Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open major hepatectomy for malignant liver tumors

BACKGROUND

Outcome data on robotic major hepatectomy are lacking. This study was undertaken to compare robotic vs. 'open' major hepatectomy utilizing patient propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

With institutional review board approval, we prospectively followed 183 consecutive patients who underwent robotic or 'open' major hepatectomy, defined as removal of three or more Couinaud segments. 42 patients who underwent 'open' approach were matched with 42 patients who underwent robotic approach. The criteria for PSM were age, resection type, tumor size, tumor type, and BMI. Survival was individually stratified for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and colorectal liver metastases (CLM). The data are presented as: median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Operative duration for the robotic approach was 293 (302 ± 131.5) vs. 280 (300 ± 115.6) minutes for the 'open' approach (p = NS). Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) was 200 (239 ± 183.6) vs. 300 (491 ± 577.1) ml (p = 0.01). There were zero postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III for the robotic approach and three for the 'open' approach (p = NS). ICU length of stay (LOS) was 1 (1 ± 0) vs. 2 (3 ± 2.0) days (p = 0.0001) and overall LOS was 4 (4 ± 3.3) vs. 6 (6 ± 2.7) days (p = 0.003). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, overall survival was similar for patients with IHCC and CLM regardless of the approach. However, patients with HCC who underwent robotic resection lived significantly longer (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Utilizing propensity score matched analysis, the robotic approach was associated with a lower EBL, shorter ICU LOS, and shorter overall LOS while maintaining similar operative duration and promoting survival in patients with HCC. We believe that the robotic approach is safe and efficacious and should be considered a preferred alternative approach for major hepatectomy.

Cost analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy: Is the robotic platform more expensive?

The robotic platform is perceived to be more expensive when compared to laparoscopic and open operations. We aimed to compare the perioperative costs of robotic vs. open hepatectomy for the treatment of liver tumors at our facility. We followed 370 patients undergoing robotic and open hepatectomy for benign and malignant liver tumors. Demographic, perioperative, cost and payment data were collected and analyzed. For illustrative purposes, the data were presented as median (mean ± SD). Two hundred sixty-seven robotic and 104 open hepatectomies were analyzed. There were no significant differences in perioperative variables between the two cohorts. The robotic group had a significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (135 [208 ± 244.8] vs 300 [427 ± 502.5] ml, p < 0.0001), smaller lesion size (4 [5 ± 3.6] vs 5[6 ± 4.9] cm, p = 0.0052), shorter length of stay (LOS) (4 [4 ± 3.4] vs 6[8 ± 5.7] days, p < 0.0001) and decreased 90-day mortality (3 vs 7 p = 0.0028). There were no significant differences between the two groups any cost variable. The open group received significantly higher reimbursement ($29,297 [62,962 ± 75,377.96] vs $19,102 [38,975 ± 39,362.11], p < 0.001) and profit ($5005 [30,981 ± 79,541.09] vs $- 6682 [6146 ± 40,949.65], p < 0.001). Robotic hepatectomy is associated with lower EBL, shorter LOS and less mortality. There was no greater cost associated with the robotic platform despite a reduced reimbursement and profit.

Robotic resection of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Institutional outcomes of bile duct cancer surgery using a minimally invasive technique

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to report our early experience and outcomes, the first in North America, of Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (EHC) resection with Roux-en Y Hepaticojejunostomy reconstruction via the robotic approach.

METHODS

With Institutional Review Board approval, 15 patients who underwent robotic resection of EHC were studied.

RESULTS

Patients were 74 (73 ± 8.9) years of age. There were 9 men and 6 women. Average body mass index was 24 (27 ± 6.3) kg·m^-2 . Mean & Median ASA class was 3. Median Tumor size was 2 (2 ± 1.3) cm. There were no intraoperative complications. Operative duration was 453 (443 ± 85.0) minutes and the estimated blood loss was 150 (182 ± 138.4) ml. No patient required admission to the intensive care unit. Hospital length of stay was 4 (6 ± 3.2) days. There was one patient with Clavien-Dindo Class 3 or greater complication. No mortality was seen in this series.

DISCUSSION

Robotic resection of EHC is safe, feasible, and reproducible with excellent clinical outcomes. Consequently, the robotic technique should be considered in some patients requiring EHC resection.

A Single Institution's Experience With Robotic Minor and Major Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection is gradually becoming the preferred technique to treat liver tumors due its salutary benefits when compared with traditional "open" method. While robotic technology improves surgeon dexterity to better perform complex operations, outcomes of robotic hepatectomy have not been adequately studied. We therefore describe our institutional experience with robotic minor and major hepatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively study all patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy from 2016 to 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients underwent robotic hepatectomy. 138 (63%) were major hepatectomies while 82 (37%) were minor hepatectomies. Median age was 63 (62 ± 13) years, 118 (54%) were female. 168 patients had neoplastic disease and 52 patients had benign disease. Lesion size in patients who had undergone minor hepatectomy was 2 (3 ± 2.5) cm, compared to 5 (5 ± 3.0) cm in patients who undergone major hepatectomy (P < .001). 97% of patients underwent R0 resections while none of the patients had R2 resection. Operative duration was 226 (260 ± 122.7) vs 282 (299 ± 118.7) minutes (P ≤ .05); estimated blood loss was 100 (163 ± 259.2) vs 200 (251 ± 246.7) mL (P ≤ .05) for minor and major hepatectomy, respectively. One patient had intraoperative bleeding requiring "open" conversion. Nine (4%) patients had experienced notable postoperative complications and 2 (1%) patients died postoperatively. Length of stay was 3 (5 ± 4.6) vs 4 (5 ± 2.8) days for minor vs major hepatectomy (P = .84). Reoperation and readmission rate for minor vs major hepatectomy was 1% vs 3% (P = .65) and 9% vs 10% (P = .81), respectively.

DISCUSSION

Robotic major hepatectomy is safe, feasible, and efficacious with excellent postoperative outcomes.

Robotic Central Hepatectomy for the Treatment of Gallbladder Carcinoma. Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Approach

Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is an uncommon but very aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis. Concerns for oncological inferiority related to the technical difficulties in performing laparoscopic portal lymphadenectomy discourage many surgeons to undertake this operation minimally invasively. With wide application of robotic technology to solve limitations of conventional laparoscopy, we describe our initial outcomes of robotic central hepatectomy and portal lymphadenectomy for gallbladder carcinoma in 15 consecutive patients. Data were presented as median (mean ± SD). Patients were 70 (73 ± 10.9) years old with BMI of 26 (26 ± 3.6) kg/m². Tumor size was 3(4 ± 1.9) cm. Operative duration was 222 (237 ± 85.7) minutes and estimated blood loss was 200 (222 ± 135.4) mL. There were no intraoperative complications and complete resection (R0) was obtained in nearly all patients. Postoperative complications were seen in two patients (bile leak (n = 1) and respiratory failure (n = 1)). Length of stay was 3 (4 ± 4.0) days without 30-day mortality. Robotic approach is safe and effective for the treatment of GBC.

Robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis of surgical margins and clinical outcomes from a western tertiary hepatobiliary center

This study was undertaken to determine surgical outcomes of patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to investigate the correlation between tumor distance to margin and perioperative outcomes, as well as overall survival (OS). To our knowledge, this study represents the largest series of robotic liver resection for HCC in North America. We retrospectively analyzed 58 consecutive patients who underwent robotic liver resection for HCC. Patients were further stratified by tumor distance to margin (≤ 1 mm, 1.1-9.9 mm, ≥ 10 mm) and their clinical outcomes including OS were compared. A majority of patients attained a greater than 1 mm tumor distance to margin (81%). There were no differences in tumor size between patient cohorts who attained ≤ 1 mm, 1.1-9.9 mm, and ≥ 10 mm margins. There were no differences in pre-, intra-, and postoperative outcomes among the three cohorts. Cost variables of interest were also similar. OS was highest in the > 10 mm margin cohort, and this was statistically significant at 3 and 5 years. Robotic HCC resection was associated with adequate tumor distance to margin. Wide margins ≥ 10 mm are associated with the best OS.

Robotic Complex Fundoplication in Patients at High-Risk to Fail

Background:

This study was undertaken to analyze our outcomes after robotic fundoplication for GERD in patients with failed antireflux procedures, with type IV (i.e., giant) hiatal hernias, or after extensive intra-abdominal surgery with mesh, and to compare our results to outcomes predicted by the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Surgical Risk Calculator and to national outcomes reported by NSQIP.

Methods:

100 patients undergoing robotic fundoplication for the aforementioned factors were prospectively followed.

Results:

100 patients, aged 67 (67 ± 10.3) years with body mass index (BMI) of 26 (25 ± 2.9) kg/m² underwent robotic fundoplication for failed antireflux fundoplications (43%), type IV hiatal hernias (31%), or after extensive intra-abdominal surgery with mesh (26%). Operative duration was 184 (196 ± 74.3) min with an estimated blood loss of 24 (51 ± 82.9) mL. Length of stay was 1 (2 ± 3.6) day. Two patients developed postoperative ileus. Two patients were readmitted within 30 days for nausea.

Nationally reported outcomes and those predicted by NSQIP were similar. When comparing our actual outcomes to predicted and national NSQIP outcomes, actual outcomes were superior for serious complications, any complications, pneumonia, surgical site infection, deep vein thrombosis, readmission, return to OR, and sepsis (P < 0.05); our actual outcomes were not worse for renal failure, deaths, cardiac complications, and discharge to a nursing facility.

Conclusions:

Our patients were not a selective group; rather they were more complex than reported in NSQIP. Most of our results after robotic fundoplication were superior to predicted and national outcomes. The utilization of the robotic platform for complex operations and fundoplications to treat patients with GERD is safe and efficacious.

Evaluating the Cost for Robotic vs "Non-Robotic" Transhiatal Esophagectomy

INTRODUCTION

This study was undertaken to analyze and compare the cost of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) to "non-robotic" THE (ie, "open" and laparoscopic).

METHODS

With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 82 patients who underwent THE. We analyzed clinical outcomes and perioperative charges and costs associated with THE. To compare profitability, the robotic approach was analyzed against "non-robotic" approaches of THE using F-test, Mann-Whitney U test/Student's t-test, and Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was reported as P ≤0.05. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

67 patients underwent the robotic approach, and 15 patients underwent "non-robotic" approach; 4 were "open" and 11 were laparoscopic. 79 patients had adenocarcinoma. Operative duration for robotic THE was 327 (331 ± 82.8) vs 213 (225 ± 62.0) minutes (P = 0.0001) and estimated blood loss was 150 (184 ± 136.1) vs 300 (476 ± 708.7) mL (P = 0.0001). Length of stay was 7 (11 ± 11.8) vs 8 (12 ± 10.6) days (P = 0.76). 16 patients had post-operative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of three or more. Hospital charges for robotic THE were $197,405 ($259,936 ± 203,630.8) vs "non-robotic" THE $159,588 ($201,565 ± $185,763.5) (P = 0.31). Cost of care for robotic THE was $34,822 ($48,844 ± $45,832.8) vs "non-robotic" THE was $23,939 ($39,386 ± $44,827.2) (P = 0.47). Payment received for robotic THE was $14,365 ($30,003 ± $40,874.7) vs "non-robotic" THE was $28,080 ($41,087 ± $44,509.1) (P = 0.41). 15% of robotic operations were profitable vs 13% of "non-robotic" operations.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients were predominantly older overweight men who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The robotic approach had increased operative time and minimal blood loss. More than a fourth of operations included concomitant procedures. Patients were discharged approximately one week after THE. Overall, the robotic approach has no apparent significant differences in charges, cost, or profitability.

A propensity score matched analysis of robotic and open hepatectomy for treatment of liver tumors. Clinical outcomes, oncological survival, and costs comparison

Minimally invasive robotic hepatectomy is gaining popularity with a faster rate of adoption when compared to laparoscopic approach. Technical advantages brought by the robotic surgical system facilitate a transition from open to minimally invasive technique in hepatic surgery. Published matched data examining the results of robotic hepatectomy using the open approach as a benchmark are still limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, survival, and costs between robotic and open hepatectomy undertaken in our tertiary hepatobiliary center. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 285 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for neoplastic liver diseases between 2012 and 2020. Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open hepatectomy was conducted by 1:1 ratio. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The matching process assigned 49 patients to each arm, open and robotic hepatectomy. There were no differences in R1 resection rates (4% vs 4%; p = 1.00). Differences in perioperative variables between open and robotic hepatectomy included postoperative complications (16% vs 2%; p = 0.02) and length of stay (LOS) [6 (7 ± 5.0) vs 4 (5 ± 4.0) days; p = 0.002]. There were no differences between open and robotic hepatectomy regarding postoperative hepatic insufficiency (10% vs 2%; p = 0.20). No difference was seen in long-term survival outcomes. While there were no differences in costs, robotic hepatectomy was associated with lower reimbursement [$20,432 (39,191 ± 41,467.81) vs $33,190 (67,860 ± 87,707.81); p = 0.04] and lower contribution margin [$-11,229 (3902 ± 42,572.43) vs $8768 (34,690 ± 89,759.56); p = 0.03]. Compared to open approach, robotic hepatectomy robotic offers lower rates of postoperative complications, shorter LOS and similar costs, while not compromising long-term oncological outcomes. Robotic hepatectomy may eventually become the preferred approach in minimally invasive treatment of liver tumors.

Analysis of survival outcomes following robotic hepatectomy for malignant liver diseases

BACKGROUND

Despite increased adoption of the robotic platform for complex hepatobiliary resections for malignant disease, little is known about long-term survival outcomes. This is the first study to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, and short- and long-term survival rates after a robotic hepatectomy for five major malignant disease processes.

METHODS

A prospectively collected database of patients who underwent a robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease was reviewed. Pathologies included colorectal liver metastases (CLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), Klatskin tumor, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and gallbladder cancer (GC). Data are presented as median (mean ​± ​standard deviation) for illustrative purposes.

RESULTS

Of the 210 consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease, 75 (35 ​%) had CLM, 69 (33 ​%) had HCC, 27 (13 ​%) had Klatskin tumor, 20 (10 ​%) had IHCC, and 19 (9 ​%) had GC. Patients were 66 (65 ​± ​12.4) years old with a BMI of 29 (29 ​± ​6.5) kg/m2. R0 resection was achieved in 91 ​%, and 65 ​% underwent a major hepatectomy. Postoperative major complication rate was 6 ​%, length of stay was four (5 ​± ​4.3) days, and 30-day readmission rate was 17 ​%. Survival at 1, 3, and 5-years were 93 ​%/75 ​%/72 ​% for CLM, 84 ​%/71 ​%/64 ​% for HCC, 73 ​%/55 ​%/55 ​% for Klatskin tumor, 80 ​%/69 ​%/69 ​% for IHCC, 79 ​%/65 ​%/65 ​% for GC.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests a favorable 5-year overall survival benefit with use of the robotic platform in hepatic resection for colorectal metastases, hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Klatskin tumor, and gallbladder cancer. The robotic platform facilitates fine dissection in complex hepatobiliary operations, with a high rate of R0 resections and excellent perioperative clinical outcomes.

Validity of the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification system for robotic liver resection

BACKGROUND

The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) classification system is one of several widely accepted difficulty scoring systems for laparoscopic liver resections. Nothing is yet known about the applicability of this system for robotic liver resections.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 359 patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies between 2016 and 2022. Resections were classified into low, intermediate, and high difficulty level. Data were analyzed utilizing ANOVA of repeated measures, 3 x 2 contingency tables, and area under the receiving operating characteristic (AUROC) curves. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Of the 359 patients, 117 were classified as low-difficulty level, 92 as intermediate, and 150 as high. The IMM system correlates well with tumor size (p = 0.002). The IMM system was a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes including operative duration (p<0.001) and estimated blood loss (EBL) (p<0.001). The IMM system also showed a strong calibration for predicting an open conversion (AUC=0.705) and intraoperative complications (AUC=0.79). In contrast, the IMM system was a poor predictor of postoperative complications, mortality, and readmission.

CONCLUSION

The IMM system provides a strong correlation with intraoperative, but not postoperative outcomes. A dedicated difficulty scoring system should be developed for robotic hepatectomy.

Laparo-Endoscopic Single Site (LESS) cosmesis: Patients perception of body image distortion after LESS surgery

BACKGROUND

Relative to conventional laparoscopy, Laparo-Endoscopic Single Site (LESS) surgery has been associated with improved cosmesis. This study investigated preoperative and postoperative patient perceptions of LESS surgery and what factors may affect those perceptions.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LESS Surgery were queried before and after their operations. Body image and other factors were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively in 881unselected patients undergoing LESS surgery utilizing Likert scale questionnaires. Responses were collated and analyzed. Data are reported as median (mean ± SD), where appropriate.

RESULTS

881 patients studied had a median age of 59 (57 ± 15.3) years and had a median Body Mass Index of 27 (28 ± 6.2) kg/m². 65% were women. 343 (39%) had undergone a previous abdominal operation(s). Prior to LESS surgery, patients reported neutral body image scores and rated their overall appearance satisfaction as 40% (37% ± 30.7) on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). 68% were unwilling to undergo LESS surgery if it involved more risk relative to traditional laparoscopy as safety was their number one concern. Postoperatively, patients reported a significant improvement in body image perception and safety was no longer their foremost concern.

CONCLUSION

Preoperatively, patients are most concerned with safety (e.g. risk) with secondary concerns of cost and pain but they were less concerned with their appearance. Postoperatively, safety is much, much less of an issue (because it has been achieved) and appearance is more paramount with significant improvements in their self-assessed appearance. With LESS surgery patients indicate a high level of satisfaction with cosmesis.

Analysis of Oncological Outcomes After Robotic Liver Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Concerns regarding minimally invasive liver resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) include inadequate resection margins and inferior long-term overall survival (OS) when compared to an "open" approach. Limited data exists to address these issues. We aimed to compare perioperative variables, tumor distance to margin, and long-term outcomes after IHCC resection based on surgical approach (robotic vs open) in our hepatobiliary center to address these concerns.

METHODS

With IRB approval, 34 patients who underwent robotic or open hepatectomy for IHCC were prospectively followed. Patients were stratified by tumor distance to resection margin (≤1 mm, 1.1-9.9 mm, ≥10 mm) for illustrative purposes and by approach (robotic vs open). Where appropriate, regression analysis and cox model of proportional hazards were utilized. Survival was stratified by margin distance and approach utilizing Kaplan-Meier curves. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Patients undergoing robotic vs open hepatectomy had similar demographics. Patients undergoing the robotic approach had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL). Tumor distance to margin between the two approaches were similar (P = .428). Median OS between the two approaches was similar in patients of any margin distance.In the subgroup analysis by margin distance, the robotic approach yielded less EBL for patients in the 1.1-9.9 mm and ≥10 mm margin groups, and a shorter ICU length of stay for patients with ≥10 mm margin.

DISCUSSION

Similar margins were attained via either approach, translating into oncological non-inferiority of robotic IHCC resection. Robotic approach for the treatment of IHCC should be considered an alternative to an open approach.

Simultaneous Resection of Colorectal Carcinoma and Hepatic Metastases is Safe and Effective: Examining the Role of the Robotic Approach

BACKGROUNDS AND OBJECTIVES

Up to 50% of patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) present with liver metastases (CLM) throughout their course. Complete resection of both sites provides the only chance for cure. Either a staged or simultaneous resection is feasible. The latter avoids delays in adjuvant systemic chemotherapy but may increase technical complexity and perioperative complications. We aim to evaluate our initial outcomes of simultaneous CRC and CLM resections with a focus on the robotic technique.

METHOD

With institutional review board approval, we followed 26 consecutive patients who underwent simultaneous/concomitant liver and colorectal resection. Major liver resection is defined as resection of ≥3 contiguous Couinaud segments. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Patients were 64 (63 ± 14.0) years old. Body mass index was 29 (29 ± 5.7) kg/m². 54% of patients had prior abdominal operation(s). A majority of patients were >ASA class III (73%), underwent major liver resection (62%) with robotic approach (77%). In the robotic cohort, there were no unplanned conversions to open. Estimated blood loss was 150 (210 ± 181.8) ml. Total operative duration was 446 (463 ± 93.6) minutes. Negative margins (R0) were obtained in all patients. Postoperative complication of Clavien-Dindo≥3 occurred in three patients, including one requiring reoperation with end ileostomy for anastomotic leak. Length of stay was 5 (6 ± 3.5) days. Three patients were readmitted within 30 days after discharge, none for reoperation. There was no 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

Our cohort of concomitant CRC and CLM resection demonstrates safety and efficacy via both the open and robotic approach.

The Effect of Body Mass Index on Patients' Outcomes Following Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy and Splenectomy

Background and Objectives

Obesity has increased over the past decade, yet the correlation among body mass index (BMI), surgical outcomes, and the robotic platform are not well established. This study was undertaken to measure the impact of elevated BMI on outcomes after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy.

Methods

We prospectively followed patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Regression analysis was utilized to identify significant relationships with BMI. For illustrative purposes, the data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Significance was determined at p ≤ 0.05.

Results

A total of 122 patients underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Median age was 68 (64 ± 13.3), 52% were women, and BMI was 28 (29 ± 6.1) kg/m². One patient was underweight (< 18.5 kg/m²), 31 had normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m²), 43 were overweight (25-29.9 kg/m²), and 47 were obese (≥ 30 kg/m²). BMI was inversely correlated with age (p = 0.05) but there was no correlation with sex (p = 0.72). There were no statistically significant relationships between BMI and operative duration (p = 0.36), estimated blood loss (p = 0.42), intraoperative complications (p = 0.64), and conversion to open approach (p = 0.74). Major morbidity (p = 0.47), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (p = 0.45), length of stay (p = 0.71), lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.79), tumor size (p = 0.26), and 30-day mortality (p = 0.31) were related to BMI.

Conclusion

BMI has no significant effect on patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. BMI greater than 30 kg/m² should not defer proceeding with robotic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. Limited empirical evidence exists in the literature regarding patients with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m², and thus any proposed operative intervention should invoke sufficient planning and preparation.

Does metabolic syndrome affect perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy? A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Metabolic syndrome is a known risk factor for postoperative complications after general surgical procedures. Literature analyzing perioperative outcomes of patients with metabolic syndrome undergoing a minimally invasive hepatectomy is limited. We sought to investigate if metabolic syndrome significantly impacts the perioperative course and outcomes of patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

With IRB, we prospectively followed patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy from 2016 through 2020. A 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was applied to patients with and without metabolic syndrome. Demographic and clinical data were analyzed for those cohorts before and after PSM. Metabolic syndrome was defined as BMI ≥ 28.8 kg/m², diabetes, and hypertension.

RESULTS

A total of 272 patients underwent robotic hepatectomy, 39 (14%) of whom had metabolic syndrome. After performing PSM, we ended up with 74 patients, 37 in each cohort, 28% of them had liver cirrhosis. Patients with metabolic syndrome had higher BMI (34 ± 5.6 vs. 28 ± 5.9 kg/m², p < 0.001) and MELD scores (10 ± 4.5 vs. 8 ± 3.2, p < 0.001) compared to patients without metabolic syndrome. Additionally, patients with metabolic syndrome had an increased incidence of liver cirrhosis (33% vs. 9%, p = 0.0002). Following PSM, BMI (34 ± 5.7 vs. 26 ± 4.4 kg/m², p < 0.001) was the only preoperative variables associated with metabolic syndrome. There were no statistical differences before and after PSM between patients with and without metabolic syndrome in terms of intraoperative metrics including operative time, blood loss, conversion to 'open,' and intraoperative complications. All postoperative outcomes metrics before and after PSM did not correlate with the presence or absence of metabolic syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Metabolic syndrome had no impact on intra- or postoperative metrics, complications, or outcomes after robotic hepatectomy. We believe that the robotic approach may mitigate the adverse effects of metabolic syndrome for patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy.

Tampa Difficulty Score: a novel scoring system for difficulty of robotic hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Difficulty scoring system (DSS) has been established for laparoscopic hepatectomy and serves as useful tools to predict difficulty and guide preoperative planning. Despite increased adoption of robotics and its unique technical characteristics compared with laparoscopy, no DSS currently exists for robotic hepatectomy. We aimed to introduce a new DSS for robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

A total of 328 patients undergoing a robotic hepatectomy were identified. After removing the first 24 major and 30 minor hepatectomies using cumulative-sum analysis, 274 patients were included in this study. Relevant clinical variables underwent linear regression using operative time and/or estimated blood loss (EBL) as markers for operative difficulty. Score distribution was analyzed to develop a difficulty-level grouping system.

RESULTS

Of the 274 patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; tumor location, size, and type; the extent of parenchymal resection; the need for portal lymphadenectomy; and the need for biliary resection with hepaticojejunostomy were significantly associated with operative time and/or EBL. They were used to develop the difficulty scores from 1 to 49. Grouping system results were group 1 (less demanding/beginner), 1 to 8 (n = 39); group 2 (intermediate), 9 to 24 (n = 208); group 3 (more demanding/advanced), 25 to 32 (n = 17); and group 4 (most demanding/expert), 33 to 49 (n = 10). When stratified by group, age, previous abdominal operation, Child-Pugh score, operative duration, EBL, major resection, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and length of stay were significantly different among the groups.

CONCLUSION

In addition to established variables in laparoscopic systems, new factors such as the need for portal lymphadenectomy and biliary resection specific to the robotic approach have been identified in this new robotic DSS. Internal and external validations are the next steps in maturing this robotic DSS.

Robotic Resection of Retroperitoneal Perinephric Tumor. Application of Intraurethral Indocyanine Green Injection As an Adjunct to Avoid Ureteral Injury

The majority of retroperitoneal mass excision is performed via conventional "open" laparotomy due to concerns of technical difficulty and adequate oncological margins in cases of a malignant sarcoma. A very few cases of minimally invasive resection by laparoscopy had been reported in the literature. Despite the rapid adoption of robotic technology in general surgery and surgical oncology, the robotic technique has not been applied for this pathology. We discussed a complete resection of a large perinephric tumor using a robotic platform. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report the robotic technique of retroperitoneal tumor excision, highlighting the application and usefulness of intraurethral indocyanine green (ICG) injection.