Robotic minor hepatectomy: optimizing outcomes and cost of care

Introduction of day-case robotic liver surgery: a case series from a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre

BACKGROUND

Liver surgery is associated with a significant hospital stay regardless the type of liver resection. A large incision is essential for open liver surgery which is a major factor in the course of the patient's recovery. For patients with small parenchyma liver lesions requiring surgical resection, robotic surgery potentially offers the opportunity to transform the patient's post-operative course. A day-case robotic liver resection pathway was formulated and implemented at our institution when patients were planned for discharge within 24 h of admission for liver surgery.

METHODS

Single surgeon case series of cases performed at a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre between September 2022 and November 2023. The inclusion criteria were non-anatomical wedge resections, < 2 anatomical segmental resections, left lateral hepatectomy and minimally invasive surgery.

RESULTS

This is the first series of robotic day-case minor liver resection in the United Kingdom. 20 patients were included in this case series. The mean operative time was 86.6 ± 30.9 min and mean console time was 58.6 ± 24.5 min. Thirteen patients (65%) were discharged within 24 h of surgery. The main cause of hospitalisation beyond 24 h was inadequate pain relief. There were no Clavien-Dindo grade III or above complications, no 30-day readmission and 90-day mortalities.

CONCLUSION

This case series demonstrates that robotic day-case liver resection is safe and feasible. Robust follow-up pathways must be in place to allow for the safe implementation of this approach, to monitor for any complications and to allow intervention as required in a timely manner.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparison of IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, and Southampton Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Scoring Systems for Predicting Intra and Postoperative Outcomes in Robotic Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM), and Southampton are established difficulty scoring systems (DSS) for laparoscopic hepatectomy, yet none specifically address robotic hepatectomy. Our study evaluates these 3 DSS for predicting perioperative outcomes in robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 359 consecutive patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies, assessing categorical metrics like conversions to open, intra/postoperative issues, Clavien-Dindo Score (≥III), 30 and 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmissions using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Area Under the Curve (AUC) to determine efficacy in predicting their occurrence for each DSS. Continuous metrics such as operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, and total cost were analyzed using Spearman's correlation and regression. Predictive strength was significant with an AUC or correlation ≥.700 and P-value ≤.05.

RESULTS

IMM had highest predictive accuracy for conversions to open (AUC = .705) and postoperative complications (AUC = .481). Southampton was most accurate in predicting Clavien Dindo ≥ III complications (AUC = .506). IWATE excelled in predicting 30-day mortality (AUC = .552), intraoperative issues (AUC = .798), In-hospital mortality (AUC = .450), 90-day mortality (AUC = .596), and readmissions (AUC = .572). Regression showed significant relationships between operative duration, EBL, and hospital cost with increasing scores for all DSS (P ≤ .05).

DISCUSSION

Statistical analysis of the 3 DSS indicates that each has specific strengths that can best predict intra- and/or postoperative outcomes. However, all showed inaccuracies and conflicting relationships with the variables, indicating lack of substantial hierarchy between DSS. Given these inconsistencies, a dedicated comprehensive DSS should be created for robotic hepatectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to compare short-term outcomes between robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) using data collected from propensity score-matched studies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to collect propensity score-matched studies comparing RLR and LLR. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models. Meta-regression analysis was performed for primary outcome measures. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed for outcomes exhibiting high heterogeneity. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-two propensity score-matched studies were included to comprise 5272 patients (RLR group, 2422 cases; LLR group, 2850 cases). Intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-0.31 ml, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; P =0.0005), open conversion (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.37-0.58; P <0.0001), and severe complications (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.95; P =0.02) were significantly lower in the RLR group. Operation time, odds of use, and duration of Pringle maneuver, length of hospital stay, and odds of intraoperative blood transfusion, overall complications, R0 resection, reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality did not significantly differ between the groups. Further subgroup and sensitivity analyses suggested that the results were stable. Meta-regression analysis did not suggest a correlation between primary outcomes and study characteristics. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was medium or low, while that for the secondary outcomes was medium, low, or very low.

CONCLUSION

Although some short-term outcomes are similar between RLR and LLR, RLR is superior in terms of less blood loss and lower odds of open conversion and severe complications. In the future, RLR may become a safe and effective replacement for LLR.

Validity of the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification system for robotic liver resection

BACKGROUND

The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) classification system is one of several widely accepted difficulty scoring systems for laparoscopic liver resections. Nothing is yet known about the applicability of this system for robotic liver resections.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 359 patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies between 2016 and 2022. Resections were classified into low, intermediate, and high difficulty level. Data were analyzed utilizing ANOVA of repeated measures, 3 x 2 contingency tables, and area under the receiving operating characteristic (AUROC) curves. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Of the 359 patients, 117 were classified as low-difficulty level, 92 as intermediate, and 150 as high. The IMM system correlates well with tumor size (p = 0.002). The IMM system was a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes including operative duration (p<0.001) and estimated blood loss (EBL) (p<0.001). The IMM system also showed a strong calibration for predicting an open conversion (AUC=0.705) and intraoperative complications (AUC=0.79). In contrast, the IMM system was a poor predictor of postoperative complications, mortality, and readmission.

CONCLUSION

The IMM system provides a strong correlation with intraoperative, but not postoperative outcomes. A dedicated difficulty scoring system should be developed for robotic hepatectomy.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience of 629 Consecutive Minimally Invasive Liver Resections

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has the potential to broaden the indications for minimally invasive liver surgery owing to its technical advantages. This paper compares our experience with robotic liver surgery (RLS) with conventional laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS).

METHODS

All consecutive liver resections between October 2011 and October 2022 were selected from our prospective database to be included in this cohort study. Patients who underwent RLS were compared with a LLS group for operative and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 629 patients were selected from our database, including 177 patients who underwent a RLS and 452 patients who had LLS. Colorectal liver metastasis was the main indication for surgery in both groups. With the introduction of RLS, the percentage of open resections decreased significantly (32.6% from 2011 to 2020 vs. 11.5% from 2020 onward, P < 0.001). In the robotic group, redo liver surgery was more frequent (24.3% vs. 16.8%, P = 0.031) and the Southampton difficulty score was higher (4 [IQR 4 to 7] vs. 4 [IQR 3 to 6], P = 0.02). Median blood loss was lower (30 vs. 100 ml, P < 0.001), and postoperative length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the robotic group (median 3 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications. Cost related to the used instruments and LOS was significantly lower in the RLS group (median €1483 vs. €1796, P < 0.001 and €1218 vs. €1624, P < 0.001, respectively), while cost related to operative time was higher (median €2755 vs. €2470, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RLS may allow for a higher percentage of liver resections to be completed in a minimally invasive way with lower blood loss and a shorter LOS.

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.

Robotic Surgery and Hospital Reimbursement

The field of plastic surgery remains at the forefront of technological and surgical innovation. However, the promising applications of robotics in plastic surgery must be thoughtfully balanced with hospital finances and reimbursements. Robotic systems have been studied extensively across multiple surgical disciplines and across diverse health care systems. The results show that there may be equal or better patient outcomes than alternatives. In an era where fiscal responsibility in health care is a top priority, thoughtful budgeting and spending must be considered and revisited frequently to attain sustainable organizational models that ensure appropriate use of robotic technology.

Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open major hepatectomy for malignant liver tumors

BACKGROUND

Outcome data on robotic major hepatectomy are lacking. This study was undertaken to compare robotic vs. 'open' major hepatectomy utilizing patient propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

With institutional review board approval, we prospectively followed 183 consecutive patients who underwent robotic or 'open' major hepatectomy, defined as removal of three or more Couinaud segments. 42 patients who underwent 'open' approach were matched with 42 patients who underwent robotic approach. The criteria for PSM were age, resection type, tumor size, tumor type, and BMI. Survival was individually stratified for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and colorectal liver metastases (CLM). The data are presented as: median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Operative duration for the robotic approach was 293 (302 ± 131.5) vs. 280 (300 ± 115.6) minutes for the 'open' approach (p = NS). Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) was 200 (239 ± 183.6) vs. 300 (491 ± 577.1) ml (p = 0.01). There were zero postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III for the robotic approach and three for the 'open' approach (p = NS). ICU length of stay (LOS) was 1 (1 ± 0) vs. 2 (3 ± 2.0) days (p = 0.0001) and overall LOS was 4 (4 ± 3.3) vs. 6 (6 ± 2.7) days (p = 0.003). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, overall survival was similar for patients with IHCC and CLM regardless of the approach. However, patients with HCC who underwent robotic resection lived significantly longer (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Utilizing propensity score matched analysis, the robotic approach was associated with a lower EBL, shorter ICU LOS, and shorter overall LOS while maintaining similar operative duration and promoting survival in patients with HCC. We believe that the robotic approach is safe and efficacious and should be considered a preferred alternative approach for major hepatectomy.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

Simple Summary

Robotic liver surgery is being applied with increasing frequency. Comparable, and in specific settings superior, perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic liver surgery have been reported. In its current form, the most commonly mentioned advantage of robotic surgery is improved dexterity. Important obstacles to its wider implementation in daily clinical practice are the associated costs, technical difficulties, and a scarce amount of evidence. Robotic liver surgery will likely continue to evolve in parallel with technological developments that enhance the robots’ abilities.

Abstract

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots’ abilities.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

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.

Multivisceral Resection in Robotic Liver Surgery

Simple Summary

Liver surgery can be performed simultaneously with operations to remove other organs in certain circumstances, such as removal of colorectal cancer in the colon or rectum at the same time as metastatic lesions to the liver. These types of operations have been performed as open or laparoscopic procedures; however, more recently, they can be performed with a robotic approach. In this article, we review the literature and describe robotic liver resections performed with robotic resection of other organs, including colon, rectum, and pancreas. These published reports demonstrate that, in select cases and experienced hands, robotic multivisceral resection can be safely performed with good outcomes.

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery techniques are expanding in utilization in liver resections and now include robotic approaches. Robotic liver resection has been demonstrated to have several benefits, including surgeon ergonomics, wrist articulation, and 3D visualization. Similarly, for multivisceral liver resections, the use of minimally invasive techniques has evolved and expanded from laparoscopy to robotics. The aim of this article is to review the literature and describe multivisceral resections, including hepatectomy, using a robotic technique. We describe over 50 published cases of simultaneous robotic liver resection with colon or rectal resection. In addition, we describe several pancreatectomies performed with liver resection and one extra-abdominal pulmonary resection with liver resection. In total, these select reported cases at experienced centers demonstrate the safety of robotic multivisceral resection in liver surgery with acceptable morbidity and rare conversion to open surgery. As robotic technology advances and experience with robotic techniques grows, robotic multivisceral resection in liver surgery should continue to be investigated in future studies.