Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Left Lateral Sectionectomy: Analysis of Surgical Outcomes and Costs by a Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study. World J Surg. 2017;41:516-524. [PMID: 27743071 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-016-3736-2]

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy in living liver donors. Current state and prospects

Minimally invasive living-donor hepatectomy is a relatively new surgical technique that can improve donor safety and expedite donor rehabilitation. Following an early stage of research where donor safety was not adequately established, the minimally invasive approach nowadays yields better outcomes when carried out by experienced surgeons. Important factors include donor selection criteria, hospital equipment, and surgeon’s learning curve. This review describes the current status of laparoscopic and robotic living-donor hepatectomy, along with the challenges facing the advancement of these surgical techniques.

Robotic surgery in the aspect of liver transplantation

Introduction. Almost 60 years have passed since the first liver transplant performed by Thomas Starzl. During this time, medical technologies have gradually improved, which has made it possible to use more and more new methods and approaches in this type of medical care. One of the new techniques of recent decades is robotic surgery, which is gradually being introduced into medical practice, including in the field of transplant medicine.

Objective. The purpose of writing this review was to summarize knowledge and describe the current status of development of robotic surgery in the aspect of liver transplantation, namely: liver resection in donors, as well as graft implantation in the recipient.

Material and methods. The review includes foreign and domestic publications on minimally invasive donor liver surgery. Publications on the topic of robotic liver resection in the aspect of liver transplantation were also processed.

Conclusion. Robotic surgery using advanced robotic systems represents the next step in the development of minimally invasive technologies in liver transplantation. Robotic systems provide more precise and dexterous control of instruments, allowing surgeons to perform complex procedures with greater precision and less risk to patients. However, the robotic approach is still very limited in geographical distribution and requires much more experience than laparoscopy. The upcoming introduction of new robotic systems that support haptic feedback or cavitronic ultrasonic surgical aspirators will further promote a widespread adoption of robotic liver resection in liver donors and liver recipients.

Healthcare cost expenditure for robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a bottom-up economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is increasingly performed via the robot-assisted approach but may be associated with increased costs. This study is a post-hoc comparison of healthcare cost expenditure for robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a high-volume center.

METHODS

In-hospital and 30-day postoperative healthcare costs were calculated per patient in a retrospective series (October 2015-December 2022).

RESULTS

Overall, 298 patients were included (143 RLR and 155 LLR). Benefits of RLR were lower conversion rate (2.8% vs 12.3%, p = 0.002), shorter operating time (167 min vs 198 min, p = 0.044), and less blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, p < 0.001). Total per-procedure costs of RLR (€10260) and LLR (€9931) were not significantly different (mean difference €329 [95% bootstrapped confidence interval (BCI) €-1179-€2120]). Lower costs with RLR due to shorter surgical and operating room time were offset by higher disposable instrumentation costs resulting in comparable intraoperative costs (€5559 vs €5247, mean difference €312 [95% BCI €-25-€648]). Postoperative costs were similar for RLR (€4701) and LLR (€4684), mean difference €17 [95% BCI €-1357-€1727]. When also considering purchase and maintenance costs, RLR resulted in higher total per-procedure costs.

DISCUSSION

In a high-volume center, RLR can have similar per-procedure cost expenditure as LLR when disregarding capital investment.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

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.

Early outcomes of single-port robotic left lateral sectionectomy in patients with hepatic tumor

Purpose

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) stands as a cornerstone procedure in hepatobiliary minimal surgery, frequently employed for various benign and malignant liver lesions. This study aimed to analyze the peri- and postoperative surgical outcomes of single-port robotic left lateral sectionectomy (SPR-LLS) vs. those of L-LLS in patients with hepatic tumors.

Methods

From January 2020 through June 2023, 12 patients underwent SPR-LLS. During the same period, 30 L-LLS procedures were performed. In total, 12 patients in the robotic group and 24 patients in the laparoscopic group were matched.

Results

When the SPR-LLS and L-LLS groups were compared, the operation time was longer in the SPR-LLS group with less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Postoperative complications were observed in 3 patients in the L-LLS group (12.5%) and 1 patient in the SPR-LLS group (8.3%).

Conclusion

SPR-LLS using the da Vinci SP system was comparable to laparoscopic LLS in terms of surgical outcomes. SPR-LLS was associated with lower blood loss and less postoperative length of stay compared to L-LLS. These findings suggest that left lateral sectionectomy is technically feasible and safe with the da Vinci SP system in select patients.

Robotic-Assisted Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy Is Safe and Cost Equivalent Compared to Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in a Tertiary Referral Center

In recent decades, robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has been increasingly adopted for patients with esophageal cancer (EC) or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). However, concerns regarding its costs compared to conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) have emerged. This study examined outcomes and costs of RAMIE versus total MIE in 128 patients who underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for EC/GEJ at our department between 2017 and 2021. Surgical costs were higher for RAMIE (EUR 12,370 vs. EUR 10,059, p < 0.001). Yet, median daily (EUR 2023 vs. EUR 1818, p = 0.246) and total costs (EUR 30,510 vs. EUR 29,180, p = 0.460) were comparable. RAMIE showed a lower incidence of postoperative pneumonia (8% vs. 25%, p = 0.029) and a trend towards shorter hospital stays (15 vs. 17 days, p = 0.205), which may have equalized total costs. Factors independently associated with higher costs included readmission to the intensive care unit (hazard ratio [HR] = 7.0), length of stay (HR = 13.5), anastomotic leak (HR = 17.0), and postoperative pneumonia (HR = 5.4). In conclusion, RAMIE does not impose an additional financial burden. This suggests that RAMIE may be considered as a valid alternative approach for esophagectomy. Attention to typical cost factors can enhance postoperative care across surgical methods.

International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023

The robotic liver resection (RLR) has been increasingly applied in recent years and its benefits shown in some aspects owing to the technical advancement of robotic surgical system, however, controversies still exist. Based on the foundation of the previous consensus statement, this new consensus document aimed to update clinical recommendations and provide guidance to improve the outcomes of RLR clinical practice. The guideline steering group and guideline expert group were formed by 29 international experts of liver surgery and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Relevant literature was reviewed and analyzed by the evidence evaluation group. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, the Guidance Principles of Development and Amendment of the Guidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in China 2022, a total of 14 recommendations were generated. Among them were 8 recommendations formulated by the GRADE method, and the remaining 6 recommendations were formulated based on literature review and experts' opinion due to insufficient EBM results. This international experts consensus guideline offered guidance for the safe and effective clinical practice and the research direction of RLR in future.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting

PURPOSE

In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study.

METHODS

We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs.

RESULTS

RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9-41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7-5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs.

CONCLUSIONS

From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections.

Global dissemination of minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy: What are the barriers?

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH) is a relatively novel procedure that can potentially increase donor safety and contribute to faster rehabilitation of donors. After an initial period in which donor safety was not effectively validated, MIDH currently seems to provide improved results, provided that it is conducted by experienced surgeons. Appropriate selection criteria are crucial to achieve better outcomes in terms of complications, blood loss, operative time, and hospital stay. Beyond a pure laparoscopic technique, various approaches have been recommended such as hand-assisted, laparoscopic-assisted, and robotic donation. The latter has shown equal outcomes compared to open and laparoscopic approaches. A steep learning curve seems to exist in MIDH, mainly due to the fragility of the liver parenchyma and the experience needed for adequate control of bleeding. This review investigated the challenges and the opportunities of MIDH and the barriers to its global dissemination. Surgeons need expertise in liver transplantation, hepatobiliary surgery, and minimally invasive techniques to perform MIDH. Barriers can be categorized into surgeon-related, institutional-related, and accessibility. More robust data and the creation of international registries are needed for further evaluation of the technique and the acceptance from more centers worldwide.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

The benefits of pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resections (LLR and RALR) are known in comparison to open surgery. The aim of the present retrospective comparative study is to investigate the role of RALR and LLR according to different levels of difficulty.

METHODS

The institutional databases of six high-volume hepatobiliary centers were retrospectively reviewed. The study population was divided in two groups: LLR and RALR. The procedures were stratified for difficulty levels accordingly to three classifications. A propensity score matching was implemented to mitigate selection bias. Short-term outcomes were the object of comparison.

RESULTS

Nine hundred and thirty-six LLR and 403 RALR were collected. RALR exhibited fewer cases of intraoperative blood loss, lower transfusion and conversion rates (especially for oncological radicality) than LLR in the setting of highly difficult operations, whereas LLR had lower postoperative morbidity and fewer low-grade complications. For intermediate and low-difficulty resections, the intraoperative advantages of RALR gradually decreased to nonsignificant results and LLR remained associated with lower postoperative morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted liver resections do not show operative nor clinically significant benefits over LLR for low- and intermediate-difficulty resections. By reducing conversion rates, RALR can favour the operative feasibility of difficult resections possibly extending the indications of minimally invasive approaches for liver resection.

An international multicenter propensity-score matched and coarsened-exact matched analysis comparing 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 liver resections (LLR) 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. Two thousand six hundred and six cases met study criteria of which there were 358 RLR and 1868 LLR cases. Perioperative 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 (50 mL vs 100 ml, P < .001) and lower rates of open conversion on both PSM (1.5% vs 6.8%, P = .003) and CEM (1.4% vs 6.4%, P = .004) compared to LLR. Though PSM analysis showed RLR to have a longer operating time than LLR (170 minutes vs 160 minutes, P = .036), this difference proved to be insignificant on CEM (167 minutes vs 163 minutes, P = .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.

Robotic vs. laparoscopic liver surgery: a single-center analysis of 600 consecutive patients in 6 years

Background

While laparoscopic liver surgery has become a standard procedure, experience with robotic liver surgery is still limited. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate safety and feasibility of robotic liver surgery and compare outcomes with conventional laparoscopy.

Methods

We here report the results of a single-center, prospective, post-marketing observational study (DRKS00017229) investigating the safety and feasibility of robotic liver surgery. Baseline characteristics, surgical complexity (using the IWATE score), and postoperative outcomes were then compared to laparoscopic liver resections performed at our center between January 2015 and December 2020. A propensity score-based matching (PSM) was applied to control for selection bias.

Results

One hundred twenty nine robotic liver resections were performed using the da Vinci Xi surgical system (Intuitive) in this prospective study and were compared to 471 consecutive laparoscopic liver resections. After PSM, both groups comprised 129 cases with similar baseline characteristics and surgical complexity. There were no significant differences in intraoperative variables, such as need for red blood cell transfusion, duration of surgery, or conversion to open surgery. Postoperative complications were comparable after robotic and laparoscopic surgery (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3a: 23% vs. 19%, p = 0.625); however, there were more bile leakages grade B–C in the robotic group (17% vs. 7%, p = 0.006). Length of stay and oncological short-term outcomes were comparable.

Conclusions

We propose robotic liver resection as a safe and feasible alternative to established laparoscopic techniques. The object of future studies must be to define interventions where robotic techniques are superior to conventional laparoscopy.

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.

The impact of robotics in liver surgery: A worldwide systematic review and short-term outcomes meta-analysis on 2,728 cases

BACKGROUND

The dissemination of robotic liver surgery is slow-paced and must face the obstacle of demonstrating advantages over open and laparoscopic (LLS) approaches. Our objective was to show the current position of robotic liver surgery (RLS) worldwide and to identify if improved short-term outcomes are observed, including secondary meta-analyses for type of resection, etiology, and cost analysis.

METHODS

A PRISMA-based systematic review was performed to identify manuscripts comparing RLS vs open or LLS approaches. Quality analysis was performed using the Newcatle-Ottawa score. Statistical analysis was performed after heterogeneity test and fixed- or random-effect models were chosen accordingly.

RESULTS

After removing duplications, 2728 RLS cases were identified from the final set of 150 manuscripts. More than 75% of the cases have been performed on malignancies. Meta-analysis from the 38 comparative reports showed that RLS may offer improved short-term outcomes compared to open procedures in most of the variables screened. Compared to LLS, some advantages may be observed in favour of RLS for major resections in terms of operative time, hospital stay and rate of complications. Cost analyses showed an increased cost per procedure of around US$5000.

CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of RLS still need to be demonstrated although early results are promising. Advantages vs open approach are demonstrated. Compared to laparoscopic surgery, minor perioperative advantages may be observed for major resections although cost analyses are still unfavorable to the robotic approach.

Case report of pure single-port robotic left lateral sectionectomy using the da Vinci SP system

INTRODUCTION

Since its first appearance in the early 1990s, laparoscopic hepatic resection has become increasingly accepted and recognized as safe as laparotomy. The recent introduction of robotic surgery systems has brought new innovations to the field of minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoscopic surgery. The da Vinci line of surgical systems has recently released a true single-port platform called the da Vinci SP system, which has 3 fully wristed and elbowed instruments and a flexible camera in a single 2.5 cm cannula. We present the first case of robotic liver resection using the da Vinci SP system and demonstrate the technical feasibility of this platform.

PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSIS

A 63-year-old woman presented with elevated liver function test results and abdominal pain. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography showed multiple intrahepatic duct stones in the left lateral section and distal common bile duct stones near the ampulla of Vater.

INTERVENTIONS

The docking time was 8 minute. The patient underwent successful da Vinci SP with a total operation time of 135 minute. The estimated blood loss was 50.0 ml. No significant intraoperative events were observed.

OUTCOMES

The numerical pain intensity score was 3/10 in the immediate postoperative period and 1/10 on postoperative day 2. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 5 after verifying that the CT scan did not show any surgical complications.

CONCLUSION

We report a technique of left lateral sectionectomy, without the use of an additional port, via the da Vinci SP system. The present case suggests that minor hepatic resection is technically feasible and safe with the new da Vinci SP system in select patients. For the active application of the da Vinci SP system in hepatobiliary surgery, further device development and research are needed.

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic liver resection in ordinary cases of left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy was considered the standard method of left lateral sectionectomy. The robotic approach showed advantages in complex cases of left lateral sectionectomy. However, the impact of the robotic system on ordinary cases is still unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive robotic left lateral sectionectomy (R-LLS) and laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) from January 2015 to December 2019. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the effects of surgical method and surgical complexity on postoperative length of stay, surgical and overall cost.

RESULTS

258 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy were analyzed. L-LLS had comparable outcomes and decreased surgery (USD 2416.3 vs 4624.5; p < 0.001) and overall costs (USD 8004.5 vs 11897.1; p < 0.001) compared with R-LLS in the ordinary-case group, whereas R-LLS was associated with shorter postoperative LOS (5.0 vs 3.5 days; p = 0.004) in the complex-case group. On multivariable analysis, R-LLS was predictive of shorter postoperative LOS [odds ratio (OR) 0.388, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.198-0.760, p = 0.006], whereas R-LLS was predictive of higher surgery (OR 65.640, 95% CI 17.406-247.535, p < 0.001) and overall costs (OR 102.233, 95% CI 22.241-469.931, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Results of this study showed no clinical benefit to the R-LLS compared with L-LLS in ordinary cases. R-LLS had potential advantages in selected complex cases.

Level 2a evidence comparing robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate comparative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy (LLS).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators and limits was conducted. Overall, minor (Clavien-Dindo grade < III) and major (Clavien-Dindo grade > III) postoperative complications, mortality, volume of blood loss, conversion to an open procedure, procedure time, length of hospital stay, cost-effectiveness and R1 resection were the evaluated outcome measures.

RESULTS

Seven comparative observational studies reporting a total of 319 patients of whom 150 underwent robotic LLS and the remaining 169 patients underwent laparoscopic LLS were included. The robotic approach was associated with significantly longer procedure time (MD: 29.40 min, p = 0.01) and higher cost (MD: $4170, p < 0.00001) compared to the laparoscopic approach. There was no significant difference in overall postoperative morbidity (OR: 1.29, p = 0.62), Clavien-Dindo grade < III (OR: 1.65, p = 0.49), Clavien-Dindo grade > III (OR: 1.18, p = 0.85), perioperative mortality (RD: 0.00, p = 1.00), volume of blood loss (MD: 1.96 mls, p = 0.91), conversion to an open procedure (RD: - 0.02, p = 0.46), length of hospital stay (MD: 0.22 day, p = 0.52) or R1 resection (RD:0.00, p = 1.00) between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis of the best available evidence (level 2) demonstrated that robotic LLS is associated with significantly longer procedure time and higher cost and similar perioperative outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach. Future randomised studies are required to evaluate short-term perioperative, long-term oncological and surgeon-centred outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety and Feasibility Report of Robotic-assisted Left Lateral Sectionectomy for Pediatric Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Comparative Analysis of Learning Curves and Mastery Achieved With the Laparoscopic Approach

BACKGROUND

There is a growing interest in left lateral sectionectomy for donor hepatectomy. No data are available concerning the safety of the robotic (ROB) approach.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative study was conducted on 75 consecutive minimally invasive donor hepatectomies. The first 25 ROB procedures performed from November 2018 to July 2019 were compared with our first (LAP1) and last 25 (LAP2) laparoscopic cases performed between May 2013 and October 2018. Short-term donors and recipients' outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

No conversions were noticed in ROB whereas 2 conversions (8%) were recorded in LAP1 and none in LAP2. Blood loss was significantly less in ROB compared with LAP1 (P ≤ 0.001) but not in LAP2. Warm ischemia time was longer in ROB (P ≤ 0.001) with respect to the other groups. Operative time was similar in the 3 groups (P = 0.080); however, the hospital stay was shorter in ROB (P = 0.048). The trend in operative time in ROB was significantly shorter compared to LAP1 and LAP2: linear R2 0.478, P≤0.001; R2 0.012, P = 0.596; R3 0.004, P = 0.772, respectively. Donor morbidity was nihil in ROB, similar in LAP1 and LAP2 (n=3%-12%; P = 0.196). ROB procedures required less postoperative analgesia (P = 0.002). Recipient complications were similar for all groups (P = 0.274), and no early retransplantations were recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic left lateral sectionectomy for donor hepatectomy is a safe procedure with results comparable to the laparoscopy in terms of donor morbidity and overall recipients' outcome when the procedure is performed by experts. Certainly, its use is currently very limited.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery are the most minimally invasive surgical approaches for the removal of liver lesions. Minor hepatectomy is a common surgical procedure. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies on robot-assisted vs. laparoscopicminor hepatectomy up to February, 2020. The odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies involving 751 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 297 patients were in the robot-assisted minor hepatectomy (RMH) group and 454 patients were in the LMH group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P = .43), transfusion rates (P = .14), length of hospital stay (P > .64), conversion rate (P = .62), R0 resection rate (P = .56), complications (P = .92), or mortaliy (P = .37) between the 2 groups. However, the RMH group was associated with a longer operative time (P = .0003), and higher cost (P < .00001) compared to the LMH group. No significant differences in overall survival or disease free survival between the 2 groups were observed. In the subgroup analysis of left lateral sectionectomies, RMH was still associated with a longer operative time, but no other differences in clinical outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although RMH is associated with longer operation times and higher costs, it exhibits the same safety and effectiveness as LMH. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials should now be considered to obtain better evidence for clinical consensus.

Modern therapeutic approaches for the treatment of malignant liver tumours

Malignant liver tumours include a wide range of primary and secondary tumours. Although surgery remains the mainstay of curative treatment, modern therapies integrate a variety of neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies and have achieved dramatic improvements in survival. Extensive tumour loads, which have traditionally been considered unresectable, are now amenable to curative treatment through systemic conversion chemotherapies followed by a variety of interventions such as augmentation of the healthy liver through portal vein occlusion, staged surgeries or ablation modalities. Liver transplantation is established in selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma but is now emerging as a promising option in many other types of tumour such as perihilar cholangiocarcinomas, neuroendocrine or colorectal liver metastases. In this Review, we summarize the available therapies for the treatment of malignant liver tumours, with an emphasis on surgical and ablative approaches and how they align with other therapies such as modern anticancer drugs or radiotherapy. In addition, we describe three complex case studies of patients with malignant liver tumours. Finally, we discuss the outlook for future treatment, including personalized approaches based on molecular tumour subtyping, response to targeted drugs, novel biomarkers and precision surgery adapted to the specific tumour.

State of the art in robotic liver surgery: a meta-analysis

Although the number of robotic hepatectomy (RH) performed is increasing, few studies have reported its efficacy in comparison with the conventional surgical modalities. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative results of RH vs. open hepatectomy (OH) and RH vs. laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH). We systematically searched for English papers published in PubMed (Medline), Embase, and Cochrane library before March 1, 2020. A total of 39 papers and 2999 patients were eventually included. Among the included patients, 1249, 1010, and 740 underwent RH, LH, and OH, respectively. Compared with OH, the operation time was significantly increased but the intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, incidence of severe complications, and length of postoperative hospitalization were significantly reduced in patients with RH. However, there was no significant difference in the use of Pringle maneuver and overall incidence of complications. Compared with LH, the operation time was significantly increased, and the intraoperative blood loss was also more in RH. However, there were no differences in blood transfusion rate, use of Pringle maneuver, incidence of complications, incidence of severe complications, and length of postoperative hospitalization between the two groups. A longer operation time remains the main shortcoming of RH. However, based on the perioperative clinical efficacy, we conclude that RH is comparable to LH but is better than OH for selected patients.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Partial Mesorectal Excision for Cancer of the High Rectum: A Single-Center Study with Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of robotic surgery for partial mesorectal excision (PME) in patients with high rectal cancer (RC) remains unexplored. This study aimed to compare the operative and postoperative outcomes of robotic (R-PME) versus laparoscopic (L-PME) PME for high RC.

METHODS

This was a single-center propensity score cohort study of consecutive patients diagnosed with RC in the high rectum (>10 to 15 cm from the anal verge) who underwent surgery between September 2012 and May 2019.

RESULTS

Of 131 selected patients (50 R-PME and 81 L-PME), 88 were matched using propensity score (44 per group). Operative and postoperative variables were similar between R-PME and L-PME patients, except for operative time (220 min and 190 min, respectively; p < 0.0001). No conversion was needed. Overall morbidity was 15.9%; 4 patients (4.5%) developed anastomotic leakage. The mean hospital stay was 7.25 days for R-PME vs. 7.64 days for L-PME (p = 0.597). R0 resection was achieved in 100% of R-PME and 90.9% of L-PME (p = 0.116). Only 3 patients (1 R-PME, 2 L-PME) received a permanent stoma (p = 1). No group differences were observed for overall or disease-free survival rates at 5 years. The costs of R-PME were significantly higher than those of L-PME.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery can be performed safely for PME in high RC. No difference can be detected between R-PME and L-PME for both short- and long-term outcomes, leaving the choice of the surgical approach to the surgeon's experience. Specific health economic studies are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for RC.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence of pairwise meta-analysis of Robotic Hepatectomy (RH) vs Laparoscopic Hepatectomy (LH) and RH vs Open Hepatectomy (OH) is inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study, was to compare the outcomes of RH, LH and OH by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the following databases: Pubmed, Google scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Cost-effectiveness and survival benefits were selected as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The cost was less in OH compared to both minimally invasive procedures, LH demonstrated lower cost compared to RH, but the differences were not statistically significant. Both the RH and LH cohorts demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss, reduced major morbidity rate and shorter length of stay compared to OH cohort. The LH and OH cohorts demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and duration of clamping compared to the RH cohort. The LH cohort included significantly smaller tumours compared to the OH cohort.

CONCLUSION

The present network meta-analysis, demonstrated that both RH and LH in malignant and benign conditions were associated with lower morbidity rates, shorter hospital stay and the procedure related costs were statistically nonsignificant between RH, LH and OH.

Robotic approach to the liver: Open surgery in a closed abdomen or laparoscopic surgery with technical constraints?

The application of the minimally invasive approach has shown to be safe and effective for liver surgery and is in constant growth. The indications for laparoscopic surgery are steadily increasing across the field. In the early 2000s, robotic surgery led to some additional improvements, such as tremor filtration, instrument stability, 3D view and more comfort for the surgeon. These techniques bring in some advantages compared to the traditional OLR: less blood loss, shorter admissions, fewer adhesions, and a faster postoperative recovery and better outcomes in case of further hepatectomy for tumor recurrence has been shown. Concerning which is the best minimally invasive approach between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, the evidence is still conflicting. The latter shows good potential, since the endo-wristed instruments work similarly to the surgeon's hands, even with an intact abdominal wall. However, the technique is still under development, burdened by important costs, and limited by the lack of some instruments available for the laparoscopic approach. The paucity of universally accepted and proven data, especially concerning long-term outcomes, hampers drawing univocal acceptance at present. Furthermore, the number of variables related both to the patient and the disease further complicates the decision leading to a treatment tailored to each patient with strict selection. This review aims to explore the main differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, focusing on indications, operative technique and current debated clinical issues in recent literature.

Does preoperative MELD score affect outcomes following robotic hepatectomy for liver tumors?

The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score is objective, reproducible, and it has shown to predict mortality related to cirrhosis. This study was undertaken to investigate safety of robotic hepatectomy in patients with elevated preoperative MELD score and to examine correlation between preoperative MELD scores and postoperative outcomes after robotic hepatectomy for liver tumors. Demographic data, MELD score, and clinical outcomes were prospectively collected. Regression analysis was used. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). 75 patients underwent robotic hepatectomy. Age was 64 (62.5 ± 14.2) years and BMI 28 (29 ± 7.0) kg/m²; 56% women. 60 (81%) of the hepatectomies were undertaken for malignancy (25% hepatocellular carcinoma, 20% colorectal metastasis, 15% cholangiocarcinoma). On regression analysis, MELD score did not correlate with operative time (p = 0.518) or blood loss (p = 0.583). MELD score, however, correlated with length of stay (p = 0.002). 8 (11%) patients experienced postoperative complications; their MELD score was 7 (8 ± 2.5). 68 (91%) patients did not experience postoperative complications; their MELD score was 7 (8 ± 2.8) (p = 0.803). One patient died in this series. In patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy to treat liver tumors, preoperative MELD score only correlates with length of stay. Preoperative MELD score does not correlate with operative time and amount of blood loss. An elevated MELD score should not deter surgeons from offering robotic hepatectomy.

Short- and Long-term Outcomes after Robotic and Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Malignancies: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

OBJECTIVES

A laparoscopic approach improves short-term outcomes and maintains long-term outcomes compared to an open approach. In turn, the recent development of robotic surgery raises the question whether it performs as well as laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR) for malignancies.

METHOD

From 2011 to 2017, the study population included 111 patients in the LLR group and 61 in the RLR group. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Operative mortality rate was nil. The intraoperative blood transfusion rate was higher during RLR (15% vs. 2%, p = 0.0009). Major morbidity and hospital stay were not different between the two groups. The resection margin width (LLR 7 mm vs. RLR 10 mm, p = 0.13) and R1 resection rates (resection margin width < 1 mm; LLR 15% vs. RLR 11%, p = 0.49) were similar. After PSM (55 patients in each group), the blood transfusion, major morbidity, hospital stay and R1 resection were similar between the two groups. When considering the largest subset of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma including 114 patients (66%), the 3-year overall survival rate was 80% in the LLR group and 97% in the RLR group (p = 0.10) and remained similar after PSM (p = 0.27). The 3-year recurrence-free survival rate was 50% in the LLR group and 64% in the RLR group (p = 0.30) and remained similar after PSM (p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences were found in blood transfusion, incidence of positive resection margins and long-term outcomes between the two techniques. RLR does not compromise short-term and oncologic outcomes in patients with liver cancers.

Global hospital and operative costs associated with various ventral cavity procedures: a comprehensive literature review and analysis across regions

Objectives: The aim of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive report on hospital costs, and cost components, for a range of ventral cavity surgical procedures across three regions of focus: (1) Americas, (2) Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and (3) Asia-Pacific. Methods: A structured search was performed and utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., "Hepatectomy", "Colectomy", "Costs and Cost Analysis") and keywords (e.g. "liver resection", "bowel removal", "economics"). Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported hospital-related costs associated with the procedures of interest. Cost outcomes included operating room (OR) time costs, total OR costs, ward stay costs, total admission costs, OR cost per minute and ward cost per day. All costs were converted to 2018 USD. Results: Total admission costs were observed to be highest in the Americas, with an average cost of $15,791. The average OR time cost per minute was found to vary by region: $24.83 (Americas), $14.29 (Asia-Pacific), and $13.90 (EMEA). A cost-breakdown demonstrated that OR costs typically comprised close to 50%, or more, of hospital admission costs. This review also demonstrates that decreasing OR time by 30 min provides cost savings approximately equivalent to a 1-day reduction in ward time. Conclusion: This literature review provided a comprehensive assessment of hospital costs across various surgical procedures, approaches, and geographical regions. Our findings indicate that novel processes and healthcare technologies that aim to reduce resources such as operating time and hospital stay, can potentially provide resource savings for hospital payers.

Impact of narrow margin and R1 resection for hepatocellular carcinoma on the salvage liver transplantation strategy. An intention-to-treat analysis

BACKGROUND

No studies have investigated whether narrow margin is a risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence outside transplantability criteria. The objective was to assess on an intent-to-treat (ITT) basis whether hepatectomy with narrow margin affects the outcomes in patients enrolled in the salvage liver transplantation (LT) strategy.

METHODS

From 2007 to 2016, patients enrolled in the salvage LT strategy were divided into 2 groups: narrow (<10 mm) vs. wide (≥10 mm) margin groups. R1 resection was defined as positive histologic margin involvement. Recurrence rate, transplantability rate of recurrence and ITT overall survival (ITT-OS) were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients were studied: 43 patients with narrow margin and 38 with wide margin. The recurrence rates, pattern and delay of recurrence, transplantability following recurrence, and ITT-OS were similar between the two groups. These results were maintained when comparing patients with R1 resection to those with R0 resection.

CONCLUSION

On an ITT basis, hepatectomy with narrow margin or R1 resection did not impair the transplantability of recurrence and survival of patients enrolled in the salvage LT strategy. Narrow margin and even R1 resection following hepatectomy in the setting of salvage LT strategy should not be the basis for altering the strategy.

Surgical and oncological outcomes after ultrasound-guided robotic liver resections for malignant tumor. Analysis of a prospective database

AIM

Robotic surgery is thought to have a role in widening the application of minimally invasive liver surgery. Nonetheless, data concerning surgical results for liver malignancies are presently still lacking. We aimed to evaluate the surgical and oncological outcomes of ultrasound guided robotic liver resections for hepatic malignancies.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who received robotic resection of primary and secondary liver malignancies from September 2008 to January 2017 were analyzed. The same surgical team performed all procedures following the principle of parenchymal-sparing surgery.

RESULTS

From a total of 51 patients, 13 patients (25%) underwent major and 38 (75%) minor hepatectomy. No mortality occurred. Two procedures were converted to open surgery. Five patients experienced major complications, with a reintervention rate of 6%. Median hospital stay was 5 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is a safe and feasible procedure for liver resection even when dealing with malignancies. Our data show that robotic surgery can be considered a valid option to treat patients with liver malignancies in a minimally invasive manner, without compromise the oncological results.

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: application of the difficulty scoring system

BACKGROUND

The development of robotic system may help to relieve the difficulties encountered during laparoscopic hepatectomy. A difficulty scoring system (DSS) was developed to assess the difficulty of various laparoscopic liver resection procedures. The aim of this study is to explore if the DSS is applicable in robotic hepatectomy and to compare the outcomes of robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy among different difficulty levels.

METHODS

Clinical data from all consecutive patients who underwent robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, were prospectively collected and reviewed. The difficulty level of operations was graded using the DSS. Perioperative outcomes of robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy were compared at each difficulty level.

RESULTS

A total of 107 and 94 patients underwent robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy during the study period, respectively. Among them, 16 and 2 patients were operated for recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, respectively, and were excluded because no mark for tumour location can be assigned. For robotic hepatectomy, a higher DSS was significantly correlated with higher minor complication rate (p = 0.001), more intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.002), longer operation time (p < 0.001) and longer post-operative hospital stay (p < 0.001). The mean DSS scores of robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy were 4.5 and 3.6, respectively. (p = 0.004). For cases with low (DSS 1-3) and intermediate (DSS 4-6) difficulty level, there was no significant difference in operative blood loss, operation time and overall complications rate. Only 2 cases (2.2%) with high difficulty level were operated with laparoscopic approach while 20% of patients operated with robotic approach had DSS > 6.

CONCLUSIONS

DSS significantly correlated with surgical outcomes in patient who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Perioperative outcomes following robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy were similar in cases with low and intermediate difficulty. However, robotic system allowed minimally invasive approach in cases with higher difficulty level.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection in complex cases of left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection is recommended as the standard operation for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS). Robotic liver resection is theoretically better than laparoscopic liver resection in complex cases of liver resection. However, in a complex case of LLS, whether robotic LLS (R-LLS) is still better than laparoscopic LLS (L-LLS) is unclear. This study aims to assess the perioperative outcomes of R-LLS and L-LLS in the overall and in the subgroup of complex cases of LLS.

METHODS

From January 2015 to June 2017, the data on consecutive patients who underwent R-LLS were retrospectively compared with those who underwent L-LLS. Based on defined criteria for complex cases, the subgroup of such patients who underwent R-LLS were compared with the subgroup of patients who underwent L-LLS. The patient characteristics and surgical outcomes in the whole groups and subgroups of patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall R-LLS and L-LLS groups showed no significance differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, blood transfusion and morbidity rates. The overall medical costs were significantly higher in the R-LLS group than in the L-LLS group (12786.4 vs. 7974.3 USD; p < 0.001). On subgroup analysis of the complex cases, the estimated blood loss was significantly less in the R-LLS subgroup than the L-LLS subgroup (131.9 vs. 320.8 ml, p = 0.003). The two subgroups showed no significant differences in postoperative hospital stay (4.7 vs. 5.3 days; p = 0.054) and operative times (126.4 vs. 110.8 min; p = 0.379). The R-LLS subgroup had significantly higher overall medical costs than the L-LLS subgroup (13536.9 vs. 9186.7 USD, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

The overall R-LLS group was comparable to the overall L-LLS group in perioperative outcomes. Although the overall medical costs in the robotic subgroup was higher, R-LLS might be a better choice for the subgroup of patients with complex cases when compared to L-LLS.

Robot-assisted gallbladder-preserving hepatectomy for treating S5 hepatoblastoma in a child: A case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Hepatoblastoma (HB) is the most common hepatic malignant tumour in children, accounting for approximately 50%-60% of primary hepatic malignant tumours in children, mostly in children under 3 years old. In Western countries, the incidence of hepatoblastoma is approximately 1-2/100000. Da Vinci surgical system is fast becoming a key instrument in microinvasive surgery. The past decade has seen the rapid development of robot-assisted laparoscopy, which expends many fields including the liver surgery. This paper discusses the significance and feasibility of robot-assisted gallbladder-preserving hepatectomy for treating S5 hepatoblastoma in children. The aim of this essay is to compare the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery with conventional laparoscopic surgery, and explore the meaning of preservation of the gallbladder by sharing this case.

CASE SUMMARY

A 3-year-old child with a liver mass in the 5th segment was treated using the Da Vinci surgical system, and the gallbladder was retained. The child was admitted to the hospital for 20 d for the discovery of the right hepatic lobe mass. Ultrasonography revealed a low echo mass, 46 mm × 26 mm × 58 mm in size, indicating hepatoblastoma in the right lobe, and enhanced computed tomography showed continuous enhancement of iso-low-density lesions with different sizes and nodules and unclear boundaries, without the dilation of the intrahepatic bile duct, no enlargement of the gallbladder, and uniform thickness of the wall. The diagnosis was "liver mass, hepatoblastoma". It was decided to perform S5 liver tumour resection. During surgery, the tumour and gallbladder were isolated first, and the gallbladder could be completely separated from the tumour surface without obvious infiltration; therefore, the gallbladder was preserved. The cutting line was marked with an electric hook. The hepatic duodenal ligament was blocked with a urethral catheter using the Pringle method, and the tumour and part of the normal liver tissue were completely resected with an ultrasound knife along the incision. The hepatic portal interdiction time was approximately 25 min. An abdominal drainage tube was inserted. The auxiliary hole was connected to the lens, and the specimen was removed. The patient's status was uneventful, and the operation time was 166 min. The robotic time was 115 min, and the bleeding amount was approximately 200 mL. In total, 300 mL of red blood cell suspension and 200 mL of plasma were injected. No serious complications occurred. Pathological findings confirmed fetal hepatoblastoma and R0 resection. A gallbladder contraction test was performed two weeks after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted S5 hepatectomy with gallbladder preservation is safe and feasible for specific patients.

International consensus statement on robotic hepatectomy surgery in 2018

The robotic surgical system has been applied in liver surgery. However, controversies concerns exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. To promote the development of robotic hepatectomy, this study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic hepatectomy and provide sixty experts’ consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 22 topics were prepared analyzed and widely discussed during the 4 meetings. Based on the published articles and expert panel opinion, 7 recommendations were generated by the GRADE method using an evidence-based method, which focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques and cost-effectiveness of hepatectomy. Given that the current evidences were low to very low as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized-controlled trials are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.

Robotic Surgery of the Liver and Biliary Tract

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic methods for major abdominal surgery are gaining increasing acceptance worldwide. Despite its relatively recent introduction in clinical practice, robotics has been accepted as an effective option to perform high-demanding procedures such as those required in hepatobiliary surgery. Some potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy have been suggested, but its actual role in clinical practice is still to be defined.

METHODS

The objective of this work is to critically review the available evidence on the application of robotic surgery to the liver and biliary tract. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched for studies reporting on robotic hepatobiliary surgery with or without comparison with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy.

RESULTS

This review provides a comprehensive snapshot of the current application of the robot to the surgery of the liver and biliary tract. The overall available data show the noninferiority of the robotic system to conventional open and laparoscopic surgery. A number of studies suggest some potential advantages in performing high-demanding procedures in a minimally invasive fashion.

CONCLUSIONS

The robot can be used to perform various types of liver surgeries quite safely and competently, although the lack of randomized control trials, comparing it with open and laparoscopic surgery, precludes the possibility to reach definitive conclusions.

Nationwide outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic vs. open hepatectomy

The safety of hepatectomy continues to improve and it holds a key role in the management of benign and malignant hepatic lesions. Laparoscopic and robotic approaches to hepatectomy are increasingly utilized. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic vs. open approaches to hepatectomy and to determine the national nonelective postoperative readmission rate, including readmission to other hospitals. The Nationwide Readmission Database from 2013 to 2014 was queried for all patients undergoing hepatectomy. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomies were compared to patients undergoing open hepatectomy. Multivariate logistic regression was implemented to determine the odds ratios (OR) for non-elective readmission within 45 days. There were 10,870 patients who underwent hepatectomy from 2013 to 2014 and 724 (6.7%) were approached with laparoscopic or robotic technique. The robotic cohort had lower mean cost of the index admission ($24,983 ± $18,329 vs. open $32,391 ± $31,983, p < 0.001, 95% CI - 18,292 to 534), shorter LOS (4.5 ± 3.8 vs. lap 6.8 ± 6.0 vs. open 7.6 ± 7.7 days, p < 0.01), and were less likely to be readmitted within 45 days (7.9% vs. 13.0% lap vs. 13.8% open, p = 0.05). The robotic cohort was slightly younger (mean age 57.5 ± 13.5 vs. lap 60.1 ± 13.8 vs. open 58.9 ± 13.7, p < 0.05), and no significant differences were seen by Charlson Comorbidity Index. Anastomosis of hepatic duct to GI tract carried higher odds of mortality (OR 2.87, p < 0.01) and higher odds of readmission (OR 1.40, p < 0.01). LOS above 7 days increased odds of readmission (OR 2.24, p < 0.01). Nearly one-fifth of patients readmitted after hepatectomy present to a different hospital. Robotic hepatectomy was associated with favorable cost and readmission outcomes compared to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy patients, despite similar patient comorbid burdens and patient's age. Length of stay over 7 days and anastomosis of hepatic duct to GI tract are strong risk factors for readmission and mortality.

Safety and feasibility of elective liver resection in adult Jehovah's Witnesses: the Henri Mondor Hospital experience

BACKGROUND

Elective liver resection (LR) in Jehovah's Witness (JW) patients, for whom transfusion is not an option, involves complex ethical and medical issues and surgical difficulties.

METHODS

Consecutive data from a LR program for liver tumors in JWs performed between 2014 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. A systematic review of the literature with a pooled analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Ten patients were included (median age = 61 years). None needed preoperative erythropoietin. Tumor biopsy was not performed. Major hepatectomy was performed in 4 patients. The median estimated blood loss was 200 mL. A cell-saver was installed in 2 patients, none received saved blood. The median hemoglobin values before and at the end of surgery were 13.4 g/dL and 12.6 g/dL, respectively (p = 0.04). Nine complications occurred in 4 patients, but no postoperative hemorrhage occurred. In-hospital mortality was nil. Nine studies including 35 patients were identified in the literature; there was reported no mortality and low morbidity. None of the patients were transfused.

CONCLUSIONS

By using a variety of blood conservation techniques, the risk/benefit ratio of elective liver resection for liver was maintained in selected adult JW patients. JW faith should not constitute an absolute exclusion from hepatectomy.

[Robot-assisted liver resection]

Robotic liver resection can overcome some of the limitations of laparoscopic liver surgery; therefore, it is a promising tool to increase the proportion of minimally invasive liver resections. The present article gives an overview of the current literature. Furthermore, the results of a nationwide survey on robotic liver surgery among hospitals in Germany with a DaVinci system used in general visceral surgery and the perioperative results of two German robotic centers are presented.

Safety and oncologic outcomes of robotic liver resections: A systematic review

The robotic system has emerged as a new minimally invasive technology with promising results. We sought to systematically review the available literature on the safety and the oncologic outcomes of robotic liver surgery. A systematic review was conducted using Medline (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane library through November 12th, 2017. A robotic approach may be a safe and feasible surgical option for minor and major liver resections.

Robot-assisted liver surgery in a general surgery unit with a "Referral Centre Hub&Spoke Learning Program". Early outcomes after our first 70 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate safety, feasibility and short-term outcomes of our first 70 consecutive patients treated by robotic-assisted liver resection after a reversal proctoring between a high HPB volume centre and our well-trained center in minimally invasive General Surgery. Six surgeons were involved in this Hub&Spoke learning program.

METHODS

From September 2012 to December 2016, 70 patients underwent robotic-assisted liver resections (RALR). We treated 18 patients affected by colorectal and gastric cancer with synchronous liver lesions suspected for metastases in a one-stage robotic-assisted procedure. For the first 20 procedures we had a tutor in the operatory room, who was present also in the next most difficult procedures.

RESULTS

The 30- and 90-day mortality rate was zero with an overall morbidity rate of 10.1%. Associated surgical procedures were performed in about 65,7% of patients. The observed conversion rate was 10%. The results of the first 20 cases were similar to the next 50 showing a shortned learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive robot-assisted liver resection is a safe technique; it allows overcoming many limits of conventional laparoscopy. This innovative, time-enduring Hub&Spoke may allow patients to undergo a proper standard of care also for complex surgical procedures, without the need of reaching referral centres.