Pure laparoscopic versus robotic liver resections: Multicentric propensity score-based analysis with stratification according to difficulty scores

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Various Settings: An International Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study of 10.075 Patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings.

BACKGROUND

Clear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined.

METHODS

In this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: (1) minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or (2) posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and (3) major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥grade 2, postoperative bile leak ≥grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+.

RESULTS

Among the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After propensity score matching, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs 71.8%, P < 0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs 50.4%, P = 0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs 47.1%, P < 0.001), blood loss (100 vs 200 milliliters, P < 0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs 7.9%, P = 0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P < 0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs 25.7%, P < 0.001), and microscopically irradical resection margins (10.1% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.015), and shorter operative times (190 vs 210 minutes, P = 0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared with LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n = 431 per group, 75.9% vs 71.2%, P = 0.184) and major resections (n = 321 per group, 72.9% vs 67.5%, P = 0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

While both produce excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.

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.

The State of Systematic Therapies in Clinic for Hepatobiliary Cancers

Hepatobiliary cancer (HBC) includes hepatocellular carcinoma and biliary tract carcinoma (cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma), and its morbidity and mortality are significantly correlated with disease stage. Surgery is the cornerstone of curative therapy for early stage of HBC. However, a large proportion of patients with HBC are diagnosed with advanced stage and can only receive systemic treatment. According to the results of clinical trials, the first-line and second-line treatment programs are constantly updated with the improvement of therapeutic effectiveness. In order to improve the therapeutic effect, reduce the occurrence of drug resistance, and reduce the adverse reactions of patients, the treatment of HBC has gradually developed from single-agent therapy to combination. The traditional therapeutic philosophy proposed that patients with advanced HBC are only amenable to systematic therapies. With some encouraging clinical trial results, the treatment concept has been revolutionized, and patients with advanced HBC who receive novel systemic combination therapies with multi-modality treatment (including surgery, transplant, TACE, HAIC, RT) have significantly improved survival time. This review summarizes the treatment options and the latest clinical advances of HBC in each stage and discusses future direction, in order to inform the development of more effective treatments for HBC.

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.

Defining and predicting textbook outcomes for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: analysis of factors improving achievement of desired postoperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

Definition of textbook outcome (TO), defined as a single indicator combining the most advantageous short-term outcomes, is still lacking for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC). The primary endpoint of the present study is to analyze the rate of achievement of a disease-specific TO for PHC within a high volume tertiary referral centre. Secondary endpoints are to identify predictive factors of TO-achievement and to analyze the impact of achieving TO on long-term results.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2022, a total of 237 patients undergoing combined liver and biliary resection for PHC at tertiary referral centre were included. Disease-specific TO were defined as: no 90-day mortality, no postoperative complications, no readmission, no intraoperative transfusions and resection margins. A logistic regression model was developed to identify predictors associated with TO-achievement. Kaplan-Meier curves were designed to determine TO's impact on survival.

RESULTS

TO was achieved in 60 (25.3%) patients. At multivariate logistic regression, preoperative biliary drainage [odds ratio (OR) 2.90 (1.13-3.40), P =0.026], high prognostic nutritional index [OR 7.11 (6.71-9.43), P =0.007[ and minimally invasive approach [OR 3.57 (2.31-3.62), P =0.013] were identified as independent predictors of TO. High ASA score [OR 0.38 (0.17-0.82), P =0.013] decreased the odds of TO. A significant improvement in both overall survival and disease-free survival was associated to TO fulfilment.

CONCLUSION

Since the achievement of TO correlates with better disease-free and overall survival, every effort should be made to ameliorate modifiable aspects prior to surery: management within referral centres with dedicated experience in biliary tract cancer and preoperative optimization protocol may positively contribute to improve postoperative outcomes, increasing the chance to obtain TO. Moreover, the implementation of advanced minimally invasive programs plays as well.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for liver malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

How different surgical procedures, including the robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), can affect the prognosis of patients with liver malignancies is unclear. Thus, in this study, we compared the effects of RLR and LLR on the surgical and oncological outcomes in patients with liver malignancies through propensity score-matched cohort studies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched using Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords from inception until May 31, 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. The mean difference with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used for analysis of continuous variables; the risk ratio with 95% CI was used for dichotomous variables; and the hazard ratio with 95% CI was used for survival-related variables. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five high-quality cohort studies with 986 patients were included (370 and 616 cases for RLR and LLR, respectively). In terms of surgical outcomes, there were no significant differences in the operation time, conversion rate to open surgery, overall complication rate, major complication rate, and length of hospital stay between the RLR and LLR groups. In terms of oncological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Surgical and oncological outcomes are comparable between RLR and LLR on patients with liver malignancies. Therefore, the benefits of applying RLR in patients with liver malignancies need to be further explored.

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.

Propensity-score Matched and Coarsened-exact Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study of 4822 Cases

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH).

BACKGROUND

Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047].

CONCLUSIONS

This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.

Current progress in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery at a high-volume center

There has been steady growth in the adoption of robotic HPB procedures world-wide over the past 20 years, but most of this increase has occurred only recently. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of robotics has been in the United States, with very few, select centers of adoption in Italy, South Korea, and Brazil, to name a few. We began our robotic HPB program in 2008, well before almost all other centers in the world, with the most notable exception of Giullianotti and colleagues. Our program began gradually, with smaller cases carefully selected to optimize the strengths of the original robotic platform and included complex biliary and pancreatic resections. We performed the first reported series of choledochojejunostomy for benign biliary strictures and first series of completion cholecystectomies. We began performing robotic distal pancreatectomies and longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomies, reporting our early experience for each of these procedures. Over time we progressed to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies. Initially, these were performed with planned conversions until we were able to optimize efficiency. Now we have performed over 200 robotic whipples, reaching a 100% robotic completion rate by 2020. Finally, we have added robotic major hepatectomies, including resections for hilar cholangiocarcinoma to our repertoire. Since the program began, we have performed over 1600 robotic HPB cases. Outcomes from our program have shown superior lymph node harvest, lower DGE rates, shorter hospitalizations, and fewer rehab admissions with similar overall complications to open and laparoscopic procedures, signifying that over time a robotic HPB program is not only feasible but advantageous as well.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections: propensity-matched comparison of two-center experience

BACKGROUND

The advantages of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) are still debated. This study compares the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) liver resections in propensity score matched cohorts.

METHODS

Data regarding minimally invasive liver resections in two liver surgery units were retrospectively reviewed. A propensity score matched analysis (1:1 ratio) identified two groups of patients with similar characteristics. Intra- and post-operative outcomes were then compared. The difficulty of MILS was based on the IWATE criteria.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-nine patients underwent MILS between January 2014 and December 2021 (LLR = 192; RLR = 77). Propensity score matching identified 148 cases (LLR = 74; RLR = 74) consisting of compensated cirrhotic patients (100%) underwent non-anatomic resection of IWATE 1-2 class (90.5%) for a solitary tumor < 5 cm in diameter (93.2%). In such patients, RLRs had shorter operative time (227 vs. 250 min, p = 0.002), shorter Pringle's cumulative time (12 vs. 28 min, p < 0.0001), and less blood loss (137 vs. 209 cc, p = 0.006) vs. LLRs. Conversion rate was nihil (both groups). In RLRs compared to LLRs, R0 rate (93 vs. 96%, p > 0.71) and major morbidity (4.1 vs. 5.4%, p > 0.999) were similar, without post-operative mortality. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (6.2 vs. 6.6, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study supports the non-inferiority of RLR over LLR. In compensated cirrhotic patients underwent resection of low-to-intermediate difficulty for a solitary nodule < 5 cm, RLR was faster, with less blood loss despite the shorter hilar clamping, and required shorter hospitalization compared to LLR.

Robotic Approach for Lymphadenectomy in Biliary Tumors: The Missing Ring Between the Benefits of Laparoscopic and Reproducibility of Open Approach?

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the oncological adequacy of lymphadenectomy (LND) for biliary tumors and surgical outcomes of resections performed using robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches and to compare the techniques within a weighted propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND

The need to perform formal LND is considered a limit for the applicability of minimally invasive liver surgery.

METHODS

Overall, 25 robotic resections with LND (2021-2022) from a single-center constituted the study group (Rob group), matched by inverse probability treatment weighting with 97 laparoscopic (Lap group) and 113 open (Open group) procedures to address the primary endpoint. A "per-period" analysis was performed comparing the characteristics and outcomes of the Rob group with the first 25 consecutive laparoscopic liver resections with associated LND (LapInit group).

RESULTS

Minimally invasive techniques performed equally well regarding the number of harvested nodes, blood transfusions, functional recovery, length of stay, and major morbidity and provided a short-term benefit to patients when compared with the open technique. A better performance of the robotic approach over laparoscopic approach (and both approaches over the open technique) was recorded for patients achieving LND with retrieval of >6 nodes. The open approach reduced both the operative time and time for LND, and robotic surgery performed better than laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive techniques are excellent tools for the management of LND in patients with biliary tumors, showing feasibility, and oncological adequacy. Robotics could contribute to the large-scale diffusion of these procedures with a high profile of complexity.

Robot Assisted Laparoscopy Combined with Thoracoscopy in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Inferior Vena Cava Tumor Thrombus

BACKGROUND

Facing the 0.7-22% incidence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus (IVCTT), there are usually no obvious symptoms and signs when the tumor thrombus completely blocks the IVCTT in the early stage.1.J Gastroenterol. 29:41-46;2.Hepatogastroenterology. 41:154-157;3.Clin Cardiol. 19:211-213; Once diagnosed, it is the end-stage manifestation without unified treatment for HCC with IVCTT, bringing poor prognosis. Without active treatment, the median survival time is only 3 months. Previous scholars believed that patients with IVCTT should not adopt active surgical treatment. With the advance of technology, active surgical treatment has significantly lengthened the survival time with IVCTT.4.Ann Surg Oncol. 20:914-22;5.World J Surg Oncol. 11:259;6.Hepatogastroenterology. 58:1694-1699; However, for patients with HCC and IVCTT, open surgery was always selected in the past by opening the diaphragm through the combined thoracoabdominal incision to block the superior and subhepatic vena cava, leading long incision and huge trauma. With the development of minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopy thoracoscopy has showed great advantages in the treatment of HCC with IVCTT. A patient underwent laparoscopic with thoracoscopic resection of tumor and cancer thrombectomy after neoadjuvant therapy and then survived after follow-up.7.Ann Surg Oncol. 29:5548-5549 Therefore, it used as a first reported case of robot-assisted laparoscopic with thoracoscopic treatment of HCC complicated inferior vena cava cancer thrombectomy.

METHODS

A 41-year-old man had a liver space-occupying lesion discovered during his medical examination 2 months ago. The diagnosis of HCC with IVCTT was confirmed by enhanced CT and biopsy specimen in the first hospitalization. A combination of TACE, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy plan was applied for the patient after multidisciplinary treatment (MDT). Specifically, Lenvatinib was taken orally 8 mg daily and 160 mg of toripalimab was given intravenously every 3 weeks. His reexamination CT showed that the tumor was more advanced after 2 months of treatment. The surgical operation was performed based on comprehensive consideration. The patient was placed in the left lateral decubitus position, and a thoracoscopic prefabricated the inferior vena cava above diaphragm blocking device was pulled out of the incision. The patient was switched to a supine position with the head of the bed raised 30 degrees. The gallbladder was removed first after entering the abdominal cavity, then prefabricated first hilar blocking band. Sterile rubber glove edges and hemo-lock were used to fabricate the blocking device. The novel hepatic inflow occlusion device is a safe, reliable, and convenient technique that is associated with favorable perioperative outcomes and low risk of conversion.8.Surg Endosc. 34:2807-2813 The liver along the middle hepatic vein was cut to expose the anterior wall of the inferior vena cava, then prefabricated posterior inferior vena cava blocking belt and right hepatic vein blocking belt. Finally, the first portal of liver, right hepatic vein, retrohepatic inferior vena cava, and inferior vena cava above diaphragm were blocked in sequence, so that accomplishing tumor resection and thrombectomy of inferior vena cava. It should be emphasized that before the inferior vena cava is completely sutured, the retrohepatic inferior vena cava blocking device should be released to allow blood flow to flush the inferior vena cava. Moreover, transesophageal ultrasound is required to real-time monitor inferior vena cava blood flow and IVCTT. Some images of the operation are shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 (a) Layout of the trocar. ①Make a 3cm small incision between the right anterior axillary line and the midaxillary line, parallel to the fourth and fifth intercostal spaces; a puncture hole in the next intercostal space for endoscope; ②2cm above the intersection of umbilicus horizontal line and axillary front line; ③Intersection of right clavicular midline and umbilical horizontal line; ④Superior margin of umbilicus; ⑤The midpoint of '④ & ⑥'; ⑥2cm below the intersection of left clavicular midline and left costal margin. (b) Prefabricated the inferior vena cava blocking device above diaphragm by thoracoscopic. (c) The smooth tumor thrombus protruding into the inferior vena cava RESULTS: It took 475 min to finish the operation, and the loss of blood was estimated as 300 ml. The patient was discharged from hospital 8 days after the operation without postoperative complication. HCC was confirmed by postoperative pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot surgical system reduces the limitations of laparoscopic surgery by offering a stable three-dimensional view, 10-times-enlarged image, restored eye-hand axis, and excellent dexterity with the endowristed instruments, which has several advantages over open operation such as diminished blood loss, reduced morbidity, and shorter hospital stay.9.Chirurg. 88:7-11;10.BMC Surg. 11:2;11.Minerva Chir. 64:135-146; Furthermore, it could favor the operative feasibility of difficult resections reducing the conversion rate and playing a role to extend the indications of liver resection to minimally invasive approaches. It may provide new curative options in patients deemed inoperable with conventional surgery, such as HCC with IVCTT.12.Biosci Trends. 16:178-188;13.J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 29:1108-1123.

Ten years of Italian mini-invasiveness: the I Go MILS registry as a tool of dissemination, characterization and networking

Purposes of this study are to evaluate the main changes that have occurred in the Italian MILS activity in the last decade in terms of indications, approaches and outcomes as reported in the national registry and to provide specific details on the main areas of development of MILS. Data from patients undergoing minimally invasive liver resections at centers included in the I Go MILS Registry from its start-up (November 2014) to March 2023 were analyzed for the purposes of this study. The registry is intention-to-treat and prospective. Global recruitment trends stratified by indication to surgery and type of approach were analysed. 7413 MILS procedures were performed across all centers (median number of procedures per center: 63). Years (2020-2023) displayed a significantly higher proportion of treated patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (38.2% vs. 28.9% and 33.9%, p < 0.001) and cholangiocarcinoma (6.7% vs. 6.5% and 4.2%, p < 0.001) compared to the preceding triennial periods. Additionally, technical complexity demonstrated an increased prominence in Years (2019-2023) with a significantly higher percentage of grade III cases compared to the earlier periods (39.3% vs. 21.7% and 25.6%, p < 0.001). Annual case trends focusing on laparoscopic and robotic techniques demonstrated a steadily increase in the use of these techniques for complex case mix of indications. Overall, attitude and attention to MILS approach has evolved, so that currently indications to hepatic mini-invasiveness have expanded and surgical technique has been refined: Areas mainly involved in increasing growth trends are hepatocellular carcinoma, possible applications of MILS in transplant setting, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and robotic approach.

Application of Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging for Tumor Localization during Robot-Assisted Hepatectomy

The efficacy of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging for visualizing hepatic tumors in robot-assisted hepatectomy (RAH) should be validated. This study included 30 consecutive patients with 33 collective tumors who underwent RAH. ICG was administered at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg before surgery. ICG fluorescence imaging was performed intraoperatively. In total, 28 patients with a combined total of 31 tumors underwent ICG fluorescence imaging. Further, 26 (84%) tumors were identified on hepatic surfaces prior to hepatic transection. The fluorescence signals of eight tumors were detected on hepatic raw surfaces during parenchymal dissection, thereby enabling surgeons to adjust the transection planes to ensure appropriate surgical margins. One patient with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma tested positive for cancer cells at the dissected stump of the bile duct. However, in all patients in whom ICG fluorescence imaging was used, negative surgical margins were achieved at the site of the dissected hepatic parenchyma. On the other hand, one of two patients with ICG contraindications had a positive surgical margin surrounding the dissected hepatic parenchyma. The median operative time and volume of blood loss were 259 (range: 124-594) min and 150 (range: 1-1150) mL, respectively. ICG fluorescence imaging facilitates the easy identification of hepatic tumors, even in RAH. Hence, it can be useful for confirming appropriate surgical margins.

Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Right or Extended Right Hemi Hepatectomy Following Modulation of the Future Liver Remnant in Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review

Background: Major hepatectomies after future liver remnant (FLR) modulation are technically demanding procedures, especially when performed as minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to assess current evidence regarding the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomies after FLR modulation. Materials and Methods: The Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for studies involving laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomies after FLR modulation, from their inception to December 2021. Two reviewers independently selected eligible articles and assessed their quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were extracted from the included studies and summarized. Results: Six studies were included. In these studies, the median length of stay after the second stage ranged from 4.5 to 15.5 days and postoperative complication rates between 4.5% and 42.8%. Overall, 7.4% of patients developed liver failure, and 90-day mortality occurred in 3.2% of patients. The R0 resection rate was 93.5%. Only one study reported long-term outcomes, describing comparable 3-year overall survival rates following laparoscopic and open surgery (80% versus 54%, P = .154). Conclusions: The current evidence is scarce, but it suggests that in experienced centers, laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomy, following FLR modulation, is a safe and feasible procedure.

Impact of shifting from laparoscopic to robotic surgery during 600 minimally invasive pancreatic and liver resections

BACKGROUND

Many centers worldwide are shifting from laparoscopic to robotic minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary resections (MIS-HPB) but large single center series assessing this process are lacking. We hypothesized that the introduction of robot-assisted surgery was safe and feasible in a high-volume center.

METHODS

Single center, post-hoc assessment of prospectively collected data including all consecutive MIS-HPB resections (January 2010-February 2022). As of December 2018, all MIS pancreatoduodenectomy and liver resections were robot-assisted. All surgeons had participated in dedicated training programs for laparoscopic and robotic MIS-HPB. Primary outcomes were in-hospital/30-day mortality and Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications.

RESULTS

Among 1875 pancreatic and liver resections, 600 (32%) were MIS-HPB resections. The overall rate of conversion was 4.3%, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications 25.7%, and in-hospital/30-day mortality 1.8% (n = 11). When comparing the period before and after the introduction of robotic MIS-HPB (Dec 2018), the overall use of MIS-HPB increased from 25.3 to 43.8% (P < 0.001) and blood loss decreased from 250 ml [IQR 100-500] to 150 ml [IQR 50-300] (P < 0.001). The 291 MIS pancreatic resections included 163 MIS pancreatoduodenectomies (52 laparoscopic, 111 robotic) with 4.3% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with reduced operation time (450 vs 361 min; P < 0.001), reduced blood loss (350 vs 200 ml; P < 0.001), and a decreased rate of delayed gastric emptying (28.8% vs 9.9%; P = 0.009). The 309 MIS liver resections included 198 laparoscopic and 111 robotic procedures with a 3.6% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic liver resection was associated with less overall complications (24.7% vs 10.8%; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (4 vs 3 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of robotic surgery was associated with greater implementation of MIS-HPB in up to nearly half of all pancreatic and liver resections. Although mortality and major morbidity were not affected, robotic surgery was associated with improvements in some selected outcomes. Ultimately, randomized studies and high-quality registries should determine its added value.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Left and Extended Left Hepatectomy: An International Multicenter Study Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversies exist among liver surgeons regarding clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic versus the robotic approach for major complex hepatectomies. The authors therefore designed a study to examine and compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (L-LH/L-ELH) versus robotic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (R-LH/R-ELH) using a large international multicenter collaborative database.

METHODS

An international multicenter retrospective analysis of 580 patients undergoing L-LH/L-ELH or R-LH/R-ELH at 25 specialized hepatobiliary centers worldwide was undertaken. Propensity score-matching (PSM) was used at a 1:1 nearest-neighbor ratio according to 15 perioperative variables, including demographics, tumor characteristics, Child-Pugh score, presence of portal hypertension, multiple resections, histologic diagnosis, and Iwate difficulty grade.

RESULTS

Before the PSM, 190 (32 %) patients underwent R-LH/R-ELH, and 390 (68 %) patients underwent L-LH/L-ELH. After the matching, 164 patients were identified in each arm without significant differences in demographics, preoperative variables, medical history, tumor pathology, tumor characteristics, or Iwate score. Regarding intra- and postoperative outcomes, the rebotic approach had significantly less estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 ml [IQR 200 ml] vs 200 ml [IQR 235 ml]; p = 0.029), fewer conversions to open operations (n = 4 [2.4 %] vs n = 13, [7.9 %]; p = 0.043), and a shorter hospital stay (6 days [IQR 3 days] vs 7 days [IQR 3.3 days]; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Both techniques are safe and feasible in major hepatic resections. Compared with L-LH/L-ELH, R-LH/R-ELH is associated with less EBL, fewer conversions to open operations, and a shorter hospital stay.

Limited liver resections in the posterosuperior segments: international multicentre propensity score-matched and coarsened exact-matched analysis comparing the laparoscopic and robotic approaches

Background

Limited liver resections (LLRs) for tumours located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver are technically demanding procedures. This study compared outcomes of robotic (R) and laparoscopic (L) LLR for tumours located in the posterosuperior liver segments (IV, VII, and VIII).

Methods

This was an international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients who underwent R-LLR or L-LLR at 24 centres between 2010 and 2019. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed; 1 : 3 propensity score matching (PSM) and 1 : 1 coarsened exact matching (CEM) were performed.

Results

Of 1566 patients undergoing R-LLR and L-LLR, 983 met the study inclusion criteria. Before matching, 159 R-LLRs and 824 L-LLRs were included. After 1 : 3 PSM of 127 R-LLRs and 381 L-LLRs, comparison of perioperative outcomes showed that median blood loss (100 (i.q.r. 40–200) versus 200 (100–500) ml; P = 0.003), blood loss of at least 500 ml (9 (7.4 per cent) versus 94 (27.6 per cent); P &lt; 0.001), intraoperative blood transfusion rate (4 (3.1 per cent) versus 38 (10.0 per cent); P = 0.025), rate of conversion to open surgery (1 (0.8 per cent) versus 30 (7.9 per cent); P = 0.022), median duration of Pringle manoeuvre when applied (30 (20–46) versus 40 (25–58) min; P = 0.012), and median duration of operation (175 (130–255) versus 224 (155–300); P &lt; 0.001) were lower in the R-LLR group compared with the L-LLR group. After 1 : 1 CEM of 104 R-LLRs with 104 L-LLRs, R-LLR was similarly associated with significantly reduced blood loss and a lower rate of conversion to open surgery.

Conclusion

Based on a matched analysis of well selected patients, both robotic and laparoscopic access could be undertaken safely with good outcomes for tumours in the posterosuperior liver segments.

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

Simple Summary

Robotic liver surgery is being applied with increasing frequency. Comparable, and in specific settings superior, perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic liver surgery have been reported. In its current form, the most commonly mentioned advantage of robotic surgery is improved dexterity. Important obstacles to its wider implementation in daily clinical practice are the associated costs, technical difficulties, and a scarce amount of evidence. Robotic liver surgery will likely continue to evolve in parallel with technological developments that enhance the robots’ abilities.

Abstract

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.

The Role of ICG in Robot-Assisted Liver Resections

Introduction: Robotic-assisted liver surgery (RALS) with its known limitations is gaining more importance. The fluorescent dye, indocyanine green (ICG), is a way to overcome some of these limitations. It accumulates in or around hepatic masses. The integrated near-infrared cameras help to visualize this accumulation. We aimed to compare the influence of ICG staining on the surgical and oncological outcomes in patients undergoing RALS. Material and Methods: Patients who underwent RALS between 2014 and 2021 at the Department of General Surgery at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, were included. In 2019, ICG-supported RALS was introduced. Results: Fifty-four patients were included, with twenty-eight patients (50.9%) receiving preoperative ICG. Hepatocellular carcinoma (32.1%) was the main entity resected, followed by the metastasis of colorectal cancers (17%) and focal nodular hyperplasia (15.1%). ICG staining worked for different tumor entities, but diffuse staining was noted in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, ICG-supported RALS lasted shorter (142.7 ± 61.8 min vs. 246.4 ± 98.6 min, p < 0.001), tumors resected in the ICG cohort were significantly smaller (27.1 ± 25.0 mm vs. 47.6 ± 35.2 mm, p = 0.021) and more R0 resections were achieved by ICG-supported RALS (96.3% vs. 80.8%, p = 0.075). Conclusions: ICG-supported RALS achieve surgically and oncologically safe results, while overcoming the limitations of RALS.

Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Hepatic Surgery: An Historical Review

Hepatic surgery is a rapidly expanding component of abdominal surgery and is performed for a wide range of indications. The introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 1987 was a major change in abdominal surgery. Laparoscopic surgery was widely and rapidly adopted throughout the world for cholecystectomy initially and then applied to a variety of other procedures. Laparoscopic surgery became regularly applied to hepatic surgery, including segmental and major resections as well as organ donation. Many operations progressed from open surgery to laparoscopy to robot-assisted surgery, including colon resection, pancreatectomy, splenectomy thyroidectomy, adrenalectomy, prostatectomy, gastrectomy, and others. It is difficult to prove a data-based benefit using robot-assisted surgery, although laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery of the liver are not inferior regarding major outcomes. When laparoscopic surgery initially became popular, many had concerns about its use to treat malignancies. Robot-assisted surgery is being used to treat a variety of benign and malignant conditions, and studies have shown no deterioration in outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery for the treatment of malignancies has become accepted and is now being used at more centers. The outcomes after robot-assisted surgery depend on its use at specialized centers, the surgeon's personal experience backed up by extensive training and maintenance of international registries. Robot-assisted hepatic surgery has been shown to be associated with slightly less intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital lengths of stay compared to open surgery. Oncologic outcomes have been maintained, and some studies show higher rates of R0 resections. Patients who need surgery for liver lesions should identify a surgeon they trust and should not be concerned with the specific operative approach used. The growth of robot-assisted surgery of the liver has occurred in a stepwise approach which is very different from the frenzy that was seen with the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This approach allowed the identification of areas for improvement, many of which are at the nexus of engineering and medicine. Further improvements in robot-assisted surgery depend on the combined efforts of engineers and surgeons.

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.

An international multicenter propensity-score matched and coarsened-exact matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic partial liver resections of the anterolateral segments

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver resections RLR may have the ability to address some of the drawbacks of laparoscopic(L)LR but few studies have done a head-to-head comparison of the outcomes after anterolateral segment resections by the two techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted of 3202 patients who underwent minimally-invasive LR of the anterolateral liver segments at 26 international centres from 2005 to 2020. 2606 cases met study criteria of which there were 358 RLR and 1868 LLR. Peri-operative outcomes were compared between the two groups using a 1:3 Propensity Score Matched(PSM) and 1:1 Coarsened Exact Matched(CEM) analysis.

RESULTS

Patients matched after 1:3 PSM(261 RLR vs. 783 LLR) and 1:1 CEM(296 RLR vs. 296 LLR) revealed no significant differences in length of stay, readmission rates, morbidity, mortality and involvement of or close oncological margins. RLR surgeries were associated with significantly less blood loss(50ml vs. 100ml, p<0.001) and lower rates of open conversion on both PSM(1.5% vs. 6.8%, p=0.003) and CEM(1.4% vs. 6.4%, p=0.004) compared to LLR. Though PSM analysis showed RLR to have a longer operating time than LLR(170 min vs. 160 min, p=0.036), this difference proved to be insignificant on CEM(167 min vs. 163 min. p=0.575).

CONCLUSION

This multicentre international combined PSM and CEM study showed that both RLR and LLR have equivalent perioperative outcomes when performed in selected patients at high volume centres. The robotic approach was associated with significantly lower blood loss and allowed more surgeries to be completed in a minimally-invasive fashion.

A Scoping Review of the Classification, Diagnosis, and Management of Hepatic Adenomas

BACKGROUND

Hepatic adenomas (HA), or hepatocellular adenomas, are benign, solid liver lesions that develop in otherwise normal livers, often in the setting of increased estrogen levels. While considered a benign tumor, there is a risk for substantial complications such as hemorrhage and malignant transformation. We review the diagnosis, classification, and potential therapeutic management options for patients with HA.

METHODS

A scoping narrative review was conducted based on recent literature regarding classification, diagnosis, and management of HA.

RESULTS

While HAs are typically considered benign, complications such as hemorrhage and malignant transformation may occur in approximately 25% and 5% of patients, respectively. Recent advances in imaging and molecular profiling have allowed for the classification of HAs into subtypes allowing for patient risk stratification that helps guide management. Surgical resection should be considered in asymptomatic patients who are male, have an adenoma ≥5 cm in diameter, or have the β-catenin-activated subtype due to an increased risk of hemorrhage and/or malignant transformation.

CONCLUSION

Molecular profiling has aided in the stratification of patients relative to the risk of complications to predict better the potential behavior of HAs.

Robotic and laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy and central hepatectomy: multicentre propensity score-matched analysis

Both robotic and laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy and central hepatectomy can be performed safely in expert centres, with excellent outcomes. The robotic approach was associated with statistically significant less blood loss compared with laparoscopy, although the clinical relevance of this finding remains unclear.

Short-term outcomes of robotic liver resection: An initial single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

Liver surgery has traditionally been characterized by the complexity of its procedures and potentially high rates of morbidity and mortality in inexperienced hands. The robotic approach has gradually been introduced in liver surgery and has increased notably in recent years. However, few centers currently perform robotic liver surgery and experiences in robot-assisted surgical procedures continue to be limited compared to the laparoscopic approach.

AIM

To analyze the outcomes and feasibility of an initial robotic liver program implemented in an experienced laparoscopic hepatobiliary center.

METHODS

A total of forty consecutive patients underwent robotic liver resection (da Vinci Xi, intuitive.com, United States) between June 2019 and January 2021. Patients were prospectively followed and retrospectively reviewed. Clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 59.55 years, of which 18 (45%) were female. The mean body mass index was 29.41 kg/m². Nine patients (22.5%) were cirrhotic. Patients were divided by type of resection as follows: Ten segmentectomies, three wedge resections, ten left lateral sectionectomies, six bisegmentectomies (two V-VI bisegmentectomies and four IVb-V bisegmentectomies), two right anterior sectionectomies, five left hepatectomies and two right hepatectomies. Malignant lesions occurred in twenty-nine (72.5%) of the patients. The mean operative time was 258.11 min and two patients were transfused intraoperatively (5%). Inflow occlusion was used in thirty cases (75%) and the mean total clamping time was 32.62 min. There was a single conversion due to uncontrollable hemorrhage. Major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo > IIIb) occurred in three patients (7.5%) and mortality in one (2.5%). No patient required readmission to the hospital. The mean hospital stay was 5.6 d.

CONCLUSION

Although robotic hepatectomy is a safe and feasible procedure with favorable short-term outcomes, it involves a demanding learning curve that requires a high level of training, skill and dexterity.

Robotic liver partition and portal vein embolization for staged hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is one of the most complex challenges for hepatobiliary surgeons. Poor results and high incidence of morbidity after Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) for pCCA discouraged this indication. It has been proposed that minimally invasive approach for ALPPS first stage, as well as combination of surgical liver partition and radiologic portal vein embolization (PVE), may improve outcomes reducing interstage morbidity. We report a case of right trisectionectomy with enbloc caudatectomy ALPPS scheduled for pCCA with robotic approach at stage-1, the full video is provided as supplementary material. Due to intraoperative presence of portal vein tumor infiltration during hilar dissection (no evidence in the pre-operative work-up), a radiologic right PVE was performed after stage-1 instead of portal vein ligation, followed by portal vein resection and biductal hepatico-jejunostomy at stage-2 with open approach. The patient was a 74-year-old female diagnosed with 3-cm mass-forming pCCA. The total clean liver volume was 1231 cc, with future liver remnant (FLR) volume of 25.1% (segments II and III). She was discharged in the interstage interval on postoperative day (POD) 4; CT scan on POD 12 showed that FLR increased up to 33% (369 cc) (Fig. 1). ALPPS was completed on POD 17, the postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged in good general condition on POD 19 after stage-2. Besides the already demonstrated advantages in terms of reduced interstage morbidity, robotic ALPPS represents a promising strategy to expand surgical indication in patients with pCCA. The combination of liver partition and PVE may increase the opportunities to perform radical resections in selected patients with pCCA and portal vein infiltration.