Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Left and Extended Left Hepatectomy: An International Multicenter Study Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Recommendations on Robotic Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery. The Paris Jury-Based Consensus Conference

OBJECTIVE

To establish the first consensus guidelines on the safety and indications of robotics in Hepato-Pancreatic-Biliary (HPB) surgery. The secondary aim was to identify priorities for future research.

BACKGROUND

HPB robotic surgery is reaching the IDEAL 2b exploration phase for innovative technology. An objective assessment endorsed by the HPB community is timely and needed.

METHODS

The ROBOT4HPB conference developed consensus guidelines using the Zurich-Danish model. An impartial and multidisciplinary jury produced unbiased guidelines based on the work of 10 expert panels answering predefined key questions and considering the best-quality evidence retrieved after a systematic review. The recommendations conformed with the GRADE and SIGN50 methodologies.

RESULTS

Sixty-four experts from 20 countries considered 285 studies, and the conference included an audience of 220 attendees. The jury (n=10) produced recommendations or statements covering 5 sections of robotic HPB surgery: technology, training and expertise, outcome assessment, and liver and pancreatic procedures. The recommendations supported the feasibility of robotics for most HPB procedures and its potential value in extending minimally invasive indications, emphasizing, however, the importance of expertise to ensure safety. The concept of expertise was defined broadly, encompassing requirements for credentialing HPB robotics at a given center. The jury prioritized relevant questions for future trials and emphasized the need for prospective registries, including validated outcome metrics for the forthcoming assessment of HPB robotics.

CONCLUSIONS

The ROBOT4HPB consensus represents a collaborative and multidisciplinary initiative, defining state-of-the-art expertise in HPB robotics procedures. It produced the first guidelines to encourage their safe use and promotion.

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

Objective

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Risk Factors for Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction After Liver Cancer Surgery

Background/Aim

Although the frequency of small bowel obstructions after liver surgery is generally considered low, previous studies have followed-up patients for less than a year, thus the incidence of small bowel obstructions several years after surgery is unknown. Furthermore, the rise in laparoscopic surgeries and the use of adhesion prevention materials may influence the occurrence of small bowel obstructions. This  study aimed to assess the incidence of small bowel obstructions within a five-year period following liver surgery and identify the associated risk factors.

Patients and Methods

This case series analysis analyzed patients who underwent liver surgery between April 2012 and March 2014 from 32 participating hospitals. Multivariate analysis was conducted to examine risk factors for small bowel obstructions.

Results

A total of 953 patients were included in the analysis, and the incidence of small bowel obstructions was 1.6%. The incidence was significantly higher at 3.4% for surgeries related to metastatic liver cancer compared to other types of surgeries. Laparoscopic surgery had no significant effect on the incidence of SBO (p=0.72). There was no significant difference in the incidence of small bowel obstructions between surgeries that employed adhesion prevention materials and those that did not. Multivariable analysis revealed that longer surgical time and re-operation were independent risk factors for small bowel obstructions.

Conclusion

The incidence of small bowel obstructions following surgery for metastatic liver cancer is significantly higher compared to other liver surgeries. Neither laparoscopic surgery nor adhesion prevention materials reduce its occurrence. Longer surgical time and re-operation are independent risk factors for small bowel obstructions.

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.

Implementing a robotic hepatopancreatobiliary program for new faculty: safety, feasibility and lessons learned

Robotic surgery is increasingly utilized in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery, but the learning curve is a substantial obstacle hindering implementation. Comprehensive robotic training can help to surmount this obstacle; however, despite the expansion of robotic training into residency and fellowship programs, limited data are available about how this translates into successful incorporation in faculty practice. All operations performed during the first three years of practice of a surgical oncologist at a tertiary care academic institution were retrospectively reviewed. The surgeon underwent comprehensive robotic training during residency and fellowship. 137 HPB operations were performed during the initial three years of practice. Over 80% were performed robotically each year across a spectrum of HPB procedures with a 6% conversion rate. Median operative time, a metric for operative proficiency and evaluation for a learning curve, was similar throughout the study period for each major operation and below several reported optimized operative time benchmarks. The major complications, defined as a Clavien-Dindo of 3 or more, were similar across the experience and comparable to published series. Comprehensive robotic training in residency and fellowship as well as a dedicated, well-trained operative team allows for early attainment of optimized outcomes in a new HPB robotic practice.

Resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in octogenarians: a single-center analysis

The rapidly aging population in industrialized countries comes with an increased incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC) which presents new challenges for oncological treatments especially in elderly patients. Thus, the question arises to what extent the benefit of surgical resections, as the only curative treatment option, outweighs possible perioperative risks in patients ≥ 80 years of age (octogenarians). We therefore retrospectively analyzed 311 patients who underwent resection for iCC at Hannover Medical School between January 1996 and December 2022. In total, there were 11 patients older than 80 years in our collective. Despite similar tumor size, octogenarians underwent comparatively less extensive surgery (54.5% major resections in octogenarians vs. 82.7% in all other patients; p = 0.033) with comparable rates of lymphadenectomy and tumor-free resection margins. Furthermore, we did not observe increased major postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIa complications: 27.3% vs. 34.3% in all other patients; p = 0.754) or mortality (estimated 1-year OS of 70.7% vs. 72.5% in all other patients, p = 0.099). The length of intensive care unit (ICU) or intermediate care unit (IMC) stay was significantly longer in octogenarians, however, with a comparable length in total hospital stay. The estimated overall survival (OS) did also not differ significantly, although a trend towards reduced long-term survival was observed (14.5 months vs. 28.03 months in all other patients; p = 0.099). In conclusion, primary resection is a justifiable and safe therapeutic option even in octogenarians but requires an even more thorough preoperative patient selection.

Comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes in obese patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus open radical prostatectomy (ORP): a systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of the perioperative outcomes associated with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RARP) versus open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in the obese population diagnosed with prostate cancer. We performed a comprehensive search in key databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, encompassing studies of all languages, with a final search date of April 2024. We also omitted articles that consisted of conference abstracts and content that was not pertinent to our study. The aggregated outcomes were evaluated utilizing the metrics of weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (ORs). A sensitivity analysis was also integrated into our assessment. The meta-analysis was facilitated by employing Stata/MP version 18 software. Additionally, the study was duly registered with PROSPERO under the identifier: CRD 42024540216. This meta-analysis, which included five trials, shows that compared to ORP, RARP is associated with a reduced estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD -445.77, 95%CI -866.08, -25.45; p = 0.038), a decreased transfusion rate (OR 0.17, 95%CI 0.13, 0.21; p < 0.001), and a diminished overall complication rate (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.58, 0.86; p = 0.001). No statistically significant differences were found in operative time (OT) (WMD 1.88, 95%CI -46.53, 50.28; p = 0.939) or length of stay (LOS) (WMD -0.41, 95%CI -1.07, 0.25; p = 0.221). Among patients with obesity and prostate cancer, RARP demonstrates advantages over ORP by reducing estimated blood loss, transfusion requirements, and the incidence of complications. Notably, there were no significant differences in operative duration and hospital stay between the two surgical approaches. These findings suggest that RARP could be a preferable surgical option for obese individuals with prostate cancer.

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.

Implementing a Robotic Hepatopancreatobiliary Program for New Faculty: Safety, Feasibility and Lessons Learned

Background

Robotic surgery is increasingly utilized in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery, but the learning curve is a substantial obstacle hindering implementation. Comprehensive robotic training can help to surmount this obstacle; however, despite the expansion of robotic training into residency and fellowship programs, limited data is available about how this translates into successful incorporation in faculty practice.

Methods

All operations performed during the first three years of practice of a complex general surgical oncology-trained surgical oncologist at a tertiary care academic institution were retrospectively reviewed. The surgeon underwent comprehensive robotic training during residency and fellowship.

Results

137 HPB operations were performed during the initial three years of practice. Over 80% were performed robotically each year across a spectrum of HPB procedures with a 6% conversion rate. Median operative time, the optimal metric for operative proficiency and evaluation for a learning curve, was similar throughout the study period for each major operation and below several reported optimized operative times. Major complications were similar across the experience and comparable to published series.

Conclusion

Comprehensive robotic training in residency and fellowship as well as a dedicated, well-trained operative team allows for early attainment of optimized outcomes in a new HPB robotic practice.

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.

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.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic platform has been increasingly applied in major hepatectomy. However, the role or advantage of robotic approach comparing with laparoscopic approach in major hepatectomy remains controversial. This meta-analysis compares perioperative outcomes of robotic major hepatectomy (RMH) to laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatic neoplasms.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify comparative studies compared RMH versus LMH for hepatic neoplasms. The search timeframe was set before May 2023. Main outcomes were mortality, overall morbidities, serious complications, and conversion to open surgery. Secondary outcomes were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative length of hospital stay, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. Studies were evaluated for quality by Cochrane risk of bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023410951).

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective cohort studies concerning total 1657 patients (796 RMH, 861 LMH) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR=1.23, 95% CI=0.50-2.98, P =0.65), overall postoperative complications (OR=0.83, 95% CI=0.65-1.06, P =0.14), operative time (MD=6.47, 95% CI=-14.72 to 27.65, P =0.55), blood transfusion (OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.55-1.08, P =0.13), R0 resection (OR=1.45, 95% CI=0.91-2.31, P =0.12), reoperation (OR=0.76, 95% CI=0.31-1.88, P =0.56), and readmission (OR=0.63, 95% CI=0.28-1.44, P =0.27) between RMH and LMH. Incidence of serious complications (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.40-0.90, P =0.01), conversion to open surgery (OR=0.41, 95% CI=0.27-0.63, P <0.0001), blood loss (MD=-91.42, 95% CI=-142.18 to -40.66, P =0.0004), and postoperative hospital stay (MD=-0.64, 95% CI=-0.78 to -0.49, P <0.00001) were reduced for RMH versus LMH.

CONCLUSIONS

RMH is associated with comparable short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to LMH when performed by experienced surgeons at large centres. RMH may result in reduced major morbidities, conversion rate, blood loss, and hospital stay, but these results were volatile. Further randomized studies should address the potential advantages of RMH over LMH.

Robotic Left Hepatectomy for Hemorrhagic Hepatocellular Adenoma: The Role of Robotic Surgery in a Semi-Acute Setting

Hepatocellular adenomas are benign liver tumors, more frequently seen in young women with a history of long-standing use of estrogenic hormonal contraception. An acute rupture of these adenomas can be the first sign of symptoms; however, they can be life-threatening. The definitive management of hepatic adenoma is liver resection for those larger than 4 cm as this cutoff size is known to be associated with an exponential risk of harboring malignancy and an increased risk for intratumor bleeding. Once intratumor hemorrhage occurs however, the management of hepatic adenoma becomes much more timely critical. In this study, we describe the use of robotic liver resection for the management of hemorrhagic hepatocellular adenoma in a semi-acute setting. We also include a series of robotic hepatic adenoma resection completed in our hepatobiliary program since 2016, which demonstrated the safety, feasibility, and reproducibility of robotic technique in treating hepatic adenoma.

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.

[Robotics in Liver Surgery - Tips and Tricks]

Since minimally invasive liver surgery has proven benefits over open surgery, this technique should also be implemented more broadly in Germany. With the dramatic development in minimally invasive and robotic liver surgery, this approach has been established in recent years. Most recent analyses suggest lower complication rates, blood loss and hospital stay compared to open and laparoscopic liver surgery. In contrast to laparoscopic surgery, the technical setting of robotic liver surgery is widely independent of the type of resection. The laparoscopic and robotic technologies should be considered to be equal at the moment, although most recent analyses even suggest additional advantages of robotic over laparoscopic liver surgery. Moreover, robotics has a greater potential for technical refinements, including the inclusion of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Most steps can be transferred from open and laparoscopic liver surgery, but a dissection device such as the CUSA has not yet been developed. Consequently, different techniques have been reported for parenchymal transsection. Due to the special technical features of robotic surgery, intensive training programs should be used prior to the establishment of a robotic liver surgery program.

Minimally Invasive Anatomic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using the Extrahepatic Glissonian Approach: Surgical Techniques and Comparison of Outcomes with the Open Approach and between the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches

Surgical techniques and outcomes of minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (AR) using the extrahepatic Glissonian approach for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are undefined. In 327 HCC cases undergoing 185 open (OAR) and 142 minimally invasive (MIAR; 102 laparoscopic and 40 robotic) ARs, perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the approaches, using propensity score matching. After matching (91:91), compared to OAR, MIAR was significantly associated with longer operative time (643 vs. 579 min, p = 0.028); less blood loss (274 vs. 955 g, p < 0.0001); a lower transfusion rate (17.6% vs. 47.3%, p < 0.0001); lower rates of major 90-day morbidity (4.4% vs. 20.9%, p = 0.0008), bile leak or collection (1.1% vs. 11.0%, p = 0.005), and 90-day mortality (0% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.043); and shorter hospital stay (15 vs. 29 days, p < 0.0001). On the other hand, laparoscopic and robotic AR cohorts after matching (31:31) had comparable perioperative outcomes. Overall and recurrence-free survivals after AR for newly developed HCC were comparable between OAR and MIAR, with potentially improved survivals in MIAR. The survivals were comparable between laparoscopic and robotic AR. MIAR was technically standardized using the extrahepatic Glissonian approach. MIAR was safe, feasible, and oncologically acceptable and would be the first choice of AR in selected HCC patients.

Application of Hazard Function to Investigate Recurrence of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma After Curative-Intent Liver Resection: A Novel Approach to Characterize Recurrence

PURPOSE

To investigate recurrence patterns after surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) relative to lymph node status, tumor extension, tumor burden score (TBS), and adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative-intent resection for ICC from 1990 to 2020 were enrolled from a multi-institutional database. The hazard function was applied to plot the hazard rates over time, with further stratification by T and N AJCC 8th edition categories, TBS, and adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 1192 patients underwent curative-intent resection for ICC and 59.9% experienced recurrence. Overall, the peak of recurrence occurred at 6.6 months. Among patients with negative lymph nodes, the T4-category had a higher peak rate of recurrence (0.1199 at 10.2 months) compared with other T-categories, while high TBS had an earlier peak of recurrence (4.2 months) compared with lower TBS. Among patients with N1 disease, T2-T4 categories had multipeak patterns of recurrence with higher hazard rates during the first 3 years after surgery in comparison with T1-category, while patients with high TBS had an earlier (4.0 months) and higher hazard peak rate compared with lower TBS groups. The administration of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with delayed hazard rates of recurrence for N1 (4 months) and NX (6 months) categories.

DISCUSSION

The novel application of the hazard function to assess hazard rates and timing patterns of recurrence following resection for ICC demonstrated that recurrence varied based on T- and N-categories, as well as TBS. Hazard function-based recurrence data may be helpful to tailor counseling, surveillance, and adjuvant therapy recommendations.

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.