OPEN, LAPAROSCOPIC, AND ROBOTIC-ASSISTED HEPATECTOMY IN RESECTION OF LIVER TUMORS: A NON-SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Robotic versus laparoscopic major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: short-term outcomes from a single institution

BACKGROUND

Currently, an increasing number of robotic major hepatectomies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are being performed. Despite the advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic procedures, studies comparing robotic with laparoscopic major hepatectomy in terms of short-term results remain scarce. This study was performed to compare robotic major hepatectomy and laparoscopic major hepatectomy in terms of their intraoperative and postoperative results.

METHODS

Data regarding demographics and intraoperative and postoperative results of 131 patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic major hepatectomy between January 2017 and March 2022 were retrieved from their medical records and compared between the two types of surgery.

RESULTS

Between January 2017 and March 2022, 44 robotic major hepatectomies and 87 laparoscopic major hepatectomies were performed at the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital. Patients undergoing robotic major hepatectomy were not significantly different from those undergoing laparoscopic major hepatectomy in terms of age (P = 0.397), sex (P = 0.624), body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.118), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) (P = 0.09), tumor size (P = 0.176), cirrhosis (P = 0.384), fatty liver (P = 0.162), preoperative antiviral treatment (P = 0.934), hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA (P = 0.646) and operation type (P = 0.054). Robotic major hepatectomy was associated with a longer operation time (median: 255.5 versus 206.8 min; P < 0.001) and less estimated blood loss (median: 118.9 versus 197.0 ml; P = 0.002) than laparoscopic major hepatectomy. However, robotic major hepatectomy was not significantly different from laparoscopic major hepatectomy regarding length of postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.849), open conversion (P = 0.077), ICU stay (P = 0.866), postoperative massive abdominal bleeding (P = 1.00), portal vein thrombosis (P = 1.00), abdominal infection (P = 1.00), pulmonary infection (P = 1.00), pulmonary embolism (P = 1.00), cardiac complications (P = 1.00), liver failure (P = 1.00), kidney failure (P = 1.00), biliary leak (P = 1.00), positive resection margin (P = 1.00), 30-day mortality (P = 1.00) and 90-day mortality (P = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic major hepatectomy was as effective as laparoscopic surgery in terms of intraoperative and postoperative results but took longer and could more efficiently control intraoperative blood loss.

Strategic response to bleeding in laparoscopic hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: an intraoperative checklist

BACKGROUND

The aim is to develop and test the utility of an event-initiated, team-based check list to optimize the response to bleeding during laparoscopic HPB surgery.

METHODS

To build a checklist for managing bleeding events, we conducted a systematic review. Using nominal group technique (NGT), a checklist consisting of four domains was developed. Following team-based training of anesthesia and surgical staff, the checklist was implemented. HPB cases before and after implementation of the checklist were compared for adverse outcomes, bleeding complications, and transfusions.

RESULTS

NGT identified four domains: Communicate Control, Expose, and Repair under which the checklist was organized. Supplemental Video for a detailed review of how each domain was applied to a specific case example. We compared 169 HPB cases before to 53 cases after implementation. We found a significant decrease in mean EBL (from 518 ± 852.8 to 151.5 ± 221.7 ml (P = 0.001)) for cases performed after implementation of the checklist and a trends toward less volume of pRBC transfused (2.7 ± 2.5 vs 2.3 ± 1.7 units/per patient, P = 0.611) and transfusion rates (22% vs 11%, P = 0.703).

CONCLUSION

An event-initiated, team-based response to an adverse bleeding event during laparoscopic HPB surgery correlates with positive effects on bleeding management, and transfusion rates.

Open Resection Compared to Mini-Invasive in Colorectal Cancer and Liver Metastases: A Meta-Analysis

Background: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery and open surgery in the simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous colorectal liver metastases. Methods: A systematic literature search up to April 2021 was done and 13 studies included 1,181 subjects with colorectal cancer and synchronous colorectal liver metastases at the start of the study; 425 of them were using minimally invasive surgery and 756 were open surgery. They were reporting relationships between the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery and open surgery in the simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous colorectal liver metastases. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs to assess the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery and open surgery in the simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous colorectal liver metastases using the dichotomous or continuous method with a random or fixed-effect model. Results: Minimally invasive surgery in subjects with colorectal cancer and synchronous colorectal liver metastases was significantly related to longer operation time (MD, 35.61; 95% CI, 7.36-63.87, p = 0.01), less blood loss (MD, -151.62; 95% CI, -228.84 to -74.40, p < 0.001), less blood transfusion needs (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.89, p = 0.01), shorter length of hospital stay (MD, -3.26; 95% CI, -3.67 to -2.86, p < 0.001), lower overall complications (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.79, p < 0.001), higher overall survival (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.21-2.29, p = 0.002), and higher disease-free survival (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.13-1.97, p = 0.005) compared to open surgery. Conclusions: Minimally invasive surgery in subjects with colorectal cancer and synchronous colorectal liver metastases may have less blood loss, less blood transfusion needs, shorter length of hospital stay, lower overall complications, higher overall survival, and higher disease-free survival with longer operation time compared with the open surgery. Furthers studies are required to validate these findings.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Propensity-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

BACKGROUND

Robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomies having increased utilization as minimally invasive techniques are explored for hepatobiliary malignancies. Although the data on outcomes from these 2 approaches are emerging, the cost-benefit analysis of these approaches remains sparse. This study compares the costs associated with robotic vs. laparoscopic liver resections, taking into account 30-day complications.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, a propensity-matched cohort of patients with laparoscopic or robotic liver resections between 2014 and 2017 was identified. Costs were assigned to perioperative variables, including operating room (OR) time, length of stay, blood transfusions, and 30-day complications. Cost estimates were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services billing data (2017), American Hospital Association data (2017), relevant literature, and local institutional cost data.

RESULTS

In our matched cohort of 454 patients (227 per group), total costs associated with laparoscopic liver resections were estimated at $5.5 M ($24 K per patient) vs. $6.8 M ($29.8 K per patient) for robotic liver resections (21.3% difference, P < .001). The higher cost associated with robotic hepatectomies was related to blood transfusions ($22.0 K vs. $12.1 K, P = .02), length of stay ($2.05 M vs. $1.76 M, P = .046), and OR time ($4.01 M vs. $3.24 M, P < .0001).

DISCUSSION

Robotic hepatectomies were associated with higher costs compared to laparoscopic hepatectomies. The 2 major contributors to the cost disparity were increased OR time and increased length of stay. Future studies are warranted to analyze high-volume Minimally Invasive Surgery surgeons' impact in specialty centers on potentially mitigating this current cost disparity.

A falciform ligament flap surface sealing technique for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted liver surgery

Whether sealing the hepatic resection surface after liver surgery decreases morbidity is still unclear. Nevertheless, various methods and materials are currently in use for this procedure. Here, we describe our experience with a simple technique using a mobilized falciform ligament flap in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). We retrospectively analyzed the charts from 46 patients who received minor MILS between 2011 and 2019 from the same surgical team in a university hospital setting in Germany. Twenty-four patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection, and 22 patients received robotic-assisted liver resection. Sixteen patients in the laparoscopic group and fourteen in the robotic group received a falciform ligament flap (FLF) to cover the resection surface after liver surgery. Our cohort was thus divided into two groups: laparoscopic and robotic patients with (MILS + FLF) and without an FLF (MILS-FLF). Twenty-eight patients (60.9%) in our cohort were male. The overall mean age was 56.8 years (SD 16.8). The mean operating time was 249 min in the MILS + FLF group vs. 235 min in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.682). The mean blood loss was 301 ml in the MILS + FLF group vs. 318 ml in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.859). Overall morbidity was 3.3% in the MILS + FLF group vs. 18.8% in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.114). One patient in the MILS-FLF group (overall 2.2%), who underwent robotic liver surgery, developed bile leakage, but this did not occur in the MILS + FLF group. Covering the resection surface of the liver after minor minimally invasive liver resection with an FLF is a simple and cost-effective technique that does not prolong surgical time or negatively affect other perioperative parameters. In fact, it is a safe add-on step during MILS that may reduce postoperative morbidity. Further studies with larger cohorts will be needed to substantiate our proof of concept and results.

A Report of 21 Cases of Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Children

Objective: To summarize and analyze the technique and experience of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in children. Methods: From Dec 2015 to Dec 2018, surgical outcomes were evaluated in 30 pediatric patients with liver tumors. LLR was performed in 21 patients, including 15 males and 6 females with a mean age of 7.6 ± 3.8 years (range, 2-13 years) and a mean liver tumor diameter of 7.2 ± 2.0 cm (range, 4-10 cm). During the same period, 9 cases of traditional open liver resection were selected as controls, including 6 males and 3 females with a mean age of 7.0 ± 3.7 years (range, 2-13 years) and a mean liver tumor diameter of 7.5 ± 2.2 cm (range, 4.4-10.0 cm). Results: The mean operation time and mean hepatic inflow occlusion time were longer in the laparoscopic group, with values of 182.3 ± 66.1 minutes and 83.2 ± 38.2 minutes, respectively, than in the open group, with values of 120.0 ± 54.3 minutes and 49.6 ± 26.5 minutes, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in blood loss (164.4 ± 107.4 mL versus 133.8 ± 87.1 mL), blood transfusion volume (102.2 ± 100.2 mL versus 69.2 ± 81.8 mL), and alanine aminotransferase levels 24 hours after surgery (212.0 ± 101.4 IU/L versus 173.3 ± 97.2 IU/L) and 72 hours after surgery (74.0 ± 32.5 IU/L versus 81.7 ± 57.3 IU/L). The average hospital stay in the laparoscopic group (6.2 ± 1.6 days) was significantly shorter than that in the open group (8.2 ± 2.0 days). The children in both groups recovered well after surgery without serious complications. Conclusion: LLR contributes to improved recovery of patients after surgery without increasing the incidence of complication, therefore, LLR is a safe option for liver tumors in children.

Mini-invasive vs open resection of colorectal cancer and liver metastases: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The safety and feasibility of the simultaneous resection of primary colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCRLM) have been demonstrated in some studies. Combined resection is expected to be the optimal strategy for patients with CRC and SCRLM. However, traditional laparotomy is traumatic, and the treatment outcome of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is still obscure.

AIM

To compare the treatment outcomes of MIS and open surgery (OS) for the simultaneous resection of CRC and SCRLM.

METHODS

A systematic search through December 22, 2018 was conducted in electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library). All studies comparing the clinical outcomes of MIS and OS for patients with CRC and SCRLM were included by eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software. The quality of the pooled study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The publication bias was evaluated by a funnel plot and the Begg’s and Egger’s tests. Fixed- and random-effects models were applied according to heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ten retrospective cohort studies involving 502 patients (216 patients in the MIS group and 286 patients in the OS group) were included in this study. MIS was associated with less intraoperative blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -130.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): -210.95 to -49.23, P = 0.002] and blood transfusion [odds ratio (OR) = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.29 to 0.95, P = 0.03], faster recovery of intestinal function (WMD = -0.88 d, 95%CI: -1.58 to -0.19, P = 0.01) and diet (WMD = -1.54 d, 95%CI: -2.30 to -0.78, P < 0.0001), shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD = -4.06 d, 95%CI: -5.95 to -2.18, P < 0.0001), and lower rates of surgical complications (OR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.37 to 0.99, P = 0.04). However, the operation time, rates and severity of overall complications, and rates of general complications showed no significant differences between the MIS and OS groups. Moreover, the overall survival and disease-free survival after MIS were equivalent to those after OS.

CONCLUSION

Considering the studies included in this meta-analysis, MIS is a safe and effective alternative technique for the simultaneous resection of CRC and SCRLM. Compared with OS, MIS has less intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion and quicker postoperative recovery. Furthermore, the two groups show equivalent long-term outcomes.

Adjuvant trans-arterial chemoembolization after hepatectomy significantly improves the prognosis of low-risk patients with R0-stage hepatocellular carcinoma

Background: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is one of the local therapies most commonly used to treat intermediate-stage or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the clinical benefits of PA-TACE (postoperative adjuvant TACE) for improving prognosis (progress-free survival [PFS] or overall survival [OS]) of low-risk HCC patients with R0-stage HCC after hepatectomy were not very clear.

Methods: From January 2005 to December 2012, 180 patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC treatment were enrolled in this study, and the follow-up of these patients was ended in December 2017. Among these patients, 102 patients were performed PA-TACE 1 month later after R0 hepatectomy and 78 patients without adjuvant TACE after R0 hepatectomy. Survival analysis was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier statistical method. Differences between survival curves of different groups were tested using the univariate log-rank test. Multivariate Cox model was used to search for independent prognostic factors for progression or death and to acquire the adjusted HR.

Results: PA-TACE significantly improved the survival of HCC patients received surgical resection. The PFS (progress-free survival) of PA-TACE group (median PFS 52.0 months; 95% CI: 14.0–90.0) was significantly longer than the control group (median PFS 11.1 months; 95% CI: [7.9–14.3]; log-rank P<0.001); and the OS (in PA-TACE group (median OS 90.7 months; 95% CI: 84.4–97.0 months) was also much longer than that of control group (median OS 54.4 months; 95% CI: 38.2–70.6 months; log-rank p<0.001). Moreover, the benefits of PA-TACE are greater for low-risk patients than high-risk patients.

Conclusion: In patients with HCC, PA-TACE can significantly prolong progression-free survival and long-term OS. For low-risk patients, the benefits might be greater.

Robotic hepatic surgery in malignancy: review of the current literature

The use of minimally invasive liver surgery, such as laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is increasing worldwide. Robot-assisted laparoscopy is a new surgical technique that improves surgical handling. The advantage of this technique is improved dexterity, which leads to increased surgical precision and no tremor or fatigue. Comparable oncological results were documented for laparoscopic and open surgery. Currently, "conventional" laparoscopic liver surgery has limitations with respect to the treatment of lesions in the posterior-superior segments, and there are limited technical features for the reconstruction steps. These limitations might be overcome with the use of robotic surgery. The use of robotic surgery for hepatic procedures originated because of the technical potential to overcome several of the major technical limitations known from conventional laparoscopy and the possibility of performing more extended liver resections. Additionally, there is increasing evidence indicating that robotic hepatic surgery is feasible and safe in resections of the posterior segments. Studies showed that using the robotic technique is associated with a decreased or at least equal amount of intraoperative blood loss compared to that of the conventional laparoscopic or open technique. There is increasing evidence that robotic liver surgery might be as safe as conventional laparoscopic procedures in cancer cases in terms of resection margins, disease-free and overall survival. Furthermore, robotic surgery might be more favorable with respect to postoperative patient recovery. Despite promising results, still large, multicenter, randomized and prospective studies are needed to analyze the exact value of robotic liver surgery in patients with malignant liver tumors.

ENHANCED RECOVERY (ERAS) AFTER LIVER SURGERY:COMPARATIVE STUDY IN A BRAZILIAN TERCIARY CENTER

BACKGROUND

After the publication of the first recommendations of ERAS Society regarding colonic surgery, the proposal of surgical stress reduction, maintenance of physiological functions and optimized recovery was expanded to other surgical specialties, with minimal variations.

AIM

To analyze the implementation of ERAS protocols for liver surgery in a tertiary center.

METHODS

Fifty patients that underwent elective hepatic surgery were retrospectively evaluated, using medical records data, from June 2014 to August 2016. After September 2016, 35 patients were prospectively evaluated and managed in accordance with ERAS protocol.

RESULTS

There was no difference in age, type of hepatectomy, laparoscopic surgery and postoperative complications between the groups. In ERAS group, it was observed a reduction in preoperative fasting and in the length of hospital stay by two days (p< 0.001). Carbohydrate loading, j-shaped incision, early oral feeding, postoperative prevention of nausea and vomiting and early mobilization were also significantly related to ERAS group. Oral bowel preparation, pre-anesthetic medication, sub-costal incision, prophylactic nasogastric intubation and abdominal drainage were more common in control group.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of ERAS protocol is feasible and beneficial for health institutions and patients, without increasing morbidity and mortality.

INGUINAL REPAIR VIA ROBOTIC ASSISTED TECHNIQUE: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction:

Inguinal hernia is one of the most frequent surgical diseases. Currently, with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery, new questions arise: what will be the best approach for correction of inguinal hernia? Is there real benefit to the robotic approach?

Objective:

To compile results of the published studies that used the robot-assisted technique in the repair of inguinal hernia, analyzing its limitations, complications and comparing it with those of the pre-existing techniques.

Method:

The review was performed from the Medline database with the following descriptors: (inguinal hernia repair OR hernioplasty OR hernia) AND (robot OR robotic OR robotic assisted) being retrieved 391 articles. After verification of the titles and abstracts, we identified eight series of cases congruent with the objectives of this review. Three reviewers participated in the extraction and selection of results.

Results:

Comparative studies showed an increase in surgical time in relation to the open and videolaparoscopic approach. The complications present similar rates with the other repair routes.

Conclusion:

This technique has been shown to be effective for the correction of inguinal hernia, but the benefits of using robotic surgery are unclear. So, there is a need for randomized studies comparing laparoscopic to robotic repair