Robotic Hepatectomy Is a Safe and Cost-Effective Alternative to Conventional Open Hepatectomy: a Single-Center Preliminary Experience

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.

Weighing the outcomes: the role of BMI in complex robotic esophageal and hepatobiliary operations

BACKGROUND

The correlation between body mass index (BMI) and surgical outcomes has emerged as a critical consideration in complex abdominal operations. While elevated BMI is often associated with increased perioperative risk, its specific effects on the outcomes of robotic surgeries remain inadequately explored. This study assesses the impact of BMI on perioperative variables of complex esophageal and hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) robotic operations.

METHODS

Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 607 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, trans-hiatal esophagectomy (THE), major liver resection or distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, all performed robotically. Perioperative data retrieved included operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversions to an 'open' operation and length of stay (LOS). Z scores were assigned to each variable to standardize operations, and the variables were then regressed against BMI. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median(mean ± standard deviation).

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2020, surgeries included 71 THE, 122 distal pancreatectomies with splenectomies, 129 major hepatectomies and 285 pancreaticoduodenectomies. Median age was 67(65 ± 12.5) years old, and BMI was 27(28 ± 5.5) kg/m2. Operative duration for all operations was 349(355 ± 124.5) min and had a positive correlation with increasing BMI (p = 0.004), specifically for robotic THE and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, with both operative durations having positive correlation with increasing BMI (p = 0.02 and p = 0.05). No significant correlation with BMI was found for EBL, intraoperative or postoperative complications, conversion to 'open' surgery, or LOS.

CONCLUSION

Elevated BMI is associated with longer operative durations in select robotic surgeries, such as trans-hiatal esophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, and highlights the need for strategic planning in these patients.

A meta-analysis between robotic hepatectomy and conventional open hepatectomy

Current meta-analysis was performed to compare robotic hepatectomy (RH) with conventional open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were all searched up for comparative studies between RH and OH. RevMan5.3 software and Stata 13.0 software were used for statistical analysis. Nineteen studies with 1747 patients who received RH and 23,633 patients who received OH were included. Pooled results indicated that patients who received RH were generally younger than those received OH (P < 0.00001). Moreover, RH was associated with longer operative time (P = 0.0002), less intraoperative hemorrhage (P < 0.0001), lower incidence of intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.003), lower incidence of postoperative any morbidity (P < 0.00001), postoperative major morbidity (P = 0.0001), mortalities with 90 days after surgery (P < 0.0001), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.00001). Comparable total hospital costs were acquired between RH and OH groups (P = 0.46). However, even at the premise of comparable R0 rate (P = 0.86), RH was associated with smaller resected tumor size (P < 0.00001). Major hepatectomy (P = 0.02) and right posterior hepatectomy (P = 0.0003) were less frequently performed in RH group. Finally, we concluded that RH was superior to OH in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. RH could lead to less intraoperative hemorrhage, less postoperative complications and an enhanced postoperative recovery. However, major hepatectomy and right posterior hepatectomy were still less frequently performed via robotic approach. Future more powerful well-designed studies are required for further exploration.

Minimally Invasive Robotic Techniques for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Resection: How I Do It

The adoption of minimally invasive techniques for hepatocellular resection has progressively increased in North America. Cumulative evidence has demonstrated improved surgical outcomes in patients who undergo minimally invasive hepatectomy. In this review, the authors' approach and methodology to minimally invasive robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma is discussed.

Procedure-specific risks of robotic simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases

An estimated 25% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis, the most common site being the liver. Although prior studies have reported that a simultaneous approach to resections in these patients can lead to increased rates of complications, emerging literature shows that minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches can mitigate this additional morbidity. This is the first study utilizing a large national database to investigate colorectal and hepatic procedure-specific risks in robotic simultaneous resections for CRC and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Utilizing the ACS-NSQIP targeted colectomy, proctectomy, and hepatectomy files, 1,721 patients were identified who underwent simultaneous resections of CRC and CRLM from 2016 to 2021. Of these patients, 345 (20%) underwent resections by an MIS approach, defined as either laparoscopic (n = 266, 78%) or robotic (n = 79, 23%). Patients who underwent robotic resections had lower rates of ileus compared to those who had open surgeries. The robotic group had similar rates of 30-day anastomotic leak, bile leak, hepatic failure, and post-operative invasive hepatic procedures compared to both the open and laparoscopic groups. The rate of conversion to open (8% vs. 22%, p = 0.004) and median LOS (5 vs. 6 days, p = 0.022) was significantly lower for robotic compared to laparoscopic group. This study, which is the largest national cohort of simultaneous CRC and CRLM resections, supports the safety and potential benefits of a robotic approach in these patients.

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.

Major hepatectomy in elderly patients: possible benefit from robotic platform utilization

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has been increasingly utilized, yet its application for hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) procedures remains low due to technical complexity, perceived financial burden, and unproven clinical benefits. We hypothesized that the robotic approach would be associated with improved clinical outcomes following major hepatectomy compared with the laparoscopic approach among elderly patients who would benefit from the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent major hepatectomy between January 2010 and December 2021 at Carolinas Medical Center was performed. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 65 years and major hepatectomy of three segments or more. Patients who underwent multiple liver resections, vascular/biliary reconstruction, or concomitant extrahepatic procedures (except cholecystectomy) were excluded. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test when more than 20% of cells had expected frequencies less than five, and Wilcoxon two-sample or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for continuous or ordinal variables. Results are described as median and interquartile range (IQR). Multivariate analyses were used on postoperative admission days.

RESULTS

There were 399 major hepatectomies performed during this time period, of which 125 met the criteria and were included. There were no differences in perioperative demographics among patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy (RH, n = 39) and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH, n = 32). There was no difference in operative time, blood loss, or major complication rates. However, RH had lower rates of conversion to an open procedure (2.6% versus 31.3%, p = 0.002), shorter length of hospital stay [LOS, 4 (3-7) versus 6 (4-8.5) days, p ≤ 0.0001], cumulative LOS [4 (3-7) versus 6 (4.5-9) days, p ≤ 0.0001], and lower rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (7.7% versus 75%, p ≤ 0.001), with a trend toward fewer rehabilitation requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot major hepatectomy shows clinical advantages in elderly patients, including shorter hospital and ICU stays. These advantages, as well as reduced rehabilitation requirements associated with minimally invasive surgery, could overcome the current perceived financial disadvantages of robotic hepatectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatectomy has gained increasing acceptance across the US. Although the robotic approach offers significant technical advantages, it is still bound by the individual surgeon's learning curve. Proficiency in this approach should theoretically lead to improved peri-operative outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2020, data on 148 consecutive robotic hepatectomies performed by a single surgeon was retrospectively analyzed. Using cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, intraoperative blood loss (EBL) and operative time were used to assess learning curves for robotic major (n = 58) and minor (n = 90) hepatectomy patients. Perioperative outcomes were compared in regards with proficiency.

RESULTS

Proficiency for robotic major and minor hepatectomy was achieved after 22 cases and 34 cases, respectively. No significant differences were observed in patient demographics or tumor characteristics. For robotic major hepatectomy, when compared to early experience, proficiency was associated with a significant improvement in mean EBL (242 mL vs 118 mL, p = 0.0004), operative time (330 min vs 247 min, p = 0.0002), decreased overall complication rate (23% vs 3%, p = 0.039), and length of hospital stay (5.7 days vs 4.1 days, p = 0.004). No difference in conversion rate, mortality or 30 day readmission was seen. For robotic minor hepatectomy, proficiency was associated with significantly decreased mean EBL (115 mL vs 54 mL, p = 0.005), operative time (168 vs 125 min, p = 0.014), and length of hospital stay (2.8 days vs 2.1 days, p = 0.021). No difference was observed in conversion rate, overall complications, mortality or 30 day readmission.

CONCLUSION

In the modern era, robotic hepatectomy offers a safe approach with excellent perioperative outcomes. Post learning curve proficiency is associated with significant improvements in perioperative outcomes in both major and minor hepatectomy. Results from our study can serve as a guide to surgeons and programs looking to adopt this technique.

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.

Does Metabolic Syndrome Effect the Perioperative Course and Costs of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Robotic Hepatectomy? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

This study was undertaken to examine the postoperative outcomes, costs, and survival after robotic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with or without metabolic syndrome.

METHODS

Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 56 patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy for HCC from 2016-2020. Patients with metabolic syndrome were compared to patients without metabolic syndrome regarding postoperative clinical outcomes, costs, and survival. Propensity score matching of a 1:1 ratio matched patients with and without metabolic syndrome according to 6 variables.

RESULTS

17 patients were matched to each arm. Mean age was 64 ± 14.0 years and 30 patients (88%) had operations that were classified as advanced (IWATE 7-9) or expert (IWATE 10-12). There were no differences between patients with metabolic syndrome versus patients without metabolic syndrome in terms of operative duration (306 [301 ± 76.2] vs 239 [260 ± 116.9] minutes; P = 0.23), estimated blood loss (300 [321 ± 195.5] vs 200 [214 ± 151.4] ml; P = 0.08), conversion to "open" operation (1 [6%] vs 1 [6%]; p = 1.00), tumor size (5 [5 ± 3.0] vs 3 [4 ± 2.2] cm; P = 0.28), postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo Score (≥III) (0 vs 1; P = 1.00), in-hospital mortality (0 [0%] vs 1 [6%]; P = 1.00), length of stay (5 [5 ± 1.7] vs 4 [5 ± 4.4] days; P = 1.00), and 30-day readmissions (1 [6%] vs 1 [6%]; P = 1.00). There were no differences in overall costs and profit. There was no difference in 1-year, 2-year, and 3- year overall survival in patients with or without metabolic syndrome after robotic HCC resection (84% vs 77%, 84% vs 61%, and 45% vs 61%, P = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

For patients with and without metabolic syndrome, robotic advanced/expert hepatectomy for HCC resulted in similar intra-operative metrics, postoperative outcomes, costs, and survival.

Cost analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy: Is the robotic platform more expensive?

The robotic platform is perceived to be more expensive when compared to laparoscopic and open operations. We aimed to compare the perioperative costs of robotic vs. open hepatectomy for the treatment of liver tumors at our facility. We followed 370 patients undergoing robotic and open hepatectomy for benign and malignant liver tumors. Demographic, perioperative, cost and payment data were collected and analyzed. For illustrative purposes, the data were presented as median (mean ± SD). Two hundred sixty-seven robotic and 104 open hepatectomies were analyzed. There were no significant differences in perioperative variables between the two cohorts. The robotic group had a significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (135 [208 ± 244.8] vs 300 [427 ± 502.5] ml, p < 0.0001), smaller lesion size (4 [5 ± 3.6] vs 5[6 ± 4.9] cm, p = 0.0052), shorter length of stay (LOS) (4 [4 ± 3.4] vs 6[8 ± 5.7] days, p < 0.0001) and decreased 90-day mortality (3 vs 7 p = 0.0028). There were no significant differences between the two groups any cost variable. The open group received significantly higher reimbursement ($29,297 [62,962 ± 75,377.96] vs $19,102 [38,975 ± 39,362.11], p < 0.001) and profit ($5005 [30,981 ± 79,541.09] vs $- 6682 [6146 ± 40,949.65], p < 0.001). Robotic hepatectomy is associated with lower EBL, shorter LOS and less mortality. There was no greater cost associated with the robotic platform despite a reduced reimbursement and profit.

Robotic Hepaticojejunostomy for Late Anastomotic Biliary Stricture After Liver Transplantation: Technical Description and Case Series

Biliary strictures after liver transplantation are common and when refractive to endoscopic and percutaneous intervention require surgical revision. Robotic technology facilitates minimally invasive biliary reconstruction and has not previously been described following liver transplantation. Robotic biliary revisions were retrospectively compared to all the historical open cases over a time period from May 2013 to October 2020. During the study period there were 3 robotic and 4 open surgical biliary revisions with a follow up of at least 6 months. All cases were hepaticojejunostomies for late choledochocholedochostomy anastomotic strictures presenting > 4 weeks after transplant and refractive to at least 3 endoscopic and/or percutaneous interventions. Median (range) case time was longer in the robotic group, 373 minutes (286-373) compared to open group, 280 minutes (163-321). The median length of stay was shorter in the robotic group, 4 days (1-4) compared to open group 7 days (4-10). Morbidity included 2 wound infections in the open group (grade II), 1 infected hematoma in the robotic group (grade IIIa) and 1 bile leak on the open group (grade IIIa). There was no biliary stricture recurrence or mortality in either group. Robotic biliary revision is a safe alternative to traditional open biliary revision for refractive biliary strictures after liver transplantation.

International multicentre propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) is a technically challenging procedure. This study was designed to determine outcomes following robotic RPS (R-RPS) and laparoscopic RPS (L-RPS).

METHODS

An international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing R-RPS versus those who had purely L-RPS at 21 centres from 2010 to 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed retrospectively from a central database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, with analysis of 1 : 2 and 1 : 1 matched cohorts.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and forty patients, including 96 who underwent R-RPS and 244 who had L-RPS, met the study criteria and were included. The median operating time was 295 minutes and there were 25 (7.4 per cent) open conversions. Ninety-seven (28.5 per cent) patients had cirrhosis and 56 (16.5 per cent) patients required blood transfusion. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 22.1 per cent and major morbidity rate was 6.8 per cent. The median postoperative stay was 6 days. After 1 : 1 matching of 88 R-RPS and L-RPS patients, median (i.q.r.) blood loss (200 (100-400) versus 450 (200-900) ml, respectively; P < 0.001), major blood loss (> 500 ml; P = 0.001), need for intraoperative blood transfusion (10.2 versus 23.9 per cent, respectively; P = 0.014), and open conversion rate (2.3 versus 11.4 per cent, respectively; P = 0.016) were lower in the R-RPS group. Similar results were found in the 1 : 2 matched groups (66 R-RPS versus 132 L-RPS patients).

CONCLUSION

R-RPS and L-RPS can be performed in expert centres with good outcomes in well selected patients. R-RPS was associated with reduced blood loss and lower open conversion rates than L-RPS.

Improving safety of robotic major hepatectomy with extrahepatic inflow control and laparoscopic CUSA parenchymal transection: technical description and initial experience

BACKGROUND

Blood loss is a major determinant of outcomes following hepatectomy. Robotic technology enables hepatobiliary surgeons to mimic open techniques for inflow control and parenchymal transection during major hepatectomy, increasing the ability to minimize blood loss and perform safe liver resections.

METHODS

Initial experience of 20 consecutive major robotic hepatectomies from November 2018 to July 2020 at two co-located institutions was reviewed. All cases were performed with extrahepatic inflow control and parenchymal transection with the laparoscopic cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA), and a technical description is illustrated. Clinical characteristics, operative data, and surgical outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The median (range) patient age was 58 years (20-76) and the majority of 14 (70%) patients were ASA III-IV. There were 12 (60%) resections for malignancy and the median tumor size was 6.2 cm (1.2-14.6). Right or extended right hepatectomy was the most common procedure (12 or 60% of cases). There were 7 (35%) left or extended left hepatectomies and 1 (5%) central hepatectomy. The median operative time was 420 (177-622) minutes. Median estimated blood loss was 300 mL (25-800 mL). One (5%) case was converted to open. Two (10%) patients required blood transfusion. The median length of stay was 3 (1-6) days. Major complications included 1 (5%) Clavien-Dindo IIIa bile leak requiring percutaneous drainage placement. There was no 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

Advanced techniques to reduce blood loss in robotic hepatectomy may optimize safety and minimize morbidity in these complex minimally invasive procedures.

Usability of Indocyanine Green in Robot-Assisted Hepatic Surgery

Recent developments in robotic surgery have led to an increasing number of robot-assisted hepatobiliary procedures. However, a limitation of robotic surgery is the missing haptic feedback. The fluorescent dye indocyanine green (ICG) may help in this context, which accumulates in hepatocellular cancers and around hepatic metastasis. ICG accumulation may be visualized by a near-infrared camera integrated into some robotic systems, helping to perform surgery more accurately. We aimed to test the feasibility of preoperative ICG application and its intraoperative use in patients suffering from hepatocellular carcinoma and metastasis of colorectal cancer, but also of other origins. In a single-arm, single-center feasibility study, we tested preoperative ICG application and its intraoperative use in patients undergoing robot-assisted hepatic resections. Twenty patients were included in the final analysis. ICG staining helped in most cases by detecting a clear lesion or additional metastases or when performing an R0 resection. However, it has limitations if applied too late before surgery and in patients suffering from severe liver cirrhosis. ICG staining may serve as a beneficial intraoperative aid in patients undergoing robot-assisted hepatic surgery. Dose and time of application and standardized fluorescence intensity need to be further determined.