Robotic major and minor hepatectomy: critical appraisal of learning curve and its impact on outcomes

Cost-effectiveness and clinical impact of robotic-assisted hepatectomy

Robotic-assisted hepatectomy has gained traction in hepatobiliary surgery, but its cost-effectiveness compared to traditional surgical approaches remains unclear. This study investigates clinical outcomes and financial implications of robotic-assisted liver surgery in a high-volume center, comparing it with open and laparoscopic methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients undergoing hepatectomy at Lille University Hospital in 2018 and 2021, performed by the institution's first experienced robotic hepatobiliary surgeon. Data on patient demographics, intraoperative details, postoperative outcomes, and costs were analyzed. Costs included hospital stays, surgical materials, and complications, derived from national cost studies. A total of 111 patients were included, with a rise in minimally invasive procedures from 47.5% in 2018 to 75% in 2021. Robotic-assisted hepatectomy was associated with reduced hospital stays, lower complication rates, and fewer severe morbidities compared to laparotomy. The average cost per procedure (all surgical approaches combined) decreased from €12,169 in 2018 to €8,513 in 2021, with robotic surgery offering a significant financial advantage. The total savings for the 71 patients in the 2021 cohort was €259,576, driven primarily by reduced hospitalization times and fewer complications. Robotic-assisted hepatectomy is clinically safe and cost-effective, offering substantial financial savings over traditional surgery. The reduction in postoperative complications and hospital stay durations, particularly for complex cases, highlights the advantages of robotic surgery in hepatobiliary procedures. As surgical expertise increases, robotic surgery represents a sustainable and efficient alternative in liver resection.

Complete transition from laparoscopic to robotic liver surgery achieves superior outcomes in difficult hepatectomies: a seven-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is superior to open surgery when considering decreased blood loss, fewer complications, shorter hospital stay, and similar or improved oncologic outcomes. However, operative limitations in laparoscopic hepatectomy have curved its applicability and momentum of complex minimally invasive liver surgery. Transitioning to robotic hepatectomy may bridge this complexity gap.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study conducted on comparable hepatectomies (open, laparoscopic, robotic) for benign or malignant diseases at Weill Cornell by three surgeons from 2017 to 2023. Case volume and Iwate difficulty scoring were examined over time by surgical approach. Outcome associations (operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, 90-day complications, open conversion, and resection margin) were analyzed using generalized estimating equations to account for the hierarchical data structure of different surgeons and controlled for clinical covariates.

RESULTS

Among 353 hepatectomies, 112 were open (OH), 107 were laparoscopic (LH), and 134 were robotic (RH). OH patients were more likely to have malignant pathology (83% vs. LH 69%, RH 57%) and less likely to have cirrhosis (6% vs. LH 6%, RH 14%). OH and RH had similar case complexity (Median Iwate: OH 7 vs. RH 7). After adjustments, LH and RH had 39% and 43% shorter median lengths of stay, respectively, and 89% and 62% lower odds of complications compared to OH. RH had 87% lower odds of conversion to OH compared to LH. The odds of R0 resection were similar between LH, RH, and OH. These results remained consistent in high difficulty cases (Iwate 7-12). Over the study period, RH usage increased from 36 to 68%, while LH decreased from 39 to 9%. By 2023, RH was predominantly used over OH (74% vs.26%).

CONCLUSION

The transition from laparoscopic to all-robotic approach resulted in increased case volume and complexity in MILS, largely improving perioperative outcomes in hepatectomy.

Caudate lobe and posterosuperior segment hepatectomy using the robotic approach. Outcome analysis of liver resection in difficult locations

BACKGROUND

Caudate and posterosuperior hepatectomy are technically challenging resections, especially in a minimally invasive approach. We aimed to analyze the outcomes of isolated caudate resection (ICR), en-bloc caudate resection with right/left hepatic lobectomy (ECR), and posterosuperior segment resection (PSR) using our institutional database.

METHODS

Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 500 consecutive patients between 2013 and 2023 who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Posterosuperior segments include segment 4 ​A, 7, and 8. The data are presented as median (mean ​± ​standard deviation).

RESULTS

Of the 500 patients included in this study, 19 (4 ​%) underwent ICR, 65 (13 ​%) underwent ECR, and 131 (26 ​%) patients underwent PSR. ECR was associated with significantly longer operative time, increased EBL, and longer LOS when compared with those of ICR and PSR. The patients who underwent ICR had the shortest operation duration, lowest EBL, and shortest LOS compared to ECR and PSR.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic resection of liver tumors located in difficult segments is safe and feasible with excellent clinical and oncological outcomes. With appropriate expertise, a minimally invasive approach to those operations should not be avoided.

A novel low-cost high-fidelity porcine model of liver metastases for simulation training in robotic parenchyma-preserving liver resection

In the era of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), parenchyma-preserving liver resections are gaining prominence with the potential to offer improved perioperative outcomes without compromising oncological safety. The surgeon learning curve remains challenging, and simulation plays a key role in surgical training. Existing simulation models can be limited by suboptimal fidelity and high cost. We describe a novel, reproducible, high-fidelity, low-cost liver metastases model using porcine livers from adult Landrace pigs, with porcine perinephric fat used to simulate subcapsular metastases. This model was then utilised in a training session for surgical trainees performing robotic parenchyma-preserving surgery (PPS) under the guidance of expert robotic surgeons, with feedback being recorded. Trainees rated the model highly on its fidelity to human liver simulation (median score 9), tissue handling (median score 8), and overall usefulness (median score 9). Tissue handling was felt to simulate in vivo liver resection closely, while suggestions for improvement included adding simulated blood flow. This is a novel, low-cost, high-fidelity simulation model of liver metastases with high acceptability to surgical trainees, which could be readily adopted by other training centres.

Introduction of day-case robotic liver surgery: a case series from a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre

BACKGROUND

Liver surgery is associated with a significant hospital stay regardless the type of liver resection. A large incision is essential for open liver surgery which is a major factor in the course of the patient's recovery. For patients with small parenchyma liver lesions requiring surgical resection, robotic surgery potentially offers the opportunity to transform the patient's post-operative course. A day-case robotic liver resection pathway was formulated and implemented at our institution when patients were planned for discharge within 24 h of admission for liver surgery.

METHODS

Single surgeon case series of cases performed at a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre between September 2022 and November 2023. The inclusion criteria were non-anatomical wedge resections, < 2 anatomical segmental resections, left lateral hepatectomy and minimally invasive surgery.

RESULTS

This is the first series of robotic day-case minor liver resection in the United Kingdom. 20 patients were included in this case series. The mean operative time was 86.6 ± 30.9 min and mean console time was 58.6 ± 24.5 min. Thirteen patients (65%) were discharged within 24 h of surgery. The main cause of hospitalisation beyond 24 h was inadequate pain relief. There were no Clavien-Dindo grade III or above complications, no 30-day readmission and 90-day mortalities.

CONCLUSION

This case series demonstrates that robotic day-case liver resection is safe and feasible. Robust follow-up pathways must be in place to allow for the safe implementation of this approach, to monitor for any complications and to allow intervention as required in a timely manner.

Towards a Standardization of Learning Curve Assessment in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to analyze the learning curves of minimal invasive liver surgery(MILS) and propose a standardized reporting.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MILS offers benefits compared to open resections. For a safe introduction along the learning curve, formal training is recommended. However, definitions of learning curves and methods to assess it lack standardization.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in MILS. The primary outcome was the number needed to overcome the learning curve. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, and characterization of different learning phases(competency, proficiency and mastery).

RESULTS

60 articles with 12'241 patients and 102 learning curve analyses were included. The laparoscopic and robotic approach was evaluated in 71 and 18 analyses and both approaches combined in 13 analyses. Sixty-one analyses (60%) based the learning curve on statistical calculations. The most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n=64), blood loss (n=54), conversion (n=42) and postoperative complications (n=38). Overall competency, proficiency and mastery were reached after 34 (IQR 19-56), 50 (IQR 24-74), 58 (IQR 24-100) procedures respectively. Intraoperative parameters improved earlier (operative time: competency to proficiency to mastery: -13%, 2%; blood loss: competency to proficiency to mastery: -33%, 0%; conversion rate (competency to proficiency to mastery; -21%, -29%), whereas postoperative complications improved later (competency to proficiency to mastery: -25%, -41%).

CONCLUSIONS

This review summarizes the highest evidence on learning curves in MILS taking into account different definitions and confounding factors. A standardized three-phase reporting of learning phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is proposed and should be followed.

Full robotic versus open ALPPS: a bi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

In primarily unresectable liver tumors, ALPPS (Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged hepatectomy) may offer curative two-stage hepatectomy trough a fast and extensive hypertrophy. However, concerns have been raised about the invasiveness of the procedure. Full robotic ALPPS has the potential to reduce the postoperative morbidity trough a less invasive access. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of open and full robotic ALPPS.

METHODS

The bicentric study included open ALPPS cases from the University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland and robotic ALPPS cases from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy from 01/2015 to 07/2022. Main outcomes were intraoperative parameters and overall complications.

RESULTS

Open and full robotic ALPPS were performed in 36 and 7 cases. Robotic ALPPS was associated with less blood loss after both stages (418 ± 237 ml vs. 319 ± 197 ml; P = 0.04 and 631 ± 354 ml vs. 258 ± 53 ml; P = 0.01) as well as a higher rate of interstage discharge (86% vs. 37%; P = 0.02). OT was longer with robotic ALPPS after both stages (371 ± 70 min vs. 449 ± 81 min; P = 0.01 and 282 ± 87 min vs. 373 ± 90 min; P = 0.02). After ALPPS stage 2, there was no difference for overall complications (86% vs. 86%; P = 1.00) and major complications (43% vs. 39%; P = 0.86). The total length of hospital stay was similar (23 ± 17 days vs. 26 ± 13; P = 0.56).

CONCLUSION

Robotic ALPPS was safely implemented and showed potential for improved perioperative outcomes compared to open ALPPS in an experienced robotic center. The robotic approach might bring the perioperative risk profile of ALPPS closer to interventional techniques of portal vein embolization/liver venous deprivation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Minimal Invasive Versus Open Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Multicenter German StuDoQ|Liver Registry-Based Cohort Analysis in Germany

Objective

To compare the outcome of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) to open liver surgery (OLS) for resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) on a nationwide level.

Background

Colorectal cancer is the third most common malignancy worldwide. Up to 50% of all patients with colorectal cancer develop CRLM. MILS represents an attractive alternative to OLS for treatment of CRLM.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study using the prospectively recorded German Quality management registry for liver surgery. Propensity-score matching was performed to account for variance in the extent of resection and patient demographics.

Results

In total, 1037 patients underwent liver resection for CRLM from 2019 to 2021. MILS was performed in 31%. Operative time was significantly longer in MILS (234 vs 222 minutes, P = 0.02) compared with OLS. After MILS, median length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter (7 vs 10 days; P < 0.001). Despite 76% of major resections being OLS, postoperative complications and 90-day morbidity and mortality did not differ. The Pringle maneuver was more frequently used in MILS (48% vs 40%, P = 0.048). After propensity-score matching for age, body mass index, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, and extent of resection, LOS remained shorter in the MILS cohort (6 vs 10 days, P < 0.001) and operative time did not differ significantly (P = 0.2).

Conclusion

MILS is not the standard for resection of CRLM in Germany. Drawbacks, such as a longer operative time remain. However, if technically possible, MILS is a reasonable alternative to OLS for resection of CRLM, with comparable postoperative complications, reduced LOS, and equal oncological radicality.

Robotic approach for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: from Bismuth 1 to vascular resection

BACKGROUND

Implementation of minimally invasive surgical approaches for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) has been relatively slow compared to other indications. This is due to the complexity of the disease and the need of advanced skills for the reconstructive phase. The robot may contribute to close the gap between open and minimally invasive surgery in patients with Klastkin tumors.

STUDY DESIGN

We report details of our experience with robotic approach in patients affected by pCCA. In particular selection criteria, ERAS management, technical tips and robotic setup are discussed. Finally, results from our cohort are reported. A video clip of a patient that underwent left hepatectomy with en-bloc caudatectomy and portal vein resection at the confluence with end-to-end reconstruction for a pCCA 3-b according to Bismuth-Corlette classification with full robotic approach is enclosed.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients underwent robotic resection of pCCA over the three-year interval with a median follow-up interval of 18.7 months. The pre-operative Bismuth-Corlette classification was 1 for two patients (14.2%) and 2 for one patient (7.1%), 3-a for three (21.4%) patients, 3-b for four (28.6%) patients and 4 for four (28.6%) patients. Median estimated blood loss was 150 ml (range 50-800 ml) and median operative time was 490 min (range 390-750 min). The median length of hospital stay after the index operation was 6 days (range 3-91). Final histology revealed a median of 19 (range 11-40) lymph nodes retrieved, with 92.9% R0 resections. 90-days mortality was nihil and 3-year survival exceeds 50%.

CONCLUSION

With adequate preparation, outcomes of robotic approach to pCCA can be safe and in line with the current international benchmark outcomes, as showed in this study, when performed in expert high volume centers for complex major hepatectomy and robotic HPB.