Robotic liver surgery

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

This study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, with a special focus on the meta-analysis method. Original studies were collected from three Chinese databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Our systematic review was conducted on 682 patients with robotic liver resection, and 1101 patients were operated by laparoscopic platform. Robotic surgery has a long surgical duration (MD = 43.99, 95% CI: 23.45-64.53, p = 0.0001), while there is no significant difference in length of hospital stay (MD = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.38-0.58, p = 0.69), blood loss (MD = -20, 95% CI: -64.90-23.34, p = 0.36), the incidence of conversion (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.41-1.69, p = 0.62), and tumor size (MD = 0.30, 95% CI: -0-0.60, p = 0.05); the subgroup analysis of major and minor hepatectomy on operation time is (MD = -7.08, 95% CI: -15.22-0.07, p = 0.09) and (MD = 39.87, 95% CI: -1.70-81.44, p = 0.06), respectively. However, despite the deficiencies of robotic hepatectomy in terms of extended operation time compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy is still effective and equivalent to laparoscopic hepatectomy in outcomes. Scientific evaluation and research on one portion of the liver may produce more efficacity and more precise results. Therefore, more clinical trials are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Novel Liver Parenchymal Transection Technique Using Saline-linked Monopolar Cautery Scissors (SLiC-Scissors) in Robotic Liver Resection

Introduction

Although there are a number of benefits to using robotics in liver surgery over conventional open and laparoscopic approaches, liver parenchymal transection is still the most difficult aspect of robotic liver resection (RLR) due to the limitations of the currently available robotic instruments and the lack of a standardized method.

Methods

We present a novel method for transecting the liver parenchyma during RLR employing saline-linked monopolar cautery (SLiC) scissors (SLiC-Scissors method). Between September 2021 and April 2022, 10 RLRs were performed utilizing the SLiC-Scissors method for both anatomical and non-anatomical liver resections. We assessed the short-term results, as well as the safety and practicality of our robotic liver parenchymal transection technique.

Results

Six of the 10 patients had malignant liver tumors, and four of them had liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Except for S1, the target lesions were present everywhere, and their median size was 25 mm (14-43 mm). The median amount of intraoperative bleeding was 5 mL (5-30 mL), and the median operative and console times were 223 and 134 min, respectively. There were no conversions to open liver resections. The median length of the postoperative stay was seven (4-13) days, and there were no serious postoperative complications or mortality.

Conclusions

The SLiC-Scissors method is a safe and practical procedure for liver parenchymal transection in RLR. In order to standardize and broadly implement RLR into normal patient treatment, this unique approach enables an advanced, locally controlled preparation of intrahepatic vessels and bile ducts.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Primary Hepatobiliary Tumors-Possibilities and Limitations

Simple Summary

Primary liver malignancies are some of the most common and fatal tumors today. Robotic-assisted liver surgery is becoming increasingly interesting for both patients and surgeons alike. Up to date, prospective comparative studies around the topic are scarce. This leads us to an ever existing controversy about the efficacy, safety, and economic benefits of robotic surgery as an extension of traditional minimally invasive surgery over open liver surgery. However, there is evidence that robotic-assisted surgery is, after passing the learning curve, equivalent in terms of feasibility and safety, and in some cases superior to traditional laparoscopic hepatic resection. With this work, we want to provide an overview of the latest and most significant reviews and meta-analyses focusing on robotic hepatectomy in primary liver malignancies. We outline the technical aspects of robotic-assisted surgery and place them into the context of technical, surgical, and oncological outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open resection. When chosen per case individually, any hepatic resection can be performed robotically to overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery by an experienced team. In this paper, we propose that prospective studies are needed to prove efficacy for robotic-assisted resection in liver malignancy.

Abstract

Hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma are fatal primary hepatic tumors demanding extensive liver resection. Liver surgery is technically challenging due to the complex liver anatomy, with an intensive and variant vascular and biliary system. Therefore, major hepatectomies in particular are often performed by open resection and minor hepatectomies are often performed minimally invasively. More centers have adopted robotic-assisted surgery, intending to improve the laparoscopic surgical limits, as it offers some technical benefits such as seven degrees of freedom and 3D visualization. The da Vinci^® Surgical System has dominated the surgical robot market since 2000 and has shown surgical feasibility, but there is still much controversy about its economic benefits and real benefits for the patient over the gold standard. The currently available retrospective case studies are difficult to compare, and larger, prospective studies and randomized trials are still urgently missing. Therefore, here we summarize the technical, surgical, and economic outcomes of robotic versus open and laparoscopic hepatectomies for primary liver tumors found in the latest literature reviews and meta-analyses. We conclude that complex robotic liver resections (RLR) are safe and feasible after the steep learning curve of the surgical team has plateaued. The financial burden is lower in high volume centers and is expected to decrease soon as new surgical systems will enter the market.

National Trends and Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic-assisted Hepatectomy in the USA: A Propensity-score Matched Analysis from the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

A paucity of data exists on the national use of robotic hepatectomy. We assessed national trends and perioperative outcomes of robotic hepatectomy in the USA. In addition, factors associated with use of the robotic approach were analyzed.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients undergoing hepatectomy from 2010 to 2016. Patients undergoing total hepatectomy for transplant were excluded. Factors associated with the use of the robotic approach were assessed using logistic regression multivariable analysis. Propensity-score analysis was performed (robotic vs. laparoscopic and robotic vs. open approaches), and perioperative outcomes were compared between the matched groups.

RESULTS

The robotic approach was used in 287 patients (110 hospitals). Utilization of the robotic approach increased significantly on the national level from 0.8% in 2010 to 4.1% in 2016 (P<0.001). The number of hospitals performing a minimum of one robotic hepatectomy per year increased from 8 in 2010 to 35 in 2016. The median hospital length of stay was 4 days (IQR 3-6), 30-day readmission rate was 5%, and 30-day/90-day mortality rates were 3%/4%. Factors associated with using robotic approach were African-American race (95% CI 1.02-2.11), recent year of surgery (95% CI 1.11-1.32), HCC histology (95% CI 1.01-52.03), tumor size (95% CI 0.87-0.96), and early-stage tumor (Stage I-II, 95% CI 1.27-3.99). On propensity-matched analysis, there were no differences between robotic and open approaches (n=184 each group) in 30-day readmission (5% vs. 7%, P=0.651), 30-day mortality (2% vs. 4%, P=0.106), 90-day mortality (3% vs. 7%, P=0.080), or 5-year overall survival (58% vs. 43%, P=0.211). However, the robotic approach was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay (median: 4 vs. 6 days, P<0.001). There were no differences between matched groups of patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic approaches (n=182 in each group) in perioperative outcomes or length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

National use of robotic-assisted hepatectomy has increased by fivefold over the seven-year study period. It was associated with a shorter hospital length of stay compared to the open approach without compromising perioperative outcomes or survival.

National Trends and Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic-assisted Hepatectomy in the USA: A Propensity-score Matched Analysis from the National Cancer Database

BACKGROUND

A paucity of data exists on the national use of robotic hepatectomy. We assessed national trends and perioperative outcomes of robotic hepatectomy in the USA. In addition, factors associated with use of the robotic approach were analyzed.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients undergoing hepatectomy from 2010 to 2016. Patients undergoing total hepatectomy for transplant were excluded. Factors associated with the use of the robotic approach were assessed using logistic regression multivariable analysis. Propensity-score analysis was performed (robotic vs. laparoscopic and robotic vs. open approaches), and perioperative outcomes were compared between the matched groups.

RESULTS

The robotic approach was used in 287 patients (110 hospitals). Utilization of the robotic approach increased significantly on the national level from 0.8% in 2010 to 4.1% in 2016 (P<0.001). The number of hospitals performing a minimum of one robotic hepatectomy per year increased from 8 in 2010 to 35 in 2016. The median hospital length of stay was 4 days (IQR 3-6), 30-day readmission rate was 5%, and 30-day/90-day mortality rates were 3%/4%. Factors associated with using robotic approach were African-American race (95% CI 1.02-2.11), recent year of surgery (95% CI 1.11-1.32), HCC histology (95% CI 1.01-52.03), tumor size (95% CI 0.87-0.96), and early-stage tumor (Stage I-II, 95% CI 1.27-3.99). On propensity-matched analysis, there were no differences between robotic and open approaches (n=184 each group) in 30-day readmission (5% vs. 7%, P=0.651), 30-day mortality (2% vs. 4%, P=0.106), 90-day mortality (3% vs. 7%, P=0.080), or 5-year overall survival (58% vs. 43%, P=0.211). However, the robotic approach was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay (median: 4 vs. 6 days, P<0.001). There were no differences between matched groups of patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic approaches (n=182 in each group) in perioperative outcomes or length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

National use of robotic-assisted hepatectomy has increased by fivefold over the seven-year study period. It was associated with a shorter hospital length of stay compared to the open approach without compromising perioperative outcomes or survival.

The impact of body mass index on perioperative outcomes after robotic liver resection

High body mass index (BMI) is associated with other multiple comorbidities such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, steatohepatitis, liver cirrhosis, and cardiopulmonary diseases, which can impact the perioperative outcomes following liver resection. We aimed to study the impact of BMI on perioperative outcomes after robotic liver resection. All the patients undergoing robotic liver resection between 2013 and 2017 were prospectively followed. The patients were divided into three groups (BMI < 25, BMI 25-35, BMI > 35 kg/m²) for illustrative purposes. Demographic and perioperative outcome data were compared. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Thirty-eight patients underwent robotic hepatectomy, 73% were women, age was 58 (57 ± 17.6) years, and ASA class was 3 (3 ± 0.5). Indications for surgery were neoplastic lesions in 34 patients (89%), hemangioma in two patients (6%), fibrous mass in one patient (2.5%), and focal nodular hyperplasia in one patient (2.5%). 32% of the patients underwent right or left hemihepatectomy, 21% underwent sectionectomy, 5% underwent central hepatectomy and the reminder underwent non-anatomical liver resection. Operative time was 261 (254.6 ± 94.3) min. Estimated blood loss was 175 (276 ± 294.8) ml. Length of hospital stay was 3 (5 ± 4.9) days. By regression analysis of the three BMI groups, estimated blood loss, rate of postoperative complication, rate of conversion, need for transfusion, length of ICU stay, and length of hospital stay did not have a significant relationship with BMI. A total of five patients (13%) experience complications. Four patients had complications that were nonspecific to liver resection, including acute renal injury, respiratory failure, and enterocutaneous fistula. One patient had bile leak, treated with ERCP stenting. No mortality was seen in this study. Obesity should not dissuade surgeons from utilizing minimally invasive robotic approach for liver resection. Robotic technique is a safe and feasible in patients with high BMI. The impact of BMI on outcomes is insignificant.

Robotic Versus Open Minor Liver Resections of the Posterosuperior Segments: A Multinational, Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Minor liver resections of posterosuperior segments (1, 4A, 7, 8) are challenging to perform laparoscopically and are mainly performed using an open approach. We determined the feasibility of robotic resections of posterosuperior segments and compared short-term outcomes with the open approach.

METHODS

Data on open and robotic minor (≤ 3 segments) liver resections including the posterosuperior segments, performed between 2009 and 2016, were collected retrospectively from four hospitals. Robotic and open liver resections were compared, before and after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

In total, 51 robotic and 145 open resections were included. After matching, 31 robotic resections were compared with 31 open resections. Median hospital stay was 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3-7) for the robotic group, versus 8 days (IQR 6-10) for the open group (p < 0.001). Median operative time was 222 min (IQR 164-505) for robotic cases versus 231 min (IQR 190-301) for open cases (p = 0.668). Median estimated blood loss was 200 mL (IQR 100-400) versus 300 mL (IQR 125-750), respectively (p = 0.212). In the robotic group, one patient (3%) had a major complication, versus three patients (10%) in the open group (p = 0.612). Readmissions were similar-10% in the robotic group versus 6% in the open group (p > 0.99). There was no mortality in either group.

CONCLUSION

Minor robotic liver resections of the posterosuperior segments are safe and feasible and display a shorter length of stay than open resections in selected patients at expert centers.

Robotic-assisted right posterior segmentectomies for liver lesions: single-center experience of an evolutional method in left semi-lateral position

Despite the popularity of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for hepatectomy, limitations in the approach of the right posterior section of the liver remain. Although skills and approach techniques have been developed for hepatectomy of lesions in the posterior segments of the liver, most are performed laparoscopically and are limited to few experienced hands using rigid laparoscopic instruments. In this study, we tried a different approach area via the aid of a flexible robotic system. Since 2012, we have successfully completed more than 200 robotic hepatectomy procedures in our institution. Two different patient settings have been applied for right posterior segment lesions, including supine position as general setting in early cases and left semi-lateral decubitus setting in our later cases. The demographic data and perioperative outcomes between the two groups were analyzed in regard to different positioning. A total of 25 patients with right posterior segment lesions underwent robotic-assisted resection, 13 were placed in supine position and 12 in left semi-lateral position. The left semi-lateral group had significantly shorter operation time (306.0 versus 416.8 min, p = 0.023), less blood loss (203.9 versus 1092.3 mL, p = 0.030), and lower transfusion rates (0 versus 46.2%, p = 0.015). We described an evolutionary technique for robotic right posterior segmentectomies with the patient placed in left semi-lateral position. This method can be applied for most patients easily and is demonstrated as a safe and feasible approach in selected patients owing to its ability to overcome the difficulty of MIS hepatectomy for right posterior lesions.

Early recovery pathway for hepatectomy: data-driven liver resection care and recovery

In recent years, great progress has been made toward safer hepatobiliary surgical interventions. This has resulted in more widely available treatments for patients who in the past were ineligible for curative resection of primary liver tumors, liver metastases, and advanced biliary tumors. However, the rise in procedures has seen increasingly heterogeneous perioperative management, yielding strikingly disparate outcomes. A number of groups have attempted to standardize perioperative care in an effort to create enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) and provide clinicians with a dependable roadmap to success following hepatectomy. In the future, each aspect of perioperative care could be pre-ordained with emphasis on nutrition, anesthesia, prophylaxis, use of surgical drains, post-operative fluid and electrolyte management, and contact with physician extenders following discharge. This article reviews the data behind ERPs preceding and following hepatectomy. It includes primary data justifying practices in post-hepatectomy support. It also touches on the benefits of minimally invasive hepatectomy and offers future directions for research in peri-hepatectomy ERPs. Overall, this article seeks to formulate a pathway for practice based on data, with enough details to allow creation of rational order sets for efficient and superior practice.

Developing a robotic pancreas program: the Dutch experience

Robot-assisted surgery has been developed to overcome limitations of conventional laparoscopy aiming to further optimize minimally invasive surgery. Despite the fact that robotics already have been widely adopted in urology, gynecology, and several gastro-intestinal procedures, like colorectal surgery, pancreatic surgery lags behind. Due to the complex nature of the procedure, surgeons probably have been hesitant to apply minimally invasive techniques in pancreatic surgery. Nevertheless, the past few years pancreatic surgery has been catching up. An increasing number of procedures are being performed laparoscopically and robotically, despite it being a highly complex procedure with high morbidity and mortality rates. Since the complex nature and extensiveness of the procedure, the start of a robotic pancreatic program should be properly prepared and should comply with several conditions within high-volume centers. Robotic training plays a significant role in the preparation. In this review we discuss the different aspects of preparation when working towards the start of a robotic pancreas program against the background of our nationwide experience in the Netherlands.

Setting up a robotic hepatectomy program: a Western-European experience and perspective

Currently the majority of liver resections are performed via open resection. Nevertheless, minimally invasive liver surgery is gaining ground and conventional laparoscopy has proven to be beneficial in different fields of liver surgery compared to open resections. Still, conventional laparoscopy has a few downsides, from which straight instruments, 2-dimensional view and awkward ergonomics are the most obvious. The robotic surgical system is developed to overcome these limitations. It offers several advantages over conventional laparoscopy to optimize conditions in minimally invasive surgery: instruments are wristed with a wide range of motion and the view is 3-dimensional and magnified. With instruments with a greater range of motion than in laparoscopic surgery, the use of a robotic system potentially broadens indications for minimally invasive liver resection. Here, we discuss the steps of setting up a robotic hepatectomy program against the background of the initial experience at our institution.

Robotic hepatectomy: the Korean experience and perspective

Since the robotic surgical system was first introduced in 2005, the number of robotic surgery has been gradually increasing in Korea. The proportion of general robotic surgery is relatively higher compared to the western countries, but robotic liver resection is one of the most complex procedures among robotic general surgery. In this article, we introduce the development of robotic liver resection in Korea and describe our standardized techniques. The current data on robotic liver resection in our institute and other centers in Korea are also presented.

Robotic left lateral sectionectomy as stepwise approach for cirrhotic liver

Laparoscopy is considered the gold standard approach to perform left lateral sectionectomy (LLS). Furthermore, laparoscopy for cirrhotic patients can reduce intraoperative bleeding and postoperative morbidity when compared to open surgery. Although robotic surgery is feasible for both minor and major liver resections, it remains a work in progress and only few series reported this approach for cirrhotic patients. We reported two cases of 62-year-old men, both with hepatitis C virus and alcoholic cirrhosis, but with compensated liver functions (MELD 9-10 and Child-Pugh A5-A6). The patients were diagnosed with a single lesion in the left lobe. Robotic LLS was performed using intraoperative ultrasound to confirm findings of pre-operative image, and linear staplers were used to control left lobe inflow and outflow. The specimens were removed through Pfannenstiel incision in both patients. Both procedures followed the same standardization. The total operative time was 250 and 151 min with estimated blood loss of 100 and 70 ml, respectively, for cases 1 and 2. The procedures were made without Pringle maneuver and postoperative course was uneventful with hospital discharge at third and fourth postoperative day, respectively. The pathology examination confirmed a 2.5- and 4.5-cm hepatocellular carcinoma, respectively; both presented negative margins and cirrhosis. Robotic LLS seems to be as feasible as conventional laparoscopic approach as a stepwise procedure in a robotic learning curve for liver resection. Its benefits can also be offered to selected cirrhotic patients.

Robotic hepatectomy: initial experience of a single institution in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we report our initial experience with robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy at Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, from February 2013 to February 2015 were enrolled in this study. The difficulty level of operations was graded using a novel scoring system for laparoscopic hepatectomies.

RESULTS

During the two-year period, five consecutive robotic hepatectomies were performed (one left lateral sectionectomy, one non-anatomical segment II/III resection, one anatomical segment V resection with cholecystectomy, one extended right posterior sectionectomy and one non-anatomical segment V/VI resection). Two hepatectomies were performed for suspected hepatocellular carcinoma, two for solitary liver metastases and one for a large symptomatic haemangioma. The median age of the patients was 53 (range 38-66) years and the median tumour size was 2.5 (range 2.1-7.3) cm. The median total operation time was 340 (range 155-825) minutes and the median volume of blood loss was 300 (range 50-1,200) mL. There were no open conversions and no mortalities or major morbidities (> Clavien-Dindo Grade II). The difficulty level of the operations was graded as low in one case (Score 2), intermediate in three cases (Score 5, 6 and 6) and high in one case (Score 10). There was one minor morbidity, where the patient experienced Grade A bile leakage, which resolved spontaneously. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 5 (range 4-7) days.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience confirmed the feasibility and safety of robotic hepatectomy.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review and pooled analysis of minor and major hepatectomies

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been introduced to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopy. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the safety and feasibility for three subgroups of robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection: (i) minor resections of easily accessible segments: 2/3, 4B, 5, 6, (ii) minor resections of difficult located segments: 1, 4A, 7, 8 and (iii) major resections: ≥ 4 segments.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Twelve observational, mostly retrospective studies reporting on 363 patients were included. Data were pooled and analyzed. For subgroup (i) (n = 81) the weighted mean operative time was 215 ± 65 min. One conversion (1%) to laparotomy was needed. Weighted mean operative time for subgroup (ii) (n = 17) was 220 ± 60 min. No conversions were needed. For subgroup (iii) (n = 99) the weighted mean operative time was 405 ± 100 min. In this subgroup 8 robotic procedures (8%) were converted to open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Data show that robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection is feasible in minor resections of all segments and major resections. Larger, prospective studies are warranted to compare the possible advantages of robot-assisted surgery with conventional laparoscopy and open surgery.