Laparoscopic versus Robotic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Efficacy of microwave ablation vs laparoscopic hepatectomy for primary small liver cancer: A comparative study

BACKGROUND

In-depth comparative investigations in terms of clinical efficacies of liver tumor microwave ablation (MWA) and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH), which are both important treatment modalities for liver neoplasms, have been limited in patients diagnosed with primary small liver cancer (PSLC).

AIM

To compare and analyze the clinical efficacy of liver tumor MWA and LH for PSLC.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 123 patients with PSLC admitted to Xuzhou Central Hospital from January 2015 to November 2022 and categorized them based on treatment modalities into the LH and MWA groups. The LH group, consisting of 61 cases, received LH, and the MWA group, which included 62 cases, underwent liver tumor MWA. Basic data and various perioperative indicators were compared between the two groups, including changes in liver function indicators [alanine aminotransferase (ALT), glutamic aminotransferase (AST), and total bilirubin (TBIL)] pre- and post-treatment, and efficacy and postoperative complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of age, gender, tumor diameter, liver function Child-Pugh classification and number of tumors, body mass index, and educational status (P > 0.05). The overall effective rate was higher in the MWA group than in the LH group (98.39% vs 88.52%) (χ² = 4.918, P = 0.027). The MWA group exhibited less operation time, intraoperative bleeding, defecation time, and hospital stay than the LH group (P < 0.05). No difference was found in liver function indicators between the two groups pre-treatment (P > 0.05), and ALT, AST, and TBIL levels decreased in both groups post-treatment, with the MWA group demonstrating lower levels (P < 0.05). The MWA and LH groups exhibited postoperative complication rates of 4.84% and 19.67%, respectively, with statistically significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.012, χ² = 6.318).

CONCLUSION

MWA is more effective in treating PSLC, and it promotes faster postoperative recovery for patients, and more security improves liver function and reduces postoperative complications compared to LH.

Which technical difficulty score can best predict postoperative outcomes after minimally invasive liver resections?

BACKGROUND

To assess technical difficulty scores for laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) in a large well-characterized cohort of low to high difficulty LLR.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LLR and open liver resection (OLS) (2007-2022) at Massachusetts General Hospital were included. Patients were classified according to the technical difficulty scores Ban difficulty score, IWATE criteria, Hasegawa score, IMM score, and Southhampton score (SHH) and calibration of these scores in predicting postoperative outcome parameters was assessed.

RESULTS

301 patients underwent LLR. Median age was 59 years and 58.5% of the patients were female. Median lesion size was 42.2 mm, median operative time was 197.7 min, and median estimated blood loss was 400.5 ml. According to the different scoring systems, 18.9% (SHH) to 52.2% (IWATE) of the LLR were high difficulty. Overall intraoperative events according to the modified Satava classification grade II (6.6%) and grade III (2.7%) were low as was postoperative 90 days major morbidity (5.3%) and mortality (1.0%). The respective scores' calibration for predicting non-textbook outcomes, intraoperative events, operative time, major postoperative morbidity, blood transfusion rates, and length of hospital stay was moderate to good for the respective scores and best for the IWATE criteria.

DISCUSSION

Even high technical difficulty LLR can be performed with low postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. The scores evaluated performed well in predicting major liver surgery outome parameters. Among the different difficulty scoring systems, the IWATE criteria performed best.

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and totally laparoscopic PD after overcoming learning curves with comparison of oncologic outcomes between open PD and minimally invasive PD

Backgrounds/Aims

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD), such as totally laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (TLPD) or robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD), is increasingly performed worldwide. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of TLPD and RAPD, and compare the oncologic outcomes between MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for malignant disease.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted at two hospitals that followed similar oncological surgical principles, including the extent of resection. RAPD was performed at Seoul National University Hospital, and TLPD at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to compare oncologic outcomes between MIPD and OPD.

Results

Between 2015 and 2020, 332 RAPD and 178 TLPD were performed. The rates of Clavian-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (19.3% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.816), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (9.9% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.647), and open conversions (6.6% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.163) were comparable between the two groups. The mean operation time (341 minutes vs. 414 minutes, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay were shorter in the RAPD group (11 days vs. 14 days, p = 0.034). After PSM, the 5-year overall survival rate was comparable between MIPD and OPD for overall malignant disease (58.4% vs. 55.5%, p = 0.180).

Conclusions

Both RAPD and TLPD are safe and feasible, and MIPD has clinical outcomes that are comparable to those of OPD. Although RAPD exhibits some advantages, its perioperative outcomes are similar to those associated with TLPD. A surgical method may be selected based on the convenience of surgical movements, medical costs, and operator experience.

Robot-assisted hemihepatectomy is superior to laparoscopic hemihepatectomy through dorsal approach: A propensity score-matched study (with videos)

BACKGROUND

Dorsal approach is the potentially effective strategy for minimally invasive liver resection. This study aimed to compare the outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic hemihepatectomy through dorsal approach.

METHODS

We compared the patients who underwent robot-assisted hemihepatectomy (Rob-HH) and who had laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (Lap-HH) through dorsal approach between January 2020 and December 2022. A 1:1 propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize bias and confounding factors.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients were included, 41 with Rob-HH and 55 with Lap-HH. Among them, 58 underwent left hemihepatectomy (LHH) and 38 underwent right hemihepatectomy (RHH). Compared with Lap-HH group, patients with Rob-HH had less estimated blood loss (median: 100.0 vs. 300.0 mL, P = 0.016), lower blood transfusion rates (4.9% vs. 29.1%, P= 0.003) and postoperative complication rates (26.8% vs. 54.5%, P = 0.016). These significant differences consistently existed after PSM and in the LHH subgroups. Furthermore, robot-assisted LHH was associated with decreased Pringle duration (45 vs. 60 min, P = 0.047). RHH subgroup analysis showed that compared with Lap-RHH, Rob-RHH was associated with less estimated blood loss (200 vs. 400 mL, P = 0.013). No significant differences were found in other perioperative outcomes among pre- and post-PSM cohorts, such as Pringle duration, operative time, and hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The dorsal approach was a safe and feasible strategy for hemi-hepatectomy with favorable outcomes under robot-assisted system in reducing intraoperative blood loss, transfusion, and postoperative complications.

Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a review of systematic reviews on the clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery across a mix of intracavity procedures, using evidence mapping to inform the decision makers on the best utilisation of robotic-assisted surgery.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included systematic reviews with randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials describing any clinical outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library from 2017 to 2023.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We first presented the number of systematic reviews distributed in different specialties. We then mapped the body of evidence across selected procedures and synthesised major findings of clinical outcomes. We used a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The overlap of primary studies was managed by the corrected covered area method.

RESULTS

Our search identified 165 systematic reviews published addressing clinical evidence of robotic-assisted surgery. We found that for all outcomes except operative time, the evidence was largely positive or neutral for robotic-assisted surgery versus both open and laparoscopic alternatives. Evidence was more positive versus open. The evidence for the operative time was mostly negative. We found that most systematic reviews were of low quality due to a failure to deal with the inherent bias in observational evidence.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery has a strong clinical effectiveness evidence base to support the expanded use of robotic-assisted surgery in six common intracavity procedures, which may provide an opportunity to increase the proportion of minimally invasive surgeries. Given the high incremental cost of robotic-assisted surgery and longer operative time, future economic studies are required to determine the optimal use of robotic-assisted surgery capacity.

The future of liver transplantation

Over the last 50 years, liver transplantation has evolved into a procedure routinely performed in many countries worldwide. Those able to access this therapy frequently experience a miraculous risk-benefit ratio, particularly if they face the imminently life-threatening disease. Over the decades, the success of liver transplantation, with dramatic improvements in early posttransplant survival, has aggressively driven demand. However, despite the emergence of living donors to augment deceased donors as a source of organs, supply has lagged far behind demand. As a result, rationing has been an unfortunate focus in recent decades. Recent shifts in the epidemiology of liver disease combined with transformative innovations in liver preservation suggest that the underlying premise of organ shortage may erode in the foreseeable future. The focus will sharpen on improving equitable access while mitigating constraints related to workforce training, infrastructure for organ recovery and rehabilitation, and their associated costs. Research efforts in liver preservation will undoubtedly blossom with the aim of optimizing both the timing and conditions of transplantation. Coupled with advances in genetic engineering, regenerative biology, and cellular therapies, the portfolio of innovation, both broad and deep, offers the promise that, in the future, liver transplantation will not only be broadly available to those in need but also represent a highly durable life-saving therapy.

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.

A Comprehensive Review on Comparative Analysis of Operative Efficiency and Postoperative Recovery in Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy

Minimally invasive liver surgery, particularly hepatectomy, has evolved significantly with the advent of laparoscopic and robotic techniques. These approaches offer potential benefits over traditional open surgery, including reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, faster recovery, and improved cosmetic outcomes. This comprehensive review aims to compare the operative efficiency and postoperative recovery outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy. It seeks to provide an in-depth analysis of the advantages and limitations of each technique, assess their cost-effectiveness, and explore emerging trends and future directions in minimally invasive liver surgery. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy. The review includes an analysis of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, complication rates, oncological outcomes, and overall cost. Additionally, advancements in technology and future research directions were explored to provide a comprehensive overview of the current landscape and future potential of these surgical techniques. Both robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy have demonstrated comparable outcomes in terms of oncological safety and effectiveness. However, robotic hepatectomy offers advantages in terms of precision and dexterity, particularly in complex cases, due to its advanced visualization and instrumentation. Laparoscopic hepatectomy, while associated with shorter operative times and lower costs, is limited by technical challenges, especially in major liver resections. The review also highlights the increasing adoption of robotic systems, despite their higher costs and the need for specialized training. Robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy are both viable options for minimally invasive liver surgery, each with distinct advantages and limitations. The choice between the two should be based on patient-specific factors, the complexity of the procedure, and the surgeon's expertise. Ongoing advancements in technology, including the integration of artificial intelligence and augmented reality, are expected to further refine these techniques, enhancing their efficacy and accessibility. Future research should focus on large-scale, multicenter trials to provide more definitive comparisons and guide clinical decision-making.

The Current Role of Single-Site Robotic Approach in Liver Resection: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Liver resection is a critical surgical procedure for treating various hepatic pathologies. Minimally invasive approaches have gradually gained importance, and, in recent years, the introduction of robotic surgery has transformed the surgical landscape, providing potential advantages such as enhanced precision and stable ergonomic vision. Among robotic techniques, the single-site approach has garnered increasing attention due to its potential to minimize surgical trauma and improve cosmetic outcomes. However, the full extent of its utility and efficacy in liver resection has yet to be thoroughly explored.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive systematic review to evaluate the current role of the single-site robotic approach in liver resection. A detailed search of PubMed was performed to identify relevant studies published up to January 2024. Eligible studies were critically appraised, and data concerning surgical outcomes, perioperative parameters, and post-operative complications were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Our review synthesizes evidence from six studies, encompassing a total of seven cases undergoing robotic single-site hepatic resection (SSHR) using various versions of the da Vinci© system. Specifically, the procedures included five left lateral segmentectomy, one right hepatectomy, and one caudate lobe resection. We provide a summary of the surgical techniques, indications, selection criteria, and outcomes associated with this approach.

CONCLUSION

The single-site robotic approach represents an option among the minimally invasive approaches in liver surgery. However, although the feasibility has been demonstrated, further studies are needed to elucidate its optimal utilization, long-term outcomes, and comparative effectiveness against the other techniques. This systematic review provides valuable insights into the current state of single-site robotic liver resection and underscores the need for continued research in this rapidly evolving field.

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.

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.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Liver Resections for Colorectal Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, and the liver is the most common localization of metastatic disease. The incidence of minimally invasive liver surgery is increasing, and robotic surgery (RLR) is believed to overcome some limitations of a laparoscopic approach (LRL). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of operative and short-term oncologic outcomes of the laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted liver resection for colorectal liver metastases. An online search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases was performed. Eight studies involving 3210 patients were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. In the LRL group, a higher conversion to open rate (12.4%) was observed compared to the RLR (6.7%; p = <0.001). 30-day mortality was 0.7% for the LRL group compared to 0.5% for the RLR group (p = 0.76). Mortality in longer periods among LLR and RLR amounted to 18.2% vs. 8.0% for 1-year mortality (p = 0.07), 34.1% vs. 26.7% for 2-year mortality (p = 0.13), and 52.3% vs. 48.3% for 3-year mortality (p = 0.46). The length of hospital stay was 5.6 ± 2.5 vs. 5.8 ± 2.1 days, respectively (p = 0.47). There were no significant differences between the incidence of individual complications in the LRL and RLR groups (p = 0.78). Laparoscopic or robotic approaches for colorectal liver metastases are comparable in terms of safety and effectiveness. There are significant advantages to robotic surgery, although there is still no long-term evidence concerning overall survival, and the number of patients operated on using RLR remains small.

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.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

Minimally Invasive Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery at a Large Regional Health System: Assessing the Safety of Program Expansion

BACKGROUND

Complex, minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (MIS HPB) is safe at high-volume centers, yet outcomes during early implementation are unknown. We describe our experience during period of rapid growth in an MIS HPB program at a large regional health system.

METHODS

During an increase in MIS HPB (60% greater from preceding year), hospital records of patients who underwent HPB surgery between 1/1/2019 and 12/31/2020 were reviewed. Operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversion rates, length of stay (LOS), and perioperative outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

267 patients' cases were reviewed. The population was 62 ± 13 years, 50% female, 90% white. MIS was more frequently performed for hepatic than pancreatic resections (59% vs 21%, P < .001). Open cases were more frequently performed for invasive malignancy in both pancreatic (70% vs 40%, P < .018) and hepatic (87% vs 70%, P = .046) resections. There was no difference in operative time between MIS and open surgery (293[218-355]min vs 296[199-399]min, P = .893). When compared to open, there was a shorter LOS (4[2-6]d vs 7[6-10]d, P < .001) and lower readmission rate (21% vs 37%, P = .005) following MIS. Estimated blood loss was lower in MIS liver resections, particularly when performed for benign disease (200[63-500]mL vs 600[200-1200]mL, P = .041). Overall 30-day mortality was similar between MIS and open surgery (1.0% vs 1.8%, P = 1.000).

DISCUSSION

During a surgical expansion phase within our regional health system, MIS HPB offered improved perioperative outcomes when compared to open surgery. These data support the safety of implementation even during intervals of rapid programmatic growth.

Robotic Hepatectomy plus Biliary Reconstruction for Bismuth Type III and Type IV Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: State of the Art and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

In Bismuth type III and IV Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma (III-IV HC), surgical resection is the only chance for long-term survival. As the surgical procedure is complex and Robotic-Assisted Surgery (RAS) may be particularly suitable in this setting, the aim of this study is to evaluate the potential benefits of RAS in III-IV HC in terms of post-operative outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using the PRISMA checklist for article selection. We searched the PubMed database and included only studies with clinical data about the treatment of III-IV HC using RAS.

RESULTS

A total of 12 papers involving 50 patients were included. All cases were Bismuth IIIa (n = 18), IIIb (n = 27) or IV type (n = 5) and underwent hepatectomy with biliary confluence resection and reconstruction. The mean operative time was 500 minutes with a conversion rate of 4%. The mean hospital stay was 12.2 days, and the morbidity and 30-day mortality rate were 61.9% and 2%, respectively. Over a mean follow up period of 10.1 months, 9/18 cases experienced recurrence (50%).

CONCLUSIONS

RAS for III-IV HC is safe and feasible, at least if performed by experienced surgeons on selected cases. The oncological outcomes appear acceptable, given the aggressiveness of this pathology, but further studies are needed to fully elucidate the exact role of robotics in this setting.

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.

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.