reoperation to be independent risk factors for 90-day mortality. Subgroup analysis on patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (n = 326 in each subgroup) showed RPD had advantages over OPD in EBL and postoperative LOS. There were no significant differences in median disease-free survival (15.2 vs 14.3 months, P = 0.94) or median overall survival (24.2 vs 24.1 months, P = 0.88) between the 2 subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD was comparable to OPD in feasibility and safety. For patients with PDAC, RPD resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OPD.

Minimally invasive versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis of 224 patients

PURPOSE

To compare the peri-operative and long-term survival outcomes of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) (robotic or laparoscopic) with open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent liver resection for HCC were reviewed from a prospectively collected database. Outcomes of MILR were compared with those of OLR. A propensity score matching analysis with a ratio of 1:1 was performed to minimise the potential bias in clinical pathological factors.

RESULTS

From January 2003 to December 2017, a total of 705 patients underwent liver resection for HCC. Amongst them, 112 patients received MILR and 593 patients received OLR. After propensity score matching, there were 112 patients in each of the MILR and OLR groups. Patients were matched by age, sex, hepatitis status, presence of cirrhosis, platelet count, albumin level, bilirubin level, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level, alanine transferase (ALT) level, creatinine level, tumour differentiation, tumour size, tumour number, presence of tumour rupture, presence of vascular invasion, extent of liver resection (minor/major) and difficulty score. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 94.4%, 90.4% and 82.3% in the MILR group vs 95.4%, 80.5% and 71.8% in the open group (p = 0.240). The 1-, 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 81.0%, 63.1% and 55.8% in the MILR group vs 79.1%, 58.1% and 45.7 in the open group (p = 0.449). The MILR group demonstrated significantly less blood loss (p < 0.001), less blood transfusion (p = 0.004), lower post-operative complications (p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) when compared with the OLR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data shows MILR yielded superior post-operative outcomes to OLR, with comparable survival outcomes.

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.

Risk factors and outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive hepatectomy with unplanned conversion: a contemporary NSQIP analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques are growing for hepatectomies. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections have been shown to differ in conversions. We hypothesize that robotic approach will have decreased conversion to open and complications despite being a newer technique than laparoscopy.

METHODS

ACS NSQIP study using the targeted Liver PUF from 2014 to 2020. Patients grouped based on hepatectomy type and approach. Multivariable and propensity scored matching (PSM) was used to analyze the groups.

RESULTS

Of 7767 patients who underwent hepatectomy, 6834 were laparoscopic and 933 were robotic. The rate of conversions was significantly lower in robotic vs laparoscopic (7.8% vs 14.7%; p < 0.001). Robotic hepatectomy was associated with decreased conversion for minor (6.2% vs 13.1%; p < 0.001), but not major, right, or left hepatectomy. Operative factors associated with conversion included Pringle (OR = 2.09 [95% CI 1.05-4.19]; p = 0.0369), and a laparoscopic approach (OR = 1.96 [95% CI 1.53-2.52]; p < 0.001). Undergoing conversion was associated with increases in bile leak (13.7% vs 4.9%; p < 0.001), readmission (11.5% vs 6.1%; p < 0.001), mortality (2.1% vs 0.6%; p < 0.001), length of stay (5 days vs 3 days; p < 0.001), and surgical (30.5% vs 10.1%; p < 0.001), wound (4.9% vs 1.5%; p < 0.001) and medical (17.5% vs 6.7%; p < 0.001) complications.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive hepatectomy with conversion is associated with increased complications, and conversion is increased in the laparoscopic compared to a robotic approach.

Robotic Liver Surgery: Technical Advantages Over Laparoscopic Technique Based on Parameters of Surgical Complexity and Perioperative Outcomes

Introduction: In view of the limited availability, our study addresses the issue of optimal case selection for robotic liver surgery over standard laparoscopy offering an in-detail analysis of intra- and postoperative outcomes. Materials and Methods: Clinical and technical data of all consecutive cases of robotic liver surgery of a single high-volume center from 2018 to 2020 were collected prospectively. Second, we performed a retrospective analysis of all laparoscopic liver resections from 2015 to 2020. Parameters of surgical complexity were extracted and descriptive analysis and statistical hypothesis testing were performed to assess parameters of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Results: A total of 121 robotic resections were compared with 435 laparoscopic resections. Shorter robotic operating times were shown for segmentectomies of the right liver lobe compared with laparoscopic procedures (P = .003) with an according trend for extended resections. A shorter duration of applied Pringle's maneuver was observed for robotic procedures. This advantage was further enhanced in cases with close proximity of the tumor to major vessels. There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidity and mortality between both groups. Conclusion: Our study offers the first in-detail analysis of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery depending on established parameters of surgical complexity. The results indicate potential technical advantages of robotic technology in liver surgery based on parameters that can be studied before the operation. When evaluating robotic technology, future studies should focus not only at overall postoperative outcomes, but rather at potential technical intraoperative advantages to allow optimal case selection for robotic liver surgery. Clinical Trial Registration Number: DRKS00017229.

A Prospective Study Using Propensity Score Matching to Compare Long-term Survival Outcomes After Robotic-assisted, Laparoscopic, or Open Liver Resection for Patients With BCLC Stage 0-A Hepatocellular Carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted (RALR), laparoscopic (LLR), or open liver resection (OLR) in the treatment of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage 0-A hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Following the Balliol IDEAL classification, long-term oncological outcomes can be used to evaluate the value of minimally invasive techniques in the treatment of HCC, and to assess whether they should become a standard practice.

METHODS

Data from prospective cohorts of patients with BCLC stage 0-A HCC who underwent curative liver resection using OLR, LLR, or RALR at Tongji Hospital were reviewed. The short-term and long-term oncological outcomes of these 3 different surgical approaches after adequate follow-up were compared using propensity score matching to reduce selection bias.

RESULTS

Of 369 patients included in this study (71, RALR; 141, LLR; and 157, OLR), 56 patients in each of the 3 groups were chosen for further comparison, after propensity score matching. In the minimally invasive group (RALR+LLR), both the operative time and duration of Pringle's maneuver were significantly longer than those in the OLR group; however, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter. There were no significant differences in the other intraoperative parameters and the incidence of postoperative complications among the 3 groups. HCC recurrence in the minimally invasive group when compared with the OLR group was characterized by a significantly higher proportion of single lesion or early-stage HCC. However, there were no significant differences in the 5-year disease-free survival (63.8%, 54.4%, and 50.6%) or overall survival rates (80.8%, 78.6%, and 75.7%, respectively) among the 3 groups. Clinically significant portal hypertension was the only risk factor that negatively affected the 5-year disease-free survival rate. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that clinically significant portal hypertension, serum alpha-fetoprotein level (≥400 ng/mL), and Edmondson-Steiner grading (III+IV) were independent risk factors for poor long-term survival.

CONCLUSION

Both robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomies were safe and effective for patients with BCLC stage 0-A HCC when compared with open hepatectomy.

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.

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.

Current status of robotic surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary malignancies

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery is an emerging aspect of gastrointestinal surgery. Hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery is currently being explored for a broad spectrum of indications, entities, and postoperative outcomes. Noninferiority and financial aspects are the focus of studies. In this review, the impact on oncological therapies is assessed.

AREAS COVERED

An extensive literature review was conducted, and relevant studies and articles and reviews for robotic surgery in the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery were examined. Special attention was given to the oncological aspects of robotic surgery and its possible impact on the therapy of malignant neoplasms.

EXPERT OPINION

Robotic-assisted surgery for oncological indications is promising, in part, an established technique that has already shown its advantages in the last decade, although high-quality studies are missing. Upcoming experience must consider the oncological benefit and putative new indications in a rapidly changing field of anti-neoplastic regimens. Also, robotic surgery may possess the ability to accelerate digitalization and AI-based augmentation in this context.

Pure Laparoscopic Left Hepatectomy for Regrowth of Mucinous Cystic Neoplasm of the Liver after Laparoscopic Deroofing

Background

Hepatic cystic lesions are common entities, most of which are simple hepatic cysts (SHCs). Mucinous cystic neoplasm of the liver (MCN-L) is a rare tumor characterized by ovarian-like stroma and accounts for <5% of all hepatic cysts. Distinguishing between SHCs and MCN-L is challenging because of the similarity in their imaging findings. Herein, we report a rare regrowth case of MCN-L after laparoscopic deroofing, treated with pure laparoscopic left hepatectomy. Case Presentation. A 63-year-old woman with a large hepatic cystic lesion and abdominal pain was referred to our hospital for surgical treatment. Computed tomography (CT) showed cystic lesions with septations arising from macrolobulations in the left medial segment. She underwent laparoscopic deroofing based on the diagnosis of SHCs; however, the final histopathological diagnosis was MCN-L. She chose observational follow-up, and MCN-L regrowth was detected on follow-up CT 6 months after the laparoscopic deroofing. We performed pure laparoscopic left hepatectomy for complete resection of the MCN-L. She had an uneventful postoperative course and no recurrence at the 5-year follow-up after the radical resection of the MCN-L.

Conclusion

MCN-L is a rare entity, and accurate diagnosis with imaging modalities is greatly challenging. Laparoscopic hepatectomy for MCN-L should be considered as a strong alternative to secure safety and curability.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Surgery for Different Surgical Procedures: Protocol for a Prospective, Multicentric Study (ROBOCOSTES)

Background

The studies which address the impact of costs of robotic vs. laparoscopic approach on quality of life (cost-effectiveness studies) are scares in general surgery.

Methods

The Spanish national study on cost-effectiveness differences among robotic and laparoscopic surgery (ROBOCOSTES) is designed as a prospective, multicentre, national, observational study. The aim is to determine in which procedures robotic surgery is more cost-effective than laparoscopic surgery. Several surgical operations and patient populations will be evaluated (distal pancreatectomy, gastrectomy, sleeve gastrectomy, inguinal hernioplasty, rectal resection for cancer, Heller cardiomiotomy and Nissen procedure).

Discussion

The results of this study will demonstrate which treatment (laparoscopic or robotic) and in which population is more cost-effective. This study will also assess the impact of previous surgical experience on main outcomes.

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.

Bile leak incidence, risk factors and associated outcomes in patients undergoing hepatectomy: a contemporary NSQIP propensity matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in surgical technique, bile leak remains a common complication following hepatectomy. We sought to identify incidence of, risk factors for, and outcomes associated with biliary leak.

STUDY DESIGN

This is an ACS-NSQIP study. Distribution of bile leak stratified by surgical approach and hepatectomy type were identified. Univariate and multivariate factors associated with bile leak and outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Robotic hepatectomy was associated with less bile leak (5.4% vs. 11.4%; p < 0.001) compared to open. There were no significant differences in bile leak between robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy (5.4% vs. 5.3%; p = 0.905, respectively). Operative factors risk factors for bile leak in patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy included right hepatectomy [OR 4.42 (95% CI 1.74-11.20); p = 0.002], conversion [OR 4.40 (95% CI 1.39-11.72); p = 0.010], pringle maneuver [OR 3.19 (95% CI 1.03-9.88); p = 0.044], and drain placement [OR 28.25 (95% CI 8.34-95.72); p < 0.001]. Bile leak was associated with increased reoperation (8.7% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001), 30-day readmission (26.6% vs 6.8%, p < 0.001), 30-day mortality (2% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001), and complications (67.2% vs 23.4%, p < 0.001) for patients undergoing MIS hepatectomy.

CONCLUSION

While MIS confers less risk for bile leak than open hepatectomy, risk factors for bile leak in patients undergoing MIS hepatectomy were identified. Bile leaks were associated with multiple additional complications, and the robotic approach had an equal risk for bile leak than laparoscopic in this time period.

An international multicenter propensity-score matched and coarsened-exact matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic partial liver resections of the anterolateral segments

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver resections RLR may have the ability to address some of the drawbacks of laparoscopic(L)LR but few studies have done a head-to-head comparison of the outcomes after anterolateral segment resections by the two techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted of 3202 patients who underwent minimally-invasive LR of the anterolateral liver segments at 26 international centres from 2005 to 2020. 2606 cases met study criteria of which there were 358 RLR and 1868 LLR. Peri-operative outcomes were compared between the two groups using a 1:3 Propensity Score Matched(PSM) and 1:1 Coarsened Exact Matched(CEM) analysis.

RESULTS

Patients matched after 1:3 PSM(261 RLR vs. 783 LLR) and 1:1 CEM(296 RLR vs. 296 LLR) revealed no significant differences in length of stay, readmission rates, morbidity, mortality and involvement of or close oncological margins. RLR surgeries were associated with significantly less blood loss(50ml vs. 100ml, p<0.001) and lower rates of open conversion on both PSM(1.5% vs. 6.8%, p=0.003) and CEM(1.4% vs. 6.4%, p=0.004) compared to LLR. Though PSM analysis showed RLR to have a longer operating time than LLR(170 min vs. 160 min, p=0.036), this difference proved to be insignificant on CEM(167 min vs. 163 min. p=0.575).

CONCLUSION

This multicentre international combined PSM and CEM study showed that both RLR and LLR have equivalent perioperative outcomes when performed in selected patients at high volume centres. The robotic approach was associated with significantly lower blood loss and allowed more surgeries to be completed in a minimally-invasive fashion.

Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-CRLM)

(1) Background: Here we report on a retrospective study of an international multicentric cohort after minimally invasive liver resection (SIMMILR) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) from six centers. (2) Methods: Resections were divided by the approach used: open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR). Patients with macrovascular invasion, more than three metastases measuring more than 3 cm or a solitary metastasis more than 5 cm were excluded, and any remaining heterogeneity found was further analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) to decrease any potential bias. (3) Results: Prior to matching, 566 patients underwent OLR, 462 LLR and 36 RLR for CRLM. After PSM, 142 patients were in each group of the OLR vs. LLR group and 22 in the OLR vs. RLR and 21 in the LLR vs. RLR groups. Blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity rates were all highly statistically significantly increased in the OLR compared to the LLR group, 636 mL vs. 353 mL, 9 vs. 5 days and 25% vs. 6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Only blood loss was significantly decreased when RLR was compared to OLR and LLR, 250 mL vs. 597 mL, and 224 mL vs. 778 mL, p < 0.008 and p < 0.04, respectively. (4) Conclusions: SIMMILR indicates that minimally invasive approaches for CRLM that follow the Milan criteria may have short term advantages. Notably, larger studies with long-term follow-up comparing robotic resections to both OLR and LLR are still needed.

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.

Percutaneous microwave ablation versus robot-assisted hepatectomy for early hepatocellular carcinoma: A real-world single-center study

BACKGROUND

Both microwave ablation and robot-assisted hepatectomy are representative minimally invasive treatments for early hepatocellular carcinoma. Our study compares the practicability and medium-term therapeutic efficacy between them.

METHODS

Patients with early HCC treated by MWA or RH from 2013 to 2019 were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW) were used to minimize baseline imbalance. Operation trauma, postoperative recovery, complications, cost and oncological efficacy were compared.

RESULTS

401 patients with a median follow-up of 28 months were included (MWA n = 240; RH n = 161). After PSM, 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of MWA group and RH group were 52.2% vs 65.8%, 91.5% vs 91.3% and 91.5% vs 91.3%, respectively. OS and CSS were comparable (p = 0.44 and 0.96), while RFS of MWA was slightly lower but not significant (p = 0.097). The above results after IPTW followed the same trend. After PSM, MWA showed advantages in operation time and blood loss, while RH performed better in postoperative liver function. There was no significant difference in incidence of severe complications between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For early HCC parents, both treatments can achieve good, safe and comparable medium-term therapeutic effects. MWA is more minimally invasive, while RH has better accuracy and causes less damage to liver parenchyma.