Propensity-score Matched and Coarsened-exact Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study of 4822 Cases

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.

A decade of experience with 530 minimally invasive robotic hepatectomies from a single tertiary hepatobiliary center: analysis of short-term outcomes and oncologic survival

BACKGROUND

This research is the first study in the United States to document more than a decade of experience with 530 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy at a single high-volume institution.

METHODS

With institutional review board approval, a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy from 2012 to January 2024 was reviewed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Of the 530 robotic hepatectomies, 231 (44.0%) were minor resections, 133 (25.0%) were technically major resections, and 166 (31.0%) were major resections. The patients were aged 63.0 (61.0 ± 14.7) years with a body mass index of 28.0 (29.0 ± 7.9) kg/m2. Cirrhosis was present in 80 patients (19.0%), with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3.0 (3.0 ± 0.5) and a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 7.0 (8.0 ± 3.0). Of note, 280 patients (53.0%) had previous abdominal operations, and 44 patients (8%) had previous liver resections. The operative time was 233.0 (260.0 ± 130.7) minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 100.0 (165.0 ± 205.0) mL. Moreover, 353 patients (66%) had hepatectomies for neoplastic disease, and 500 patients (95%) had an R0 resection margin. The tumor size was 4.0 (5.0 ± 3.6) cm. The total 90-day postoperative complications were 45 (8%), of which 21 (4%) were classified as major complications (Clavien-Dindo score of >III). The length of stay was 3.0 (4.0 ± 3.7) days, and the 30-day readmission rate was 86 (16%). The overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 82%, 65%, and 59% for colorectal liver metastases, 84%, 68%, and 60% for hepatocellular carcinoma, and 79%, 61%, and 50% for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, respectively.

CONCLUSION

After a decade of application and optimization at a high-volume institution, the robotic approach has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective approach to liver resection.

Multicenter propensity score-matched analysis to compare perioperative morbidity after laparoscopic or robotic complex hepatectomy for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Postoperative complications are vital factors affecting the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), especially for complex hepatectomy. The present study aimed to compare perioperative complications between laparoscopic and robotic complex hepatectomy (LCH vs. RCH).

METHODS

Patients with solitary HCC after complex hepatectomy were collected from a multicenter database. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was adopted to control confounding bias. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine the prognostic factors.

RESULTS

436 patients were included. After PSM, 43 patients were included in both the LCH and RCH groups. The results showed that compared to LCH, RCH had lower rates of blood loss and transfusion, and lower postoperative 30-day and major morbidity, and post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) (all P < 0.05). Additionally, the length of hospital stay was shorter in the RCH group (P = 0.026). Multivariable analysis showed RCH is an independent protective factor for reducing the 30-day morbidity, major morbidity and PHLF.

CONCLUSION

RCH has advantages over LCH in the minimally invasive treatment of complex HCC, as it can reduce the incidence of postoperative morbidity. Therefore, RCH should be considered for patients with HCC who require complex hepatectomy.

Efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Evidence concerning long-term outcome of robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients is scarce.

METHODS

This study enrolled all patients who underwent RLR and LLR for resectable HCC between July 2016 and July 2021. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to create a 1:3 match between the RLR and LLR groups. A comprehensive collection and analysis of patient data regarding efficacy and safety have been conducted, along with the evaluation of the learning curve for RLR.

RESULTS

Following PSM, a total of 341 patients were included, with 97 in the RLR group and 244 in the LLR group. RLR group demonstrated a significantly longer operative time (median [IQR], 210 [152.0-298.0] min vs. 183.5 [132.3-263.5] min; p = 0.04), with no significant differences in other perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes. Overall survival (OS) was similar between the two groups (p = 0.43), but RLR group exhibited improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) (median of 65 months vs. 56 months, p = 0.006). The estimated 5-year OS for RLR and LLR were 74.8% (95% CI: 65.4-85.6%) and 80.7% (95% CI: 74.0-88.1%), respectively. The estimated 5-year RFS for RLR and LLR were 58.6% (95% CI: 48.6-70.6%) and 38.3% (95% CI: 26.4-55.9%), respectively. In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, RLR (HR: 0.586, 95% CI (0.393-0.874), p = 0.008) emerged as an independent predictor of reducing recurrence rates and enhanced RFS. The operative learning curve indicates that approximately after the 11th case, the learning curve of RLR stabilized and entered a proficient phase.

CONCLUSIONS

OS was comparable between RLR and LLR, and while RFS was improved in the RLR group. RLR demonstrates oncological effectiveness and safety for resectable HCC.

Validation of the IWATE Criteria in Robotic-Assisted Liver Resections

Background/Objectives: The IWATE criteria are well-established as a helpful tool to preoperatively estimate the difficulty and perioperative outcome of laparoscopic liver resections. We evaluated the relationship between the IWATE criteria and the perioperative outcomes in robotic-assisted liver resections (RARLs). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 58 patients who underwent robotic-assisted liver surgery at our center between July 2019 and April 2023. The operative difficulty of every patient was graded according to the IWATE criteria and compared to the perioperative outcome. Results: The median operation time was 236.5 min (range 37-671 min), and the median length of stay was 6 days (range 3-37 min). The majority had no complications (65.5%; n = 38), 18 (31.0%) patients suffered from mild complications (CD ≤ 3A) and 2 patients (3.4%) suffered from relevant complications (CD ≥ 3B). We observed no deaths within 30 postoperative days. The surgery time, postoperative ICU stay and perioperative blood transfusions increased significantly with a higher difficulty level (p = < 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.016). The length of stay, conversion to open surgery (n = 2) and complication rate were not significantly linked to the resulting IWATE group. Conclusions: The IWATE criteria can be implemented in robotic-assisted liver surgery and can be helpful in preoperatively estimating the difficulty of robotic liver resections. Whether there is a "robotic effect" in minimally invasive liver resections has to be further clarified. The IWATE criteria can help to develop curricula for robotic training.

Comparing indications, complexity and outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection between centers with and without a liver transplant program: a French nationwide study

BACKGROUND

There are no data to evaluate the difference in populations and impact of centers with liver transplant programs in performing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

METHODS

This was a multicenter study including patients undergoing LLR for benign and malignant tumors at 27 French centers from 1996 to 2018. The main outcomes were postoperative severe morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3154 patients were included, and 14 centers were classified as transplant centers (N = 2167 patients, 68.7 %). The transplant centers performed more difficult LLRs and more resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who more frequently had cirrhosis. A higher rate of performing the Pringle maneuver, a lower rate of blood loss and a higher rate of open conversion (all p < 0.05) were observed in the transplant centers. There was no association between the presence of a liver transplant program and either postoperative severe morbidity (<10 % in each group; p = 0.228) or mortality (1 % in each group; p = 0.915).

CONCLUSIONS

Most HCCs, difficult LLRs, and cirrhotic patients are treated in transplant centers. We show that all centers can achieve comparable safety and quality of care in LLR independent of the presence of a liver transplant program.

Impact of Minimally Invasive Surgery on Anatomic Liver Segmentectomy Using the Extrahepatic Glissonean Approach

Accurate minimally invasive anatomic liver (sub)segmentectomy (MIAS) is technically demanding and not yet standardized, and its surgical outcomes are undefined. To study the impact of the minimally invasive approach on perioperative outcomes of anatomic liver (sub)segmentectomy (AS), we retrospectively studied and compared perioperative outcomes of 99 open AS (OAS) and 112 MIAS (laparoscopic 77, robotic 35) cases using the extrahepatic Glissonean approach, based on the 1:1 propensity score matched analyses. After matching (71:71), MIAS was superior to OAS in terms of blood loss (p < 0.0001), maximum postoperative serum total bilirubin (p < 0.0001), C-reactive protein (p = 0.034) levels, R0 resection rate (p = 0.021), bile leak (p = 0.049), and length of hospital stay (p < 0.0001). The matched robotic and laparoscopic AS groups (30:30) had comparable outcomes in terms of operative time, blood loss, transfusion, open conversion, postoperative morbidity and mortality, R0 resection, and hospital stay, although the rate of Pringle maneuver application (p = 0.0002) and the postoperative aspartate aminotransferase level (p = 0.002) were higher in the robotic group. Comparing the matched posterosuperior (sub)segmentectomy cases or unmatched repeat hepatectomy cases between MIAS and OAS, we observed significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stays in MIAS. Robotic AS yielded comparable outcomes with laparoscopic AS in the posterosuperior (sub)segmentectomy and repeat hepatectomy settings, despite the worse tumor and procedural backgrounds in robotic AS. In conclusion, various types of MIAS standardized by the extrahepatic Glissonean approach were feasible and safe with more favorable perioperative outcomes than those of OAS. Although robotic AS had almost comparable outcomes with laparoscopic AS, robotics may serve to decrease the surgical difficulty of MIAS in selected patients undergoing posterosuperior (sub)segmentectomy and repeat hepatectomy.

Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Resection for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A First, Multicenter, Trans-Atlantic, Expert-Center, Collaborative Study

INTRODUCTION

Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is a difficult cancer to treat with frequent vascular invasion, local recurrence, and poor survival. Due to the need for biliary anastomosis and potential vascular resection, the standard approach is an open operation. Suboptimal outcomes after laparoscopic resection had been sporadically reported by high-volume centers. In this first, Trans-Atlantic, multicenter study, we report our outcomes of robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. This is the largest study of its kind in the Western hemisphere.

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2023, we prospectively followed patients undergoing robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma at three, high-volume, robotic, liver-surgery centers.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients underwent perihilar cholangiocarcinoma utilizing the robotic technique; Klatskin type-3 was the most common. The median age was 72 years, and 82% of the patients underwent preoperative biliary drainage. Median operative time was 481 minutes with a median estimated blood loss of 200 mL. The number of harvested lymph nodes was seven, and 11 (28%) patients yielded positive lymph nodes. Three patients required vascular reconstruction; 18% of patients had >1 biliary anastomosis. R0 resection margins were achieved in 82% of patients. Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥3 complications were seen in 16% of patients. The length of stay was 6 days. Five patients had an unplanned readmission within 30 days. One patient died within 30 days. With a median follow-up of 15 months, 68% of patients are alive without disease, 13% recurred, and 19% died.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the robotic platform for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is safe and feasible with acceptable short-term clinical and oncological outcomes.

Persistent poverty impacts access to minimally invasive surgery among patients with hepatopancreatobiliary cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been successfully adopted in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) cancer, and has been associated with improved perioperative and comparable oncological outcomes. We sought to define the impact of county-level duration of poverty on access to MIS and clinical outcomes among patients with HPB cancer undergoing surgical treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on patients diagnosed with HPB cancer were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data (2010-2016). County-level poverty data were obtained from the American Community Survey and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and categorized into three groups: never high poverty (NHP), intermittent high poverty (IHP), and persistent poverty (PP). Multivariable regression was used to assess the relationship between PP and MIS.

RESULTS

Among 8098 patients, 82% (n = 664) resided in regions with NHP, 13.6% (n = 1104) resided in regions with IHP, and 4.4% (n = 350) resided in regions with PP. Median age at the diagnosis was 71 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 67-77). Patients from IHP and PP counties had lower odds of undergoing MIS (IHP/PP vs. NHP, odds ratio [OR]: 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-0.96, p = 0.034) and being discharged home (IHP/PP vs. NHP, OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43-0.99, p = 0.043), as well as a higher risk of 1-year mortality (IHP/PP vs. NHP, HR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.036-2.209, p = 0.032) compared with patients residing in NHP counties.

CONCLUSIONS

Duration of county-level poverty was associated with lower receipt of MIS and unfavorable clinical and survival outcomes among patients with HPB cancer. There is a need to improve access to modern surgical treatment options among vulnerable, PP populations.