Robotic liver resection: Technique and results of 30 consecutive procedures. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2247-2258. [PMID: 22311301 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2168-9]

Early outcomes of robotic vs open living donor right hepatectomy in a US Center

BACKGROUND

Robotic living donor hepatectomy offers potential advantages but has been limited to high-volume centers, primarily in Asia and the Middle East. We report our experience establishing a robotic living donor right hepatectomy program in a U.S. center with low LDLT volume and no prior laparoscopic donor hepatectomy experience and analyze early outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed 37 living donor right hepatectomies (13 robotic [including one open conversion], 24 open) performed between June 2022 and February 2024.

RESULTS

The robotic group had longer operative times (median [range], 451 [374-568] minutes vs 368 [276-421] minutes; P < 0.001) but less blood loss (median [range], 200 [50-700] mL vs 900 [300-2500] mL; P < 0.001). One case required unplanned open conversion due to gas embolism. Two hematomas/bleeding (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIB) occurred in the robotic group, but no biliary complications. Comprehensive Complication Index, liver function tests, and hospital stays were similar between the two groups, with no 90-day graft failure/mortality.

CONCLUSION

With extensive surgical experience in both open donor hepatectomy and robotic surgery, along with meticulous preparation as a team, U.S. centers with lower LDLT volume and no laparoscopic experience can safely implement robotic living donor right hepatectomy, achieving comparable short-term outcomes to the open approach. Further research on long-term outcomes and donor quality of life is necessary.

Validation of the IWATE Criteria in Robotic-Assisted Liver Resections

Background/Objectives: The IWATE criteria are well-established as a helpful tool to preoperatively estimate the difficulty and perioperative outcome of laparoscopic liver resections. We evaluated the relationship between the IWATE criteria and the perioperative outcomes in robotic-assisted liver resections (RARLs). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 58 patients who underwent robotic-assisted liver surgery at our center between July 2019 and April 2023. The operative difficulty of every patient was graded according to the IWATE criteria and compared to the perioperative outcome. Results: The median operation time was 236.5 min (range 37-671 min), and the median length of stay was 6 days (range 3-37 min). The majority had no complications (65.5%; n = 38), 18 (31.0%) patients suffered from mild complications (CD ≤ 3A) and 2 patients (3.4%) suffered from relevant complications (CD ≥ 3B). We observed no deaths within 30 postoperative days. The surgery time, postoperative ICU stay and perioperative blood transfusions increased significantly with a higher difficulty level (p = < 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.016). The length of stay, conversion to open surgery (n = 2) and complication rate were not significantly linked to the resulting IWATE group. Conclusions: The IWATE criteria can be implemented in robotic-assisted liver surgery and can be helpful in preoperatively estimating the difficulty of robotic liver resections. Whether there is a "robotic effect" in minimally invasive liver resections has to be further clarified. The IWATE criteria can help to develop curricula for robotic training.

Surgical techniques for robotic right donor hepatectomy, part 2: robotic parenchymal transection and bile duct division

Robotic surgery is emerging as a feasible minimally invasive approach for donor hepatectomy at specialized centers. The aim of this article is to systematically describe the surgical techniques for robotic parenchymal transection and bile duct division in right donor hepatectomy. The setup of the robotic arms, methods of parenchymal transection using robotic instruments, and right hepatic duct division with the aid of indocyanine green dye are detailed, along with the pearls and pitfalls of these two parts of the operation.

10 years, 100 robotic major hepatectomies: a single-center experience

INTRODUCTION

Adoption of robotic liver resections has been gradually increasing throughout the HPB surgical community over the past decade. Currently there is limited literature which demonstrates a significant benefit of robotic surgery for major hepatectomies over open or laparoscopic. As one of the first centers to develop a robotic HPB program, we have experienced improved outcomes over time with increasing utilization of robotics. Herein, we present our 10-year experience and outcomes for major robotic liver resections.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2022, 361 robotic liver procedures were performed, including 100 major hepatectomies. A retrospective data review of the electronic medical record was performed evaluating outcomes after robotic major hepatectomy. Outcomes for the first 50 cases (Group A) and second 50 cases (Group B) were compared to identify any improvements in practice. Demographic and clinical outcome variables were analyzed. Data were assessed for normality, and Wilcoxon rank-sum, χ2 tests, and a logistic regression model were performed appropriate for the data. Stata v.17 was utilized, and significance was set as p < .05.

RESULTS

There was no difference in median operative time (258 vs 256 min), EBL (500 vs 500 mL), median LOS (5 vs 3.5 days), 90-day readmission (14% vs 24%), major complications (14% vs 20%), and 90-day mortality (6% vs 4%) between early and late cases, respectively. ICU admissions and conversion rates were significantly lower in group B (14.0% vs 48.0%), while expert level difficulty indices were higher (82% vs 58%).

CONCLUSION

Development of a robotic liver program with good outcomes is feasible over time. Our data suggest that our institutional learning curve for robotic major hepatectomy plateaued at approximately 50 cases.

Initial experience with robotic liver resection: Audit of 120 consecutive cases at a single center and comparison with open and laparoscopic approaches

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Surgical outcomes and utility of robotic liver resection (RLR) are undefined.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied perioperative and long-term outcomes of the single-center 120 RLRs including non-anatomic (NAR, n = 58) and anatomic (AR, n = 62) resections. To evaluate the feasibility and safety of RLR, perioperative outcomes of RLR (n = 103) were compared to those of open (OLR, n = 495) or laparoscopic (LLR, n = 451) resection in liver-only resections without reconstruction, using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). The changing trends from the earlier to the later RLR cases were assessed. Long-term outcomes were compared between RLR and LLR.

RESULTS

Various types of RLR with different surgical difficulties were performed, with mostly comparable postoperative morbidity between AR and NAR, or among AR subtypes. In segmentectomy and sectionectomy cases, perioperative outcomes significantly improved in the later period. In comparison between PSM-selected OLR and RLR cases (87:87), RLR had significantly longer operative time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. PSM-selected LLR and RLR cases (91:91) showed comparable perioperative outcomes. Overall and recurrence-free survivals after RLR for newly diagnosed hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal metastasis were comparable to those after LLR.

CONCLUSIONS

RLR is applicable to various types of liver resection with acceptable perioperative and long-term outcomes in select patients.

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.

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

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

Pan-European survey on the implementation of robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive liver surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is gaining popularity. Recent data and views on the implementation of laparoscopic and robotic MILS throughout Europe are lacking.

METHODS

An anonymous survey consisting of 46 questions was sent to all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 120 surgeons from 103 centers in 24 countries. Median annual center volume of liver resection was 100 [IQR 50-140]. The median annual volume of MILS per center was 30 [IQR 16-40]. For minor resections, laparoscopic MILS was used by 80 (67%) surgeons and robotic MILS by 35 (29%) surgeons. For major resections, laparoscopic MILS was used by 74 (62%) surgeons and robotic MILS by 33 (28%) surgeons. The majority of the surgeons stated that minimum annual volume of MILS per center should be around 21-30 procedures/year. Of the surgeons performing robotic surgery, 28 (70%) felt they missed specific equipment, such as a robotic-CUSA. Seventy (66%) surgeons provided a formal MILS training to residents and fellows. In 5 years' time, 106 (88%) surgeons felt that MILS would have superior value as compared to open liver surgery.

CONCLUSION

In the participating European liver centers, MILS comprised about one third of all liver resections and is expected to increase further. Laparoscopic MILS is still twice as common as robotic MILS. Development of specific instruments for robotic liver parenchymal transection might further increase its adoption.

Advanced Robotic Surgery: Liver, Pancreas, and Esophagus - The State of the Art?

Background

The trend in performing robotic-assisted operations in visceral surgery has been increasing in the last decade, also reaching the challenging field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery. Nevertheless, solid data about advantages and disadvantages of the robotic approach are still missing. The aim of this review is to analyze the benefit and impact of robotic surgery in the field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery, focusing on the comparison with the conventional laparoscopic or open approach.

Summary

The well-known advantages of laparoscopic surgery in comparison to the open approach are also valid for robotic surgery, with the addition of a 3D-view camera, wristed instrumentation, and an ergonomic console. On the other hand, the use of a robotic system leads to longer operating time and higher costs. Randomized controlled trials comparing the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one are still missing.

Key Message

Recent meta-analyses show promising results of the usage of robotic systems in advanced surgical procedures, like hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal resections. Further randomized studies are needed to validate the postulated benefit.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Robotic donor hepatectomy: A major breakthrough in living donor liver transplantation

Living donation in many countries is the main resource of organs. Healthy, volunteering individuals deserve the highest safety standards possible in addition to the least invasive technique to procure the organs. Since the introduction of living donor liver transplantation, many efforts have been made to minimize the surgical trauma inherent to living donor surgery. The journey started with a large Mercedes incision and evolved to reverse L-shaped and small upper midline incisions before the introduction of minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques originated. The technical difficulties of the laparoscopic approach due to suboptimal instrumentation, challenging ergonomics, and the long learning curve limited the application of the fully laparoscopic approach to a few centers. The recent introduction of the robotic platform with its superb optical system and advanced instruments allows for the first time, a genuine emulation of open donor surgery in a closed abdomen, thus allowing all liver donors to benefit from minimally invasive surgery (better cosmesis, less pain and morbidity, and better quality of life) without compromising donor safety. This attribute in combination with the ubiquitous presence of the robot in major transplant centers may well lead to the desired endpoint of this technology, namely, the widespread dissemination of minimally invasive donor surgery.

Initial experience with a robotic hepatectomy program at a high-volume laparoscopic center: single-center experience and surgical tips

Background

Despite the development of laparoscopic surgery, there are still inherent limitations associated with conventional laparoscopic instruments such as restrictions in movement and an inability for articulation. Robotic surgery may help to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to present our initial experience with robotic hepatectomy (RH) and discuss the steps required to develop an RH program at a high-volume laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) center.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data for 14 consecutive patients who underwent RH between 2017 and 2018. Clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared with those reported in previous studies. The operation time of each procedure was analyzed to assess RH proficiency based on experience.

Results

Of the 14 patients, 12 patients (85.7%) underwent robotic major hepatectomy. Median patient age was 54.5 years, while median body mass index (BMI) was 25.2 kg/m². The median operation time was 360 (range: 145–544) min. The median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 300 (range: 50–1,400) mL. Conversion to open surgery was not required in any case. The median length of hospital stay was 5 (range: 4–14) days. Major complications occurred in 2 patients (14.2%), although both recovered without sequelae. The time required for hilar dissection, docking, and parenchymal transection gradually decreased after the first two cases of RH.

Conclusions

From our initial experience, RH might be considered as a feasible procedure in the liver resection, even in major hepatectomy. In addition, surgeons with sufficient experience in LH could rapidly adapt for RH. However, we have to make a system for education and monitoring of this innovative surgery for the patients’ safety.

Useful Technique for Creating a Good Liver Parenchymal Visual Transection Plane During Laparoscopic Partial Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Creating a good surgical visual field is one of the most important factors for performing a successful surgery. Here, we introduce a useful technique for creating a good liver parenchymal visual transection plane during laparoscopic partial hepatectomy and compare the perioperative outcomes of our current technique with those of conventional techniques.

METHODS

We reviewed the data of patients who underwent laparoscopic partial hepatectomy between July 2016 and December 2020. The current technique for creating transection planes was first applied in our department in April 2019. The patients were divided into conventional (forceps) and current (silicone ring) technique groups, depending on the surgical technique.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight and 12 patients underwent laparoscopic partial hepatectomy using the conventional and current techniques, respectively, when the difficulty level-as determined by IWATE criteria-was low. Although the tumor size was significantly larger (median: 22.5 vs. 15 mm, P=0.04) in the current technique group, the estimated intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower (median: 50 vs. 100 mL, P=0.01), and the median surgical margin was significantly longer (median: 7 vs. 3 mm, P=0.02). There were no significant between-group differences in surgical time (median: 344 vs. 240 min, P=0.14), postoperative hospital stay duration (median: 11 vs. 9.5 d, P=0.051), and the incidence of complications (P=0.63).

CONCLUSION

We believe that the technique involving the use of a silicone ring can result in better surgical outcomes as it provides a good visual hepatic transection plane during laparoscopic partial hepatectomy.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic major hepatectomies: Systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Major hepatectomy is still regarded as a technically demanding procedure for which minimally invasive surgery remains limited to selected cases in experienced centres and robotic platforms may provide some advantages over conventional laparoscopy in this setting. We aimed to combine and meta-analyse the available literature upon this topic.

METHODS

The PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were appraised to find all available studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomies. According to a pre-established pattern preoperative settings, operative and postoperative outcomes were assessed. The meta-analysis was performed by using the Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 485 patients from eight studies were included in the analysis. Robotic major hepatectomies showed a significantly lower conversion rate and estimated blood loss as compared to laparoscopic ones. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies patients experienced significant shorter postoperative hospitalisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery appears as competent as conventional laparoscopy to perform major hepatectomies, with possible advantages on conversion rate and perioperative blood loss, despite slightly prolonged postoperative hospitalisation.

Applying IWATE criteria to robotic hepatectomy: is there a "robotic effect"?

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to apply this criteria to determine its applicability to robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

We prospectively followed 105 patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy. Operations were categorized into Low (0-3), Intermediate (4-6), Advanced (7-9), and Expert (10-12).

RESULTS

Patients had a median age of 62 (61 ± 13.1) years, with a BMI of 28 (29 ± 6.1) kg/m²; 38% were women. ASA class was 3 (3 ± 0.6). Of the 105 operations, 2 were categorized as Low, 31 as Intermediate, 49 as Advanced, and 23 as Expert. EBL and operative duration were found to be significantly greater as the operative difficulty level increased (p < 0.03 and p < 0.01, respectively). Intraoperatively, when comparing Expert and Intermediate, EBL and operative duration were significantly greater (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0031, respectively). In the comparison of Expert with Advanced, operative duration was significantly longer (p = 0.0001). Postoperatively, comparisons between Expert and Intermediate, Expert and Advanced, and Advanced and Intermediate showed no differences.

CONCLUSION

EBL and operative duration increased with IWATE scores reflecting more difficult robotic hepatectomies. However, with the robotic approach, our postoperative outcomes were similar irrespective of IWATE difficulty scores. Perhaps, the robotic approach potentially has a mitigating effect on postoperative outcomes regardless of difficulty level.

Robotic liver surgery: literature review and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) have been gaining popularity over the last decades. MILR provides superior peri-operative outcome. Despite these advantages, the penetrance of MILR in the clinical setting has been limited, and it was slowed down, among other factors, also by the laparoscopic technological limitations.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature review has been carried out (Pubmed, Embase and Scopus platforms) focusing on the role of robotic surgery in MILR.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The literature review results are presented and our additional remarks on the topic are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic MILR has been helping to expand the penetrance of MIS in liver surgery by making possible increasingly more challenging procedures. Minor resections still represent most of the robotic liver surgery data currently available. Robotic liver surgery is safe and effective, and it shows perioperative outcomes comparable with laparoscopic and open surgery. The oncological efficacy, within the limitations of the current level of evidence (mostly retrospective studies and literature heterogeneity), seems to show promising result. High quality prospective randomized studies, the use of prospective registry data, and multi-institutional efforts are needed.

Robotic major liver resections: Surgical outcomes compared with open major liver resections

Backgrounds/Aims

Laparoscopic major liver resections are still considered innovative procedures despite the recent development of laparoscopic liver surgery. Robotic surgery has been introduced as an innovative system for laparoscopic surgery. In this study, we investigated surgical outcomes after major liver resections using robotic systems.

Methods

From January 2009 to October 2018, 70 patients underwent robotic major liver resections, which included conventional major liver resections and right sectionectomy. The short-term and long-term outcomes were compared with 252 open major resections performed during the same period.

Results

Operative time was longer in the robotic group (472 min vs. 349 min, p<0.001). However, estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic group compared with the open resection group (269 ml vs. 548 ml, p=0.009). The overall postoperative complication rate of the robotic group was lower than that of the open resection group (31.4% vs. 58.3%, p<0.001), but the major complication rate was similar between the two groups. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (9.5 days vs. 15.1 days, p=0.006). Among patients with HCC, cholangiocarcinoma, and colorectal liver metastasis, there was no difference in overall and disease-free survival between the two groups. After propensity score matching in 37 patients with HCC for each group, the robotic group still showed a shorter hospital stay and comparable long-term outcomes.

Conclusions

Robotic major liver resections provided improved perioperative outcomes and comparable long-term oncologic outcome compared with open resections. Therefore, robotic surgery should be considered one of the options for minimally invasive major liver resections.

Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection in Hepatocarcinoma: Surgical and Oncological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches are spreading in every field of surgery, including liver surgery. However, studies comparing robotic hepatectomy with the conventional open approach regarding oncologic outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma are limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed demographics characteristics, pathologic features, surgical, and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent robotic and conventional open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

RESULTS

No significant differences in demographics features, tumor size, tumor location, and type of liver resection were found. The morbidity rate was similar, 23% for the open group versus 17% of the robotic group (P=0.605). Perioperative data analysis showed a greater estimated blood loss in patients who underwent open resection, if compared with robotic group (P=0.003). R0 resection and disease-free resection margins showed no statistically significant differences. The 3-year disease-free survival of the robotic group was comparable with that of the open group (54% vs. 37%; P=0.592), as was the 3-year overall survival (87% vs. 78%; P=0.203).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical and the oncological outcomes seem to be comparable between minimally invasive and open hepatectomy. Robotic liver resections are effective, and do not compromise the oncological outcome, representing a reasonable alternative to the open approach.

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.

Transitioning From Open to Robotic Liver Resection. Results of 46 Consecutive Procedures Including a Majority of Major Hepatectomies

Aims. Minimally invasive liver resection is a complex and challenging operation. Although authors have reported robotic liver resection shows improved safety and efficacy compared with open liver resection, robotic major liver resections for malignant liver lesions treatment remain inadequately evaluated. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the feasibility and safety of transitioning from open to robotic liver resection in a nonuniversity hospital. Patients and Methods. From December 2015 to March 2020, 46 patients underwent totally robotic-assisted liver resections out of 446 robotic procedures. Also, we retrospectively reviewed the last 27 open right hepatectomies (ORHs) and compared then with the first 25 anatomic robotic-assisted right hepatectomies (RRHs). Results. Mean operative time, mean blood lost, rate of complications, and mean hospital stay were associated with the complexity of the procedure. The comparison between ORH and RRH showed that intraoperative complications were less frequently observed during ORH whereas RRH showed a trend in favor of less blood loss. ORH had a trend toward smaller surgical margins and higher rate of R1 resections. Recurrence occurred in 31 (59%) patients and was more frequently observed after ORH. However, the mean follow-up was significantly shorter after RRH. Conclusion. Our study demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of transitioning from open to robotic liver resection (including major hepatectomies) in a nonuniversity setting. Higher costs remain an important drawback for robotic surgery.

Safety and feasibility of robotic major hepatectomy for novice surgeons in robotic liver surgery: A prospective multicenter pilot study

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver resection has not yet been widely implemented. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic major liver resection by performing a prospective multicenter study.

METHODS

From July 2017 to December 2018, five surgeons from five tertiary hospitals who were novices in robotic liver resection but experienced in open and laparoscopic liver resection performed 46 cases of robotic major anatomical liver resections. Perioperative clinical data and surgical data, including detailed procedure times were prospectively collected. All operations were performed according to a protocol for unify surgical techniques and instruments.

RESULTS

Twenty-two cases of left hemihepatectomy, one case of extended left hemihepatectomy, 14 cases of right hemihepatectomy, two cases of right anterior sectionectomy, six cases of right posterior sectionectomy, and one case of central bisectionectomy were performed. The most common indications were hepatocellular carcinoma (21 cases) followed by intrahepatic duct stones (10 cases), intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma (7 cases), liver metastases (3 cases), intraductal papillary neoplasms (2 cases), sarcoma (1 case), mucinous cystic neoplasm (1 case), and hemangioma (1 case). Surgical resection margins for all tumor cases were negative. The mean operation time was 378.58 ± 124.31 (190-696) minutes and the estimated intraoperative blood loss was 276.67 ± 397.41 mL (range, 10-2600 mL). Overall complications developed in 16 cases (34.8%). There were three cases of severe surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo classification of III or more). Only one of 46 cases was converted to conventional open left hemihepatectomy because of bleeding. The mean hospital stay was 7.3 ± 2.5 (4-18) days.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that robotic anatomic major liver resection can be safely performed by robotic beginners who are advanced open and laparoscopic liver surgeons.

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.

Unplanned conversion during minimally invasive liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: risk factors and surgical outcomes

Purpose

Unplanned conversion is sometimes necessary during minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aims of this study were to compare surgical outcomes of planned MILR and unplanned conversion and to investigate the risk factors after unplanned conversion.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 286 patients who underwent MILR with HCC from January 2006 to December 2017. All patients were divided into a MILR group and an unplanned conversion group. The clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. In addition, surgical outcomes in the conversion group were compared with the planned open surgery group (n = 505). Risk factors for unplanned conversion were analyzed.

Results

Of the 286 patients who underwent MILR, 18 patients (6.7%) had unplanned conversion during surgery. The unplanned conversion group showed statistically more blood loss, higher transfusion rate and postoperative complication rate, and longer hospital stay compared to the MILR group, whereas no such difference was observed in comparison with the planned open surgery group. There were no significant differences in overall and disease-free survival among 3 groups. The right-sided sectionectomy (right anterior and posterior sectionectomy), central bisectionectomy and tumor size were risk factors of unplanned conversion.

Conclusion

Unplanned conversion during MILR for HCC was associated with poor perioperative outcomes, but it did not affect long-term oncologic outcomes in our study. In addition, when planning right-sided sectionectomy or central bisectionectomy for a large tumor (more than 5 cm), we should recommend open surgery or MILR with an informed consent for unplanned open conversions.

Robotic simultaneous resection for colorectal liver metastasis: feasibility for all types of liver resection

BACKGROUND

A laparoscopic approach is increasingly being utilized in simultaneous colorectal and liver resection (SCLR) for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis. However, this approach is technically challenging and hence has not been widely adopted. Robotic surgical systems could potentially overcome this problem. We aim to describe the feasibility and outcomes of robotic SCLR for colorectal carcinoma with liver metastasis.

METHODS

The medical records of 12 patients who underwent robotic SCLR for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis between January 2008 and September 2018 were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The mean age was 59 years (range, 37-77 years). The liver resections were comprised of two right hepatectomies, one left hepatectomy, one left lateral sectionectomy, one segmentectomy of S3 and wedge resection (segment 7), one caudate lobectomy, one associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and five wedge resections involving segments 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8. The colorectal procedures involved seven low-anterior resections, two anterior resections, two right hemicolectomies, and one left hemicolectomy. The mean operative time was 449 min (range, 135-682 min) with a mean estimated blood loss of 274.3 mL (range, 40-780 mL). The mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (range, 5-28 days). No patients required conversion to laparotomy. Liver resection-related complications were two liver abscesses (Clavien-Dindo classification, one grade II and one grade III) and one case of ascites (grade I), whereas colorectal resection-related complications included one anastomosis leak (grade III) and one superficial wound infection (grade II). There were no deaths reported within 30 days of the procedure. With a mean follow-up duration of 31.5 ± 26.1 months, the overall survival and disease-free survival values were 75.2 and 47.1 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Robotic SCLR for colorectal neoplasm with liver metastasis can be performed safely even in cases requiring major liver resections, especially in a specialized center with a well-trained team.

Use of indocyanine green (ICG) augmented near-infrared fluorescence imaging in robotic radical resection of gallbladder adenocarcinomas

BACKGROUND

Gallbladder cancer remains a rare cancer with a poor prognosis. National guidelines recommend radical resection in the absence of metastatic disease. This often requires extensive dissection around the extrahepatic bile ducts. We report our experience of real-time near-infrared fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green during robotic radical resection of gallbladder adenocarcinomas.

METHODS

Ten patients with gallbladder adenocarcinoma underwent robotic radical resection entailing central hepatectomy (segments IV-B and V) with regional lymphadenectomy. Real-time NIRF imaging was performed using the da Vinci^® Firefly system after intravenous administration of ICG 30 to 60 min preoperatively. Primary objective was to determine safety of this technique.

RESULTS

Procedure was successfully completed in all patients. Seven patients (70%) had incidentally discovered gallbladder cancer after laparoscopic cholecystectomy and five patients had preoperatively known positive margins. Mean operative time was 173 min. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 88 mL (30-200 mL). Median number of lymph nodes retrieved was 5 (2-8). High ligation of cystic duct was performed close to the common bile duct (CBD) junction with the assist of NIRF and negative margins were achieved in all patients. No major complications (Grade III-IV) or mortality was seen at 30 days post-op.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from our limited experience demonstrate procedural safety and beneficial use of NIRF using ICG during robotic radical resection of gallbladder adenocarcinomas. It may assist in attainment of negative cystic duct margin and lymphatic clearance around the biliary tree especially in complex re-explorative biliary surgery.

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.

Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy Using Real-Time Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging

INTRODUCTION

In recent decades, the quantitative and technological development of laparoscopic liver resection has resulted in an extension into the transplantation area.^1,2 However, laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy is still in its infancy due to technical difficulties and extreme caution regarding donor safety.³ Several experienced major centers have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy, and recent advances in laparoscopic imaging technology support this move.⁴ In particular, indocyanine green near-infrared fluorescence imaging helps determine the correct liver parenchyma anatomical resection and the exact point of bile duct division.^4-6 This video demonstrates the technique of pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy and the usefulness of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging.

METHODS

The donor was a 32-year-old gentleman who decided to donate part of his liver to his wife who was suffering from viral liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. His BMI was 20.3 kg/m² and the preoperatively estimated donor's right liver volume was 836 ml, representing 63.6% of his entire liver. With the recipient's weight of 57 kg, the graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR) was 1.6%. The liver had classic hilar anatomy except that the right posterior intrahepatic duct was joined separately to the left main hepatic duct. The patient setting and the placement of the trocars were the same as for our conventional laparoscopic right hepatectomy technique.⁷ After right hepatic artery and portal vein isolation and clamping, 2.5 mg of indocyanine green was injected intravenously.

RESULTS

Total operation time was 370 min and estimated blood loss was 150 ml without transfusion. Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging clearly demonstrated the anatomical demarcation between the lobes and visualized the running of the biliary tree. His postoperative course was uneventful, and he was discharged on postoperative day 7.

CONCLUSION

Real-time indocyanine green fluorescence imaging may be particularly helpful for delineating the anatomical surgical plane and determining the appropriate division point of the hepatic duct during laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic major liver resection: analysis of outcomes from a single center

BACKGROUND

Debate exists regarding outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. We reviewed and analyzed major hepatectomies (resection of ≥3 Couinaud liver segments) performed in a minimally invasive fashion at a single institution.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2016, 473 major hepatectomy procedures were performed, of which 173 (37%) were performed in a minimally invasive fashion (57 robot-assisted and 116 laparoscopic). Patient demographics, operating statistics and outcomes were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy were older (58.1 vs 53.2 years, respectively; p = 0.030), admitted to ICU postoperatively less frequently (43.9% vs 61.2%, respectively; p = 0.043), and readmitted less often within 90 days (7.0% vs 28.5%, respectively; p = 0.001). No significant differences were identified in relation to complications, blood loss, operative times, and length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted is an effective alternative to laparoscopic major hepatectomy for resection of malignant and benign liver lesions. Robotic-assisted offers technical advantages compared to laparoscopic surgery including improved optic visualization, operative dexterity, and ease of dissection and suturing. This experience suggested that the robotic platform was associated with improved outcomes including reduced postoperative ICU admission and 90-day readmission.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison between robotic and open liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

Minimally invasive liver surgery has evolved significantly during the last 2 decades. A growing number of published studies report outcomes from robotic liver resections (RLR). The aim of our meta-analysis was to evaluate short-term outcomes after RLR vs. open liver resection (OLR). A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for articles published from January 2000 until November 2018 was performed. Ten non-randomized retrospective clinical studies comprising a total of 1248 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Four hundred and fifty-eight patients underwent RLR and 790 underwent OLR. RLRs were associated with lower overall morbidity rates (p =0.006) and shorter hospital stay (p <0.00001), whereas OLRs were associated with shorter operative time (p =0.003). No differences were shown between the two groups with regard to blood loss, blood transfusion requirements, R0 resection and mortality rates. Cumulative conversion rate was 4.6% in the RLR group. Due to limited available data, further prospective randomized studies are needed to better determine the potential beneficial role of the robotic approach in the treatment of malignant and benign hepatic tumors.

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.

Robotic surgery for gallbladder cancer: Operative technique and early outcomes

BACKGROUND

The objective was to elucidate the operative technique of robotic radical cholecystectomy (RRC) and to compare the early outcomes of RRC with open radical cholecystectomy (ORC) for gallbladder cancer (GBC).

METHODS

Patients who underwent RRC for suspected or incidental GBC between July 2015 and August 2018 were analyzed. Patients who underwent ORC during the same period and fulfilled the study criteria formed the control group.

RESULTS

During the study period, 27 patients who underwent RRC formed the study group (group A) and 70 matched patients who underwent ORC formed the control group (group B). Median surgical time was higher in group A (295 vs 200 minutes, P < 0.001). However, median blood loss (200 vs 600 mL, P < 0.001), postoperative hospital stay (4 vs 5 days, P = 0.046) and postoperative morbidity (1 vs 15 patients, P = 0.035) were lower in group A. Median lymph node yield was 10 (range = 2-21) for group A and 9 (range = 2-25) for group B, and was comparable (P = 0.408). During a median follow up of 9 (1-46) months, two patients in group A developed recurrence (no port site recurrence).

CONCLUSION

RRC is safe and feasible and the short-term results are compared with ORC.

Single-Institution Early Experience and Learning Curve with Robotic Liver Resections

Robotic liver resection is being introduced with its potential to overcome limitations of conventional laparoscopy. This study was undertaken to document early experience and learning curve of robotic liver resection in our institution. All patients undergoing liver resection between 2013 and 2017 were prospectively followed. Patients were divided into three consecutive tertiles (cohort I–III). Thirty-three patients underwent robotic liver resection within the study period. Twenty-four per cent of patients underwent formal right or left hemihepatectomy, 21 per cent underwent sectionectomy, 6 per cent underwent central hepatectomy, and the remainder underwent non-anatomical liver resection. Formal hemihepatectomy and right posterosuperior segment resection were undertaken in two patients in cohort I, four patients in cohort II, and four patients in cohort III. Two cases were converted to “open” operation. Operative time was 172 (194.5 ± 65.1) minutes in cohort I, 222 (247.8 ± 109.8) minutes in cohort II, and 280 (302.5 ± 84.9) minutes in cohort III, reflecting increasing degree of technical complexity. Estimated blood loss decreased significantly throughout the cohorts, being 400 mL, 200 mL, and 100 mL in cohorts I to III, respectively. Major intraoperative complications were not seen. Three patients experienced postoperative complications, resulting in a single mortality. Length of hospital stay was three days, with two patients being readmitted within 30 days. Robotic technique for liver resection is feasible and safe. It offers good short-term clinical outcomes, including for patients who require major liver resection. As the proficiency developed, a notable improvement in technically ability to undertake more complex resections with decreasing blood loss and minimal morbidity was seen.

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.

Technical approach of robotic total right hepatic lobectomy: How we do it?

Despite advantages of minimally invasive surgery, many hepatobiliary surgeons are hesitant to offer this approach for major hepatic resection due to concerns of difficulty in liver manipulation, bleeding control, and suboptimal oncologic outcomes. The robotic surgical system has revolutionized the way traditional laparoscopic liver resection is undertaken. Limitations of traditional laparoscopy are being resolved by robotic technology. We aimed to describe aspects of minimally invasive liver surgery and our standardized technical approach. We discussed technical aspects of performing robotic total right hepatic lobectomy and described our standardized institutional method. A 79-year-old man with an 11-cm biopsy-proven hepatocellular carcinoma was taken to the operating room for a robotic total right hepatic lobectomy. Past medical and surgical history was consistent with hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Robotic extrahepatic Glissonean pedicle approach was used to gain inflow vascular control. Right hepatic artery and portal vein were individually dissected and isolated prior to division. An intraoperative robotic ultrasound was utilized to guide liver parenchymal transection, securing negative margins. Robotic vessel sealing device was used as the main energy device during the parenchymal transection. Right hepatic vein was transected intrahepatically using a linear stapler. Operative time was 200 min without intraoperative complications. Estimated blood loss was 100 ml. Postsurgical recovery was uneventful and he was discharged home on postoperative day 4. Minimally invasive robotic total right hepatic lobectomy is feasible with excellent perioperative outcomes.

Laparoscopic liver resection: a review of current indications and surgical techniques

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been the most impressive development in the field of liver surgery in recent two decades. Technical innovations and experience accumulation have made LLR a safe and effective procedure with faster postoperative recovery. Despite the fast spreading of the procedure, details regarding the indications, oncological outcomes and technical essentials were still disputable. To address these issues, two international consensus conferences were hold to update the knowledge in this field. The statements of the both conferences were not conclusive and more high-quality researches are required. In this article, we reviewed the development and the current state of LLR. Indications, outcomes, surgical techniques and devices used in LLR were also discussed.

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.

Fully robotic left hepatectomy for malignant tumor: technique and initial results

Robotic liver surgery has been considered as a unique opportunity to overcome the traditional limitations of laparoscopy; thus, it can potentially extend the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery. From April 2015 to May 2017, 35 patients underwent fully robotic left hepatectomy. The mean operative time was 315 min (200-445 min) and the mean estimated blood loss was 245 ml (125-628 ml). Pringle maneuver was required in six cases. Cancer was the indication for surgery in all patients (14 liver metastases, 18 hepatocellular carcinomas and 3 cholangiocarcinomas). There were one to four lesions in a patient and the mean lesion size was 39.2 mm (15-85 mm). The average length of hospital stay was 6.5 days (5-14 days). Perioperative morbidity rate was 17.2%. Two patients underwent conversion to open surgery. The 90-day mortality rate was nil. The mean surgical resection margin was 12 (1-22) mm, and R0-resection was reached in 33 out of 35 cases. The robotic left hepatectomy provides interesting surgical outcomes and good oncologic adequacy. It can be safely applied for the management of liver malignancies.

Minimally Invasive Approaches for Surgical Management of Primary Liver Cancers

The benefits of minimally invasive approaches in oncologic surgery are increasingly recognized, and laparoscopic liver surgery has become increasingly widespread. In light of the complexity and technical challenges of hepatobiliary procedures, robotic approaches are also employed. The utility, safety, and oncologic integrity of these methods in the management of primary liver cancers are reported. PubMed was used to search the medical literature for studies and articles pertaining to laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery. Studies that particularly addressed hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma were identified and reviewed. Laparoscopic liver surgery, including for major resections, has been shown to be safe in experienced hands without any compromise of oncologic outcomes for either hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Some studies show improved clinical outcomes including shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates when compared to open surgery, particularly for patients with cirrhosis. Robotic liver surgeries seem to have equally acceptable clinical outcomes; however, there is limited data regarding oncologic integrity and considerable additional expense. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections are both feasible and safe for the management of primary liver tumors. Future studies should aim to clarify specific indications and optimize applications of these approaches.

Robotics in HPB surgery

Some major procedures and an assessment of their impact in the field