Comparative analysis of learning curve in complex robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection

[Robotic liver surgery]

Minimally invasive surgery is currently undergoing a paradigm shift from the classical laparoscopic approach to robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery has made significant progress in various surgical disciplines in recent years and is increasingly being used. This is due to the increasing clinical availability of robotic systems as well as better visualization, an increased surgical precision and a higher degree of freedom of the robotic instruments used, compared to classical laparoscopy, resulting in a flatter learning curve and better ergonomics for the surgeon. This article examines the current status of robot-assisted liver surgery, highlights the technical and clinical challenges and discusses future perspectives and potential developments in this dynamic field.

Comparing robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Ladd's procedure in children with congenital intestinal malrotation

The aim of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic Ladd's procedure on peri- and postoperative outcomes. All Ladd's procedures performed on patients with congenital intestinal malrotation between January 2020 and December 2023 were identified. Peri- and postoperative data were collected and compared between robot-assisted and laparoscopic groups. Fifty-seven robot-assisted and 38 laparoscopic Ladd's procedure cases were identified and compared for outcomes. No robotic cases were converted to open procedure, while four laparoscopic cases were converted to open procedure (p = 0.048). Although robotic cases suffered higher hospitalization costs (p < 0.001), the postoperative complication rate was lower for the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic group (p = 0.038). Robot-assisted Ladd's surgery is safe and effective for the treatment of congenital intestinal malrotation in children, reducing the difficulty of surgery, but at increased cost.

Learning curve analysis of 100 consecutive robotic liver resections

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver surgery, as part of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), offers advantages like enhanced dexterity and stable camera and instrument control. However, the learning curve - particularly the number of cases required for proficiency - remains underexplored. This study analyzes 100 consecutive robotic liver resections performed by a single surgeon to assess the learning curve and outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis reviewed data from the Magdeburg registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS) from June 2013 to July 2024, to identify surgeons who performed at least 100 robotic liver resections. Operation time and Iwate difficulty score were used as indicators of surgical proficiency and learning progression.

RESULTS

One surgeon fulfilled the inclusion criteria of performing 100 robotic liver resections. Of these, 41 (41%) were major and 59 (59%) were minor liver resections. A significant reduction in average operation time was observed across the series, decreasing from an initial average of 450 min to approximately 300 min by the 100th operation. Similarly, the Iwate difficulty score showed a significant upward trend, reflecting the increasing technical challenges of the procedures. The learning curve was divided into four distinct phases: Competency (Cases 1-20), Proficiency (Cases 21-30), Early Mastery (Cases 31-65), and Full Mastery (Cases 66-100), highlighting the progression in skill acquisition and case complexity. Major complications (21%), such as bile leak, bilioma, and pulmonary embolism, were observed during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Over 100 robotic liver resections, significant learning curve progression was evident, with marked improvements in operation time and handling of complex cases. The results suggest that approximately 65 cases are needed for a surgeon experienced in open and laparoscopic liver surgery to achieve consistent proficiency in robotic liver resections. These findings underscore the importance of standardized training protocols to support the learning curve in robotic liver surgery.

Multicenter Belgian prospective registry on minimally invasive and open liver surgery (BReLLS): experience from 1342 consecutive cases

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) still appears to be adopted with significant variability. We aimed to investigate the diffusion, indications, and short-term outcomes of MILS compared to the open approach.

METHODS

A prospective registry of all liver resections performed for any indication and using any technique between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019, was established (BReLLS) and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1342 consecutive liver resections were included, 684 (51%) MILS and 658 (49%) open procedures. MILS was not attempted due to technical complexity in the 46.2% of cases, followed by previous abdominal surgery (22.5%). Patients undergoing MILS had a higher proportion of benign indications and of hepatocellular carcinomas, patients affected by liver cirrhosis with portal hypertension and a lower proportion of major hepatectomies (all p < 0.001). After propensity-score matching, MILS showed better results in terms of surgery duration (p < 0.001), blood loss (p = 0.015), complication rate (p < 0.001), rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (p = 0.012), comprehensive complication index (p < 0.001), length of stay (p < 0.001), readmissions (p = 0.016). Centers performing over 50 liver resections per year had a higher proportion of overall MILS cases (p < 0.001), a similar proportion of major resections (p = 0.362), but a higher prevalence of MILS major resections (p = 0.004), lower 90-day mortality rates (p < 0.001), lower overall complication rates (p < 0.001), and shorter hospital length of stay (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MILS was the preferred technique in half of the cases, particularly in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, and benign lesions. It provided superior short-term outcomes compared to the open approach for both minor and major liver resections in selected patients.

Complete transition from laparoscopic to robotic liver surgery achieves superior outcomes in difficult hepatectomies: a seven-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is superior to open surgery when considering decreased blood loss, fewer complications, shorter hospital stay, and similar or improved oncologic outcomes. However, operative limitations in laparoscopic hepatectomy have curved its applicability and momentum of complex minimally invasive liver surgery. Transitioning to robotic hepatectomy may bridge this complexity gap.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study conducted on comparable hepatectomies (open, laparoscopic, robotic) for benign or malignant diseases at Weill Cornell by three surgeons from 2017 to 2023. Case volume and Iwate difficulty scoring were examined over time by surgical approach. Outcome associations (operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, 90-day complications, open conversion, and resection margin) were analyzed using generalized estimating equations to account for the hierarchical data structure of different surgeons and controlled for clinical covariates.

RESULTS

Among 353 hepatectomies, 112 were open (OH), 107 were laparoscopic (LH), and 134 were robotic (RH). OH patients were more likely to have malignant pathology (83% vs. LH 69%, RH 57%) and less likely to have cirrhosis (6% vs. LH 6%, RH 14%). OH and RH had similar case complexity (Median Iwate: OH 7 vs. RH 7). After adjustments, LH and RH had 39% and 43% shorter median lengths of stay, respectively, and 89% and 62% lower odds of complications compared to OH. RH had 87% lower odds of conversion to OH compared to LH. The odds of R0 resection were similar between LH, RH, and OH. These results remained consistent in high difficulty cases (Iwate 7-12). Over the study period, RH usage increased from 36 to 68%, while LH decreased from 39 to 9%. By 2023, RH was predominantly used over OH (74% vs.26%).

CONCLUSION

The transition from laparoscopic to all-robotic approach resulted in increased case volume and complexity in MILS, largely improving perioperative outcomes in hepatectomy.

An updated meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopy hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy in the treatment of liver tumors

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy (RALH) with laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in the treatment of liver tumors.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of English-language literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to June 2024. Studies comparing RALH and LH for liver tumors were identified, and after qualitative evaluation, a meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 software.

RESULTS

After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 articles were included, including 29,969 patients, with 5673 in the RALH group and 24,296 in the LH group. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the LH group, surgery time was longer in the RALH group (MD = 55.33; 95% CI: 34.84-75.83; P < .001), the conversion to open surgery rate was higher (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.05; P < .001), the total cost was higher (MD = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.14-0.73; P = .004), and the tumor diameter was larger (MD = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.24-0.49; P < .001). Additionally, the R1 resection rate was higher in the RALH group (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.06; P < .001). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative transfusion rate, hepatic hilar occlusion rate, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, mortality rate, malignancy rate, or R0 resection rate (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, RALH is safe and effective, although it is associated with higher total costs, increased blood transfusion rates, and longer operative times. However, there were no significant differences between RALH and LH in terms of other outcome indicators, suggesting that both procedures offer similar surgical efficacy and safety. Further clinical randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

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.

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.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A Nationwide Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Objective

To compare nationwide outcomes of robotic liver resection (RLR) with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

Background

Minimally invasive liver resection is increasingly performed using the robotic approach as this could help overcome inherent technical limitations of laparoscopy. It is unknown if this translates to improved patient outcomes.

Methods

Data from the mandatory Dutch Hepatobiliary Audit were used to compare perioperative outcomes of RLR and LLR in 20 centers in the Netherlands (2014-2022). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate selection bias. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of the learning curve (≥50 procedures for LLR and ≥25 procedures for RLR), concurrent noncholecystectomy operations, high-volume centers, and conversion on outcomes.

Results

Overall, 792 RLR and 2738 LLR were included. After PSM (781 RLR vs 781 LLR), RLR was associated with less blood loss (median: 100 mL [interquartile range (IQR): 50-300] vs 200 mL [IQR: 50-500], P = 0.002), less major blood loss (≥500 mL,18.6% vs 25.2%, P = 0.011), less conversions (4.9% vs 12.8%, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (median: 3 days [IQR: 2-5] vs 4 days [IQR: 2-6], P < 0.001), compared with LLR. There were no significant differences in overall and severe morbidity, readmissions, mortality, and R0 resection rate. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. When excluding conversions, RLR was only associated with a reduction in reoperations (1.1% vs 2.7%, P = 0.038).

Conclusion

In this nationwide analysis, RLR was associated with a reduction in conversion, blood loss and length of hospital stay without compromising patient safety, also when excluding a learning curve effect. The benefits of RLR seem to be mostly related to a reduction in conversions.

Short-Term Surgical Outcomes After Robotic Liver Surgery: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis With Conventional Open Liver Surgery at a High-Volume Centre in Denmark

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and Open liver surgery (OLS) in a centre with a high number of operations.

METHODS

A 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of a retrospective database of RLS and OLS was performed. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was performed to identify learning curves.

RESULT

After PSM analysis, operative time was significantly longer in the RLS group (p < 0.001). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the RLS group (p < 0.001). Transfusion rates were significantly lower in the RLS group. The length of hospital stay was shorter in the RLS group (3.5vs6.3 days, p < 0.001). Readmission rates were significantly lower in the RLS group (p < 0.049). CUSUM analysis showed a learning curve for at least 8 low-intermediate RLS procedures and 27 advanced-Expert RLS procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

RLS has many advantages, including being safe to perform, less blood loss and faster postoperative recovery compared with OLS.

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.

Advancing minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: ensuring safety with implementation

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary (MIS HPB) surgery can be performed with good outcomes, there are currently no standardized requirements for centers or surgeons who wish to implement MIS HPB surgery. The aim of this study was to create a consensus statement regarding safe dissemination and implementation of MIS HPB surgical programs.

METHODS

Sixteen key questions regarding safety in MIS HPB surgery were generated after a focused literature search and iterative review by three field experts. Participants for the working group were then selected using sequential purposive sampling and snowball techniques. Review of the 16 questions took place over a single 2-h meeting. The senior author facilitated the session, and a modified nominal group technique was used.

RESULTS

Twenty three surgeons were in attendance. All participants agreed or strongly agreed that formal guidelines should exist for both institutions and individual surgeons interested in implementing MIS HPB surgery and that routine monitoring and reporting of institutional and surgeon technical outcomes should be performed. Regarding volume cutoffs, most participants (91%) agreed or strongly agreed that a minimum annual institutional volume cutoff for complex MIS HPB surgery, such as major hepatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy, should exist. A smaller proportion (74%) agreed or strongly agreed that a minimum annual surgeon volume requirement should exist. The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that surgeons were responsible for defining (100%) and enforcing (78%) guidelines to ensure the overall safety of MIS HPB programs. Finally, formal MIS HPB training, minimum case volume requirements, institutional support and infrastructure, and mandatory collection of outcomes data were all recognized as important aspects of safe implementation of MIS HPB surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Safe implementation of MIS HPB surgery requires a thoughtful process that incorporates structured training, sufficient volume and expertise, a proper institutional ecosystem, and monitoring of outcomes.

Learning curve analysis after 500 robotic hepatectomies

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Innovations in surgery for gallbladder cancer: A review of robotic surgery as a feasible and safe option

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted surgical techniques in the treatment of gallbladder cancer, comparing it with traditional open and laparoscopic methods.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature searched for comparative analyses of patient outcomes following robotic, open, and laparoscopic surgeries, focusing on oncological results and perioperative benefits.

RESULTS

Five total studies published between 2019 and 2023 were identified. Findings indicate that robotic-assisted surgery for gallbladder cancer is as effective as traditional methods in terms of oncological outcomes, with potential advantages in precision and perioperative recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery offers a viable and potentially advantageous alternative for gallbladder cancer treatment, warranting further research to confirm its benefits and establish comprehensive surgical guidelines.

Outpatient and Ambulatory Extended Recovery Robotic Hepatectomy: Multinational Study of 307 Cases

BACKGROUND

For open minor hepatectomy, morbidity and recovery are dominated by the incision. The robotic approach may transform this "incision dominant procedure" into a safe outpatient procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

We audited outpatient (less than 2 midnights) robotic hepatectomy at 6 hepatobiliary centers in 2 nations to test the hypothesis that the robotic approach can be a safe and effective short-stay procedure. Establishing early recovery after surgery programs were active at all sites, and home digital monitoring was available at 1 of the institutions.

RESULTS

A total of 307 outpatient (26 same-day and 281 next-day discharge) robotic hepatectomies were identified (2013 to 2023). Most were minor hepatectomies (194 single segments, 90 bi-segmentectomies, 14 three segments, and 8 four segments). Thirty-nine (13%) were for benign histology, whereas 268 were for cancer (33 hepatocellular carcinoma, 27 biliary, and 208 metastatic disease). Patient characteristics were a median age of 60 years (18 to 93 years), 55% male, and a median BMI of 26 kg/m 2 (14 to 63 kg/m 2 ). Thirty (10%) patients had cirrhosis. One hundred eighty-seven (61%) had previous abdominal operation. Median operative time was 163 minutes (30 to 433 minutes), with a median blood loss of 50 mL (10 to 900 mL). There were no deaths and 6 complications (2%): 2 wound infections, 1 failure to thrive, and 3 perihepatic abscesses. Readmission was required in 5 (1.6%) patients. Of the 268 malignancy cases, 25 (9%) were R1 resections. Of the 128 with superior segment resections (segments 7, 8, 4A, 2, and 1), there were 12 positive margins (9%) and 2 readmissions for abscess.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient robotic hepatectomy in well-selected cases is safe (0 mortality, 2% complication, and 1.6% readmission), including resection in the superior or posterior portions of the liver that is challenging with nonarticulating laparoscopic instruments.

Towards a Standardization of Learning Curve Assessment in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to analyze the learning curves of minimal invasive liver surgery(MILS) and propose a standardized reporting.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MILS offers benefits compared to open resections. For a safe introduction along the learning curve, formal training is recommended. However, definitions of learning curves and methods to assess it lack standardization.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in MILS. The primary outcome was the number needed to overcome the learning curve. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, and characterization of different learning phases(competency, proficiency and mastery).

RESULTS

60 articles with 12'241 patients and 102 learning curve analyses were included. The laparoscopic and robotic approach was evaluated in 71 and 18 analyses and both approaches combined in 13 analyses. Sixty-one analyses (60%) based the learning curve on statistical calculations. The most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n=64), blood loss (n=54), conversion (n=42) and postoperative complications (n=38). Overall competency, proficiency and mastery were reached after 34 (IQR 19-56), 50 (IQR 24-74), 58 (IQR 24-100) procedures respectively. Intraoperative parameters improved earlier (operative time: competency to proficiency to mastery: -13%, 2%; blood loss: competency to proficiency to mastery: -33%, 0%; conversion rate (competency to proficiency to mastery; -21%, -29%), whereas postoperative complications improved later (competency to proficiency to mastery: -25%, -41%).

CONCLUSIONS

This review summarizes the highest evidence on learning curves in MILS taking into account different definitions and confounding factors. A standardized three-phase reporting of learning phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is proposed and should be followed.

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.

Concomitant training in robotic and laparoscopic liver resections of low-to-intermediate difficulty score: a retrospective analysis of the learning curve

In the setting of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), training in robotic liver resections (RLR) usually follows previous experience in laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). The aim of our study was to assess the learning curve of RLR in case of concomitant training with LLR. We analyzed consecutive RLRs and LLRs by a surgeon trained simultaneously in both techniques (Surg1); while a second surgeon trained only in LLRs was used as control (Surg2). A regression model was used to adjust for confounders and a Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) analysis was carried out to assess the learning phases according to operative time and difficulty of the procedures (IWATE score). Two-hundred-forty-five procedures were identified (RobSurg1, n = 75, LapSurg1, n = 102, LapSurg2, n = 68). Mean IWATE was 4.0, 4.3 and 5.8 (p < 0.001) in each group. The CUSUM analysis of the adjusted operative times estimated the learning phase in 40 cases (RobSurg1), 40 cases (LapSurg1), 48 cases (LapSurg2); for IWATE score it was 38 cases (RobSurg1), 33 cases (LapSurg1), 38 cases (LapSurg2) respectively. Our preliminary experience showed a similar learning curve of 40 cases for low and intermediate difficulty RLR and LLR. Concomitant training in both techniques was safe and may be a practical option for starting a MILS program.

10 years, 100 robotic major hepatectomies: a single-center experience

INTRODUCTION

Adoption of robotic liver resections has been gradually increasing throughout the HPB surgical community over the past decade. Currently there is limited literature which demonstrates a significant benefit of robotic surgery for major hepatectomies over open or laparoscopic. As one of the first centers to develop a robotic HPB program, we have experienced improved outcomes over time with increasing utilization of robotics. Herein, we present our 10-year experience and outcomes for major robotic liver resections.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2022, 361 robotic liver procedures were performed, including 100 major hepatectomies. A retrospective data review of the electronic medical record was performed evaluating outcomes after robotic major hepatectomy. Outcomes for the first 50 cases (Group A) and second 50 cases (Group B) were compared to identify any improvements in practice. Demographic and clinical outcome variables were analyzed. Data were assessed for normality, and Wilcoxon rank-sum, χ2 tests, and a logistic regression model were performed appropriate for the data. Stata v.17 was utilized, and significance was set as p < .05.

RESULTS

There was no difference in median operative time (258 vs 256 min), EBL (500 vs 500 mL), median LOS (5 vs 3.5 days), 90-day readmission (14% vs 24%), major complications (14% vs 20%), and 90-day mortality (6% vs 4%) between early and late cases, respectively. ICU admissions and conversion rates were significantly lower in group B (14.0% vs 48.0%), while expert level difficulty indices were higher (82% vs 58%).

CONCLUSION

Development of a robotic liver program with good outcomes is feasible over time. Our data suggest that our institutional learning curve for robotic major hepatectomy plateaued at approximately 50 cases.

[The Russian consensus on the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma]

The Russian consensus on the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma was prepared by the group of experts consisting of surgeons, interventional radiologists, radiation therapists and oncologists. The purposes of this consensus are clarification and consolidation of opinions of multidisciplinary team on the following issues of management of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: indications for surgical treatment, features of therapeutic tactics for mechanical jaundice, technical aspects of liver resection, prevention of post-resection liver failure, indications for liver resection using transplantation technologies, laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resection, perioperative systemic chemotherapy, local non-resection/non-radiotherapy methods of treatment, radiotherapy, follow-up and choice of treatment for recurrence.

Expanding the utility of robotics for pancreaticoduodenectomy: a 10-year review and comparison to international benchmarks in pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is an emerging alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD). Although RPD offers various theoretical advantages, it is used in less than 10% of all pancreaticoduodenectomies. The aim of this study was to report our 10-year experience and compare RPD outcomes with international benchmarks for OPD.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained institutional database was performed of consecutive patients who underwent RPD between January 2011 and December 2021. Patients were categorized into low-risk and high-risk groups according to the selection criteria set by the benchmark study. Their outcomes were compared to the international benchmark cut off values. Outcomes were then evaluated over time to identify improvements in practice and establish a learning curve.

RESULTS

Of 201 RPDs, 36 were low-risk and 165 high-risk patients. Compared to the OPD benchmarks, outcomes of low-risk patients were within the cutoff values. High-risk patients were outside the cutoff for blood transfusions (26% vs. ≤ 23%), overall complications (78% vs. ≤ 73%), grade I-II complications (68% vs. ≤ 62%), and readmissions (22% vs ≤ 21%). Oncologic outcomes for high-risk patients were within benchmark cutoffs. Cases at the end of the learning curve included more pancreatic cancer (42% from 17%) and fewer low-risk patients (10% from 24%) than those at the beginning. After 41 RPD there was a decline in conversion rates and operative time. Between 95 and 143 cases operative time, transfusion rates, and LOS declined significantly. Complications did not differ over time.

CONCLUSION

RPD yields results comparable to the established benchmarks in OPD in both low- and high-risk patients. Along the learning curve, RPD evolved with the inclusion of more high-risk cases while outcomes remained within benchmarks. Addition of a robotic HPB surgery fellowship did not compromise outcomes. These results suggest that RPD may be an option for high-risk patients at specialized centers.

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.

Safe implementation of a minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary program, a narrative review and institutional experience

Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches to hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) operations have expanded worldwide. As surgeons and medical centers contemplate initiating and expanding minimally invasive surgical (MIS) programs for complex HPB surgical operations, there are many factors to consider. This review highlights the key components of developing an MIS HPB program and shares our recent institutional experience with the adoption and expansion of an MIS approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Robotic approach for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: from Bismuth 1 to vascular resection

BACKGROUND

Implementation of minimally invasive surgical approaches for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) has been relatively slow compared to other indications. This is due to the complexity of the disease and the need of advanced skills for the reconstructive phase. The robot may contribute to close the gap between open and minimally invasive surgery in patients with Klastkin tumors.

STUDY DESIGN

We report details of our experience with robotic approach in patients affected by pCCA. In particular selection criteria, ERAS management, technical tips and robotic setup are discussed. Finally, results from our cohort are reported. A video clip of a patient that underwent left hepatectomy with en-bloc caudatectomy and portal vein resection at the confluence with end-to-end reconstruction for a pCCA 3-b according to Bismuth-Corlette classification with full robotic approach is enclosed.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients underwent robotic resection of pCCA over the three-year interval with a median follow-up interval of 18.7 months. The pre-operative Bismuth-Corlette classification was 1 for two patients (14.2%) and 2 for one patient (7.1%), 3-a for three (21.4%) patients, 3-b for four (28.6%) patients and 4 for four (28.6%) patients. Median estimated blood loss was 150 ml (range 50-800 ml) and median operative time was 490 min (range 390-750 min). The median length of hospital stay after the index operation was 6 days (range 3-91). Final histology revealed a median of 19 (range 11-40) lymph nodes retrieved, with 92.9% R0 resections. 90-days mortality was nihil and 3-year survival exceeds 50%.

CONCLUSION

With adequate preparation, outcomes of robotic approach to pCCA can be safe and in line with the current international benchmark outcomes, as showed in this study, when performed in expert high volume centers for complex major hepatectomy and robotic HPB.

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.

Learning curves in robot-assisted minimally invasive liver surgery at a high-volume center in Denmark: Report of the first 100 patients and review of literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive liver surgery is evolving worldwide, and robot-assisted liver surgery (RLS) can deliver obvious benefits for patients. However, so far no large case series have documented the learning curve for RLS.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study for robotic liver surgery (RLS) from June 2019 to June 2022 where 100 patients underwent RLS by the same surgical team. Patients' variables, short-term follow-up, and the learning curve were analyzed. A review of the literature describing the learning curve in RLS was also conducted.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 63.1 years. The median operating time was 246 min and median estimated blood loss was 100 mL. Thirty-two patients underwent subsegmentectomy, 18 monosegmentectomies, 25 bisegmentectomies, and 25 major hepatectomies. One patient (1.0%) required conversion to open surgery. Five patients (5%) experienced postoperative major complications, and no mortalities occurred. Median length of hospital stay was 3 days. R0 resection was achieved in 93.4% of the malignant cases. The learning curve consisted of three stages; there were no significant differences in operative time, transfusion rate, or complication rate among the three groups. Postoperative complications were similar in each group despite an increase in surgical difficulty scores. The learning effect was highlighted by significantly shorter hospital stays in cohorts I, II, and III, respectively. The included systematic review suggested that the learning curve for RLS is similar to, or shorter, than that of laparoscopic liver surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, RLS has achieved good clinical results, albeit in the short term. Standardization of training leads to increasing proficiency in RLS with reduced blood loss and low complication rates even in more advanced liver resections. Our study suggests that a minimum of 30 low-to-moderate difficulty robotic procedures should be performed before proceeding to more difficult resections.

International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023

The robotic liver resection (RLR) has been increasingly applied in recent years and its benefits shown in some aspects owing to the technical advancement of robotic surgical system, however, controversies still exist. Based on the foundation of the previous consensus statement, this new consensus document aimed to update clinical recommendations and provide guidance to improve the outcomes of RLR clinical practice. The guideline steering group and guideline expert group were formed by 29 international experts of liver surgery and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Relevant literature was reviewed and analyzed by the evidence evaluation group. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, the Guidance Principles of Development and Amendment of the Guidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in China 2022, a total of 14 recommendations were generated. Among them were 8 recommendations formulated by the GRADE method, and the remaining 6 recommendations were formulated based on literature review and experts' opinion due to insufficient EBM results. This international experts consensus guideline offered guidance for the safe and effective clinical practice and the research direction of RLR in future.

Application of Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging for Tumor Localization during Robot-Assisted Hepatectomy

The efficacy of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging for visualizing hepatic tumors in robot-assisted hepatectomy (RAH) should be validated. This study included 30 consecutive patients with 33 collective tumors who underwent RAH. ICG was administered at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg before surgery. ICG fluorescence imaging was performed intraoperatively. In total, 28 patients with a combined total of 31 tumors underwent ICG fluorescence imaging. Further, 26 (84%) tumors were identified on hepatic surfaces prior to hepatic transection. The fluorescence signals of eight tumors were detected on hepatic raw surfaces during parenchymal dissection, thereby enabling surgeons to adjust the transection planes to ensure appropriate surgical margins. One patient with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma tested positive for cancer cells at the dissected stump of the bile duct. However, in all patients in whom ICG fluorescence imaging was used, negative surgical margins were achieved at the site of the dissected hepatic parenchyma. On the other hand, one of two patients with ICG contraindications had a positive surgical margin surrounding the dissected hepatic parenchyma. The median operative time and volume of blood loss were 259 (range: 124-594) min and 150 (range: 1-1150) mL, respectively. ICG fluorescence imaging facilitates the easy identification of hepatic tumors, even in RAH. Hence, it can be useful for confirming appropriate surgical margins.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting

PURPOSE

In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study.

METHODS

We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs.

RESULTS

RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9-41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7-5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs.

CONCLUSIONS

From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections.

Short-Term Outcomes After Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver surgery is a novel technique expanding the field of minimally invasive approaches. An increasing number of studies assess the outcomes of robotic liver resections (RLR). The aim of our meta-analysis is to provide an up-to-date comparison of RLR versus open liver resections (OLR), evaluating its safety and efficacy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov for articles published from January 2000 until January 2022 was undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirteen non-randomized retrospective and one prospective clinical study enlisting 1801 patients met our inclusion criteria, with 640 patients undergoing RLR and 1161 undergoing OLR. RLR resulted in significantly lower overall morbidity (p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.002), and less intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001). Operative time was found to be significantly higher in the RLR group (p < 0.001). Blood transfusion requirements, R0 resection, and mortality rates presented no difference among the two groups. The cumulative rate of conversion was 5% in the RLR group.

CONCLUSION

The increasing experience in the implementation of the robot will undoubtedly generate more prospective randomized studies, necessary to assess its potential superiority over the traditional open approach, in a variety of hepatic lesions.

Robotic liver resection in the posterosuperior segments as a way to extent the mini-invasive arsenal: a comparison with transthoracic laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

The field of robotic liver resection (RLR) has developed in the past decades. This technique seems to improve the access to the posterosuperior (PS) segments. Evidence of a possible advantage over transthoracic laparoscopy (TTL) is not yet available. We aimed to compare RLR to TTL for tumors located in the PS segments of the liver in terms of feasibility, difficulty scoring, and outcome.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared patients undergoing robotic liver resections and transthoracic laparoscopic resections of the PS segments between January 2016 and December 2022 in a high-volume HPB center. Patients' characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 30 RLR and 16 TTL were included. Only wedge resections were performed in the TTL group, while 43% of the patients in the RLR group had an anatomical resection (p < 0.001). The difficulty score according to the IWATE difficulty scoring system was significantly higher in the RLR group (p < 0.001). Total operative time was similar between the two groups. Complication rates, either overall or major, were comparable between the two techniques and hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RLR group. Patients in the TTL group were found to have more pulmonary complications (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

RLR may provide some advantages over TTL for the resection of tumors located in the PS segments.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic liver surgery: clinical outcomes, learning curve effect, and cost-effectiveness

The reproducibility of the implementation of robotic liver surgery (RLS) is still debated. The aim of the present study is to evaluate short-term outcomes and cost differences during the implementation of RLS, performed by an early adopter in laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS). Patients undergoing RLS between February 2020 and May 2021 were included. Short-term outcomes of the robotic group (RG) were compared to the "Initial Phase" group (IP) of 120 LLS cases and the 120 most recent laparoscopic cases or "Mastery Phase" group (MP). A cost analysis per procedure for the three groups was performed. Seventy-one patients underwent RLS during the study period. Median operative time in the RG was comparable to the IP, but significantly shorter in the MP (140 vs 138 vs 120 min, p < 0.001). Median intraoperative blood loss in the RG was lower than in both laparoscopic groups (40 ml [20-90 ml] vs 150 ml [50-250 ml] vs 80 ml [30-150 ml], p < 0.001). Median hospital stay in the RG was significantly shorter than the IP group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative complication, conversion, or readmission rates. Procedural cost analysis was in favor of robotic surgery (€5008) compared to the IP (€ 6913) and the MP (€6099). Surgeons with sufficient experience in LLS can rapidly overcome the learning curve for RLS. In our experience, the short-term outcomes of the implementation phase of RLS are similar to the mastery phase of LLS. The total average cost per procedure is lower for RLS compared to LLS.

Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through international consensus conferences and the development of difficulty classifications. LLR has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for HCC. However, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, the elderly, HCC recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection must be considered for LLR for HCC. Some systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, and large cohort studies indicated that LLR is technically feasible for selected patients with HCC with these factors that led to less intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions and postoperative complication incidences, and shorter hospital stays than OLR. Furthermore, some reported LLR prevents postoperative loss of independence. No difference was reported in long-term outcomes among patients with HCC who underwent LLR and OLR; however, some recent reports indicated better long-term outcomes with LLR. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for HCC are not different from those of LLR. Additionally, RALR is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

The Atlantic divide: contrasting surgical robotics training in the USA, UK and Ireland

The uptake of robotic surgery is rapidly increasing worldwide across surgical specialties. However, there is currently a much higher use of robotic surgery in the United States of America (USA) compared to the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. Reduced exposure to robotic surgery in training may lead to longer learning curves and worse patient outcomes. We aimed to identify whether any difference exists in exposure to robotic surgery during general surgical training between trainees in the USA, UK and Ireland. Over a 15-week period from September 2021, a survey was distributed through the professional networks of the research team. Participants were USA, UK or Irish trainees who were part of a formal general surgical training curriculum. 116 survey responses were received. US trainees (n = 34) had all had robotic simulator experience, compared to only 37.93% of UK (n = 58) and 75.00% of Irish (n = 24) trainees (p <  0.00001). 91.18% of US trainees had performed 15 or more cases as the console surgeon, compared to only 3.44% of UK and 16.67% of Irish trainees (p <  0.00001). Fifty UK trainees (86.21%) and 22 Irish trainees (91.67%) compared to 12 US trainees (35.29%) do not think they have had adequate robotics training (p <  0.00001). Surgical trainees in the USA have had significantly more exposure to training in robotic surgery than their UK and Irish counterparts.

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.

Comparison of surgical outcomes and learning curve for robotic versus laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Both laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy (LLDRH) and robotic living donor right hemihepatectomy (RLDRH) have been developed for minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH), although comparative analysis between the two surgical modalities is lacking. This study aims to compare surgical outcomes of LLDRH and RLDRH at a single institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From March 2016 to March 2022, 171 patients who underwent MILH of right liver were enrolled and divided into RLDRH and LLDRH. Two surgeons with experience in both techniques performed all procedures. Clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes of donor and recipient, and donor anatomic variations were compared between both groups, and learning curves were estimated. Subgroup analysis was also performed, including only donors recruited after 2019, when LLDRH was initiated at our institution.

RESULTS

RLDRH and LLDRH were performed for 102 and 69 patients, respectively. Operative time was significantly longer for RLDRH than LLDRH (464 vs. 407 min, P < 0.001), although estimated blood loss was lower in RLDRH (104 vs. 238 mL, P = 0.002). Incidence of major complications was similar in both groups. After 2019, significantly more RLDRH vs. LLDRH patients had variation in the hepatic artery (14.3% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.020) and portal vein (16.1% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.027). Learning curve for RLDRH was stabilized after approximately the 16th case, whereas that of LLDRH stabilized immediately.

CONCLUSION

RLDRH resulted in less intraoperative bleeding and comparable postoperative outcomes than LLDRH. Moreover, since 2019, RLDRH has been employed more frequently for donors with hilar structure anatomic variations. Based on our single-center experience, we propose that standardized procedures for RLDRH might help set up pure minimally invasive procedures for donor hepatectomy and facilitate safe implementation of laparoscopic approaches.

Short- and long-term outcomes after robotic and open liver resection for elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver resection (RLR) has increasingly been accepted as it has overcome some of the limitations of open liver resection (OLR), while the outcomes following RLR in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the short and long-term outcomes of RLR vs. OLR in elderly HCC patients.

METHODS

Perioperative data of elderly patients (≥ 65 years) with HCC who underwent RLR or OLR between January 2010 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. A 1:2 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize the differences between RLR and OLR groups. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent prognosis factors for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of these patients.

RESULTS

Of the 427 elderly HCC patients included in this study, 113 underwent RLR and 314 underwent OLR. After the 1:2 PSM, there were 100 and 178 patients in the RLR and the OLR groups, respectively. The RLR group had a less estimated blood loss (EBL), a shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS), and a lower complications rate (all P < 0.05), compared with the OLR group before and after PSM. Univariable and multivariable analyses showed that advanced age and surgical approaches were not independent risk factors for long-term prognosis. The two groups of elderly patients who were performed RLR or OLR had similar OS (median OS 52.8 vs. 57.6 months) and RFS (median RFS 20.4 vs. 24.6 months) rates after PSM.

CONCLUSIONS

RLR was comparable to OLR in feasibility and safety. For elderly patients with HCC, RLR resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OLR.

Limited liver resections in the posterosuperior segments: international multicentre propensity score-matched and coarsened exact-matched analysis comparing the laparoscopic and robotic approaches

BACKGROUND

Limited liver resections (LLRs) for tumours located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver are technically demanding procedures. This study compared outcomes of robotic (R) and laparoscopic (L) LLR for tumours located in the posterosuperior liver segments (IV, VII, and VIII).

METHODS

This was an international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients who underwent R-LLR or L-LLR at 24 centres between 2010 and 2019. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed; 1 : 3 propensity score matching (PSM) and 1 : 1 coarsened exact matching (CEM) were performed.

RESULTS

Of 1566 patients undergoing R-LLR and L-LLR, 983 met the study inclusion criteria. Before matching, 159 R-LLRs and 824 L-LLRs were included. After 1 : 3 PSM of 127 R-LLRs and 381 L-LLRs, comparison of perioperative outcomes showed that median blood loss (100 (i.q.r. 40-200) versus 200 (100-500) ml; P = 0.003), blood loss of at least 500 ml (9 (7.4 per cent) versus 94 (27.6 per cent); P < 0.001), intraoperative blood transfusion rate (4 (3.1 per cent) versus 38 (10.0 per cent); P = 0.025), rate of conversion to open surgery (1 (0.8 per cent) versus 30 (7.9 per cent); P = 0.022), median duration of Pringle manoeuvre when applied (30 (20-46) versus 40 (25-58) min; P = 0.012), and median duration of operation (175 (130-255) versus 224 (155-300); P < 0.001) were lower in the R-LLR group compared with the L-LLR group. After 1 : 1 CEM of 104 R-LLRs with 104 L-LLRs, R-LLR was similarly associated with significantly reduced blood loss and a lower rate of conversion to open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Based on a matched analysis of well selected patients, both robotic and laparoscopic access could be undertaken safely with good outcomes for tumours in the posterosuperior liver segments.

Laparoscopic versus Robotic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, with a special focus on the meta-analysis method. Original studies were collected from three Chinese databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Our systematic review was conducted on 682 patients with robotic liver resection, and 1101 patients were operated by laparoscopic platform. Robotic surgery has a long surgical duration (MD = 43.99, 95% CI: 23.45-64.53, p = 0.0001), while there is no significant difference in length of hospital stay (MD = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.38-0.58, p = 0.69), blood loss (MD = -20, 95% CI: -64.90-23.34, p = 0.36), the incidence of conversion (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.41-1.69, p = 0.62), and tumor size (MD = 0.30, 95% CI: -0-0.60, p = 0.05); the subgroup analysis of major and minor hepatectomy on operation time is (MD = -7.08, 95% CI: -15.22-0.07, p = 0.09) and (MD = 39.87, 95% CI: -1.70-81.44, p = 0.06), respectively. However, despite the deficiencies of robotic hepatectomy in terms of extended operation time compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy is still effective and equivalent to laparoscopic hepatectomy in outcomes. Scientific evaluation and research on one portion of the liver may produce more efficacity and more precise results. Therefore, more clinical trials are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Four-year experience with more than 1000 cases of total laparoscopic liver resection in a single center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become a safe surgical procedure that needs additional summarization.

AIM

To review 4 years of total LLR surgeries, exceeding 1000 cases, which were performed at a single center.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LLR at West China Hospital of Sichuan University between January 2015 and December 2018 were identified. Surgical details, including the interventional year, category of liver disease, and malignant liver tumors prognosis, were evaluated. The learning curve for LLR was evaluated using the cumulative sum method. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to perform survival analysis.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 1098 patients were identified. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was the most common disease that led to the need for LLR at the center (n = 462, 42.08%). The average operation time was 216.94 ± 98.51 min. The conversion rate was 1.82% (20/1098). The complication rate was 9.20% (from grade II to V). The 1-year and 3-year overall survival rates of HCC patients were 89.7% and 81.9%, respectively. The learning curve was grouped into two phases for local resection (cases 1-106 and 107-373), three phases for anatomical segmentectomy (cases 1-44, 45-74 and 75-120), and three phases for hemihepatectomy (cases 1-17, 18-48 and 49-88).

CONCLUSION

LLR may be considered a first-line surgical intervention for liver resection that can be performed safely for a variety of primary, secondary, and recurrent liver tumors and for benign diseases once technical competence is proficiently attained.

Laparoscopic Treatment Strategies for Liver Echinococcosis

Liver echinococcosis is clinically mainly composed of hepatic cystic echinococcosis (CE) and hepatic alveolar echinococcosis (AE). At present, laparoscopy has been comprehensively applied in the treatment of two types of liver echinococcosis. For hepatic CE treatment, both laparoscopic total pericystectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy can achieve radical results, but the former is considered the first choice owing to its being more minimally invasive; laparoscopic subtotal pericystectomy and laparoscopic partial pericystectomy can be accepted as complementary options, considering the presence of complicated cysts and the level of laparoscopic technique in remote hospitals; laparoscopic cystectomy is simple, but it is not currently recommended for treatment of hepatic CE owing to poor efficacy and high risk of postoperative complications. For hepatic AE treatment, laparoscopy not only achieves the same radical effect as open surgery in selected patients, but also is more minimally invasive, so it has a better prospect.

The Role of ICG in Robot-Assisted Liver Resections

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

Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. However, the added benefit of the robotic platform over conventional laparoscopy is a matter of ongoing investigation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an up-to-date and balanced evaluation of the benefits and shortcomings of robotic liver surgery for the modern hepatobiliary surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Advantages of a robotic approach to liver resection include a shortened learning curve, the ability to complete more extensive or complex minimally invasive operations, and integrated fluorescence guidance. However, the robotic platform remains limited by a paucity of parenchymal transection devices, complete lack of haptic feedback, and added operating time associated with docking and instrument exchange. Like laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy may provide patients with more rapid recovery and a shorter hospital stay, which can help offset the substantial costs of robot acquisition and maintenance. The oncologic outcomes of robotic hepatectomy appear to be equivalent to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for appropriately selected patients.

The impact of robotics in liver surgery: A worldwide systematic review and short-term outcomes meta-analysis on 2,728 cases

BACKGROUND

The dissemination of robotic liver surgery is slow-paced and must face the obstacle of demonstrating advantages over open and laparoscopic (LLS) approaches. Our objective was to show the current position of robotic liver surgery (RLS) worldwide and to identify if improved short-term outcomes are observed, including secondary meta-analyses for type of resection, etiology, and cost analysis.

METHODS

A PRISMA-based systematic review was performed to identify manuscripts comparing RLS vs open or LLS approaches. Quality analysis was performed using the Newcatle-Ottawa score. Statistical analysis was performed after heterogeneity test and fixed- or random-effect models were chosen accordingly.

RESULTS

After removing duplications, 2728 RLS cases were identified from the final set of 150 manuscripts. More than 75% of the cases have been performed on malignancies. Meta-analysis from the 38 comparative reports showed that RLS may offer improved short-term outcomes compared to open procedures in most of the variables screened. Compared to LLS, some advantages may be observed in favour of RLS for major resections in terms of operative time, hospital stay and rate of complications. Cost analyses showed an increased cost per procedure of around US$5000.

CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of RLS still need to be demonstrated although early results are promising. Advantages vs open approach are demonstrated. Compared to laparoscopic surgery, minor perioperative advantages may be observed for major resections although cost analyses are still unfavorable to the robotic approach.

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

Simple Summary

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

Abstract

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

Implementing a robotic liver resection program does not always require prior laparoscopic experience

Background

Preliminary experience in laparoscopic liver surgery is usually suggested prior to implementation of a robotic liver resection program.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing robotic (RLR) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma at a center with concomitant initiation of robotic and laparoscopic programs

Results

A total of 92 consecutive patients operated on between May 2014 and February 2019 were included: 40 RLR versus 52 LLR. Median age (69 vs. 67; p = 0.74), male sex (62.5% vs. 59.6%; p = 0.96), incidence of chronic liver disease (97.5% vs.98.1%; p = 0.85), median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (8 vs. 9; p = 0.92), and median largest nodule size (22 vs. 24 mm) were similar between RLR and LLR. In the LLR group, there was a numerically higher incidence of nodules located in segment 4 (20.0% vs. 16.6%; p = 0.79); a numerically higher use of Pringle’s maneuver (32.7% vs. 20%; p = 0.23), and a shorter duration of surgery (median of 165.5 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.04). Incidence of complications (25% vs.32.7%; p = 0.49), blood transfusions (2.5% vs.9.6%; p = 0.21), and median length of stay (6 vs. 5; p = 0.54) were similar between RLR and LLR. The overall (OS) and recurrence-free (RFS) survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 100 and 79 and 95 and 26% for RLR versus 96.2 and 76.9 and 84.6 and 26.9% for LLR (log-rank p = 0.65 for OS and 0.72 for RFS).

Conclusions

Based on our results, concurrent implementation of a robotic and laparoscopic liver resection program appears feasible and safe, and is associated with similar oncologic long-term outcomes.

The Use of Robotics in Surgery of Benign Liver Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment of benign liver diseases (BLD) remains a field of conflict, due to increased risk and high complication rate. However, the introduction of minimally invasive surgery has led to increased number of patients with BLD being treated surgically, with similar outcomes and fewer complications. Current data support the application of laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic surgery (RS) in surgical treatment of liver malignancies, but there are insufficient data concerning the application of robotic surgery in BLD. In the present systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the application of RS in BLD surgery.

METHODS

After a thorough search of Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, 12 studies were considered eligible with a total number of 115 patients with BLD.

DISCUSSION

In brief, RS appears to be a safe and feasible option for BLD surgery. When compared to open surgery, RS is associated with lower blood loss, shorter length of stay, and fewer complication rate. Regarding LS, the peri- and postoperative outcomes were similar, but RS can overcome the technical limitations of LS. However, the cost of RS remains a major drawback in its widespread application.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering our findings, RS can be a safe and feasible option for BLD surgery, but further studies are needed to justify the introduction of RS in liver surgery and to define the type of patients that will benefit the most from it.

Recent advances in the surgical management of hepatocellular carcinoma

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing, despite effective antiviral treatment for hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus infection and the application of preventive measures such as vaccination at birth against HBV infection. This is mainly due to the increase in metabolic syndrome and its hepatic components, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis. Liver resection and transplantation are the main treatment options, offering long-term survival and potential cure. In this review, the recent advances in the surgical management of HCC are presented. More specifically, the role of liver resection in the intermediate and advanced stages, according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification, is analyzed. In addition, the roles of minimally invasive surgery and of living-related liver transplantation in the management of patients with HCC are discussed. Finally, recent data on the role of molecular markers in the early diagnosis and recurrence of HCC are presented. The management of HCC is complex, as there are several options for each stage of the disease. In order for, each patient to get the maximum benefit, an individualized approach is suggested, in specialized liver units, where cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards.