Robotic hepatic parenchymal transection: a two-surgeon technique using ultrasonic dissection and irrigated bipolar coagulation

Surgical protocol of robotic liver resection using a two-surgeon technique (TAKUMI-3): a technical note and initial outcomes

BACKGROUND

Internationally, evidence supporting robotic liver resection (RLR) has gradually increased in recent years. However, a standardized protocol for RLR remains lacking. This study describes a surgical protocol and the initial outcomes of RLR in a high-volume center for robotic hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in Japan.

METHODS

Patients were placed in the reverse Trendelenburg position, with a supine position for anterolateral tumors and left lateral position for posterosuperior tumors. Our standard RLR protocol involved a two-surgeon technique. Liver parenchymal transection was performed by an assistant using the clamp crush technique with a console, with or without a laparoscopic Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA). Surgical techniques, including the tips, tricks, and pitfalls of RLR, are also demonstrated.

RESULTS

We performed 113 RLR at our institution for common primary diseases, including hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 52, 46.0%) and metastatic tumors (n = 48, 42.5%) between July 2022 and December 2024. The median operative time and estimated blood loss were 156 min (interquartile range [IQR], 121-209 min) and 20 mL (IQR, 0-100 mL), respectively. During liver parenchymal transection, a laparoscopic CUSA was used in 59 patients (52.2%), and a water-jet scalpel was used in 12 patients (10.6%). The incidence of mortality, major complications, and bile leakage was 0%, 6.2%, and 2.7%, respectively. The median hospital stay was 7 days (IQR, 6-9 days).

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully introduced an RLR program using the two-surgeon technique. Safe implementation of RLR can be achieved upon completion of the training program and thorough understanding of the surgical protocols.

Robotic Hepatic Parenchymal Transection Techniques: A Choice Between Imperfect Tools

Regardless of approach, safe and effective parenchymal transection is critical for hepatectomies.1 In robotic surgery, this can be accomplished via several methods. The authors highlight some of the more common tools and techniques used to transect the liver. The Vessel Sealer Extend is a console-controlled device with bipolar energy, mechanical cutting, full-wristed articulation, and grasping abilities that allow it to replicate the clamp-crush technique while sealing small vessels. However, the jaw is bulky and suboptimal for firm/fibrotic livers.2,3 The Synchroseal shares many features of the Vessel Sealer Extend but has thinner jaws, making it easier to advance in firm livers, and lacks a cutting blade, relying instead on a cut electrode to divide tissue. Proteinaceous char can accumulate on the jaws, impairing its effectiveness, but intermittent irrigation can mitigate this. The robotic Harmonic Scalpel coagulates, transects, and precisely dissects parenchyma. However, it is limited in length and lacks wristed articulation.4,5 Ultrasonic surgical aspiratory devices allow for precise, atraumatic dissection around vasculobiliary structures, but no robotic-integrated versions currently exist. Therefore, application of this technology in robotic surgery requires an experienced bedside assistant operating the laparoscopic version while the console surgeon uses robotic instruments to coagulate, clip, and divide larger structures.6-9 The dual bipolar technique is useful for spot coagulation and dissection but has limited transection ability.10 It often is an adjunct to other transection techniques.11-13 Several methods exist for robotic parenchymal transection, and although none are perfect, they can be combined for safe and effective transection.

Robotic liver parenchymal transection techniques: a comprehensive overview and classification

Robotic liver surgery is experiencing a period of great development, but some hurdles still need to be overcome. Parenchymal transection remains one of the most technically challenging steps. The lack of dedicated instruments and the flourishing of several techniques didn't allow surgeons to reach a standard technique so far. The aim of the present paper is to provide an overview of the different robotic liver transection techniques described to date, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each one. We conducted an extensive search on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, inserting the following keywords: "robotic liver transection, robotic hepatic transection" and focusing particularly on technical reports and paper regarding new surgical methods. This search resulted in a total of 13 different surgical techniques. All the methods described can be classified into two categories the "hybrid techniques" and the "fully robotic techniques" which are based, respectively, on the combined use of laparoscopic and robotic instrumentation or exclusively robotic devices. Another fundamental difference is the division between "one-surgeon" and "two-surgeon techniques", which depends on the level of expertise required of the assistant surgeon at the operating table. This is the first comprehensive review on this topic. Although the existing literature does not allow one technique to be established as superior to the others, the adoption of a standardized method of robotic hepatic transection is highly desirable to optimize surgical results and to allow better comparability of outcomes within the scientific community.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections: propensity-matched comparison of two-center experience

BACKGROUND

The advantages of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) are still debated. This study compares the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) liver resections in propensity score matched cohorts.

METHODS

Data regarding minimally invasive liver resections in two liver surgery units were retrospectively reviewed. A propensity score matched analysis (1:1 ratio) identified two groups of patients with similar characteristics. Intra- and post-operative outcomes were then compared. The difficulty of MILS was based on the IWATE criteria.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-nine patients underwent MILS between January 2014 and December 2021 (LLR = 192; RLR = 77). Propensity score matching identified 148 cases (LLR = 74; RLR = 74) consisting of compensated cirrhotic patients (100%) underwent non-anatomic resection of IWATE 1-2 class (90.5%) for a solitary tumor < 5 cm in diameter (93.2%). In such patients, RLRs had shorter operative time (227 vs. 250 min, p = 0.002), shorter Pringle's cumulative time (12 vs. 28 min, p < 0.0001), and less blood loss (137 vs. 209 cc, p = 0.006) vs. LLRs. Conversion rate was nihil (both groups). In RLRs compared to LLRs, R0 rate (93 vs. 96%, p > 0.71) and major morbidity (4.1 vs. 5.4%, p > 0.999) were similar, without post-operative mortality. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (6.2 vs. 6.6, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study supports the non-inferiority of RLR over LLR. In compensated cirrhotic patients underwent resection of low-to-intermediate difficulty for a solitary nodule < 5 cm, RLR was faster, with less blood loss despite the shorter hilar clamping, and required shorter hospitalization compared to LLR.

Robotic Right Posterior Sectionectomy by Intrafascial Approach for Pancreas Neuroendocrine Liver Metastasis

BACKGROUND

Liver resection is indicated for resectable liver metastases of neuroendocrine tumors.1 Minimally invasive liver resection offers decreased blood loss, reduces pain, reduces postoperative complications, and reduces time to functional recovery.2 However, access to posterior section remains difficult with conventional laparoscopic tools. The robotic approach could overcome these limitations.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A 46-year-old woman had a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor with synchronous liver metastases (18 mm in segment 6, 29 mm in segment 7, and 31 mm in segment 8). Due to stable disease after 2 years of somatostatin analog treatment, surgical management was decided. The first step was robotic distal pancreatectomy. Two months later, we performed a posterior sectionectomy associated with a wedge resection in segment 8.

RESULTS

Da Vinci X robot was used. Surgery was conducted with a second surgeon located between the patient's legs using suction/irrigation device and ultrasonic dissector through laparoscopic ports. The posterior sectorial branches of the hepatic artery and portal vein were controlled via an intra-fascial approach. Robotic parenchymal dissection was performed by a four-hands method,3 with laparoscopic ultrasonic dissector and robotic irrigated bipolar guided by indocyanine green. Transection was led on the right side of right hepatic vein without clamping. Operative duration was 330 min, and estimated blood loss was 50 ml. Postoperative course was complicated by grade B biliary fistula. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 10.

CONCLUSIONS

This case illustrates the feasibility and safety of a robotic approach for right posterior liver sectionectomy, which can improve the dexterity of the surgeon and thus the possibility of difficult minimally invasive liver resection.

Non-Stick Liver Parenchymal Transection With Saline-Linked Bipolar Clamp-Crush Technique in Robotic Liver Resection

Background Without satisfactory instruments, liver parenchymal transection during robotic liver resection (RLR) remains challenging. We combined the commonly used bipolar clamp-crush technique with the saline drip, achieving a comfortable liver resection without coagulated liver tissues sticking to the bipolar forceps. Methods Between December 2022 and March 2023, six RLRs were performed using the saline-linked bipolar clamp-crush method for both anatomical and non-anatomical liver resections. We assessed the safety and feasibility of our robotic liver parenchymal transection technique. Results Three of six patients were diagnosed with colorectal liver metastasis, two with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and the other with intrahepatic bile duct stricture. Three of the six patients received anatomical liver resection, and the other three underwent non-anatomical liver resection. There were no conversions to open surgery. The median operative time and estimated blood loss were 406.5 minutes (196-670 minutes) and 5 ml (5-465 ml), respectively. The median length of the postoperative hospital stay was nine days (7-10 days). Postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade II or more) or mortality were not encountered in this cohort. Conclusion We presented here our saline-linked bipolar clamp-crush method for liver parenchymal transection in RLR. By simply adding the saline drip to the commonly used bipolar clamp-crush technique, non-stick and comfortable liver parenchymal transection is now possible. This technique may help overcome the limitations of currently available robotic instruments for liver parenchymal resection.

Roboter-assistierte Hemihepatektomie links mittels Glissonean pedicle approach bei Caroli Syndrom

Zielsetzung Das Caroli-Syndrom ist eine seltene Gallenwegserkrankung, die durch eine nicht obstruktive Dilatation der intrahepatischen Gallenwege, Leberfibrose und ein erhöhtes Risiko für ein cholangiozelluläres Karzinom charakterisiert ist. Eine Leberresektion ist beim lokalen Befund die Therapie der Wahl und wird in der Literatur zunehmend minimalinvasiv durchgeführt. Allerdings wurde in der Literatur bisher eine roboterassistierte Leberresektion beim Caroli-Syndrom nicht beschrieben. Indikation Eine 72-jährige asiatische Patientin wurde mit einer multifokalen zystischen Dilatation der Lebersegmente II, III und IV unserer Klinik vorgestellt. Bis auf eine konventionelle Appendektomie waren keine weiteren Voroperationen und Vorerkrankungen, insbesondere keine kongenitalen Zysten, bekannt. Die Leberfunktionsparameter waren unauffällig und die Echinokokkus-Serologie fiel negativ aus. Die MRT-Schnittbildgebung zeigte eine reguläre Gallenwegsanatomie der rechten Leber. Eine roboterassistierte Hemihepatektomie links mit dem Da Vinci Xi-System wurde geplant. Methode Die roboterassistierte Hemihepatektomie links wurde in einer Französischlagerung durchgeführt. Zunächst erfolgte eine Adhäsiolyse und Cholezystektomie. Eine aberrante Leberarterie aus der A. gastrica sinistra wurde mithilfe von Clips abgesetzt. Nach Senkung der hilären Platte wurde der linke Pedikel en bloc mittels Glissonean Pedicle Approach umfahren und mit einer Bulldog-Klemme ausgeklemmt. Eine ischämische Demarkationslinie zur rechten Leber zeichnete sich auf der Leberoberfläche ab. Die Parenchymdissektion wurde mittels bipolarer Pinzette durchgeführt. Ein Pringle-Manöver wurde nicht angewendet. Der linke Pedikel und die linke Lebervene wurden mit einem robotischen Linearstapler abgesetzt und die mittlere Lebervene erhalten. Die regelrechte Perfusion der Restleber inkl. Segment I wurde mittels intravenöser Indocyaningrünapplikation (ICG) in einer Dosierung von 0,2 mg/kg Körpergewicht bestätigt. Das Resektat wurde in einen Bergebeutel verbracht und über einen Pfannenstiel-Schnitt geborgen. Die OP-Zeit betrug 239 min mit einem Gesamtblutverlust von 100 ml. Die Patientin wurde am 5. postoperativen Tag entlassen. Der histologische Befund bestätigte ein Caroli-Syndrom. In der 6-Monats-Verlaufskontrolle hatte die Patientin eine regelrechte Leberfunktion ohne Zeichen einer rezidivierenden Erkrankung. Schlussfolgerung Eine Hemihepatektomie links ist in der Glissonean-Pedicle-Approach-Technik sicher roboterassistiert durchführbar und ein geeignetes Verfahren für die Therapie des Caroli-Syndroms.

Robotic Left Hepatectomy Extended to Caudate Lobe and Common Biliary Duct for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficiency of minimally invasive approaches for liver resection have been confirmed (Wakabayashi in Ann Surg, 2015). However, laparoscopy suffers from several limitations due to technical difficulties, particularly for difficult hepatectomy with lymphadenectomy, biliary, and vascular reconstruction. Robotic assets could improve accessibility for difficult liver resections (Liu in World J Gastroenterol 25: 1432-1444), (Chou in Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 58: 230-234, 2020).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A 56-year-old woman was treated for a hilar cholangiocarcinoma, Bismuth 3b.

RESULTS

A robotic anatomical left hepatectomy extended to caudate lobe and common biliary duct was decided. A Da Vinci X robot was used. The procedure was performed with a second surgeon positioned between the patient's legs. Left hepatectomy was extended to common biliary duct and caudate lobe. A four-hands parenchymal dissection (Camerlo in J Robot Surg, 2020) was performed with laparoscopic ultrasonic dissector and robotic irrigated bipolar, guided by indocyanine green. Axis of deep transection line was maintained using the EndoWrist function and exposure with a fourth arm. No pedicle clamping was necessary. Segment 1 was released with a mediocaudal approach. Lateral portal vein resection was performed after parenchymal transection was completed. Hepaticojejunostomy was done separately to the right anterior and posterior biliary duct. Operation time was 420 min, and estimated blood loss was 100 ml. The postoperative course was uneventful. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 8. Pathological findings revealed a 15-mm hilar cholangiocarcinoma with complete resection and eight lymph nodes, all negative.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic approaches could improve accessibility to minimally invasive liver resection of Klatskin tumor.

[Possibilities and limits of robotic liver surgery - Current status 2020]

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver surgery is now the standard procedure at experienced centers, whereby the techniques and strategies are continuously evolving.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An analysis of English language literature on minimally invasive and robotic liver surgery was performed. The current scientific status was summarized and evaluated on the basis of experience at our own center.

RESULTS

The advantages of the minimally invasive technique compared to the conventional open technique are shown in liver surgery by improved perioperative results. Concerns about intraoperative complications and possible compromises in oncological radicality have been addressed in a number of publications. First reports on the robot-assisted technique seem to confirm the known advantages of laparoscopic liver surgery. The data available on robot-assisted liver surgery are still limited due to the short period of experience of a few centers and do not yet allow final conclusions; however, an increase in intraoperative safety and an expansion of the surgical spectrum towards highly complex liver resections seems likely.

CONCLUSION

Even during the learning curve the known advantages of laparoscopic liver surgery seem to be confirmed also for robot-assisted liver surgery. According to the center's own experience, minimally invasive liver surgery will in future be meaningfully supplemented by robotic technology. In particular, technically highly complex resections with reconstruction are made possible.