Transition from laparoscopic to robotic liver surgery: clinical outcomes, learning curve effect, and cost-effectiveness

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.

Robotic management of huge hepatic angiomyolipoma: A case report and literature review

Hepatic angiomyolipoma (HAML) is a rare, benign mesenchymal liver tumor encountered in Asia, primarily in females, and can be found within the right hepatic lobe, but also in other areas of the liver. Immunohistochemically, HAMLs are characteristically positive for human melanoma black-45 antigen (HMB-45) and can histochemically vary in the composition of angiomatous, lipomatous, and myomatous tissue, together with the presence of epithelioid cells. In this case report, we discuss a previously healthy patient presenting with bloating and previously documented concern of liver lesions, found to have HAML confirmed by surgical pathology. Surgery was decided, as HAMLs greater than 10 cm are at risk of rupture. This is one of the first documented cases of HAML resected through robot-assisted bisegmentectomy and cholecystectomy, and therefore, intraoperative images have been included to assist in the planning of future robotic cases.

Robotic platforms in gynaecological surgery: past, present, and future

Background

More than two decades ago, the advent of robotic laparoscopic surgery marked a significant milestone, featuring the introduction of the AESOP robotic endoscope control system and the ZEUS robotic surgery system. The latter, equipped with distinct arms for the laparoscope and surgical instruments, was designed to accommodate remote connections, enabling the practice of remote telesurgery as early as 2001. Subsequent technological progress has given rise to a range of options in today's market, encompassing multi-port and single-port systems, both rigid and flexible, across various price points, with further growth anticipated.

Objective

This article serves as an indispensable guide for gynaecological surgeons with an interest in embracing robotic surgery.

Materials and methods

Drawing insights from the experience of the Strasbourg training centre for minimally invasive surgery (IRCAD), this article offers a comprehensive overview of existing robotic platforms in the market, as well as those in development.

Results

Robotic surgical systems not only streamline established operative methods but also broaden the scope of procedures, including intra- and transluminal surgeries. As integral components of the digital surgery ecosystem, these robotic systems actively contribute to the increasing integration and adoption of advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence-based data analysis and support systems.

Conclusion

Robotic surgery is increasingly being adopted in clinical practice. With the growing number of systems available on the marketplace, the primary challenge lies in identifying the optimal platform for each specific procedure and patient. The seamless integration of robotic systems with artificial intelligence, image-guided surgery, and telesurgery presents undeniable advantages, enhancing the precision and effectiveness of surgical interventions.

What is new?

This article provides a guide to the robotic platforms available on the market and those in development for gynaecologists interested in robotic surgery.

Concomitant training in robotic and laparoscopic liver resections of low-to-intermediate difficulty score: a retrospective analysis of the learning curve

In the setting of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), training in robotic liver resections (RLR) usually follows previous experience in laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). The aim of our study was to assess the learning curve of RLR in case of concomitant training with LLR. We analyzed consecutive RLRs and LLRs by a surgeon trained simultaneously in both techniques (Surg1); while a second surgeon trained only in LLRs was used as control (Surg2). A regression model was used to adjust for confounders and a Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) analysis was carried out to assess the learning phases according to operative time and difficulty of the procedures (IWATE score). Two-hundred-forty-five procedures were identified (RobSurg1, n = 75, LapSurg1, n = 102, LapSurg2, n = 68). Mean IWATE was 4.0, 4.3 and 5.8 (p < 0.001) in each group. The CUSUM analysis of the adjusted operative times estimated the learning phase in 40 cases (RobSurg1), 40 cases (LapSurg1), 48 cases (LapSurg2); for IWATE score it was 38 cases (RobSurg1), 33 cases (LapSurg1), 38 cases (LapSurg2) respectively. Our preliminary experience showed a similar learning curve of 40 cases for low and intermediate difficulty RLR and LLR. Concomitant training in both techniques was safe and may be a practical option for starting a MILS program.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023

The robotic liver resection (RLR) has been increasingly applied in recent years and its benefits shown in some aspects owing to the technical advancement of robotic surgical system, however, controversies still exist. Based on the foundation of the previous consensus statement, this new consensus document aimed to update clinical recommendations and provide guidance to improve the outcomes of RLR clinical practice. The guideline steering group and guideline expert group were formed by 29 international experts of liver surgery and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Relevant literature was reviewed and analyzed by the evidence evaluation group. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, the Guidance Principles of Development and Amendment of the Guidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in China 2022, a total of 14 recommendations were generated. Among them were 8 recommendations formulated by the GRADE method, and the remaining 6 recommendations were formulated based on literature review and experts' opinion due to insufficient EBM results. This international experts consensus guideline offered guidance for the safe and effective clinical practice and the research direction of RLR in future.

Impact of shifting from laparoscopic to robotic surgery during 600 minimally invasive pancreatic and liver resections

BACKGROUND

Many centers worldwide are shifting from laparoscopic to robotic minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary resections (MIS-HPB) but large single center series assessing this process are lacking. We hypothesized that the introduction of robot-assisted surgery was safe and feasible in a high-volume center.

METHODS

Single center, post-hoc assessment of prospectively collected data including all consecutive MIS-HPB resections (January 2010-February 2022). As of December 2018, all MIS pancreatoduodenectomy and liver resections were robot-assisted. All surgeons had participated in dedicated training programs for laparoscopic and robotic MIS-HPB. Primary outcomes were in-hospital/30-day mortality and Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications.

RESULTS

Among 1875 pancreatic and liver resections, 600 (32%) were MIS-HPB resections. The overall rate of conversion was 4.3%, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications 25.7%, and in-hospital/30-day mortality 1.8% (n = 11). When comparing the period before and after the introduction of robotic MIS-HPB (Dec 2018), the overall use of MIS-HPB increased from 25.3 to 43.8% (P < 0.001) and blood loss decreased from 250 ml [IQR 100-500] to 150 ml [IQR 50-300] (P < 0.001). The 291 MIS pancreatic resections included 163 MIS pancreatoduodenectomies (52 laparoscopic, 111 robotic) with 4.3% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with reduced operation time (450 vs 361 min; P < 0.001), reduced blood loss (350 vs 200 ml; P < 0.001), and a decreased rate of delayed gastric emptying (28.8% vs 9.9%; P = 0.009). The 309 MIS liver resections included 198 laparoscopic and 111 robotic procedures with a 3.6% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic liver resection was associated with less overall complications (24.7% vs 10.8%; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (4 vs 3 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of robotic surgery was associated with greater implementation of MIS-HPB in up to nearly half of all pancreatic and liver resections. Although mortality and major morbidity were not affected, robotic surgery was associated with improvements in some selected outcomes. Ultimately, randomized studies and high-quality registries should determine its added value.

Ethical, Legal, and Financial Considerations of Artificial Intelligence in Surgery

Machine learning systems have become integrated into some of the most vital decision-making aspects of humanity, including hiring decisions, loan applications, and automobile safety, to name just a few. As applications increase in both gravity and complexity, the data quality and algorithmic interpretability of the systems must rise to meet those challenges. This is especially vital for navigating the nuances of health care, particularly among the high stakes of surgical operations. In addition to inherent ethical challenges of enabling a "black box" system to influence decision-making in patient care, the creation of biased datasets leads to biased algorithms with the power to perpetuate discrimination and reinforce disparities. Transparency and responsibility are paramount to the implementation of artificial intelligence in surgical decision-making and autonomous robotic surgery. Machine learning has been permeating health care across diverse clinical and surgical contexts but continues to face sizable obstacles, including apprehension from patients and providers alike. To integrate the technology fully while upholding standard of care and patient-provider trust, one must acknowledge and address the ethical, financial, and legal implications of using artificial intelligence for patient care.

Robotic Liver Surgery for Alveolar Echinococcosis: A Single-Centre Experience

Alveolar echinococcosis (AE) is a rare disease caused by Echinococcosis multilocularis, which usually requires multidisciplinary management including surgery as the only curative approach. In recent years, minimally invasive strategies have been increasingly adopted for liver surgery. In particular, robotic surgery enables surgeons to perform even complex liver resections using a minimally invasive approach. However, there are only a few reports on robotic liver surgery for AE. Consecutive patients undergoing robotic liver surgery for AE were analysed based on the prospective database of the Interdisciplinary Robotic Centre of Ulm University Hospital. Between January 2021 and August 2022, a total of 16 patients with AE underwent robotic hepatectomy at our institution. Median age was 55.5 years (23−73), median body mass index (BMI) was 25.8 kg/m2 (20.2−36.8) and 12 patients (75%) were female. Anatomic resections were performed in 14 patients (87.5%), of which 4 patients (25%) underwent major hepatectomies (i.e., resection of >3 segments) including two right hemihepatectomies, one left hemihepatectomy and one extended right hemihepatectomy performed as associating liver partition with portal vein ligation staged (ALPPS) hepatectomy. There was no 90-day mortality, no postoperative bile leakage and no posthepatectomy haemorrhage. One patient developed posthepatectomy liver failure grade B after extended right hemihepatectomy using an ALPPS approach. One patient had to be converted to open surgery and developed an organ-space surgical site infection, for which he was re-admitted and underwent intravenous antibiotic therapy. Median length of postoperative hospital stay was 7 days (4−30). To our knowledge, this is the largest series of robotic liver surgeries for AE. The robotic approach seems safe with promising short-term outcomes in this selected cohort for both minor as well as major resections.

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.