Robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection: A review. J Visc Surg. 2016;. [PMID: 27665393 DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.08.005]

Robotic hepatectomy: current evidence and future directions

Minimally invasive hepatectomy continues to gain popularity and acceptance for treatment of benign and malignant liver disease. Robotic hepatectomy offers potential advantages over open and conventional laparoscopic approaches. Review of the literature on robotic hepatectomy was performed. Search terms included "robotic hepatectomy" and "minimally invasive hepatectomy." Search was further customized to include articles related to robotic surgical technology. Across many parameters in liver surgery, robotic liver resection appears to have comparable outcomes with respect to laparoscopic resection. The benefits over open resection are largely related to less morbidity and faster recovery times. There is evidence that the robotic approach may have a shorter learning curve and enable more difficult resections to be performed minimally invasively. The robotic platform may have the potential to achieve superior margin status or parenchymal sparing resection in oncologic resections, but numerous obstacles remain. The robotic platform has not been applied to liver surgery to the same extent as either laparoscopic or open surgery. Robotic surgical technology will need to continue developing to deliver on its potential advantages.

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.

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic liver resection in ordinary cases of left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy was considered the standard method of left lateral sectionectomy. The robotic approach showed advantages in complex cases of left lateral sectionectomy. However, the impact of the robotic system on ordinary cases is still unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive robotic left lateral sectionectomy (R-LLS) and laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) from January 2015 to December 2019. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the effects of surgical method and surgical complexity on postoperative length of stay, surgical and overall cost.

RESULTS

258 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy were analyzed. L-LLS had comparable outcomes and decreased surgery (USD 2416.3 vs 4624.5; p < 0.001) and overall costs (USD 8004.5 vs 11897.1; p < 0.001) compared with R-LLS in the ordinary-case group, whereas R-LLS was associated with shorter postoperative LOS (5.0 vs 3.5 days; p = 0.004) in the complex-case group. On multivariable analysis, R-LLS was predictive of shorter postoperative LOS [odds ratio (OR) 0.388, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.198-0.760, p = 0.006], whereas R-LLS was predictive of higher surgery (OR 65.640, 95% CI 17.406-247.535, p < 0.001) and overall costs (OR 102.233, 95% CI 22.241-469.931, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Results of this study showed no clinical benefit to the R-LLS compared with L-LLS in ordinary cases. R-LLS had potential advantages in selected complex cases.

Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection in Hepatocarcinoma: Surgical and Oncological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches are spreading in every field of surgery, including liver surgery. However, studies comparing robotic hepatectomy with the conventional open approach regarding oncologic outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma are limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed demographics characteristics, pathologic features, surgical, and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent robotic and conventional open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

RESULTS

No significant differences in demographics features, tumor size, tumor location, and type of liver resection were found. The morbidity rate was similar, 23% for the open group versus 17% of the robotic group (P=0.605). Perioperative data analysis showed a greater estimated blood loss in patients who underwent open resection, if compared with robotic group (P=0.003). R0 resection and disease-free resection margins showed no statistically significant differences. The 3-year disease-free survival of the robotic group was comparable with that of the open group (54% vs. 37%; P=0.592), as was the 3-year overall survival (87% vs. 78%; P=0.203).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical and the oncological outcomes seem to be comparable between minimally invasive and open hepatectomy. Robotic liver resections are effective, and do not compromise the oncological outcome, representing a reasonable alternative to the open approach.

Robotic approach to the liver: Open surgery in a closed abdomen or laparoscopic surgery with technical constraints?

The application of the minimally invasive approach has shown to be safe and effective for liver surgery and is in constant growth. The indications for laparoscopic surgery are steadily increasing across the field. In the early 2000s, robotic surgery led to some additional improvements, such as tremor filtration, instrument stability, 3D view and more comfort for the surgeon. These techniques bring in some advantages compared to the traditional OLR: less blood loss, shorter admissions, fewer adhesions, and a faster postoperative recovery and better outcomes in case of further hepatectomy for tumor recurrence has been shown. Concerning which is the best minimally invasive approach between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, the evidence is still conflicting. The latter shows good potential, since the endo-wristed instruments work similarly to the surgeon's hands, even with an intact abdominal wall. However, the technique is still under development, burdened by important costs, and limited by the lack of some instruments available for the laparoscopic approach. The paucity of universally accepted and proven data, especially concerning long-term outcomes, hampers drawing univocal acceptance at present. Furthermore, the number of variables related both to the patient and the disease further complicates the decision leading to a treatment tailored to each patient with strict selection. This review aims to explore the main differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, focusing on indications, operative technique and current debated clinical issues in recent literature.

Learning Curve in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Liver Resection

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the learning curve effect on the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted liver resection (RALR).

METHODS

In 140 consecutive cases, all data about demographic, surgical procedure, postoperative course were collected prospectively and analyzed. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum model was used for determining the learning curve based on the need for conversion.

RESULTS

Among all 140 patients, no patients suffered from any organ dysfunction postoperatively and the operative mortality was 0%. The CUSUM analysis showed that at the 30th consecutive patient, the open conversion rate reached to the average value, and it further improved thereafter. In the last 70 patients, only 3 patients (4.3%) required conversion and 7 patients (10%) needed blood transfusion. Only 1 patient (1.3%) out of 79 patients with HCC had a positive resection margin. Univariate analyses showed the following risk factors associated with significantly higher risks of conversion (P < 0.05): tumor number > 1, lesions in segments 1/4a/7/8, right posterior sectionectomy, and lesions which were beyond the indications of the Louisville statement. Multivariate logistic analysis revealed that both tumor number > 1 (OR: 2.10, P < 0.05) and right posterior sectionectomy (OR: 11.19, P < 0.01) were risk factors of conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach for hepatectomy is safe and feasible. A learning curve effect was demonstrated in this study after the 30th consecutive patient. The long-term oncological outcomes of robotic hepatectomy still need further investigation.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection in complex cases of left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection is recommended as the standard operation for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS). Robotic liver resection is theoretically better than laparoscopic liver resection in complex cases of liver resection. However, in a complex case of LLS, whether robotic LLS (R-LLS) is still better than laparoscopic LLS (L-LLS) is unclear. This study aims to assess the perioperative outcomes of R-LLS and L-LLS in the overall and in the subgroup of complex cases of LLS.

METHODS

From January 2015 to June 2017, the data on consecutive patients who underwent R-LLS were retrospectively compared with those who underwent L-LLS. Based on defined criteria for complex cases, the subgroup of such patients who underwent R-LLS were compared with the subgroup of patients who underwent L-LLS. The patient characteristics and surgical outcomes in the whole groups and subgroups of patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall R-LLS and L-LLS groups showed no significance differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, blood transfusion and morbidity rates. The overall medical costs were significantly higher in the R-LLS group than in the L-LLS group (12786.4 vs. 7974.3 USD; p < 0.001). On subgroup analysis of the complex cases, the estimated blood loss was significantly less in the R-LLS subgroup than the L-LLS subgroup (131.9 vs. 320.8 ml, p = 0.003). The two subgroups showed no significant differences in postoperative hospital stay (4.7 vs. 5.3 days; p = 0.054) and operative times (126.4 vs. 110.8 min; p = 0.379). The R-LLS subgroup had significantly higher overall medical costs than the L-LLS subgroup (13536.9 vs. 9186.7 USD, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

The overall R-LLS group was comparable to the overall L-LLS group in perioperative outcomes. Although the overall medical costs in the robotic subgroup was higher, R-LLS might be a better choice for the subgroup of patients with complex cases when compared to L-LLS.

Outcomes of robotic liver resections for colorectal liver metastases. A multi-institutional analysis of minimally invasive ultrasound-guided robotic surgery

BACKGROUND

Current evidence supporting robotics to perform minimally invasive liver resection is based on single center case series reporting surgical outcomes in heterogeneous groups of patients. On the contrary, relatively scarce data specifically focusing on secondary hepatic malignancies is available. The objective of this study is to assess short- and long-term outcomes following liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis on a multi-institutional series of patients.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing robotic surgery for colorectal liver metastasis at three different tertiary hospitals over a 10-year time frame were included in this analysis. All patients received ultrasound-guided liver resection according to tumor location following the principle of parenchymal sparing surgery. Perioperative, clinicopathologic and oncological outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients underwent liver resection. There were 7 cases of conversion to open surgery. The postoperative complication rate was 27%, 5% being the rate of major morbidity. Overall, the mean postoperative hospital stay was 6 days and no mortality occurred. R0 resection was achieved for 92% of lesions. At a mean follow-up of 19 months, the 1-year and 3-year DFS was 83.5% and 41.9%, while the 1-year and 3-year OS was 90.4% and 66.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver surgery does not impair surgical outcome and oncological results in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

Robotic Surgery of the Liver and Biliary Tract

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic methods for major abdominal surgery are gaining increasing acceptance worldwide. Despite its relatively recent introduction in clinical practice, robotics has been accepted as an effective option to perform high-demanding procedures such as those required in hepatobiliary surgery. Some potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy have been suggested, but its actual role in clinical practice is still to be defined.

METHODS

The objective of this work is to critically review the available evidence on the application of robotic surgery to the liver and biliary tract. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched for studies reporting on robotic hepatobiliary surgery with or without comparison with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy.

RESULTS

This review provides a comprehensive snapshot of the current application of the robot to the surgery of the liver and biliary tract. The overall available data show the noninferiority of the robotic system to conventional open and laparoscopic surgery. A number of studies suggest some potential advantages in performing high-demanding procedures in a minimally invasive fashion.

CONCLUSIONS

The robot can be used to perform various types of liver surgeries quite safely and competently, although the lack of randomized control trials, comparing it with open and laparoscopic surgery, precludes the possibility to reach definitive conclusions.

Laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma: the first 46 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma has a growing incidence worldwide, and represents a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. Nowadays, minimally invasive approaches are spreading in every field of surgery and in liver surgery as well.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed demographics, clinical, and pathologic characteristics and short-term outcomes of patients who had undergone minimally invasive resections for hepatocellular carcinoma at our institution between June 2012 and May 2016.

RESULTS

No significant differences in demographics and comorbidities were found between patients in the laparoscopic (n = 24) and robotic (n = 22) groups, except for the rates of cirrhotic patients (91.7% and 68.2%, respectively, P = 0.046). Perioperative data analysis showed that the operative time (mean, 211 and 318 min, respectively, P < 0.001) was the only parameter in favor of laparoscopy. Conversely, robotic-assisted resections were related to less Clavien I-II postoperative complications (22 cases versus 13 cases; P = 0.03). As regards resection margins, the two groups were similar with no statistically significant differences in rates of disease-free resection margins.

CONCLUSIONS

A modern hepatobiliary center should offer both open and minimally invasive approaches to liver disease to provide the best care for each patient, according to the individual comorbidities, risk factors, and personal quality of life expectations. Our results show that the robotic approach is a reliable tool for accurate oncologic surgery, comparable to the laparoscopic approach. Robotic surgery also allows the surgeon to safely approach liver segments that are difficult to resect in laparoscopy, namely segments I-VII-VIII.

Robotic liver surgery is the optimal approach as bridge to transplantation

The role of minimally invasive liver surgery as a bridge to transplantation is very promising but still underestimated. However, it should be noted that surgical approach for hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) is not merely a technical or technological issue. Nowadays, the epidemiology of HCC is evolving due to the increasing role of non-alcoholic fatty-liver-disease, and the emerging concerns on direct-acting antivirals against hepatitis C virus in terms of HCC incidence. Therefore, a fully multidisciplinary study of the cirrhotic patient is currently more important than ever before, and the management of those patients should be reserved to tertiary referral hepatobiliary centers. In particular, minimally invasive approach to the liver showed several advantages compared to the classical open procedure, in terms of: (1) the small impact on abdominal wall; (2) the gentle manipulation on the liver; (3) the limited surgical trauma; and (4) the respect of venous shunts. Therefore, more direct indications should be outlined also in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer model. We believe that treatment of HCC in cirrhotic patients should be reserved to tertiary referral hepatobiliary centers, that should offer patient-tailored approaches to the liver disease, in order to provide the best care for each case, according to the individual comorbidities, risk factors, and personal quality of life expectations.