Outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies

BACKGROUND

Robotic techniques can theoretically overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection and are currently recognized as safe options; however, it is not known which approach is better. The purpose of this study was to compare the advantages of robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy.

METHODS

Electronic databases (the Cochrane Library, PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase and Web of Science) were systematically searched from January 2000 to August 2023 for eligible studies that compared robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were then reviewed systematically. The reported data were aggregated statistically using RevMan 5.4 software. The parameters of interest included intraoperative, postoperative, survival and financial outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the type and difficulty level of hepatectomy and the study setting.

RESULTS

A total of 26 propensity-score matching comparative trials met the inclusion criteria, which comprised 9355 participants (robotic hepatectomy versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: 3938 versus 5417) in the meta-analysis. For surgical outcomes, lower blood loss, lower open conversion rate and higher R0 resection rate were observed in the robotic hepatectomy group compared with the laparoscopic hepatectomy group (mean difference (MD) -86.22, 95% c.i. -116.49 to -55.95, I² = 87%, P < 0.001; OR 0.51, 95% c.i. 0.38 to 0.69, I² = 40%, P < 0.001; OR 1.31, 95% c.i. 1.03 to 1.67, I² = 0%, P = 0.030 respectively). The lower blood loss (major hepatectomy group: MD -56.88, 95% c.i. -109.09 to -4.28, I² = 76%, P = 0.030; IWATE score (advanced/expert more than 80%) group: MD -0.61, 95% c.i. -1.14 to -0.08, I² = 95%, P < 0.001) and lower open conversion rate (major hepatectomy group: OR 0.41, 95% c.i. 0.30 to 0.56, I² = 0%, P < 0.001; IWATE score (advanced/expert less than 80%) group: OR 0.52, 95% c.i. 0.36 to 0.75, I² = 0%, P = 0.659) advantage persisted across subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach had advantages to laparoscopic in terms of lower blood loss and reduced rates of open conversion, especially in difficult hepatectomies.

Complete transition from laparoscopic to robotic liver surgery achieves superior outcomes in difficult hepatectomies: a seven-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is superior to open surgery when considering decreased blood loss, fewer complications, shorter hospital stay, and similar or improved oncologic outcomes. However, operative limitations in laparoscopic hepatectomy have curved its applicability and momentum of complex minimally invasive liver surgery. Transitioning to robotic hepatectomy may bridge this complexity gap.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study conducted on comparable hepatectomies (open, laparoscopic, robotic) for benign or malignant diseases at Weill Cornell by three surgeons from 2017 to 2023. Case volume and Iwate difficulty scoring were examined over time by surgical approach. Outcome associations (operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, 90-day complications, open conversion, and resection margin) were analyzed using generalized estimating equations to account for the hierarchical data structure of different surgeons and controlled for clinical covariates.

RESULTS

Among 353 hepatectomies, 112 were open (OH), 107 were laparoscopic (LH), and 134 were robotic (RH). OH patients were more likely to have malignant pathology (83% vs. LH 69%, RH 57%) and less likely to have cirrhosis (6% vs. LH 6%, RH 14%). OH and RH had similar case complexity (Median Iwate: OH 7 vs. RH 7). After adjustments, LH and RH had 39% and 43% shorter median lengths of stay, respectively, and 89% and 62% lower odds of complications compared to OH. RH had 87% lower odds of conversion to OH compared to LH. The odds of R0 resection were similar between LH, RH, and OH. These results remained consistent in high difficulty cases (Iwate 7-12). Over the study period, RH usage increased from 36 to 68%, while LH decreased from 39 to 9%. By 2023, RH was predominantly used over OH (74% vs.26%).

CONCLUSION

The transition from laparoscopic to all-robotic approach resulted in increased case volume and complexity in MILS, largely improving perioperative outcomes in hepatectomy.

Update on Resection Strategies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Narrative Review

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer, the incidence of which is rising globally. Despite recent advancements in immunotherapeutic and surgical treatment modalities, the prognosis for HCC remains poor. The surgical treatment strategy for HCC comprises a multimodal effort that ranges from ablative therapy and surgical resection to liver transplantation. Thanks to collective efforts from the surgical society, there have been rapid advances in resection strategies, such as 3D printing for surgical planning and minimally invasive techniques to minimize surgical trauma. This review examines recent advancements in surgical techniques, patient selection criteria, and perioperative management for HCC resection. The purpose of this review was to provide clinicians and researchers with an up-to-date perspective on the evolving role of surgical resection in HCC treatment, and to identify key areas for future investigation to improve patient outcomes.

A propensity score matched cost analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Cost-effectiveness of Robotic-assisted hepatectomy compared to the open approach is scrutinized. We compared the costs of robotic versus open hepatectomy at a large cancer center.

METHODS

Patients undergoing hepatectomy (1/2019-2/2022) were collected from a prospectively maintained database and 1:1 propensity score matched for 61 robotic and 61 open hepatectomy patients by complexity, tumor diagnosis, and age >65. Financial data was collected and converted to a ratio of service cost to average OR cost. Short-term and economic outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Median length of stay (2 vs. 3 days), major complication rates (0% vs. 8.2%), and 90-day readmission rates (3.3% vs. 11.5%) were lower for robotic hepatectomy (all p < 0.05). Total 90-day perioperative costs were lower by 19.5% for the robotic cohort (mean 6.89 vs 8.56; p < 0.01). Intraoperative costs were higher in the robotic cohort (mean 2.75 vs. 2.44; p < 0.01). Cost reduction drivers during postoperative care were supplies (mean 0.26 vs. 0.75), laboratory (mean 0.27 vs. 0.49), regular surgery unit (mean 0.19 vs. 0.32), recovery room (mean 0.26 vs. 0.29) and pharmacy cost (median 0.21 vs. 0.32; all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Hospital costs of robotic hepatectomy were lower than those of open hepatectomy due to significantly reduced postoperative costs.

Initial Experience With Robotic Liver Resection in the United States

BACKGROUND

This study's aim was to show the feasibility and safety of robotic liver resection (RLR) even without extensive experience in major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

METHODS

A single center, retrospective analysis was performed for consecutive liver resections for solid liver tumors from 2014 to 2022.

RESULTS

The analysis included 226 liver resections, comprising 127 (56.2%) open surgeries, 28 (12.4%) LLR, and 71 (31.4%) RLR. The rate of RLR increased and that of LLR decreased over time. In a comparison between propensity score matching-selected open liver resection and RLR (41:41), RLR had significantly less blood loss (384 ± 413 vs 649 ± 646 mL, P = .030) and shorter hospital stay (4.4 ± 3.0 vs 6.4 ± 3.7 days, P = .010), as well as comparable operative time (289 ± 123 vs 290 ± 132 mins, P = .954). A comparison between LLR and RLR showed comparable perioperative outcomes, even with more surgeries with higher difficulty score included in RLR (5.2 ± 2.7 vs 4.3 ± 2.5, P = .147). The analysis of the learning curve in RLR demonstrated that blood loss, conversion rate, and complication rate consistently improved over time, with the case number required to achieve the learning curve appearing to be 60 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that RLR is a feasible, safe, and acceptable platform for liver resection, and that the safe implementation and dissemination of RLR can be achieved without solid experience of LLR.

Outpatient and Ambulatory Extended Recovery Robotic Hepatectomy: Multinational Study of 307 Cases

BACKGROUND

For open minor hepatectomy, morbidity and recovery are dominated by the incision. The robotic approach may transform this "incision dominant procedure" into a safe outpatient procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

We audited outpatient (less than 2 midnights) robotic hepatectomy at 6 hepatobiliary centers in 2 nations to test the hypothesis that the robotic approach can be a safe and effective short-stay procedure. Establishing early recovery after surgery programs were active at all sites, and home digital monitoring was available at 1 of the institutions.

RESULTS

A total of 307 outpatient (26 same-day and 281 next-day discharge) robotic hepatectomies were identified (2013 to 2023). Most were minor hepatectomies (194 single segments, 90 bi-segmentectomies, 14 three segments, and 8 four segments). Thirty-nine (13%) were for benign histology, whereas 268 were for cancer (33 hepatocellular carcinoma, 27 biliary, and 208 metastatic disease). Patient characteristics were a median age of 60 years (18 to 93 years), 55% male, and a median BMI of 26 kg/m 2 (14 to 63 kg/m 2 ). Thirty (10%) patients had cirrhosis. One hundred eighty-seven (61%) had previous abdominal operation. Median operative time was 163 minutes (30 to 433 minutes), with a median blood loss of 50 mL (10 to 900 mL). There were no deaths and 6 complications (2%): 2 wound infections, 1 failure to thrive, and 3 perihepatic abscesses. Readmission was required in 5 (1.6%) patients. Of the 268 malignancy cases, 25 (9%) were R1 resections. Of the 128 with superior segment resections (segments 7, 8, 4A, 2, and 1), there were 12 positive margins (9%) and 2 readmissions for abscess.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient robotic hepatectomy in well-selected cases is safe (0 mortality, 2% complication, and 1.6% readmission), including resection in the superior or posterior portions of the liver that is challenging with nonarticulating laparoscopic instruments.

Current Status of Robotic Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery

Laparoscopic surgery is performed worldwide and has clear economic and social benefits in terms of patient recovery time. It is used for most gastrointestinal surgical procedures, but laparoscopic surgery for more complex procedures in the esophageal, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic regions remains challenging. Minimally invasive surgery that results in accurate tumor dissection is vital in surgical oncology, and development of surgical systems and instruments plays a key role in assisting surgeons to achieve this. A notable advance in the latter half of the 1990s was the da Vinci Surgical System, which involves master-slave surgical support robots. Featuring high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) imaging with magnification capabilities and forceps with multi-joint function, anti-shake function, and motion scaling, the system compensates for the drawbacks of conventional laparoscopic surgery. It is expected to be particularly useful in the field of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery, which requires delicate reconstruction involving complex liver anatomy with diverse vascular and biliary systems and anastomosis of the biliary tract, pancreas, and intestines. The learning curve is said to be short, and it is hoped that robotic surgery will be standardized in the near future. There is also a need for a standardized robotic surgery training system for young surgeons that can later be adapted to a wider range of surgeries. This systematic review describes trends and future prospects for robotic surgery in the hepatobiliary-pancreatic region.

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.

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.

Standardization of robotic right liver mobilization

BACKGROUND

Since its introduction 2 decades ago, robotics has been increasingly used for resection of benign and malignant liver lesions. The robotic platform seems to preserve minimally invasive approach benefits, overcoming laparoscopy limitations. Robotic right liver mobilisation represents a key step for many robotic resections from non-anatomical resections of posterosuperior segments to right hepatectomy.

METHODS

We present here a standardized technique of right hepatic lobe mobilisation including technical steps and videos. Robotic resection provide all benefits of minimally invasive approaches in terms of preserving abdominal wall, early alimentation, reduced respiratory stress, associated with more ergonomic conditions for surgeon.

RESULTS

We present our standardized and feasible right liver lobe mobilisation needed for posterosuperior resections to the right hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The standardisation of right liver lobe represented our aim to provide a safe and reproducible initial step for many procedures to reduce the conversion rate and to improve the learning curve in young surgeons.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience of 629 Consecutive Minimally Invasive Liver Resections

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has the potential to broaden the indications for minimally invasive liver surgery owing to its technical advantages. This paper compares our experience with robotic liver surgery (RLS) with conventional laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS).

METHODS

All consecutive liver resections between October 2011 and October 2022 were selected from our prospective database to be included in this cohort study. Patients who underwent RLS were compared with a LLS group for operative and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 629 patients were selected from our database, including 177 patients who underwent a RLS and 452 patients who had LLS. Colorectal liver metastasis was the main indication for surgery in both groups. With the introduction of RLS, the percentage of open resections decreased significantly (32.6% from 2011 to 2020 vs. 11.5% from 2020 onward, P < 0.001). In the robotic group, redo liver surgery was more frequent (24.3% vs. 16.8%, P = 0.031) and the Southampton difficulty score was higher (4 [IQR 4 to 7] vs. 4 [IQR 3 to 6], P = 0.02). Median blood loss was lower (30 vs. 100 ml, P < 0.001), and postoperative length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the robotic group (median 3 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications. Cost related to the used instruments and LOS was significantly lower in the RLS group (median €1483 vs. €1796, P < 0.001 and €1218 vs. €1624, P < 0.001, respectively), while cost related to operative time was higher (median €2755 vs. €2470, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RLS may allow for a higher percentage of liver resections to be completed in a minimally invasive way with lower blood loss and a shorter LOS.

Major hepatectomy in elderly patients: possible benefit from robotic platform utilization

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has been increasingly utilized, yet its application for hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) procedures remains low due to technical complexity, perceived financial burden, and unproven clinical benefits. We hypothesized that the robotic approach would be associated with improved clinical outcomes following major hepatectomy compared with the laparoscopic approach among elderly patients who would benefit from the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent major hepatectomy between January 2010 and December 2021 at Carolinas Medical Center was performed. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 65 years and major hepatectomy of three segments or more. Patients who underwent multiple liver resections, vascular/biliary reconstruction, or concomitant extrahepatic procedures (except cholecystectomy) were excluded. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test when more than 20% of cells had expected frequencies less than five, and Wilcoxon two-sample or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for continuous or ordinal variables. Results are described as median and interquartile range (IQR). Multivariate analyses were used on postoperative admission days.

RESULTS

There were 399 major hepatectomies performed during this time period, of which 125 met the criteria and were included. There were no differences in perioperative demographics among patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy (RH, n = 39) and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH, n = 32). There was no difference in operative time, blood loss, or major complication rates. However, RH had lower rates of conversion to an open procedure (2.6% versus 31.3%, p = 0.002), shorter length of hospital stay [LOS, 4 (3-7) versus 6 (4-8.5) days, p ≤ 0.0001], cumulative LOS [4 (3-7) versus 6 (4.5-9) days, p ≤ 0.0001], and lower rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (7.7% versus 75%, p ≤ 0.001), with a trend toward fewer rehabilitation requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot major hepatectomy shows clinical advantages in elderly patients, including shorter hospital and ICU stays. These advantages, as well as reduced rehabilitation requirements associated with minimally invasive surgery, could overcome the current perceived financial disadvantages of robotic hepatectomy.

An international multicentre propensity score matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive liver resections. While laparoscopic (L)-LLS is a well-established technique, over traditional open resection, it remains controversial if robotic (R)-LLS provides any advantages of L-LLS.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of 997 patients from 21 international centres undergoing L-LLS or R-LLS from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. A total of 886 cases (214 R-LLS, 672 L-LLS) met study criteria. 1:1 and 1:2 propensity score matched (PSM) comparison was performed between R-LLS & L-LLS. Further subset analysis by Iwate difficulty was also performed. Outcomes measured include operating time, blood loss, open conversion, readmission rates, morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Comparison between R-LLS and L-LLS after PSM 1:2 demonstrated statistically significantly lower open conversion rate in R-LLS than L-LLS (0.6% versus 5%, p = 0.009) and median blood loss was also statistically significantly lower in R-LLS at 50 (80) versus 100 (170) in L-LLS (p = 0.011) after PSM 1:1 although there was no difference in the blood transfusion rate. Pringle manoeuvre was also found to be used more frequently in R-LLS, with 53(24.8%) cases versus to 84(12.5%) L-LLS cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other key perioperative outcomes such as operating time, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity and 90-day mortality between both groups.

CONCLUSION

R-LLS was associated with similar key perioperative outcomes compared to L-LLS. It was also associated with significantly lower blood loss and open conversion rates compared to L-LLS.

The technique of laparoscopic and robotic extended cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer

The application of minimally invasive surgery for gallbladder cancer (GBC) is yet controversial. This article discusses the techniques of laparoscopic and robotic extended cholecystectomy. A 69-year-old male diagnosed with cT1-2N0 GBC underwent laparoscopic surgery, and a 55-year-old male with cT2N1 GBC underwent robotic surgery after preoperative chemotherapy. Nonanatomical partial hepatectomy with lymphadenectomy was performed. Liver parenchymal dissection was performed using Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator laparoscopically and Maryland bipolar dissector and Harmonic scalpel robotically. The operation time was 180 and 220 minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 140 and 130 mL, respectively. The final pathologies were pT1bN0 and pT2aN1, for which patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. There was no evidence of recurrence at 33 and 18 months without complications. Both laparoscopic and robotic extended cholecystectomy can be safely performed with the robotic surgical system as an effective alternative for GBC requiring liver resection with radical lymphadenectomy.

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.

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.

Risk factors and outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive hepatectomy with unplanned conversion: a contemporary NSQIP analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques are growing for hepatectomies. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections have been shown to differ in conversions. We hypothesize that robotic approach will have decreased conversion to open and complications despite being a newer technique than laparoscopy.

METHODS

ACS NSQIP study using the targeted Liver PUF from 2014 to 2020. Patients grouped based on hepatectomy type and approach. Multivariable and propensity scored matching (PSM) was used to analyze the groups.

RESULTS

Of 7767 patients who underwent hepatectomy, 6834 were laparoscopic and 933 were robotic. The rate of conversions was significantly lower in robotic vs laparoscopic (7.8% vs 14.7%; p < 0.001). Robotic hepatectomy was associated with decreased conversion for minor (6.2% vs 13.1%; p < 0.001), but not major, right, or left hepatectomy. Operative factors associated with conversion included Pringle (OR = 2.09 [95% CI 1.05-4.19]; p = 0.0369), and a laparoscopic approach (OR = 1.96 [95% CI 1.53-2.52]; p < 0.001). Undergoing conversion was associated with increases in bile leak (13.7% vs 4.9%; p < 0.001), readmission (11.5% vs 6.1%; p < 0.001), mortality (2.1% vs 0.6%; p < 0.001), length of stay (5 days vs 3 days; p < 0.001), and surgical (30.5% vs 10.1%; p < 0.001), wound (4.9% vs 1.5%; p < 0.001) and medical (17.5% vs 6.7%; p < 0.001) complications.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive hepatectomy with conversion is associated with increased complications, and conversion is increased in the laparoscopic compared to a robotic approach.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic liver surgery: clinical outcomes, learning curve effect, and cost-effectiveness

The reproducibility of the implementation of robotic liver surgery (RLS) is still debated. The aim of the present study is to evaluate short-term outcomes and cost differences during the implementation of RLS, performed by an early adopter in laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS). Patients undergoing RLS between February 2020 and May 2021 were included. Short-term outcomes of the robotic group (RG) were compared to the "Initial Phase" group (IP) of 120 LLS cases and the 120 most recent laparoscopic cases or "Mastery Phase" group (MP). A cost analysis per procedure for the three groups was performed. Seventy-one patients underwent RLS during the study period. Median operative time in the RG was comparable to the IP, but significantly shorter in the MP (140 vs 138 vs 120 min, p < 0.001). Median intraoperative blood loss in the RG was lower than in both laparoscopic groups (40 ml [20-90 ml] vs 150 ml [50-250 ml] vs 80 ml [30-150 ml], p < 0.001). Median hospital stay in the RG was significantly shorter than the IP group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative complication, conversion, or readmission rates. Procedural cost analysis was in favor of robotic surgery (€5008) compared to the IP (€ 6913) and the MP (€6099). Surgeons with sufficient experience in LLS can rapidly overcome the learning curve for RLS. In our experience, the short-term outcomes of the implementation phase of RLS are similar to the mastery phase of LLS. The total average cost per procedure is lower for RLS compared to LLS.

Recent advances in surgical strategies and liver transplantation for hepatoblastoma

Hepatoblastoma (HB) is the most common malignant liver tumor in children. Although the development of treatment strategies with advances in chemotherapy has greatly improved the prognosis of HB, surgical resection and liver transplantation still play a vital role in the treatment of HB. In recent years, technological innovations have led to the development of new surgical approaches for HB. In this review, we describe the latest research on the surgical management of HB, including new imaging technologies, minimally invasive approaches, and the application of associating liver partition portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy. We also discuss the current role of liver transplantation, use of ante-situm or ex-situ liver resection with auto-transplantation, and management of metastatic HB.

[Robots in visceral and thoracic surgery-Quo vadis?]

Robotic surgical systems are now an inherent part of the German hospital landscape. In recent years, there has been an enormous increase in installed systems and operations performed, especially in abdominal surgery. Even though there is a lack of studies with the highest grade of evidence, the advantages of the technique are obvious-particularly technically demanding operations can now be performed safely and less invasively for patients. Robotics are now being implemented in many non-university institutions. At the Israelite Hospital (Israelitisches Krankenhaus) Hamburg it could be demonstrated that with systematic and modular training, i.e. execution of certain surgical steps, it is possible to significantly flatten the learning curve while maintaining excellent oncological quality, postoperative morbidity and mortality. The costs to have a system up and running are the main limitations for the implementation of robotic surgery. The acquisition, material and maintenance costs are substantial so that the type of intervention and the training of prospective surgeons are limited by the costs. The robotic approach will fully unroll its disruptive character compared to laparoscopy once it is competitive not only qualitatively in the field of medical contents but also economically. In the future the ROBIN working group of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) wants to create the basic prerequisites for valid studies by working with registers and could act as an independent central intermediary between hospitals and the industry to promote practical innovations and systematic training for surgeons.

Comparison Between Minimally Invasive Right Anterior and Right Posterior Sectionectomy vs Right Hepatectomy: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched and Coarsened-Exact-Matched Analysis of 1,100 Patients

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive right anterior and right posterior sectionectomy (MI-RAS/MI-RPS) for right-sided liver lesions remains debatable. Although technically more demanding, these procedures might result in faster recovery and lower postoperative morbidity compared with minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 1,114 patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy, MI-RAS, and MI-RPS at 21 centers between 2006 and 2019. Minimally invasive surgery included pure laparoscopic, robotic, hand-assisted, or a hybrid approach. A propensity-matched and coarsened-exact-matched analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1,100 cases met study criteria, of whom 759 underwent laparoscopic, 283 robotic, 11 hand-assisted, and 47 laparoscopic-assisted (hybrid) surgery. There were 632 right hemihepatectomies, 373 right posterior sectionectomies, and 95 right anterior sectionectomies. There were no differences in baseline characteristics after matching. In the MI-RAS/MI-RPS group, median blood loss was higher (400 vs 300 mL, p = 0.001) as well as intraoperative blood transfusion rate (19.6% vs 10.7%, p = 0.004). However, the overall morbidity rate was lower including major morbidity (7.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.007) and reoperation rate (1.4% vs 4.6%, p = 0.029). The rate of close/involved margins was higher in the MI-RAS/MI-RPS group (23.4% vs 8.9%, p < 0.001). These findings were consistent after both propensity and coarsened-exact matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Although technically more demanding, MI-RAS/MI-RPS is a valuable alternative for minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy in right-sided liver lesions with lower postoperative morbidity, possibly due to the preservation of parenchyma. However, the rate of close/involved margins is higher in these procedures. These findings might guide surgeons in preoperative counselling and in selecting the appropriate procedure for their patients.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots' abilities.

Does Robotic Liver Surgery Enhance R0 Results in Liver Malignancies during Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery?—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Robotic procedures are an integral part of modern liver surgery. However, the advantages of a robotic approach in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic approach are the subject of controversial debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic and laparoscopic liver resection with particular attention to the resection margin status in malignant cases. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Cochrane Library in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Only studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resections were considered for this meta-analysis. Furthermore, the rate of the positive resection margin or R0 rate in malignant cases had to be clearly identifiable. We used fixed or random effects models according to heterogeneity. Results: Fourteen studies with a total number of 1530 cases were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Malignancies were identified in 71.1% (n = 1088) of these cases. These included hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal liver metastases and other malignancies of the liver. Positive resection margins were noted in 24 cases (5.3%) in the robotic group and in 54 cases (8.6%) in the laparoscopic group (OR = 0.71; 95% CI (0.42–1.18); p = 0.18). Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group (MD = 6.92; 95% CI (2.93–10.91); p = 0.0007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robotic procedure (MD = 28.12; 95% CI (3.66–52.57); p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches regarding the intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, overall and severe complications and conversion rate. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the robotic and laparoscopic procedures regarding the resection margin status. Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group. However, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate the benefits of robotics in liver surgery.

Lymphadenectomy and margin-negative resection for biliary tract cancer surgery in the United States-Differential technical performance by approach

BACKGROUND

As minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches to biliary tract cancers become more commonplace, understanding the adequacy of their oncologic performance is key.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database 2010-2016 was queried for patients who underwent hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC) and T1b or more advanced gallbladder cancer (GBC). Patients were grouped by approach: open (OA), laparoscopic (LA), and robotic (RA). Margin status, rate of lymph node (LN) dissection, and yield of LN dissection were evaluated.

RESULTS

This cohort of 8612 patients, including 4034 patients with IHC (OA: 3281, LA: 675, RA: 78) and 4578 patients with GBC (OA: 1893, LA: 2588, RA: 97), MIS was used 40% of the time. R0 resection was achieved in 82% OA, 84% LA, and 91% RA, p = 0.004. Rate of LN dissection was 53% (OA: 60%, LA: 42%, RA: 51%, p < 0.001). Among patients who underwent lymphadenectomy, 6 + LN were retrieved less commonly with a LA (OA: 27%, LA: 20%, and RA: 30%, p < 0.001). High-volume MIS hepatectomy centers were more likely to perform a lymphadenectomy (odds ratio [OR]: 1.41) and a sampling of 6 + LN (OR: 1.18).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of approach, lymphadenectomy is underperformed nationwide for biliary tract tumors, particularly with LA. As the use of MIS grows for the treatment of biliary tract cancers, scrutiny of oncologic outcomes is required.

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Right and Extended Right Hepatectomy

Importance

Laparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH).

Objective

To compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included.

Interventions

Robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed.

Results

Of 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P = .01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.0 [5.0-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.11 [7.52] days vs median [IQR], 7.0 [5.75-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.94 [8.99] days; P = .048). On subset analysis of cases performed between 2015 and 2020 after a center's learning curve (50 cases), robotic RH/ERH was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 6.0 [5.0-9.0] days vs 7.0 [6.0-9.75] days; P = .04) with a similar conversion rate (12 of 220 [7.6%] vs 17 of 220 [10.8%]; P = .46).

Conclusion and Relevance

Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with laparoscopic RH/ERH. The difference in open conversion rate was associated with a significant decrease for laparoscopic but not robotic RH/ERH after a center had mounted the learning curve. Use of robotic platform may help to overcome the initial challenges of minimally invasive RH/ERH.

Short-term outcomes of da Vinci Xi versus Si robotic systems for minor hepatectomies

BACKGROUND

In the recent years, robotic technology has been drastically improved and the last generation of robotic platforms is hardly comparable with the earlier ones. The present study aims to investigate the short-term outcomes of minor hepatectomies performed with da Vinci Xi surgical system vs. Si surgical systems.

METHODS

Consecutive patients operated on between 2013 and 2020 in two referral centers were selected if underwent elective robotic minor hepatectomy (<3 consecutive segments) for primarily resectable benign or malignant lesions. Operative, postoperative, and cost outcomes were compared between the two groups by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients were selected (64 in the Si system vs. 25 in the Xi system group). Wedge resection was the most commonly performed procedure (49.4%). The Si system group showed a significantly greater total incisional length (+8.99 mm; p<0.0001) related to the use of a higher number of robotic/laparoscopic ports. Pedicle clamping was more frequent in patients operated on by the Xi system (80% vs. 21.9%; p<0.0001) but without group differences in ischemia duration when clamping. A significantly shorter time to flatus (-0.75 days; p=0.015) was observed for patients operated on by the Xi system, whereas no group differences were found for operative time, conversion rate, estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, mortality, use of analgesics, and costs.

CONCLUSION

The da Vinci Xi system represents a technological advancement with a potential clinical relevance, although further studies are needed to clearly detect the clinical impact of the use of this robotic platform in liver surgery.

Case Report: Robotically Assisted Excision of Cystic Tumor Located in a Difficult to Access Area in the Liver

Introduction: Cystic liver lesions may be benign cysts, parasitic infestations, or malignant tumors requiring surgical resection. Hilar location and relation to major vasculature present challenges in conventional surgical access and resection. Materials and Methods: We describe totally robotic excision of a cystadenoma in a 55-year-old woman without complication. Time points in the accompanying video (https://youtu.be/Tn_QPgpSHA4) are embedded within the text. Results: Advantages of the robotic technique lie in overcoming the natural restriction of conventional laparoscopic instruments, easier repair, and control of intraoperative vascular injuries using EndoWrist^® instruments, ergonomic dissection close to major vasculature and reduced intraoperative blood loss as dissection is easier. Discussion: Indications for robotic surgery included the large size of the cystic lesion, its intrahepatic location, and compression of the inferior vena cava (IVC) and right and middle hepatic veins. Had robotic removal of the lesion not been feasible, the entire lobe of the liver would have required resection.

International multicentre propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) is a technically challenging procedure. This study was designed to determine outcomes following robotic RPS (R-RPS) and laparoscopic RPS (L-RPS).

METHODS

An international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing R-RPS versus those who had purely L-RPS at 21 centres from 2010 to 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed retrospectively from a central database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, with analysis of 1 : 2 and 1 : 1 matched cohorts.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and forty patients, including 96 who underwent R-RPS and 244 who had L-RPS, met the study criteria and were included. The median operating time was 295 minutes and there were 25 (7.4 per cent) open conversions. Ninety-seven (28.5 per cent) patients had cirrhosis and 56 (16.5 per cent) patients required blood transfusion. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 22.1 per cent and major morbidity rate was 6.8 per cent. The median postoperative stay was 6 days. After 1 : 1 matching of 88 R-RPS and L-RPS patients, median (i.q.r.) blood loss (200 (100-400) versus 450 (200-900) ml, respectively; P < 0.001), major blood loss (> 500 ml; P = 0.001), need for intraoperative blood transfusion (10.2 versus 23.9 per cent, respectively; P = 0.014), and open conversion rate (2.3 versus 11.4 per cent, respectively; P = 0.016) were lower in the R-RPS group. Similar results were found in the 1 : 2 matched groups (66 R-RPS versus 132 L-RPS patients).

CONCLUSION

R-RPS and L-RPS can be performed in expert centres with good outcomes in well selected patients. R-RPS was associated with reduced blood loss and lower open conversion rates than L-RPS.

Implementing a robotic liver resection program does not always require prior laparoscopic experience

Background

Preliminary experience in laparoscopic liver surgery is usually suggested prior to implementation of a robotic liver resection program.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing robotic (RLR) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma at a center with concomitant initiation of robotic and laparoscopic programs

Results

A total of 92 consecutive patients operated on between May 2014 and February 2019 were included: 40 RLR versus 52 LLR. Median age (69 vs. 67; p = 0.74), male sex (62.5% vs. 59.6%; p = 0.96), incidence of chronic liver disease (97.5% vs.98.1%; p = 0.85), median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (8 vs. 9; p = 0.92), and median largest nodule size (22 vs. 24 mm) were similar between RLR and LLR. In the LLR group, there was a numerically higher incidence of nodules located in segment 4 (20.0% vs. 16.6%; p = 0.79); a numerically higher use of Pringle’s maneuver (32.7% vs. 20%; p = 0.23), and a shorter duration of surgery (median of 165.5 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.04). Incidence of complications (25% vs.32.7%; p = 0.49), blood transfusions (2.5% vs.9.6%; p = 0.21), and median length of stay (6 vs. 5; p = 0.54) were similar between RLR and LLR. The overall (OS) and recurrence-free (RFS) survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 100 and 79 and 95 and 26% for RLR versus 96.2 and 76.9 and 84.6 and 26.9% for LLR (log-rank p = 0.65 for OS and 0.72 for RFS).

Conclusions

Based on our results, concurrent implementation of a robotic and laparoscopic liver resection program appears feasible and safe, and is associated with similar oncologic long-term outcomes.

Initial experience with a robotic hepatectomy program at a high-volume laparoscopic center: single-center experience and surgical tips

Background

Despite the development of laparoscopic surgery, there are still inherent limitations associated with conventional laparoscopic instruments such as restrictions in movement and an inability for articulation. Robotic surgery may help to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to present our initial experience with robotic hepatectomy (RH) and discuss the steps required to develop an RH program at a high-volume laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) center.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data for 14 consecutive patients who underwent RH between 2017 and 2018. Clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared with those reported in previous studies. The operation time of each procedure was analyzed to assess RH proficiency based on experience.

Results

Of the 14 patients, 12 patients (85.7%) underwent robotic major hepatectomy. Median patient age was 54.5 years, while median body mass index (BMI) was 25.2 kg/m². The median operation time was 360 (range: 145–544) min. The median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 300 (range: 50–1,400) mL. Conversion to open surgery was not required in any case. The median length of hospital stay was 5 (range: 4–14) days. Major complications occurred in 2 patients (14.2%), although both recovered without sequelae. The time required for hilar dissection, docking, and parenchymal transection gradually decreased after the first two cases of RH.

Conclusions

From our initial experience, RH might be considered as a feasible procedure in the liver resection, even in major hepatectomy. In addition, surgeons with sufficient experience in LH could rapidly adapt for RH. However, we have to make a system for education and monitoring of this innovative surgery for the patients’ safety.

Performance of image guided navigation in laparoscopic liver surgery - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Compared to open surgery, minimally invasive liver resection has improved short term outcomes. It is however technically more challenging. Navigated image guidance systems (IGS) are being developed to overcome these challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of their current capabilities and limitations.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using free text terms and corresponding controlled vocabulary. Titles and abstracts of retrieved articles were screened for inclusion criteria. Due to the heterogeneity of the retrieved data it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis. Therefore results are presented in tabulated and narrative format.

RESULTS

Out of 2015 articles, 17 pre-clinical and 33 clinical papers met inclusion criteria. Data from 24 articles that reported on accuracy indicates that in recent years navigation accuracy has been in the range of 8-15 mm. Due to discrepancies in evaluation methods it is difficult to compare accuracy metrics between different systems. Surgeon feedback suggests that current state of the art IGS may be useful as a supplementary navigation tool, especially in small liver lesions that are difficult to locate. They are however not able to reliably localise all relevant anatomical structures. Only one article investigated IGS impact on clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Further improvements in navigation accuracy are needed to enable reliable visualisation of tumour margins with the precision required for oncological resections. To enhance comparability between different IGS it is crucial to find a consensus on the assessment of navigation accuracy as a minimum reporting standard.

The Use of Robotics in Surgery of Benign Liver Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment of benign liver diseases (BLD) remains a field of conflict, due to increased risk and high complication rate. However, the introduction of minimally invasive surgery has led to increased number of patients with BLD being treated surgically, with similar outcomes and fewer complications. Current data support the application of laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic surgery (RS) in surgical treatment of liver malignancies, but there are insufficient data concerning the application of robotic surgery in BLD. In the present systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the application of RS in BLD surgery.

METHODS

After a thorough search of Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, 12 studies were considered eligible with a total number of 115 patients with BLD.

DISCUSSION

In brief, RS appears to be a safe and feasible option for BLD surgery. When compared to open surgery, RS is associated with lower blood loss, shorter length of stay, and fewer complication rate. Regarding LS, the peri- and postoperative outcomes were similar, but RS can overcome the technical limitations of LS. However, the cost of RS remains a major drawback in its widespread application.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering our findings, RS can be a safe and feasible option for BLD surgery, but further studies are needed to justify the introduction of RS in liver surgery and to define the type of patients that will benefit the most from it.

Comprehensive analysis of laparoscopic, robotic, and open hepatectomy outcomes using the nationwide readmissions database

Although open resections have been the most prevalent method of hepatectomies in the United States, laparoscopic and robotic methods of liver resection have since gained significant traction. Given the augmenting role of minimally invasive techniques in liver resection, a study that explores and analyzes the surgical outcomes of the approaches mentioned above to liver resection on a national basis is warranted. A retrospective analysis was performed in this study using the 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). Patients who underwent liver resections via one of the following methods were selected and grouped: open, laparoscopic, or robotic. Our primary outcome variable of interest was the 45-day readmission rate. 11,186 patients were included in the analysis. The 45-day readmission rate was 13.5%, 12.9%, and 8.7% in the open, laparoscopic, and robotic groups, respectively (p < 0.001). A significantly lower complication rate (7.3%) was seen in the robotic group than its counterparts (11.4% in open vs. 9.1% in the laparoscopic group). Patients undergoing hepatectomies may benefit from the robotic approach given that it is associated with a shorter hospital length of stay and lower readmission rates.

Hospitalization Costs and Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Liver Resections

INTRODUCTION

Most liver resections performed in the United States are open. With the ever-increasing role of robotic surgery, our study's role is to assess national outcomes based on the surgical approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the 2015 National Readmission Database (NRD). We selected patients undergoing open, laparoscopic, and robotic hepatectomy. Propensity score matching was performed to match the three groups in terms of demographics, hospital characteristics, and resection type. Our primary outcome was 6-month readmission rates and associated costs.

RESULTS

3,872 patients were included in the analysis (open = 3,420, laparoscopic = 343, and robotic = 109). Robotic liver resection has lower 6-month readmission rates (18.3%) than the laparoscopic (26.7%) and open (30%) counterparts. The robotic approach was more cost-effective ($127,716.56 ± 12,567.31) than the open ($157,880.82 ± 18,560.2) and laparoscopic approach ($152,060.78 ± 8,890.13) in terms of the total cost which includes cost per readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a financial benefit of using robotics in terms of cost, hospital length of stay, and readmission rates in patients undergoing liver resection, cost.

Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection-comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center

Purpose

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for benign and malignant tumors. There has been an ongoing debate on whether conventional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR) is superior and if one approach should be favored over the other. We started using LLR in 2010, and introduced RLR in 2013. In the present paper, we report on our experiences with these two techniques as early adopters in Germany.

Methods

The data of patients who underwent MILS between 2010 and 2020 were collected prospectively in the Magdeburg Registry for Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (MD-MILS). A retrospective analysis was performed regarding patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative parameters.

Results

We identified 155 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Of these, 111 (71.6%) underwent LLR and 44 (29.4%) received RLR. After excluding cystic lesions, 113 cases were used for the analysis of perioperative parameters. Resected specimens were significantly bigger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (405 g vs. 169 g, p = 0.002); in addition, the tumor diameter was significantly larger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (5.6 cm vs. 3.7 cm, p = 0.001). Hence, the amount of major liver resections (three or more segments) was significantly higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group (39.0% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.005). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (331 min vs. 181 min, p = 0.0001). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (13.4 vs. LLR 8.7 days, p = 0.03). The R0 resection rate for solid tumors was higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group but without statistical significance (93.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.48). The postoperative morbidity ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade 3 was 5.6% in the LLR vs. 17.1% in the RLR group (p = 0.1). No patient died in the RLR but two patients (2.8%) died in the LLR group, 30 and 90 days after surgery (p = 0.53).

Conclusion

Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and feasible. Robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery shows similar and adequate perioperative oncological results for selected patients. RLR might be advantageous for more advanced and technically challenging procedures.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following the publication of reports from landmark international consensuses (Louisville 2008 and Morioka 2014), minimally invasive hepatectomy became widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to open surgery. We aimed to compare the operative, hospitalization, and total economic costs of open (OLR) vs. laparoscopic (LLR) vs. robotic liver resection (RLR).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review (end-of-search date: July 3, 2020) according to the PRISMA statement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies reporting on 3847 patients (1783 OLR; 1674 LLR; 390 RLR) were included. The operative costs of LLR were significantly higher than those of OLR, while subgroup analysis also showed higher operative costs in the LLR group for major hepatectomy, but no statistically significant difference for minor hepatectomy. Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the LLR group, with subgroup analyses indicating lower costs for LLR in both major and minor hepatectomy series. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding total costs between LLR and OLR both overall and on subgroup analyses in either major or minor hepatectomy series. Meta-analyses showed higher operative, hospitalization, and total costs for RLR vs. LLR, but no statistically significant difference regarding total costs for RLR vs. OLR.

CONCLUSION

LLR's higher operative costs are offset by lower hospitalization costs compared to OLR leading to no statistically significant difference in total costs, while RLR appears to be a more expensive alternative approach.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of robotic hepatectomy (RH) versus conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for malignancy using meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and the Cochrane Library databases up to September 2020 for studies, which limited to comparative articles of RH or LH for malignant tumors. Stata14.0 was performed in the meta-analysis. Six studies with a total of 1093 patients (345 RH and 748 LH) were eligible for inclusion. Operative time, tumor size, open procedure rate and the proportion of right hepatectomy were found to be significantly different between RH and LH in the pooled analysis (P < 0.05). Compared to LH, RH was associated with longer operative time, larger tumor size, lower open procedure rate and more common use for right hepatectomy. On the other hand, there was no difference in the operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion rate, hospital stay, R0 resection rate, complications, resection margin, left lateral sectionectomy and left hepatectomy (P > 0.05). For malignant tumors that require hepatectomy, robotic approaches have demonstrated similar safety and feasibility to laparoscopy, with lower open procedure rate, were suitable for larger tumor size, and have a high right hepatectomy utilization rate. These results still need to be confirmed by multicenter, high-quality randomized controlled studies.

Perioperative Blood Transfusions or Operative Time: Which Drives Post-Hepatectomy Outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Perioperative blood transfusions and operative time are surgical quality indicators. The aim of this analysis is to determine which of these variables drives post-hepatectomy outcomes.

METHODS

Patients undergoing major or partial hepatectomy were identified in the 2014-2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program hepatectomy targeted database. Prolonged operative time was defined as ≥ 240 minutes. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed for multiple postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 20 521 hepatectomies, 18% of patients received a perioperative transfusion, and the median operative time was 218 minutes. Patients receiving a transfusion had a significant (P < .001) increase in mortality (5.1% vs. .7%) and serious morbidity (43% vs. 16%). Prolonged operative time was associated with significantly (P < .001) increased mortality (2.4% vs. .8%) and serious morbidity (29% vs. 14%). Those with primary hepatobiliary cancer had the highest rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality compared to patients with metastatic and benign disease when a transfusion occurred. On multivariable regression analyses, perioperative transfusions conferred a higher risk (P < .001) than prolonged operative time for mortality (OR 5.02 vs. 1.47) and serious morbidity (OR 2.56 vs. 1.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative blood transfusions are a more robust predictor of post-hepatectomy outcomes than increased operative time, especially in patients with primary hepatobiliary cancer.

Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy in North America: Laparoscopic Versus Robotic

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, data comparing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy is lacking and limited to single-center studies.

METHODS

Patients undergoing major (≥ 3 segments) or partial (≤ 2 segments) hepatectomy were identified in the 2014-2017 ACS-NSQIP hepatectomy targeted database. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic approaches were compared, and propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for bias.

RESULTS

Of 3152 minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs), 86% (N = 2706) were partial and 14% (N = 446) were major. The laparoscopic approach was utilized in 92% of patients (N = 2905) and 8% were performed robotically (N = 247). The percentage of MIHs increased over time (p < 0.01). After matching, 240 were identified in each cohort. Compared with the robotic approach, patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had a significantly higher conversion rate (23% vs. 7.4%) but had shorter operative time (159 vs. 204 min) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic cases undergoing an unplanned conversion to open were associated with increased morbidity (p < 0.001), but this difference was not observed in robotic cases. Both MIH approaches had low mortality (1.0%, p = 1.00), overall morbidity (17%, p = 0.47), and very short length of stay (3 days, p = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive hepatectomy is performed primarily for partial hepatectomies. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a significantly higher conversion rate, and converted cases have worse outcomes. Both minimally invasive approaches are safe with similar mortality, morbidity, and a very short length of stay. Graphical Abstract.

Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy in North America: Laparoscopic Versus Robotic

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, data comparing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy is lacking and limited to single-center studies.

METHODS

Patients undergoing major (≥ 3 segments) or partial (≤ 2 segments) hepatectomy were identified in the 2014-2017 ACS-NSQIP hepatectomy targeted database. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic approaches were compared, and propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for bias.

RESULTS

Of 3152 minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs), 86% (N = 2706) were partial and 14% (N = 446) were major. The laparoscopic approach was utilized in 92% of patients (N = 2905) and 8% were performed robotically (N = 247). The percentage of MIHs increased over time (p < 0.01). After matching, 240 were identified in each cohort. Compared with the robotic approach, patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had a significantly higher conversion rate (23% vs. 7.4%) but had shorter operative time (159 vs. 204 min) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic cases undergoing an unplanned conversion to open were associated with increased morbidity (p < 0.001), but this difference was not observed in robotic cases. Both MIH approaches had low mortality (1.0%, p = 1.00), overall morbidity (17%, p = 0.47), and very short length of stay (3 days, p = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive hepatectomy is performed primarily for partial hepatectomies. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a significantly higher conversion rate, and converted cases have worse outcomes. Both minimally invasive approaches are safe with similar mortality, morbidity, and a very short length of stay. Graphical Abstract.

Robot-assisted and open resections for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Comparative analysis of the immediate outcomes

Background. Minimally invasive radical surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is in its early stages. Aim. A comparative analysis of the initial experience of robot-assisted and open resections for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Material and methods. The single-center experience, accumulated over the period from 2014 to 2018, is analyzed. Robot-assisted procedures included major liver resection and caudate lobectomy with extrahepatic bile duct resection and lymphadenectomy. The need for vascular reconstruction was considered a contraindication to surgery. Results. Thirteen robot-assisted resections were performed. The perihilar cholangiocarcinoma was confirmed by pathologic examination in 10 patients. The immediate outcomes were compared with that in 88 open procedures. There were no significant differences in blood loss, the rate of severe morbidity, mortality, and hospital stay. The duration of the robot-assisted surgical resections was significantly longer. Conclusion. Analysis of initial experience justifies the robotic approach for radical resection in highly selected patients.

Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) have been increasingly performed in recent years. However, the majority of MILRs are actually minor or limited resections of peripheral lesions. Due to the technical complexity major hepatectomies remain challenging for minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive right hepatectomies (MIRHs) with contemporary patients undergoing open right hepatectomies (ORHs) METHODS: Consecutive patients submitted to anatomic right hepatectomies between January 2013 and December 2018 in two tertiary referral centers were studied. Study groups were compared on an intention-to-treat basis after propensity score matching (PSM). Overall survival (OS) analyses were performed for the entire cohort and specific etiologies subgroups RESULTS: During study period 178 right hepatectomies were performed. After matching, 37 patients were included in MIRH group and 60 in ORH group. The groups were homogenous for all baseline characteristics. MIRHs had significant lower blood loss (400 ml vs. 500 ml, P = 0.01), lower rate of minor complications (13.5% vs. 35%, P = 0.03) and larger resection margins (10 mm vs. 5 mm, P = 0.03) when compared to ORHs. Additionally, a non-significant decrease in hospital stay (ORH 9 days vs. MIRH 7 days, P = 0.09) was observed. No differences regarding the use of Pringle's maneuver, operative time, overall morbidity or perioperative mortality were observed. OS was similar between the groups (P = 0.13). Similarly, no difference in OS was found in subgroups of patients with primary liver tumors (P = 0.09) and liver metastasis (P = 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

MIRHs are feasible and safe in experienced hands. Minimally invasive approach was associated with less blood loss, a significant reduction in minor perioperative complications, and did not negatively affect long-term outcomes.

Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As an emerging technology, robot-assisted surgical system has some potential merits in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted liver resection is still a controversial problem on its advantages compared with laparoscopic liver resection. We aimed to perform the meta-analysis to assess and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase databases, Clinicaltrials, and Opengrey through March 24, 2020, including references of qualifying articles. English-language, original investigations in humans about robot-assisted and laparoscopic hepatectomy were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers. Continuous and dichotomous variables were compared by the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR), respectively.

RESULTS

Of 936 titles identified in our original search, 28 articles met our criteria, involving 3544 patients. Compared with laparoscopy, the robot-assisted groups had longer operative time (WMD: 36.93; 95% CI, 19.74-54.12; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (OR: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87; P = 0.005), higher transfusion rate (WMD: 2.39; 95% CI, 1.51-3.76; P < 0.001) and higher total cost (WMD:0.49; 95% CI, 0.42-0.55; P < 0.001). In addition, the baseline characteristics of patients about largest tumor size was larger (WMD: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < 0.001) and malignant lesions rate was higher (WMD: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86; P < 0.001) in the robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. The subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 36.00; 95% CI, 12.59-59.41; P = 0.003), longer length of stay (WMD: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.02-1.01; p = 0.04) and higher total cost (WMD: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P < 0.001) (Table 3); while the subgroup analysis of major hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with lower estimated blood loss (WMD: -122.43; 95% CI, -151.78--93.08; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis revealed that robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time, lower conversion rate, higher transfusion rate and total cost, and robot-assisted has certain advantages in major hepatectomy compared with laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Transitioning From Open to Robotic Liver Resection. Results of 46 Consecutive Procedures Including a Majority of Major Hepatectomies

Aims. Minimally invasive liver resection is a complex and challenging operation. Although authors have reported robotic liver resection shows improved safety and efficacy compared with open liver resection, robotic major liver resections for malignant liver lesions treatment remain inadequately evaluated. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the feasibility and safety of transitioning from open to robotic liver resection in a nonuniversity hospital. Patients and Methods. From December 2015 to March 2020, 46 patients underwent totally robotic-assisted liver resections out of 446 robotic procedures. Also, we retrospectively reviewed the last 27 open right hepatectomies (ORHs) and compared then with the first 25 anatomic robotic-assisted right hepatectomies (RRHs). Results. Mean operative time, mean blood lost, rate of complications, and mean hospital stay were associated with the complexity of the procedure. The comparison between ORH and RRH showed that intraoperative complications were less frequently observed during ORH whereas RRH showed a trend in favor of less blood loss. ORH had a trend toward smaller surgical margins and higher rate of R1 resections. Recurrence occurred in 31 (59%) patients and was more frequently observed after ORH. However, the mean follow-up was significantly shorter after RRH. Conclusion. Our study demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of transitioning from open to robotic liver resection (including major hepatectomies) in a nonuniversity setting. Higher costs remain an important drawback for robotic surgery.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Liver Resections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model.

RESULT

Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.

Robot-assisted combined pancreatectomy/hepatectomy for metastatic pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma: case report and review of the literature

Acinar cell carcinoma (ACC) of the pancreas is a rare neoplasm with less aggressive behavior than ductal carcinoma. As a result, surgical resection for metastatic ACC is a therapeutic option which can result in long-term survival. There is a paucity of data describing institutional approaches to these challenging patients, and therefore, we herein describe our institution's approach to a patient with a distal pancreatic ACC and isolated liver metastasis. The patient underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (FOLFIRINOX), followed by a robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy/splenectomy and non-anatomic segment 6 resection. He was discharged to home post-operative day 2. Final pathology revealed complete tumor response of the liver metastasis and a margin negative resection of the primary tumor. He remains disease free and without complications at 3 months. We highlight that combined modality therapy for metastatic ACC can yield long-term survival in selected patients. Similarly, the robotic platform enables performance of complex multivisceral resections with rapid recovery. Future research investigating precision medicine for metastatic ACC is warranted given widely variable tumor biology in this disease.