Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a comparative study from a single center

[Robotic liver surgery]

Minimally invasive surgery is currently undergoing a paradigm shift from the classical laparoscopic approach to robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery has made significant progress in various surgical disciplines in recent years and is increasingly being used. This is due to the increasing clinical availability of robotic systems as well as better visualization, an increased surgical precision and a higher degree of freedom of the robotic instruments used, compared to classical laparoscopy, resulting in a flatter learning curve and better ergonomics for the surgeon. This article examines the current status of robot-assisted liver surgery, highlights the technical and clinical challenges and discusses future perspectives and potential developments in this dynamic field.

Implementation of robotic and laparoscopic hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in low- and middle-income settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite numerous barriers, the application of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) conditions has been increasing globally. This study aims to review the current status of HPB MIS in LMICs.

METHODS

Relevant databases were searched, identifying 3452 publications, 38 of which met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of outcomes was carried out using "R" statistical software.

RESULTS

This study reviewed reports of application of MIS for HPB conditions in LMICs, analyzing a total of 3272 procedures. India (66.87 %) and Egypt (20.11 %) contributed majorly to the procedures reviewed. Others were from Indonesia (8.68 %), Colombia (3.06 %), Pakistan (0.67 %), Sri Lanka (0.34 %), Trinidad and Tobago (0.18 %), and Nigeria (0.09 %). India was the only LMIC with robotic HPB MIS. The majority of the procedures were biliary (74.88 %). Basic procedures accounted for 55.63 %, while 44.37 % were advanced. The overall conversion rate and prevalence of morbidity were 8 % [95 % CI: 5; 13], and 15 % [95 % CI: 9; 22], respectively. Robotics was associated with higher conversion (14 % vs 6 %, p < 0.01) but lower morbidity (10 % vs 16 %, p = 0.91), compared to laparoscopic surgery. There were 5 cases of mortality from laparoscopy.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes in this systematic review, compared to findings in other settings indicate successful implementation of HPB MIS in LMICs.

An updated meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopy hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy in the treatment of liver tumors

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy (RALH) with laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in the treatment of liver tumors.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of English-language literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to June 2024. Studies comparing RALH and LH for liver tumors were identified, and after qualitative evaluation, a meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 software.

RESULTS

After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 articles were included, including 29,969 patients, with 5673 in the RALH group and 24,296 in the LH group. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the LH group, surgery time was longer in the RALH group (MD = 55.33; 95% CI: 34.84-75.83; P < .001), the conversion to open surgery rate was higher (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.05; P < .001), the total cost was higher (MD = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.14-0.73; P = .004), and the tumor diameter was larger (MD = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.24-0.49; P < .001). Additionally, the R1 resection rate was higher in the RALH group (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.06; P < .001). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative transfusion rate, hepatic hilar occlusion rate, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, mortality rate, malignancy rate, or R0 resection rate (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, RALH is safe and effective, although it is associated with higher total costs, increased blood transfusion rates, and longer operative times. However, there were no significant differences between RALH and LH in terms of other outcome indicators, suggesting that both procedures offer similar surgical efficacy and safety. Further clinical randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

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.

Minimally invasive tools are necessary for the modern practice of liver surgery

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is performed for other gastrointestinal applications. At our centre, all liver resections are systematically performed using a minimally invasive approach. This study aimed to describe our experience in minimising open surgery and emphasised the importance of minimally invasive surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 260 patients who underwent liver surgery and compared the surgical outcomes between the open and MILR groups.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients (68%) underwent MILR. The proportion of patients who underwent prior abdominal surgery and resection was higher in the open surgery group. However, the proportion of patients with liver cirrhosis was similar between the two groups. The MILR group was superior in terms of operative time, blood loss, Pringle manoeuvre rate and mean hospital stay. In addition, major complication and bile leak rates were lower in the MILR group. No significant differences in the tumour size, number of lesions or underlying liver pathology were observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Acceptable outcomes can be achieved even when the minimally invasive approach is considered the primary option for all patients who require liver resection. Minimally invasive tools are necessary for the modern practice of liver surgery; therefore, laparoscopic or robotic surgery should be included in the armamentarium of liver surgeons.

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.

Robotic liver surgery: A new reality. Descriptive analysis of 220 cases of minimally invasive liver surgery in 182 patients

INTRODUCTION

The level of recommendation of the robotic approach in liver surgery is controversial. The objective of the study is to carry out a single-center retrospective descriptive analysis of the short-term results of the robotic and laparoscopic approach in liver surgery during the same period.

METHODS

Descriptive analysis of the short-term results of the robotic and laparoscopic approach on 220 resections in 182 patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery.

RESULTS

Between April 2018 and June 2022, a total of 92 robotic liver resections (RLR) were performed in 83 patients and 128 laparoscopic (LLR) in 99 patients. The LLR group showed a higher proportion of major surgery (P < .001) and multiple resections (P = .002). The two groups were similar in anatomical resections (RLR 64.1% vs. LLR 56.3%). In the LLS group, the average operating time was 212 min (SD 52.1). Blood loss was 276.5 mL (100-1000) and conversion 12.1%. Mean hospital stay was 5.7 (SD 4.9) days. Morbidity was 27.3% and 2% mortality. In the RLS group, the mean operative time was 217 min (SD 53.6), blood loss 169.5 mL (100.900), and conversion 2.5%. Mean hospital stay was 4.1 (SD 2.1) days. Morbidity was 15%, with no mortality.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive liver surgery is a safe technique, and in particular, RLS allows liver resections to be performed safely and reproducibly; it appears to be a non-inferior technique to LLS, but randomized studies are needed to determine the minimally invasive approach of choice in liver surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: A single-center, propensity score- matched study

BACKGROUND

Although the effectiveness of robotic hepatectomy (RH) has been evaluated in several studies, the superiority of RH over other approaches has not been definitely established. Therefore, in the present propensity score-matched cohort study, we compared RH and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in terms of perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent RH or LH for benign and malignant liver lesions at a single center in Taiwan at any time between 2014 and 2020. Confounding factors, specifically age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, IWATE criteria, and Charlson comorbidity index, were adjusted through propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 329 patients were finally included in this study. Two homogeneous groups (RH and LH; n, 72 each) were formed using PSM. The RH group had a longer operative time (median: 231 vs.180 min, respectively; P = .001) and lower conversion (to open surgery) rate (9.7% vs.0.0%, respectively; P = .013) than did the LH group. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of other perioperative outcomes, specifically blood loss, hospital stay, intensive care unit admission, mortality, morbidity, or tumor margin status.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of conversion to open surgery is lower in RH than in LH. Although operative time is longer in RH than in LH, RH is feasible and safe for patients with benign or malignant liver lesion. Our study also demonstrated comparable oncological results in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma between LH and RH group.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: short-term outcomes from a single institution

BACKGROUND

Currently, an increasing number of robotic major hepatectomies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are being performed. Despite the advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic procedures, studies comparing robotic with laparoscopic major hepatectomy in terms of short-term results remain scarce. This study was performed to compare robotic major hepatectomy and laparoscopic major hepatectomy in terms of their intraoperative and postoperative results.

METHODS

Data regarding demographics and intraoperative and postoperative results of 131 patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic major hepatectomy between January 2017 and March 2022 were retrieved from their medical records and compared between the two types of surgery.

RESULTS

Between January 2017 and March 2022, 44 robotic major hepatectomies and 87 laparoscopic major hepatectomies were performed at the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital. Patients undergoing robotic major hepatectomy were not significantly different from those undergoing laparoscopic major hepatectomy in terms of age (P = 0.397), sex (P = 0.624), body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.118), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) (P = 0.09), tumor size (P = 0.176), cirrhosis (P = 0.384), fatty liver (P = 0.162), preoperative antiviral treatment (P = 0.934), hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA (P = 0.646) and operation type (P = 0.054). Robotic major hepatectomy was associated with a longer operation time (median: 255.5 versus 206.8 min; P < 0.001) and less estimated blood loss (median: 118.9 versus 197.0 ml; P = 0.002) than laparoscopic major hepatectomy. However, robotic major hepatectomy was not significantly different from laparoscopic major hepatectomy regarding length of postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.849), open conversion (P = 0.077), ICU stay (P = 0.866), postoperative massive abdominal bleeding (P = 1.00), portal vein thrombosis (P = 1.00), abdominal infection (P = 1.00), pulmonary infection (P = 1.00), pulmonary embolism (P = 1.00), cardiac complications (P = 1.00), liver failure (P = 1.00), kidney failure (P = 1.00), biliary leak (P = 1.00), positive resection margin (P = 1.00), 30-day mortality (P = 1.00) and 90-day mortality (P = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic major hepatectomy was as effective as laparoscopic surgery in terms of intraoperative and postoperative results but took longer and could more efficiently control intraoperative blood loss.

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

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

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

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

Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. However, the added benefit of the robotic platform over conventional laparoscopy is a matter of ongoing investigation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an up-to-date and balanced evaluation of the benefits and shortcomings of robotic liver surgery for the modern hepatobiliary surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Advantages of a robotic approach to liver resection include a shortened learning curve, the ability to complete more extensive or complex minimally invasive operations, and integrated fluorescence guidance. However, the robotic platform remains limited by a paucity of parenchymal transection devices, complete lack of haptic feedback, and added operating time associated with docking and instrument exchange. Like laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy may provide patients with more rapid recovery and a shorter hospital stay, which can help offset the substantial costs of robot acquisition and maintenance. The oncologic outcomes of robotic hepatectomy appear to be equivalent to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for appropriately selected patients.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Clinical application of robotic orthopedic surgery: a bibliometric study

Objectives

The present study aimed to evaluate the status and trends of robotic orthopedic surgery in a clinical setting using bibliometrics.

Methods

All relevant publications on the clinical use of robotic surgery in orthopedics were searched from the Web of Science database. Subsequently, data were analyzed using bibliometrics. Visualizing data of bibliographic coupling, co-citation, and co-occurrence analysis were performed using VOSviewer.

Results

In total, 224 clinical studies met the included standards between 2000 to 2019. Global publications presented an increasing annual trend, with the United States found to have the largest number of publications and robotic companies active in the field (n = 99), followed by China (n = 38), and the United Kingdom (n = 27). The institution with the most contributions was the Beijing Jishuitan Hospital in China (n = 15). The most productive scholars were Tian Wei and Mont Michael A, with 14 publications each. The top 30 most cited papers list showed 29 publications to be cited on more than 40 occassions. The journal with the most related and influential publications on robotic orthopedic surgery was the Journal of Arthroplasty. Fourteen types of robots were used, with the majority applied in knee and spinal surgery. MAKO was the most widely used robot in hip and knee surgery and Mazor in spinal surgery. Most studies were small sample populations of low-quality in this field. The top 20 most frequently used keywords were identified from 950 author keywords. Research on orthopedic robots were classified into two clusters by co-occurrence networks: spinal-related robotic surgery and joint-related robotic surgery.

Conclusions

The present bibliometric study summarizes the clinical research of orthopedic robots on study type, sample size, type of surgery, robot information, surgical site, most popular keywords, most cited papers, journals, authors, institutions, and countries. These findings may assist the scholars better understand the current status and research trends to guide future practice and directions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04714-7.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

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

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

Long-Term and Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter, Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases as compared to a propensity-matched cohort of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). Although safety and short-term outcomes of RLR have been described and previously compared to LLR, long-term and oncologic data are lacking.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed of all patients who underwent RLR and LLR for CRC metastases at six high-volume centers in the USA and Europe between 2002 and 2017. Propensity matching was used to match baseline characteristics between the two groups. Data were analyzed with a focus on postoperative and oncologic outcomes, as well as long-term recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

RLR was performed in 115 patients, and 514 patients underwent LLR. Following propensity matching 115 patients in each cohort were compared. Perioperative outcomes including mortality, morbidity, reoperation, readmission, intensive care requirement, length-of-stay and margin status were not statistically different. Both prematching and postmatching analyses demonstrated similar overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between RLR and LLR at 5 years (61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.87, and 38 vs. 31% DFS, p = 0.25, prematching; 61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.78, and 38 vs. 44% DFS, p = 0.62, postmatching).

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity score matching with a large, multicenter database demonstrates that RLR for colorectal metastases is feasible and safe, with perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes and survival that are largely comparable to LLR.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Institutional First 100 Case Experience and Outcomes of Robotic Hepatectomy for Liver Tumors

The nascent robotic approach for hepatic resections is gaining momentum in the United States because it offers solutions to the known limitations of laparoscopic approach. Herein, we report our initial experience and short-term outcomes of the first 100 robotic hepatectomies. With Institutional Review Board approval, all patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy were prospectively followed up. Patient demographics, operative outcomes, complications, and 30-day readmissions were collected and analyzed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). One hundred consecutive patients underwent robotic hepatectomy. Patients were aged 62 (63 ± 13.6) years, 66 per cent were women, and BMI was 29 (29 ± 6.4) kg/m2. In all, 76 per cent of the hepatectomies were undertaken for malignancy [metastatic colorectal cancer (28%), hepatocellular carcinoma (21%), and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (15%)], and 20 per cent for benign lesions; 66 per cent of patients underwent nonanatomical partial hepatectomies, 17 per cent right hepatectomies, 16 per cent left hepatectomies, and 1 per cent trisegmentectomy. Operative time was 233 (268 ± 109.3) minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 123 (269 ± 322.1) mL. Conversion to “open” approach was necessary in one patient. The length of stay was 3 (5 ± 4.6) days. There were no intraoperative complications. Twelve patients experienced postoperative complications. Six patients required readmission to the hospital within 30 days of discharge. Robotic hepatectomy is safe and feasible with favorable short-term outcomes. The robotic system enhances application of minimally invasive surgery for complex hepatobiliary operations.

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.

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.

Robotic hepatic surgery in malignancy: review of the current literature

The use of minimally invasive liver surgery, such as laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is increasing worldwide. Robot-assisted laparoscopy is a new surgical technique that improves surgical handling. The advantage of this technique is improved dexterity, which leads to increased surgical precision and no tremor or fatigue. Comparable oncological results were documented for laparoscopic and open surgery. Currently, "conventional" laparoscopic liver surgery has limitations with respect to the treatment of lesions in the posterior-superior segments, and there are limited technical features for the reconstruction steps. These limitations might be overcome with the use of robotic surgery. The use of robotic surgery for hepatic procedures originated because of the technical potential to overcome several of the major technical limitations known from conventional laparoscopy and the possibility of performing more extended liver resections. Additionally, there is increasing evidence indicating that robotic hepatic surgery is feasible and safe in resections of the posterior segments. Studies showed that using the robotic technique is associated with a decreased or at least equal amount of intraoperative blood loss compared to that of the conventional laparoscopic or open technique. There is increasing evidence that robotic liver surgery might be as safe as conventional laparoscopic procedures in cancer cases in terms of resection margins, disease-free and overall survival. Furthermore, robotic surgery might be more favorable with respect to postoperative patient recovery. Despite promising results, still large, multicenter, randomized and prospective studies are needed to analyze the exact value of robotic liver surgery in patients with malignant liver tumors.

Robotic Surgery for Malignant Liver Disease: a Systematic Review of Oncological and Surgical Outcomes

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is yet another modification of minimally invasive liver surgery. It is described as feasible and safe from the surgical point of view; however, oncological outcomes need to be adequately analysed to justify the use of this technique when resecting malignant liver tumours. We reviewed existing English medical literature on robot-assisted laparoscopic liver surgery. We analysed surgical outcomes and oncological outcomes. We analysed operative parameters including operative time, type of hepatectomy, blood loss, conversion rate, morbidity and mortality rates and length of stay. We also analysed oncological outcomes including completeness of resection (R status), recurrence, survival and follow-up data. A total of 582 patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic liver surgery were analysed from 17 eligible publications. Only 5 publications reported survival data. The overall morbidity was 19% with 0.2% reported mortality. R0 resection was achieved in 96% of patients. Robotic liver surgery is feasible and safe with acceptable morbidity and oncological outcomes including resection margins. However, well-designed trials are required to provide evidence in terms of survival and disease-free intervals when performed for malignancy.

Advantages of laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) has been widely accepted as a minimally invasive alternative to open liver surgery. We assessed the benefits and drawbacks of LLH compared with open left hemihepatectomy (OLH) using meta-analysis.

METHODS

Relevant literature was retrieved using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Ovid Medline databases. Multiple parameters of efficacy and safety were compared between the treatment groups. Results are expressed as odds ratio (OD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for fixed- and random-effects models.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 13 trials involving 1163 patients. Compared with OLH, LLH significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss (MD, -91.01; 95% CI, -139.12 to -42.89; P = .0002), transfusion requirement (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11-0.54; P = .0004), time to oral intake (MD, -0.80; 95% CI, -1.27 to -0.33; P = .0008), and hospital stay (MD, -3.94; 95% CI, -4.85 to -3.03; P < .0001). However, operative time; complications rate; and postoperative alanine transferase, albumin, and total bilirubin levels did not differ significantly between the 2 surgical groups (P > .05). For hepatolithiasis treatment, there were no significant differences in operative time, residual stones, stone recurrence, and complications rate between the groups (P > .05), but LLH resulted in lower incisional infection rate (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.89; P = .02) than OLH. The LLH group demonstrated higher bile leakage rate (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.14-2.81; P = .01) and incurred greater hospital costs (MD, 618.56; 95% CI, 154.47-1082.64; P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

LLH has multiple advantages over OLH and should thus be considered as the first choice for left hemihepatectomy.

Robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. This review attempts to clarify the role of robotic surgery for HCC in terms of oncologic outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed according to the PRISMA statement including papers comparing open, robotic, and laparoscopic approach for liver surgery. If more than one study was reported by the same institute, only the most recent or the highest quality study was included.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 302 articles; titles and abstracts were reviewed for inclusion. Ten papers were finally included in this review for a total of 307 patients who underwent robotic resection for HCC.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resection for HCC is effective in terms of oncological results as compared with open and laparoscopic approach when performed in experienced centers and is accurate in terms of R0 rates and disease-free surgical margin.

Improving Outcomes Defending Patient Safety: The Learning Journey in Robotic Liver Resections

Background

While laparoscopy is currently adopted for hepatic resections, robotic approaches to the liver have not gained wide acceptance. We decided to analyze the learning curve in the field of robotic liver surgery comparing short-term outcomes between the first and the second half of our series.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed demographics and clinical data of patients who underwent robotic liver resection at our institution from July 2014 through September 2017. 60 patients diagnosed with primary or secondary liver neoplasms or hydatid disease were included in this study. ASA PS >3, heart failure, respiratory insufficiency, and general contraindication to pneumoperitoneum were exclusion criteria.

Results

60 patients were included. We observed a statistically significant decrease in operative time (p<0.001), intraoperative blood loss (p=0.01), and postoperative complications (p<0.001) after 30 cases. From the interpretation of the CUSUM curve, the time of operation appears to be significantly reduced after the first 30 operations.

Discussion

This is the first European analysis of the learning curve for robotic liver resection in an HPB and liver transplant referral center. However, more studies are needed to confirm such results outside a HPB referral center. This is crucial to develop formal credentialing protocols for both junior and senior surgeons.

Reasons for open conversion in robotic liver surgery: A systematic review with pooled analysis of more than 1000 patients

BACKGROUND

Conversion to open during minimally invasive liver resection has a high rate. To identify the reasons to convert could help in defining a strategy to decrease the event "conversion."

METHODS

A systematic review has been performed. Our large series of robotic hepatic resections were analyzed and included in the review.

RESULTS

Fifty papers were selected and carefully evaluated in full text. Twenty-nine were ultimately used for analysis, including all published robotic liver resections. Our series included 11 conversions out of 139 patients (7.9%). Adhesions were not a declared reason to convert. The robotic approach still had a high percentage of open conversions because of difficulties in assessing the tumor margin.

CONCLUSIONS

Causes for conversion were carefully analyzed and compared with what previously described for the pure laparoscopic approach. This could be crucial in defining how to improve the performance and minimize the conversion rate.

Minimally invasive liver resection in the era of robotics: analysis of 214 cases

BACKGROUND

Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (MILR) techniques range from a hybrid-technique to full robotic approaches. When compared with open techniques, MILR has been shown to be advantageous by reducing pain, complications, length of stay and blood loss. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and hospital resource utilization between full laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and robotic liver resections among major (≥ 3 segments) and minor (≤ 2 segments) resections.

METHODS

A single-center comparative retrospective review was completed on 214 patients undergoing full laparoscopic, hand-assisted, or robotic liver resection procedures between 2005 and 2018.

RESULTS

Among minor resections: 85 full laparoscopic, 40 hand-assisted, and 35 robotic liver resection cases were analyzed; and among major resections: 13, 33, and 8 cases were analyzed, respectively. In the adjusted subgroup analysis of minor resections, OR time was significantly longer for the minor hand-assisted group ([Formula: see text] = 181 min; p < 0.05), and the average lesion size was smaller for the minor full laparoscopic group ([Formula: see text] = 4.2 cm; p < 0.05). Overall, direct hospital charges were lowest in the group of patients who underwent a minor resection using the full laparoscopic technique ([Formula: see text] = $39,054.90; p < 0.05), compared to the robotic technique. Due to the smaller sample size (n = 54) in the major resection subgroup, only two significant observations were made - the full laparoscopic group had the least amount of blood loss ([Formula: see text] = 227 cc; p < 0.05) and incurred the least amount of room and board charges compared to the other two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach appears favorable for minor resections as evidenced by shorter length of stay but more costly than full laparoscopy. Clinical outcomes appear to be more dependent upon the magnitude of the resection (i.e. major vs. minor) than the MILR technique chosen. Randomized trials may be indicated to discern the best indications and advantages of each technique.

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.

Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: innovations in surgical techniques

Liver metastases and peritoneal carcinomatosis are a particular focus of surgeons in improving survival in stage IV colorectal cancer patients, with laparotomy long being the means to undertake these operations. The Louisville statement published in 2008 was the first international consensus on indications for minimally invasive liver resection. Herein we review the progress in innovative surgical techniques, including minimally invasive liver resection, robot-assisted hepatectomy, and we also describe initial reports in pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy.

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.

Robotic Developments in Cancer Surgery

Indications for robotic surgery have been rapidly expanding since the first introduction of the robotic surgical system in the US market in 2000. As the robotic systems have become more sophisticated over the past decades, there has been an expansion in indications. Many new tools have been added with the aim of optimizing outcomes after oncologic surgery. Complex abdominal cancers are increasingly operated on using robot-assisted laparoscopy and with acceptable outcomes. In this article, the authors discuss robotic developments, from the past and the future, with an emphasis on cancer surgery.

Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) by the means of meta-analytical techniques. We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and Web of Science databases, collecting randomized or non-randomized studies about robotic-assisted and laparoscopic liver resections. The searching cutoff date was 2017/6/30, all the data obtained were statistically analyzed using RevMan5.3 software recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. A total of thirteen articles, involving 938 patients were enrolled in meta-analysis. Among them, 435 cases underwent RLR, and 503 cases underwent LLR. Compared with LLR, the RLR had longer operative time [MD=65.49, 95%CI (42.00, 88.98) P＜0.00001＝more intraoperative blood loss [MD=69.88, 95%CI (27.11, 112.65) P=0.001] and a higher cost [MD=4.24, 95%CI (3.08, 5.39) P＜0.00001＝. There were no significant differences between the two groups in transfusion rate, complication rate, conversion rate, the R1 resection rate and hospital stay. In the subgroup analysis of surgery after 2010, a lower conversion rate was observed in RLR, other clinical outcomes are comparable between RLR and LLR. In the subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy, RLR is still associated with longer operative time, but there is no difference in other outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of left hemihepatectomy or left lateral hepatectomy, RLR is associated with more blood loss. Although RLR associated with Longer operative time and more intraoperative blood loss, it displays the same safety and effectiveness as LLR for hepatectomies. And the high cost is still a major hindrance for the widely application of robotic surgery.

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

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

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.