Robotic surgery and liver transplantation: A single-center experience of 501 robotic donor hepatectomies

Robotic donor hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation

Robotic donor hepatectomy introduces a new era in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), combining advancements in minimally invasive surgery with superior precision and ergonomics. The beginning of LDLT in 1989 aimed to address the scarcity of deceased donor livers, a situation intensified by the technical and ethical challenges associated with this procedure. The integration of robotic systems since 2010s has broadened the scope and impact of liver transplantation, enhancing outcomes significantly for both donors and recipients. This review discusses the significant advancements in robotic surgery, the ongoing challenges such as cost and training needs, and the future toward global standardization and the integration of artificial intelligence. As this technology continues to evolve, it holds the potential to become the new global standard, ensuring safer procedures and enhanced outcomes for patients worldwide.

Robotic surgery in the aspect of liver transplantation

Introduction. Almost 60 years have passed since the first liver transplant performed by Thomas Starzl. During this time, medical technologies have gradually improved, which has made it possible to use more and more new methods and approaches in this type of medical care. One of the new techniques of recent decades is robotic surgery, which is gradually being introduced into medical practice, including in the field of transplant medicine.

Objective. The purpose of writing this review was to summarize knowledge and describe the current status of development of robotic surgery in the aspect of liver transplantation, namely: liver resection in donors, as well as graft implantation in the recipient.

Material and methods. The review includes foreign and domestic publications on minimally invasive donor liver surgery. Publications on the topic of robotic liver resection in the aspect of liver transplantation were also processed.

Conclusion. Robotic surgery using advanced robotic systems represents the next step in the development of minimally invasive technologies in liver transplantation. Robotic systems provide more precise and dexterous control of instruments, allowing surgeons to perform complex procedures with greater precision and less risk to patients. However, the robotic approach is still very limited in geographical distribution and requires much more experience than laparoscopy. The upcoming introduction of new robotic systems that support haptic feedback or cavitronic ultrasonic surgical aspirators will further promote a widespread adoption of robotic liver resection in liver donors and liver recipients.

The future of liver transplantation

Over the last 50 years, liver transplantation has evolved into a procedure routinely performed in many countries worldwide. Those able to access this therapy frequently experience a miraculous risk-benefit ratio, particularly if they face the imminently life-threatening disease. Over the decades, the success of liver transplantation, with dramatic improvements in early posttransplant survival, has aggressively driven demand. However, despite the emergence of living donors to augment deceased donors as a source of organs, supply has lagged far behind demand. As a result, rationing has been an unfortunate focus in recent decades. Recent shifts in the epidemiology of liver disease combined with transformative innovations in liver preservation suggest that the underlying premise of organ shortage may erode in the foreseeable future. The focus will sharpen on improving equitable access while mitigating constraints related to workforce training, infrastructure for organ recovery and rehabilitation, and their associated costs. Research efforts in liver preservation will undoubtedly blossom with the aim of optimizing both the timing and conditions of transplantation. Coupled with advances in genetic engineering, regenerative biology, and cellular therapies, the portfolio of innovation, both broad and deep, offers the promise that, in the future, liver transplantation will not only be broadly available to those in need but also represent a highly durable life-saving therapy.

Essential updates 2022/2023: A review of current topics in robotic hepatectomy

The liver requires careful handling intra-operatively owing to its vital functions and complexity. Traditional open hepatectomy, while standard, is invasive and requires long recovery periods. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a less invasive option, with its own challenges. The rise of robotic surgery, such as the da Vinci® system, improves precision and control, addressing the limitations of conventional methods, but brings new concerns, such as costs and training. This review focuses on the latest advancements in robotic hepatectomy from 2022/23 articles, delving into topics like "robotic surgery in liver transplantation," "robotic hepatectomy for hilar cholangiocarcinoma," "robotic vascular reconstruction following hepatectomy," "robotic repeat hepatectomy," and "prospective trials in robotic hepatectomy." To retrieve articles, a focused literature search was conducted using PubMed for articles from 2022/23 with a 5-year filter, excluding reviews. Initially, abstracts were screened, and relevant articles on robotic surgery were examined in full for inclusion in this review. Although all the above items are cutting-edge, and many of the references are necessarily at the level of case reports, recent articles are still accompanied by surgical videos, which are useful to readers, especially surgeons who are considering imitating the procedures. In summary, we examined the recent advancements in robotic liver resection. The inclusion of videos that present new techniques aids in knowledge transfer. We anticipate the continued growth of this field of research.

Total robotic liver transplant: the final frontier of minimally invasive surgery

The use of robotic surgery in transplantation is increasing; however, robotic liver transplantation (RLT) remains a challenging undertaking. To our knowledge, this is a report of the first RLT in North America and the first RLT using a whole graft from a deceased donor in the world. This paper describes the preparation leading to the RLT and the surgical technique of the operation. The operation was performed in a 62-year-old man with hepatitis C cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma with a native Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 10. The total console time for the operation was 8 hours 30 minutes, and the transplant hepatectomy took 3 hours 30 minutes. Warm ischemia time was 77 minutes. Biliary reconstruction was performed in a primary end-to-end fashion and took 19 minutes to complete. The patient had an uneventful recovery without early allograft dysfunction or surgical complications and continues to do well after 6-months follow-up. This paper demonstrates the feasibility of this operation in highly selected patients with chronic liver disease. Additional experience is required to fully understand the role of RLT in the future of transplant surgery. Narrated video is available at https://youtu.be/TkjDwLryd3I.

Effect of donor warm ischemia time during graft extraction in right lobe robotic donor hepatectomy on recipient outcomes-A propensity score matched analysis

One of the concerns specific to minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH) is the prolonged time required for graft extraction after completion of the donor hepatectomy (donor warm ischemia time [DWIT]). There has never been an objective evaluation of minimally invasive donor hepatectomy-DWIT on allograft function in living donor liver transplantation. We evaluated the effect of DWIT following robotic donor hepatectomy (RDH) on recipient outcomes and compared them with a matched cohort of open donor hepatectomy (ODH). Demographic, perioperative, and recipient's postoperative outcome data for all right lobe (RL)-RDH performed between September 2019 and July 2023 were analyzed and compared with a propensity score matched cohort (1:1) of RL-ODH from the same time period. Of a total of 103 RL-RDH and 446 RL-ODH, unmatched and propensity score matched analysis (1:1) revealed a significantly longer DWIT in the RDH group as compared to the ODH group (9.33 ± 3.95 vs 2.87 ± 2.13, P < .0001). This did not translate into any difference in the rates of early allograft dysfunction (EAD), biliary complications, major morbidity, or overall 1-and 3-month survival. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis threshold for DWIT-early allograft dysfunction was 9 minutes (area under receiver operating characteristic: 0.67, sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 53.8%). We show that prolonged DWIT within an acceptable range in RDH does not have deleterious effects on short-term recipient outcomes. Further long-term studies are required to confirm our findings, especially with regard to nonanastomotic biliary complications.

The long-term follow-up of the living liver donors

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been proposed in many countries to reduce organ shortage. While the early postoperative outcomes have been well investigated, little is known about the long-term follow-up of the living donors. We, therefore, designed a systematic review of the literature to explore long-term complications and quality of life among living donors. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE registries for studies published since 2013 that specifically addressed long-term follow-up following living-donor liver donation, concerning both physical and psychological aspects. Publications with a follow-up shorter than 1 year or that did not clearly state the timing of outcomes were excluded. A total of 2505 papers were initially identified. After a thorough selection, 17 articles were identified as meeting the eligibility criteria. The selected articles were mostly from North America and Eastern countries. Follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 11.5 years. The most common complications were incision site discomfort (13.2-38.8%) and psychiatric disorders (1-22%). Biliary strictures occurred in 1-14% of cases. Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy could improve quality of life, but long-term data are limited. About 30 years after the first reported LDLT, little has been published about the long-term follow-up of the living donors. Different factors may contribute to this gap, including the fact that, as healthy individuals, living donors are frequently lost during mid-term follow-up. Although the reported studies seem to confirm long-term donor safety, further research is needed to address the real-life long-term impact of this procedure.

Robotic living donor hepatectomy is associated with superior outcomes for both the donor and the recipient compared with laparoscopic or open - A single-center prospective registry study of 3448 cases

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy is an emerging surgical technique in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We examined outcomes across open, laparoscopic, and robotic LDLT using a prospective registry. We analyzed 3448 cases (1724 donor-recipient pairs) from January 2011 to March 2023 (NCT06062706). Among donors, 520 (30%) were female. Adult-to-adult LDLT comprised 1061 (62%) cases. A total of 646 (37%) of the donors underwent open, 165 (10%) laparoscopic, and 913 (53%) robotic hepatectomies. Primary outcomes: donor overall morbidity was 4% (35/903) for robotic, 8% (13/165) laparoscopic, and 16% (106/646) open (P < .001) procedures. Pediatric and adult recipient mortality was similar among the 3 donor hepatectomy approaches: robotic 1.5% and 7.0%, compared with 2.3% and 8.3% laparoscopic, and 1.6% and 5.5% for open donor surgery, respectively (P = .802, P = .564). Secondary outcomes: pediatric and adult recipients major morbidity after robotic hepatectomy was 15% and 23%, compared with 25% and 44% for laparoscopic surgery and 19% and 31% for open surgery, respectively (P = .033, P < .001). Graft and recipient 5-year survival were 90% and 93% for pediatrics and 79% and 80% for adults, respectively. In conclusion, robotic LDLT was associated with superior outcomes when compared with the laparoscopic and open approaches. Both donors and, for the first time reported, recipients benefitted from lower morbidity rates in robotic surgery, emphasizing its potential for further advancing this field.

Robotic and laparoscopic right lobe living donation compared to the open approach: A multicenter study on 1194 donor hepatectomies

Due to the success of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive donor hepatectomies (MIDH) are increasingly performed worldwide. We conducted a retrospective, multicentre, propensity score-matched analysis on right lobe MIDH by comparing the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches to assess the feasibility, safety, and early outcomes of MIDHs. From January 2016 until December 2020, 1194 donors underwent a right donor hepatectomy performed with a robotic (n = 92), laparoscopic (n = 306), and open approach (n = 796) at 6 high-volume centers. Donor and recipients were matched for different variables using propensity score matching (1:1:2). Donor outcomes were recorded, and postoperative pain was measured through a visual analog scale. Recipients' outcomes were also analyzed. Ninety-two donors undergoing robotic surgery were matched and compared to 92 and 184 donors undergoing laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Conversions to open surgery occurred during 1 (1.1%) robotic and 2 (2.2%) laparoscopic procedures. Robotic procedures had a longer operative time (493 ± 96 min) compared to laparoscopic and open procedures (347 ± 120 and 358 ± 95 min; p < 0.001) but were associated with reduced donor blood losses ( p < 0.001). No differences were observed in overall and major complications (≥ IIIa). Robotic hepatectomy donors had significantly less pain compared to the 2 other groups ( p < 0.001). Fifty recipients of robotic-procured grafts were matched to 50 and 100 recipients of laparoscopic and open surgery procured grafts, respectively. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative complications, and recipients' survival was similar ( p =0.455). In very few high-volume centers, robotic right lobe procurement has shown to be a safe procedure. Despite an increased operative and the first warm ischemia times, this approach is associated with reduced intraoperative blood losses and pain compared to the laparoscopic and open approaches. Further data are needed to confirm it as a valuable option for the laparoscopic approach in MIDH.

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver clinical practice guidelines on liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is a highly complex and challenging field of clinical practice. Although it was originally developed in western countries, it has been further advanced in Asian countries through the use of living donor liver transplantation. This method of transplantation is the only available option in many countries in the Asia-Pacific region due to the lack of deceased organ donation. As a result of this clinical situation, there is a growing need for guidelines that are specific to the Asia-Pacific region. These guidelines provide comprehensive recommendations for evidence-based management throughout the entire process of liver transplantation, covering both deceased and living donor liver transplantation. In addition, the development of these guidelines has been a collaborative effort between medical professionals from various countries in the region. This has allowed for the inclusion of diverse perspectives and experiences, leading to a more comprehensive and effective set of guidelines.

Minimally Invasive Surgery in Liver Transplantation: From Living Liver Donation to Graft Implantation

Since the end of the 20th century and the establishment of minimally invasive techniques, they have become the preferred operative method by many surgeons. These techniques were applied to liver surgery for the first time in 1991, while as far as transplantation is concerned their application was limited to the living donor procedure. We performed a review of the literature by searching in Pubmed and Scopus using the following keywords: Liver transplantation, Minimally invasive surgery(MIS) living liver donor surgery. Applications of MIS are recorded in surgeries involving the donor and the recipient. Regarding the recipient surgeries, the reports are limited to 25 patients, including combinations of laparoscopic, robotic and open techniques, while in the living donor surgery, the reports are much more numerous and with larger series of patients. Shorter hospitalization times and less blood loss are recorded, especially in centers with experience in a large number of cases. Regarding the living donor surgery, MIS follows the same principles as a conventional hepatectomy and is already the method of choice in many specialized centers. Regarding the recipient surgery, significant questions arise mainly concerning the safe handling of the liver graft.

OPEN TO ROBOTIC RIGHT DONOR HEPATECTOMY: A TECTONIC SHIFT IN SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Robotic right live donor hepatectomy(r-LDRH) has been reported with reduced morbidity compared to open donor right hepatectomy(o-LDRH) in few recent series. Nevertheless, its routine use is debated. We present a large series comparing pure r-LDRH with o-LDRH. Consecutive r-LDRH performed from June 2018 to June 2020 (n = 102) were compared with consecutive donors undergoing o-LDRH (n = 152) from February 2016 to February 2018, a period when r-LDRH was not available at this centre. Propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of 89 case-control pairs was additionally performed. Primary endpoints were length of high dependency unit (HDU) & hospital stay and Clavien-Dindo graded complications among donors. Although r-LDRH took longer to perform (540 versus 462 mins, P<0.001), the post-operative peak transaminases levels(P<0.001), the length of HDU (3 versus 4 days, P<0.001) and hospital stay (8 versus 9 days, P<0.001) were lower in in donors undergoing r-LDRH. Clavien-Dindo graded complications were similar (16.67% in r-LDRH and 13.16% in o-LDRH). The rates of early allograft dysfunction (1.6% versus 3.3%), bile leak (14.7% versus 10.7%), and 1-year mortality (13.7% versus 11.8%) were comparable between r-LDRH and o-LDRH recipients. PSM analysis yielded similar results between the groups. These data support the safety and feasibility of r-LDRH in select donors. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.