Predictors and implications of unplanned conversion during minimally invasive hepatectomy: an analysis of the ACS-NSQIP database

Role of ablation therapy in conjunction with surgical resection for neuroendocrine tumors involving the liver

BACKGROUND

Resection of hepatic metastasis from neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) improves quality of life and prolongs 5-year survival. Ablation can be utilized with surgery to achieve complete resection. Although several studies report long-term outcomes for patients undergoing ablation, none have explored perioperative effects of ablation in patients with metastatic NETs.

AIM

To determine if intra-operative ablation during hepatectomy increases risk of adverse outcomes such as surgical site infections (SSIs), bleeding, and bile leak.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the hepatectomy National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2015-2019 was performed to determine the odds of SSIs, bile leaks, or bleeding in patients undergoing intraoperative ablation when compared to hepatectomy alone.

RESULTS

Of the 966 patients included in the study, 298 (30.9%) underwent ablation during hepatectomy. There were 78 (11.7%) patients with SSIs in the hepatectomy alone group and 39 (13.1%) patients with a SSIs in the hepatectomy with ablation group. Bile leak occurred in 41 (6.2%) and 14 (4.8%) patients in the two groups, respectively; bleeding occurred in 117 (17.5%) and 33 (11.1%), respectively. After controlling for confounding variables, ablation did not increase risk of SSI (P = 0.63), bile leak (P = 0.34) or bleeding (P = 0.07) when compared to patients undergoing resection alone on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative ablation with hepatic resection for NETs is safe in the perioperative period without significant increased risk of infection, bleeding, or bile leak. Surgeons should utilize this modality when appropriate to achieve optimal disease control and outcomes.

Risk factor analysis of conversion in laparoscopic liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The risk factors of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) requiring conversion to open surgery have not been adequately studied. This study aimed to determine the risk factors and postoperative outcomes of conversion in patients with ICC.

METHODS

From May 2014 to September 2022, Unplanned conversions were compared with successful LLRs.

RESULTS

153 patients with ICC initially underwent LLR, of which 41 (26.8%) required conversion to open surgery. Multivariate analysis for those factors that were statistically significant or confirmed by clinical studies, tumor proximity to the major vessels (OR 6.643, P < 0.001), and previous upper abdominal surgery (OR 3.140, P = 0.040) were independent predictors of unplanned conversions. Compared to successful LLRs, unplanned conversions showed longer operative times (300.0 vs. 225.0 min, P < 0.001), more blood loss (500.0 vs. 200.0 mL, P < 0.001), higher transfusion rates (46.3% vs. 11.6%, P < 0.001), longer length of stays (13.0 vs. 8.0 days, P < 0.001), and higher rates of major morbidity (39.0% vs. 11.6%, P < 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day or 90-day mortality between the conversion group and the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

Conversion during LLR should be anticipated in ICC patients with prior upper abdominal surgery or tumor proximity to major vessels as features.

Unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: short-term outcomes and suggested stepwise approach for a safe conversion

OBJECTIVE

With the increased adoption of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, the effects of unplanned conversions to an 'open' operation are ill-defined. This study aims to describe the impact of unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy on short-term outcomes and suggest a stepwise approach for safe unplanned conversions during robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

This is an analysis of 400 consecutive patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a single high-volume institution. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD), and significance is accepted with 95% probability.

RESULTS

Between November 2012 and February 2023, 184 (46%) women and 216 (54%) men, aged 70 (68 ± 11.0) years, underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Unplanned conversions occurred in 42 (10.5%) patients; 18 (5%) were converted due to unanticipated vascular involvement, 13 (3%) due to failure to obtain definitive control of bleeding, and 11 (3%) due to visceral obesity. Men were more likely to require a conversion than women (29 vs. 13, p = 0.05). Conversions were associated with shorter operative time (376 (323 ± 182.2) vs. 434 (441 ± 98.7) min, p < 0.0001) but higher estimated blood loss (675 (1010 ± 1168.1) vs. 150 (196 ± 176.8) mL, p < 0.0001). Patients that required an unplanned conversion had higher rates of complications with Clavien-Dindo scores of   III-V (31% vs. 12%, p = 0.003), longer length of stay (8 (11 ± 11.6) vs. 5 (7 ± 6.2), p = 0.0005), longer ICU length of stay (1 (2 ± 5.1) vs. 0 (0 ± 1.3), p < 0.0001) and higher mortality rates (21% vs. 4%, p = 0.0001). The conversion rate significantly decreased over time (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy significantly and negatively affect short-term outcomes, including postoperative mortality. Men were more likely to require a conversion than women. The unplanned conversions rates significantly decreased over time, implying that increased proficiency and patient selection may prevent unplanned conversions. An unplanned conversion should be undertaken in an organized stepwise approach to maximize patient safety.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with clinically significant portal hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) on the short-term and long-term outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with and without clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed for articles published from inception to March 1, 2023. Meta-analysis of surgical and oncological outcomes was performed using a random effects model. Data were summarized as mean difference and risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Five cohort studies with a total of 310 HCC patients were included (CSPH 143; Non-CSPH 167). In terms of surgical outcomes, estimated blood loss and the length of hospital stay were significantly lower in the Non-CSPH group than in the CSPH group. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding other surgical outcomes, including the operative time, ratio of conversion to open surgery, and overall complication rate. In addition, there were also no significant differences between the two groups regarding the oncological outcomes, such as 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

HCC patients with and without CSPH who underwent LH had comparable surgical and oncological outcomes. LH is a safe and effective treatment for HCC patients with CSPH under the premise of rational screening of patients.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Nationwide analysis of unplanned conversion during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Utilization of minimally-invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma has increased. While unplanned conversion to an open procedure during MIDP is associated with inferior short-term outcomes, the long-term consequences of conversion have not been adequately examined.

METHODS

Patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma undergoing MIDP were selected from the National Cancer Database (2010-2015) and subdivided based on the occurrence of unplanned conversion. Post-operative outcomes and overall survival (OS) were examined. Conversion was additionally compared to a matched group of planned open resections.

RESULTS

Among 592 patients undergoing attempted MIDP, unplanned conversion occurred in 23.1%. Despite increased 90-day mortality among patients experiencing conversion, there was no difference in median OS between groups (25.0 vs 27.8 months, p = 0.095). For patients undergoing conversion, post-operative outcomes and long-term survival were similar when compared to a propensity-matched group of patients undergoing planned open resection. On multivariable analysis, treatment at an academic facility (OR 0.63) and a robotic approach (OR 0.50) were both significantly associated with completed MIDP.

CONCLUSION

Despite inferior post-operative outcomes compared to successful MIDP, unplanned conversion did not result in significantly reduced long term survival. MIDP can be attempted selectively but treatment at experienced centers via a robotic approach should be considered.

Circumstances and implications of conversion from minimally invasive to open liver resection: a multi-center analysis from the AMILES registry

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection (MILR) are associated with favorable outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the implications of conversion to an open procedure on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MILR at 10 North American institutions were identified from the Americas Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (AMILES) database. Outcomes of patients who required conversion were compared to those who did not. Additionally, outcomes after conversion due to unfavorable findings (poor visualization/access, lack of progress, disease extent) versus intraoperative events (bleeding, injury, cardiopulmonary instability) were compared.

RESULTS

Of 1675 patients who underwent MILR, 102 (6.1%) required conversion. Conversion rate ranged from 4.4% for left lateral sectionectomy to 10% for right hepatectomy. The primary reason for conversion was unfavorable findings in 67 patients (66%) and intraoperative adverse events in 35 patients (34%). By multivariable analysis, major resection, cirrhosis, prior liver surgery, and tumor proximity to major vessels were identified as risk factors for conversion (p < 0.05). Patients who required conversion had higher blood loss, transfusion requirements, operative time, and length of stay, (p < 0.05). They also had higher major complication rates (23% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (8.8% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001). When compared to those who required conversion due to unfavorable findings, patients who required conversion due to intraoperative adverse events had significantly higher major complication rates (43% vs. 14%, p = 0.012) and 30-day mortality (20% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion from MILR to open surgery is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. Conversion due to intraoperative adverse events is rare but associated with significantly higher complication and mortality rates, while conversion due to unfavorable findings is associated with similar outcomes as planned open resection. High-risk patients may benefit from early conversion in a controlled fashion if difficulties are encountered or anticipated.

Comparing Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Open Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Malignancies in Patients with Low-MELD Cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Cirrhotic patients with primary liver cancer may undergo curative-intent resection when selected appropriately. Patients with T1 tumors and low-MELD are generally referred for resection. We aim to evaluate whether minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) is associated with improved outcomes versus open hepatectomy (OH).

METHODS

NSQIP hepatectomy database 2014-2021 was used to select patients with T1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) or Intra-hepatic Cholangiocarcionoma (IHCC) and low-MELD cirrhosis (MELD ≤ 10) who underwent partial hepatectomy. Propensity score matching was applied between OH and MIH patients, and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared. Multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) in the selected population.

RESULTS

There were 922 patients: 494 (53.6%) OH, 372 (40.3%) MIH, and 56 (6.1%) began MIH converted to OH (analyzed with the OH cohort). We matched 354 pairs of patients with an adequate balance between the groups. MIH was associated with lower rates of bile leak (HR 0.37 [0.19-0.72)], PHLF (HR 0.36 [0.15-0.86]), collections requiring drainage (HR 0.30 [0.15-0.63]), postoperative transfusion (HR 0.36 [0.21-0.61]), major (HR 0.45 [0.27-0.77]), and overall morbidity (HR 0.44 [0.31-0.63]), and a two-day shorter median hospitalization (3 vs. 5 days; HR 0.61 [0.45-0.82]). No difference was noted in operative time, wound, respiratory, and septic complications, or mortality. Regression analysis identified ascites, prior portal vein embolization (PVE), additional hepatectomies, Pringle's maneuver, and OH (vs. MIH) as independent predictors of PHLF.

CONCLUSION

MIH for early-stage HCC/IHCC in low-MELD cirrhotic patients was associated with improved postoperative outcomes over OH. These findings suggest that MIH should be considered an acceptable approach in this population of patients.

Risk Factors and Long-Term Implications of Unplanned Conversion During Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become a widely used standardized operation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the field of hepatic surgery. However, the risk factors and long-term implications associated with unplanned conversion to an open procedure during the LLR have not been adequately studied. Methods: The study incorporated 96 patients with HCC. Risk factors of conversion and their prognosis were analyzed by comparing patients who successfully underwent LLR with those who required unplanned conversion. Results: In this study, the unplanned conversion rate for laparoscopic hepatectomy was 42.7%. Patients who underwent conversion had longer length of stay (8 versus 7 days, P < .001), longer operation time (297.73 versus 194.03 minutes, P = .000), a higher transfusion rate (29.3% versus 5.5%, P < .001), and more postoperative complications compared with patients who successfully underwent LLR. The two surgical maneuvers did not show substantial disparities in terms of total survival and disease-free survival rates. Risk factors of unplanned conversion contained tumor location (odds ratio [OR], 3.129; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.214-8.066; P = 0.018) and tumor size (OR, 2.652; 95% CI: 1.039-6.767; P = 0.041). Conclusions: The unplanned conversion during LLR for HCC was linked to unfavorable short-term prognosis, yet it did not influence long-term oncologic outcomes. Moreover, preoperative evaluation of tumor size and location may effectively reduce the probability of unplanned conversion during LLR.

Procedure-specific risks of robotic simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases

An estimated 25% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis, the most common site being the liver. Although prior studies have reported that a simultaneous approach to resections in these patients can lead to increased rates of complications, emerging literature shows that minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches can mitigate this additional morbidity. This is the first study utilizing a large national database to investigate colorectal and hepatic procedure-specific risks in robotic simultaneous resections for CRC and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Utilizing the ACS-NSQIP targeted colectomy, proctectomy, and hepatectomy files, 1,721 patients were identified who underwent simultaneous resections of CRC and CRLM from 2016 to 2021. Of these patients, 345 (20%) underwent resections by an MIS approach, defined as either laparoscopic (n = 266, 78%) or robotic (n = 79, 23%). Patients who underwent robotic resections had lower rates of ileus compared to those who had open surgeries. The robotic group had similar rates of 30-day anastomotic leak, bile leak, hepatic failure, and post-operative invasive hepatic procedures compared to both the open and laparoscopic groups. The rate of conversion to open (8% vs. 22%, p = 0.004) and median LOS (5 vs. 6 days, p = 0.022) was significantly lower for robotic compared to laparoscopic group. This study, which is the largest national cohort of simultaneous CRC and CRLM resections, supports the safety and potential benefits of a robotic approach in these patients.

Conversion of Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for HCC in Advanced Cirrhosis: Clinical Impact and Role of Difficulty Scoring Systems

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) in cirrhosis are at risk of conversion since cirrhosis and complexity, which can be estimated by scoring systems, are both independent factors for. We aimed to investigate the consequence of conversion of MILR for hepatocellular carcinoma in advanced cirrhosis.

METHODS

After retrospective review, MILRs for HCC were divided into preserved liver function (Cohort-A) and advanced cirrhosis cohorts (Cohort-B). Completed and converted MILRs were compared (Compl-A vs. Conv-A and Compl-B vs. Conv-B); then, converted patients were compared (Conv-A vs. Conv-B) as whole cohorts and after stratification for MILR difficulty using Iwate criteria.

RESULTS

637 MILRs were studied (474 Cohort-A, 163 Cohort-B). Conv-A MILRs had worse outcomes than Compl-A: more blood loss; higher incidence of transfusions, morbidity, grade 2 complications, ascites, liver failure and longer hospitalization. Conv-B MILRs exhibited the same worse perioperative outcomes than Compl-B and also higher incidence of grade 1 complications. Conv-A and Conv-B outcomes of low difficulty MILRs resulted in similar perioperative outcomes, whereas the comparison of more difficult converted MILRs (intermediate/advanced/expert) resulted in several worse perioperative outcomes for patients with advanced cirrhosis. However, Conv-A and Conv-B outcomes were not significantly different in the whole cohort where "advanced/expert" MILRs were 33.1% and 5.5% in Cohort A and B.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion in the setting of advanced cirrhosis can be associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to compensated cirrhosis, provided careful patient selection is applied (patients elected to low difficulty MILRs). Difficulty scoring systems may help in identifying the most appropriate candidates.

SAGES/AHPBA guidelines for the use of minimally invasive surgery for the surgical treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM)

BACKGROUND

Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) occur in roughly half of patients with colorectal cancer. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become an increasingly acceptable and utilized technique for resection in these patients, but there is a lack of specific guidelines on the use of MIS hepatectomy in this setting. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the decision between MIS and open techniques for the resection of CRLM.

METHODS

Systematic review was conducted for two key questions (KQ) regarding the use of MIS versus open surgery for the resection of isolated liver metastases from colon and rectal cancer. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Additionally, the panel developed recommendations for future research.

RESULTS

The panel addressed two KQs, which pertained to staged or simultaneous resection of resectable colon or rectal metastases. The panel made conditional recommendations for the use of MIS hepatectomy for both staged and simultaneous resection when deemed safe, feasible, and oncologically effective by the surgeon based on the individual patient characteristics. These recommendations were based on low and very low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

These evidence-based recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of CRLM and highlight the importance of individual considerations of each case. Pursuing the identified research needs may help further refine the evidence and improve future versions of guidelines for the use of MIS techniques in the treatment of CRLM.

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection for cavernous hemangioma: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques have increasingly been adopted for liver resection. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for liver cavernous hemangioma and to evaluate the treatment feasibility and safety.

METHODS

A retrospective study of prospectively collected data was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent RALR (n = 43) and LLR (n = 244) for liver cavernous hemangioma between February 2015 and June 2021 at our institution. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter (P = 0.016) in the RALR group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rates, conversion to open surgery or complication rates. There was no perioperative mortality. Multivariate analysis showed that hemangiomas located in posterosuperior liver segments and those in close proximity to major vascular structures were independent predictors of increased intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.013 and P = 0.001, respectively). For patients with hemangioma in close proximity to major vascular structures, there were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between the two groups, with the exception that intraoperative blood loss in the RALR group was significantly less than that in the LLR group (350 ml vs. 450 ml, P = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Both RALR and LLR were safe and feasible for treating liver hemangioma in well-selected patients. For patients with liver hemangioma in close proximity to major vascular structures, RALR was better than conventional laparoscopic surgery in reducing intraoperative blood loss.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A Comparison between Open and Minimally Invasive Techniques for the Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastasis

The liver is the most common site of colorectal cancer metastasis. Liver surgery is a cornerstone in treatment, with progressive expansion of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). This study aims to compare short- and long-term outcomes of open surgery and MIS for the treatment of colorectal adenocarcinoma liver metastasis during the first three years of increasing caseload and implementation of MIS use in liver surgery. All patients treated between November 2018 and August 2021 at Careggi Teaching Hospital in Florence, Italy, were prospectively entered into a database and retrospectively reviewed. Fifty-one patients were resected (41 open, 10 MIS). Considering that patients with a significantly higher number of lesions underwent open surgery and operative results were similar, postoperative morbidity rate and length of hospital stay were significantly higher in the open group. No differences were found in the pathological specimen. The postoperative mortality rate was 2%. Mean overall survival and disease-free survival were 46 months (95% CI 42-50) and 22 months (95% CI 15.6-29), respectively. The use of minimally invasive techniques in liver surgery is safe and feasible if surgeons have adequate expertise. MIS and parenchymal sparing resections should be preferred whenever technically feasible.

Analysis of Oncological Outcomes After Robotic Liver Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding minimally invasive liver resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) include inadequate resection margins and inferior long-term overall survival (OS) when compared to an "open" approach. Limited data exists to address these issues. We aimed to compare perioperative variables, tumor distance to margin, and long-term outcomes after IHCC resection based on surgical approach (robotic vs open) in our hepatobiliary center to address these concerns.

METHODS

With IRB approval, 34 patients who underwent robotic or open hepatectomy for IHCC were prospectively followed. Patients were stratified by tumor distance to resection margin (≤1 mm, 1.1-9.9 mm, ≥10 mm) for illustrative purposes and by approach (robotic vs open). Where appropriate, regression analysis and cox model of proportional hazards were utilized. Survival was stratified by margin distance and approach utilizing Kaplan-Meier curves. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Patients undergoing robotic vs open hepatectomy had similar demographics. Patients undergoing the robotic approach had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL). Tumor distance to margin between the two approaches were similar (P = .428). Median OS between the two approaches was similar in patients of any margin distance.In the subgroup analysis by margin distance, the robotic approach yielded less EBL for patients in the 1.1-9.9 mm and ≥10 mm margin groups, and a shorter ICU length of stay for patients with ≥10 mm margin.

DISCUSSION

Similar margins were attained via either approach, translating into oncological non-inferiority of robotic IHCC resection. Robotic approach for the treatment of IHCC should be considered an alternative to an open approach.

Cost analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy: Is the robotic platform more expensive?

The robotic platform is perceived to be more expensive when compared to laparoscopic and open operations. We aimed to compare the perioperative costs of robotic vs. open hepatectomy for the treatment of liver tumors at our facility. We followed 370 patients undergoing robotic and open hepatectomy for benign and malignant liver tumors. Demographic, perioperative, cost and payment data were collected and analyzed. For illustrative purposes, the data were presented as median (mean ± SD). Two hundred sixty-seven robotic and 104 open hepatectomies were analyzed. There were no significant differences in perioperative variables between the two cohorts. The robotic group had a significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (135 [208 ± 244.8] vs 300 [427 ± 502.5] ml, p < 0.0001), smaller lesion size (4 [5 ± 3.6] vs 5[6 ± 4.9] cm, p = 0.0052), shorter length of stay (LOS) (4 [4 ± 3.4] vs 6[8 ± 5.7] days, p < 0.0001) and decreased 90-day mortality (3 vs 7 p = 0.0028). There were no significant differences between the two groups any cost variable. The open group received significantly higher reimbursement ($29,297 [62,962 ± 75,377.96] vs $19,102 [38,975 ± 39,362.11], p < 0.001) and profit ($5005 [30,981 ± 79,541.09] vs $- 6682 [6146 ± 40,949.65], p < 0.001). Robotic hepatectomy is associated with lower EBL, shorter LOS and less mortality. There was no greater cost associated with the robotic platform despite a reduced reimbursement and profit.

Risk factors and long-term implications of unplanned conversion during laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma located in anterolateral liver segments

Purpose

The impact of conversion on perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes is controversial. Thus, we compared these outcomes between laparoscopic (Lap), unplanned conversion (Conversion), and planned open (Open) liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) located in anterolateral (AL) liver segments and aimed to identify risk factors for unplanned conversion.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 374 patients (Lap, 299; Open, 62; Conversion, 13) who underwent liver resection for HCC located in AL segments between 2004 and 2018.

Results

Compared to the Lap group, the Conversion group showed greater values for operation time (p < 0.001), blood loss (p = 0.021), transfusion rate (p = 0.009), postoperative complication rate (p = 0.008), and hospital stay (p = 0.040), with a lower R0 resection rate (p < 0.001) and disease-free survival (p = 0.001). Compared with the Open group, the Conversion group had a longer operation time (p = 0.012) and greater blood loss (p = 0.024). Risk factors for unplanned conversion were large tumor size (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.74; p = 0.020), multiple tumors (OR, 5.95; 95% CI, 1.45-24.39; p = 0.013), and other organ invasion (OR, 15.32; 95% CI, 1.80-130.59; p = 0.013).

Conclusion

In conclusion, patients who experienced unplanned conversion during LLR for HCC located in AL segments showed poor perioperative and long-term outcomes compared to those who underwent planned laparoscopic and open liver resection. Therefore, open liver resection should be considered in patients with risk factors for unplanned conversion.

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

Improvements in outcomes after primary hepatectomy have increased the eligibility of patients for reoperative hepatectomies, but this can be fraught with technical difficulties, particularly via a minimally invasive approach. The robotic approach provides superior visualization, articulated instrumentation, platform stability, and increased dexterity when compared to conventional laparoscopy. We sought to investigate the effect brought by the robotic system in the outcome of these operations. We followed 234 patients who underwent robotic liver resection from 2012 to 2021 for retrospective analysis. Patients were classified as: no prior abdominal operation, prior abdominal operation(s), and prior liver resection. Cohorts were compared by one-way ANOVA and 2 × 3 contingency table analyses. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Significance was accepted at p < 0.05. Of the 234 patients studied, 114 underwent primary hepatectomy, 105 had a prior laparoscopic or open abdominal operation (cholecystectomy, herniorrhaphy, colectomy, and appendectomy), and 15 had a redo hepatectomy. Demographic and preoperative ASA, MELD, neoplasm size, and extent of liver resection were similar among the cohorts. There were no statistically significant differences between the three cohorts for all outcome variables including blood loss, operative duration, intensive care unit length of stay, overall length of stay, morbidity, mortality, and readmission rate. There were no differences in morbidity nor mortality between patients undergoing primary nor reoperative robotic hepatectomy. The advantages afforded by the robotic platform may have contributed to the equalization of outcomes.

A Single Institution's Experience With Robotic Minor and Major Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection is gradually becoming the preferred technique to treat liver tumors due its salutary benefits when compared with traditional "open" method. While robotic technology improves surgeon dexterity to better perform complex operations, outcomes of robotic hepatectomy have not been adequately studied. We therefore describe our institutional experience with robotic minor and major hepatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively study all patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy from 2016 to 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients underwent robotic hepatectomy. 138 (63%) were major hepatectomies while 82 (37%) were minor hepatectomies. Median age was 63 (62 ± 13) years, 118 (54%) were female. 168 patients had neoplastic disease and 52 patients had benign disease. Lesion size in patients who had undergone minor hepatectomy was 2 (3 ± 2.5) cm, compared to 5 (5 ± 3.0) cm in patients who undergone major hepatectomy (P < .001). 97% of patients underwent R0 resections while none of the patients had R2 resection. Operative duration was 226 (260 ± 122.7) vs 282 (299 ± 118.7) minutes (P ≤ .05); estimated blood loss was 100 (163 ± 259.2) vs 200 (251 ± 246.7) mL (P ≤ .05) for minor and major hepatectomy, respectively. One patient had intraoperative bleeding requiring "open" conversion. Nine (4%) patients had experienced notable postoperative complications and 2 (1%) patients died postoperatively. Length of stay was 3 (5 ± 4.6) vs 4 (5 ± 2.8) days for minor vs major hepatectomy (P = .84). Reoperation and readmission rate for minor vs major hepatectomy was 1% vs 3% (P = .65) and 9% vs 10% (P = .81), respectively.

DISCUSSION

Robotic major hepatectomy is safe, feasible, and efficacious with excellent postoperative outcomes.

Comparison of surgical invasiveness and morbidity of adult spinal deformity surgery to other major operations

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgeries are complex, involving long operative times and surgical morbidity. It is currently unclear how the invasiveness of ASD surgery compares to other major operations.

PURPOSE

To: (1) develop a quantitative score of surgical morbidity and invasiveness, and (2) compare this score between ASD surgery and other major operations.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A prospective surgical registry was used to identify all patients undergoing ASD surgery involving ≥ 7 segments. Seventeen additional procedures were included: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), pancreatectomy, and esophagectomy, among others.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Perioperative factors (operative time, transfusions, ventilation) and complications were collected and combined with a previously validated Postoperative Morbidity Survey to create a Surgical Invasiveness and Morbidity Score (SIMS).

METHODS

Computed scores were compared across surgeries using Welch's t-test. Multiple linear regression modeling was used to compare the SIMS of major surgeries relative to ASD while controlling for patient demographics and comorbidities.

RESULTS

A total of 1,245,282 surgical patients were included, 4,656 of which underwent ASD surgery. After multiple regression modeling controlling for patient demographics and comorbidities, ASD surgery ranked fourth in SIMS. ASD surgery had a significantly greater SIMS than 13 other major procedures including 6th esophagectomy (adjusted mean difference=-0.05, 95%CI -0.01-0.09, p<.001), 8th pancreatectomy (-0.40, 0.37-0.44, p<.001), 11th craniotomy for tumor (-1.01, 0.98-1.04, p<.001), and 12th sacral chordoma resection (-1.31, 1.26-1.37, p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ASD surgery was associated with significantly greater SIMS than many other major operations, even when controlling for important perioperative factors. These data have implications for patient counseling, resource allocation, and informed consent.

Robotic liver surgery: literature review and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) have been gaining popularity over the last decades. MILR provides superior peri-operative outcome. Despite these advantages, the penetrance of MILR in the clinical setting has been limited, and it was slowed down, among other factors, also by the laparoscopic technological limitations.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature review has been carried out (Pubmed, Embase and Scopus platforms) focusing on the role of robotic surgery in MILR.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The literature review results are presented and our additional remarks on the topic are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic MILR has been helping to expand the penetrance of MIS in liver surgery by making possible increasingly more challenging procedures. Minor resections still represent most of the robotic liver surgery data currently available. Robotic liver surgery is safe and effective, and it shows perioperative outcomes comparable with laparoscopic and open surgery. The oncological efficacy, within the limitations of the current level of evidence (mostly retrospective studies and literature heterogeneity), seems to show promising result. High quality prospective randomized studies, the use of prospective registry data, and multi-institutional efforts are needed.

Robotic major liver resections: Surgical outcomes compared with open major liver resections

Backgrounds/Aims

Laparoscopic major liver resections are still considered innovative procedures despite the recent development of laparoscopic liver surgery. Robotic surgery has been introduced as an innovative system for laparoscopic surgery. In this study, we investigated surgical outcomes after major liver resections using robotic systems.

Methods

From January 2009 to October 2018, 70 patients underwent robotic major liver resections, which included conventional major liver resections and right sectionectomy. The short-term and long-term outcomes were compared with 252 open major resections performed during the same period.

Results

Operative time was longer in the robotic group (472 min vs. 349 min, p<0.001). However, estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic group compared with the open resection group (269 ml vs. 548 ml, p=0.009). The overall postoperative complication rate of the robotic group was lower than that of the open resection group (31.4% vs. 58.3%, p<0.001), but the major complication rate was similar between the two groups. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (9.5 days vs. 15.1 days, p=0.006). Among patients with HCC, cholangiocarcinoma, and colorectal liver metastasis, there was no difference in overall and disease-free survival between the two groups. After propensity score matching in 37 patients with HCC for each group, the robotic group still showed a shorter hospital stay and comparable long-term outcomes.

Conclusions

Robotic major liver resections provided improved perioperative outcomes and comparable long-term oncologic outcome compared with open resections. Therefore, robotic surgery should be considered one of the options for minimally invasive major liver resections.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic major hepatectomies: Systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Major hepatectomy is still regarded as a technically demanding procedure for which minimally invasive surgery remains limited to selected cases in experienced centres and robotic platforms may provide some advantages over conventional laparoscopy in this setting. We aimed to combine and meta-analyse the available literature upon this topic.

METHODS

The PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were appraised to find all available studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomies. According to a pre-established pattern preoperative settings, operative and postoperative outcomes were assessed. The meta-analysis was performed by using the Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 485 patients from eight studies were included in the analysis. Robotic major hepatectomies showed a significantly lower conversion rate and estimated blood loss as compared to laparoscopic ones. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies patients experienced significant shorter postoperative hospitalisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery appears as competent as conventional laparoscopy to perform major hepatectomies, with possible advantages on conversion rate and perioperative blood loss, despite slightly prolonged postoperative hospitalisation.

Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy in North America: Laparoscopic Versus Robotic

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, data comparing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy is lacking and limited to single-center studies.

METHODS

Patients undergoing major (≥ 3 segments) or partial (≤ 2 segments) hepatectomy were identified in the 2014-2017 ACS-NSQIP hepatectomy targeted database. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic approaches were compared, and propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for bias.

RESULTS

Of 3152 minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs), 86% (N = 2706) were partial and 14% (N = 446) were major. The laparoscopic approach was utilized in 92% of patients (N = 2905) and 8% were performed robotically (N = 247). The percentage of MIHs increased over time (p < 0.01). After matching, 240 were identified in each cohort. Compared with the robotic approach, patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had a significantly higher conversion rate (23% vs. 7.4%) but had shorter operative time (159 vs. 204 min) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic cases undergoing an unplanned conversion to open were associated with increased morbidity (p < 0.001), but this difference was not observed in robotic cases. Both MIH approaches had low mortality (1.0%, p = 1.00), overall morbidity (17%, p = 0.47), and very short length of stay (3 days, p = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive hepatectomy is performed primarily for partial hepatectomies. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a significantly higher conversion rate, and converted cases have worse outcomes. Both minimally invasive approaches are safe with similar mortality, morbidity, and a very short length of stay. Graphical Abstract.

Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy in North America: Laparoscopic Versus Robotic

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, data comparing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy is lacking and limited to single-center studies.

METHODS

Patients undergoing major (≥ 3 segments) or partial (≤ 2 segments) hepatectomy were identified in the 2014-2017 ACS-NSQIP hepatectomy targeted database. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic approaches were compared, and propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for bias.

RESULTS

Of 3152 minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs), 86% (N = 2706) were partial and 14% (N = 446) were major. The laparoscopic approach was utilized in 92% of patients (N = 2905) and 8% were performed robotically (N = 247). The percentage of MIHs increased over time (p < 0.01). After matching, 240 were identified in each cohort. Compared with the robotic approach, patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had a significantly higher conversion rate (23% vs. 7.4%) but had shorter operative time (159 vs. 204 min) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic cases undergoing an unplanned conversion to open were associated with increased morbidity (p < 0.001), but this difference was not observed in robotic cases. Both MIH approaches had low mortality (1.0%, p = 1.00), overall morbidity (17%, p = 0.47), and very short length of stay (3 days, p = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive hepatectomy is performed primarily for partial hepatectomies. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a significantly higher conversion rate, and converted cases have worse outcomes. Both minimally invasive approaches are safe with similar mortality, morbidity, and a very short length of stay. Graphical Abstract.

Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy: A risk score for conversion for the paradigm of difficult laparoscopic liver resections. A single centre case series

BACKGROUND

Converted laparoscopic hepatectomies are known to lose some advantages of the minimally-invasiveness, and factors are identified to predict patients at risk. Specific evidence for laparoscopic right hepatectomy is expected of usefulness in clinical practice, given its technical peculiarities. The purpose of the study was the identification of risk factors and the development of a risk score for conversion of laparoscopic right hepatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy performed at a single hepatobiliary surgical center were analyzed. The cohort was split in half to obtain a derivation and a validation set. Risk factors for conversion were identified by uni- and multivariable analysis. A "conversion risk score" was built assigning each factor 1 point and comparing the score with the conversion status for each patient. The accuracy was assessed by the area-under-the-receiver-operator-characteristic-curve.

RESULTS

Among 130 operations, 22 were converted (16.9%). Reasons were: 45.5% oncologic inadequacy, 31.8% bleeding, 9.1% adhesions, 9.1% biliostasis, 4.5% anaesthesiological problems. Independent risk factors for conversion were: previous laparoscopic liver surgery (Hazard Ratio 4.9, p 0.011), preoperative chemotherapy ( Hazard Ratio 6.2, p 0.031), malignant diagnosis (Hazard Ratio 3.3, p 0.037), closeness to hepatocaval confluence or inferior vena cava (Hazard Ratio 4.1, p 0.029), tumor volume (Hazard Ratio 2.9, p 0.024). Conversion rates correlated positively with the score, raising from 0 to 100% when the score increased from 0 to 5 (Spearman: p 0.032 in the derivation set, p 0.020 in the validation set). The risk of conversion showed a sharp increase passing from class 3 to 4, reaching a probability estimated between 60 and 71.4%. The score showed good accuracy (area-under-the-receiver-operator-characteristic-curve 0.82).

CONCLUSION

Specific risk factors for conversion are identified for laparoscopic right hepatectomy. This score may help in standardizing the choice of a pure laparoscopic or open approach for such challenging resections.

Robotic Liver Resection

Robotic surgery has rapidly evolved. It is particularly attractive as an alternative minimally invasive approach in liver surgery because of improvements in visualization and articulated instruments. Limitations include increased operative times and lack of tactile feedback, but these have not been shown in studies. Considerations unique to robotic surgery, including safety protocols, must be put in place and be reviewed at the beginning of every procedure to ensure safety in the event of an emergent conversion. Despite the lack of early adoption by many hepatobiliary surgeons, robotic liver surgery continues to evolve and find its place within hepatobiliary surgery.

Unplanned conversion during minimally invasive liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: risk factors and surgical outcomes

Purpose

Unplanned conversion is sometimes necessary during minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aims of this study were to compare surgical outcomes of planned MILR and unplanned conversion and to investigate the risk factors after unplanned conversion.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 286 patients who underwent MILR with HCC from January 2006 to December 2017. All patients were divided into a MILR group and an unplanned conversion group. The clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. In addition, surgical outcomes in the conversion group were compared with the planned open surgery group (n = 505). Risk factors for unplanned conversion were analyzed.

Results

Of the 286 patients who underwent MILR, 18 patients (6.7%) had unplanned conversion during surgery. The unplanned conversion group showed statistically more blood loss, higher transfusion rate and postoperative complication rate, and longer hospital stay compared to the MILR group, whereas no such difference was observed in comparison with the planned open surgery group. There were no significant differences in overall and disease-free survival among 3 groups. The right-sided sectionectomy (right anterior and posterior sectionectomy), central bisectionectomy and tumor size were risk factors of unplanned conversion.

Conclusion

Unplanned conversion during MILR for HCC was associated with poor perioperative outcomes, but it did not affect long-term oncologic outcomes in our study. In addition, when planning right-sided sectionectomy or central bisectionectomy for a large tumor (more than 5 cm), we should recommend open surgery or MILR with an informed consent for unplanned open conversions.

International consensus statement on robotic hepatectomy surgery in 2018

The robotic surgical system has been applied in liver surgery. However, controversies concerns exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. To promote the development of robotic hepatectomy, this study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic hepatectomy and provide sixty experts’ consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 22 topics were prepared analyzed and widely discussed during the 4 meetings. Based on the published articles and expert panel opinion, 7 recommendations were generated by the GRADE method using an evidence-based method, which focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques and cost-effectiveness of hepatectomy. Given that the current evidences were low to very low as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized-controlled trials are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.

Low conversion rate during minimally invasive major hepatectomy: Ten-year experience at a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches for major hepatectomy have been marred by significant rates of conversion and associated morbidity. This study aimed to determine risk factors for conversion as well as postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing minimally invasive right-sided hepatectomy (MIRH).

METHODS

Data for patients undergoing MIRH between 2008 and 2017 at Emory University were reviewed. Risk factors for conversion were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Outcomes of conversion patients were compared with those who underwent successful MIRH or elective open surgery.

RESULTS

Unplanned conversion occurred in 7 (6.25%) of 112 patients undergoing MIRH. Primary reason for conversion was difficult dissection secondary to inflammation and severe adhesions. No preoperative clinical factor was identified that predicted conversions. Converted cases had higher EBL and pRBC transfusion compared to non-converted cases however morbidity was similar to those undergoing primary open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Difficult dissection and adhesions remained the only clinically applicable parameter leading to unplanned conversions. While these did offset benefits of a successful minimally invasive approach, it did not increase risk of postoperative complications compared with planned open surgery.