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

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.

The minimally invasive approach confers improved outcomes in frail cancer patients undergoing hepatectomy: an American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program analysis

BACKGROUND

Morbidity for liver resection has decreased, and frail patients are undergoing surgery. The effect of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of MILR on the outcomes in frail patients.

METHODS

Elective hepatectomies from the 2014-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program hepatectomy-specific Participant User File were reviewed. The 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) was used. It includes diabetes mellitus, hypertension, functional status, heart failure, and dyspnea. Patients were considered frail if their mFI-5 score was ≥2.

RESULTS

A total of 3116 patients were included: 2117 (67.9%) in the minor hepatectomy group and 999 (32%) in the major hepatectomy group. There were 2254 open cases and 862 MILRs. Postoperatively, patients in the minor hepatectomy group who underwent MILR had lower rates of prolonged length of stay (LOS), nonhome discharge, transfusion, major complications, and minor complications (P < .05). Postoperatively, patients in the major hepatectomy group who underwent MILR had lower rates of prolonged LOS and any complication (P < .05). In the minor hepatectomy group, MILR remained independently predictive of lower rates of prolonged LOS (odds ratio [OR], 0.34; 95% CI, 0.28-0.42), nonhome discharge (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.84), transfusion (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.96), major complication (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-1.00), and any complication (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.92). In the major hepatectomy group, MILR remained independently predictive of prolonged LOS (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.40-0.89).

CONCLUSION

MILR resulted in lower rates of complications in the minor hepatectomy group and shorter LOS in the major hepatectomy group. The minimally invasive approach to hepatectomy may benefit frail patients with cancer.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

[Robot-assisted visceral surgery in Germany : Analysis of the current status and trends of the last 5 years using data from the StuDoQ|Robotics registry]

Robot-assisted systems have been increasingly used in general surgery for several years. Accordingly, the number of systems installed in Germany has also rapidly increased. While around 100 robot-assisted systems were used in German hospitals in 2018, this figure had already risen to more than 200 by 2022. The aim of this article is to present the current state of development and trends in robotic surgery in Germany. For this purpose, data from the StuDoQ|Robotics register were analyzed. Furthermore, a descriptive analysis of concomitant diagnosis-related groups (DRG) data was carried out via the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), for a better assessment of the representativeness of the StuDoQ|Robotics register data. In both data sets, the annual number of robot-assisted visceral surgery procedures in Germany steadily increased. Compared to the DRG data, only 3.7% up to a maximum of 36.7% of all robot-assisted procedures performed were documented in the StuDoQ|Robotics register, depending on the type of procedure. Colorectal resections were the most frequent robot-assisted procedures (StuDoQ: 32.5% and 36.7% vs. DRG data: 24.2% and 29.7%) and had, for example, low mortality rates (StuDoQ: 1% and 1% vs. DRG data: 2.3% and 1.3%). Due to the low coverage rates of robot-assisted esophageal, gastric, pancreatic and liver interventions, no valid statements could be derived from the StuDoQ data for these areas. With the current coverage rates, the informative value of the StuDoQ|Robotics register is considerably limited for some types of intervention. In the future, measures should therefore be explored that lead to a significant increase in the coverage rates.

[Robotics in Liver Surgery - Tips and Tricks]

Since minimally invasive liver surgery has proven benefits over open surgery, this technique should also be implemented more broadly in Germany. With the dramatic development in minimally invasive and robotic liver surgery, this approach has been established in recent years. Most recent analyses suggest lower complication rates, blood loss and hospital stay compared to open and laparoscopic liver surgery. In contrast to laparoscopic surgery, the technical setting of robotic liver surgery is widely independent of the type of resection. The laparoscopic and robotic technologies should be considered to be equal at the moment, although most recent analyses even suggest additional advantages of robotic over laparoscopic liver surgery. Moreover, robotics has a greater potential for technical refinements, including the inclusion of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Most steps can be transferred from open and laparoscopic liver surgery, but a dissection device such as the CUSA has not yet been developed. Consequently, different techniques have been reported for parenchymal transsection. Due to the special technical features of robotic surgery, intensive training programs should be used prior to the establishment of a robotic liver surgery program.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting

PURPOSE

In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study.

METHODS

We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs.

RESULTS

RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9-41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7-5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs.

CONCLUSIONS

From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections.

Short-Term Outcomes After Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver surgery is a novel technique expanding the field of minimally invasive approaches. An increasing number of studies assess the outcomes of robotic liver resections (RLR). The aim of our meta-analysis is to provide an up-to-date comparison of RLR versus open liver resections (OLR), evaluating its safety and efficacy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov for articles published from January 2000 until January 2022 was undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirteen non-randomized retrospective and one prospective clinical study enlisting 1801 patients met our inclusion criteria, with 640 patients undergoing RLR and 1161 undergoing OLR. RLR resulted in significantly lower overall morbidity (p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (p = 0.002), and less intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.001). Operative time was found to be significantly higher in the RLR group (p < 0.001). Blood transfusion requirements, R0 resection, and mortality rates presented no difference among the two groups. The cumulative rate of conversion was 5% in the RLR group.

CONCLUSION

The increasing experience in the implementation of the robot will undoubtedly generate more prospective randomized studies, necessary to assess its potential superiority over the traditional open approach, in a variety of hepatic lesions.

Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through international consensus conferences and the development of difficulty classifications. LLR has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for HCC. However, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, the elderly, HCC recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection must be considered for LLR for HCC. Some systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, and large cohort studies indicated that LLR is technically feasible for selected patients with HCC with these factors that led to less intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions and postoperative complication incidences, and shorter hospital stays than OLR. Furthermore, some reported LLR prevents postoperative loss of independence. No difference was reported in long-term outcomes among patients with HCC who underwent LLR and OLR; however, some recent reports indicated better long-term outcomes with LLR. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for HCC are not different from those of LLR. Additionally, RALR is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: −0.7 95%CI −1.0, −0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: −0.8 95%CI −1.4, −0.3), Clavien−Dindo complications I−II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.6 95%CI −1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.4 95%CI −0.8, −0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: −0.5 95%CI −0.9, −0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: −6.4 95%CI −11.3, −1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.

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.

The impact of robotics in liver surgery: A worldwide systematic review and short-term outcomes meta-analysis on 2,728 cases

BACKGROUND

The dissemination of robotic liver surgery is slow-paced and must face the obstacle of demonstrating advantages over open and laparoscopic (LLS) approaches. Our objective was to show the current position of robotic liver surgery (RLS) worldwide and to identify if improved short-term outcomes are observed, including secondary meta-analyses for type of resection, etiology, and cost analysis.

METHODS

A PRISMA-based systematic review was performed to identify manuscripts comparing RLS vs open or LLS approaches. Quality analysis was performed using the Newcatle-Ottawa score. Statistical analysis was performed after heterogeneity test and fixed- or random-effect models were chosen accordingly.

RESULTS

After removing duplications, 2728 RLS cases were identified from the final set of 150 manuscripts. More than 75% of the cases have been performed on malignancies. Meta-analysis from the 38 comparative reports showed that RLS may offer improved short-term outcomes compared to open procedures in most of the variables screened. Compared to LLS, some advantages may be observed in favour of RLS for major resections in terms of operative time, hospital stay and rate of complications. Cost analyses showed an increased cost per procedure of around US$5000.

CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of RLS still need to be demonstrated although early results are promising. Advantages vs open approach are demonstrated. Compared to laparoscopic surgery, minor perioperative advantages may be observed for major resections although cost analyses are still unfavorable to the robotic approach.

Augmented Reality and Image-Guided Robotic Liver Surgery

Artificial intelligence makes surgical resection easier and safer, and, at the same time, can improve oncological results. The robotic system fits perfectly with these more or less diffused technologies, and it seems that this benefit is mutual. In liver surgery, robotic systems help surgeons to localize tumors and improve surgical results with well-defined preoperative planning or increased intraoperative detection. Furthermore, they can balance the absence of tactile feedback and help recognize intrahepatic biliary or vascular structures during parenchymal transection. Some of these systems are well known and are already widely diffused in open and laparoscopic hepatectomies, such as indocyanine green fluorescence or ultrasound-guided resections, whereas other tools, such as Augmented Reality, are far from being standardized because of the high complexity and elevated costs. In this paper, we review all the experiences in the literature on the use of artificial intelligence systems in robotic liver resections, describing all their practical applications and their weaknesses.

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.

State-of-the-art surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most commonly diagnosed primary liver tumor with an increasing incidence worldwide. Management of patients with HCC is largely dictated by the presence of cirrhosis, disease stage, underlying liver function, and patient performance status.

PURPOSE

We provide an update on key aspects of surgical treatment options for patients with HCC. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection and transplantation remain cornerstone treatment options for patients with early-stage disease and constitute the only potentially curative options for HCC. Selection of patients for surgical treatment should include a thorough evaluation of tumor characteristics and biology, as well as evidence-based use of various available treatment options to achieve optimal long-term outcomes for patients with HCC.

The Use of Robotics in Surgery of Benign Liver Diseases: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment of benign liver diseases (BLD) remains a field of conflict, due to increased risk and high complication rate. However, the introduction of minimally invasive surgery has led to increased number of patients with BLD being treated surgically, with similar outcomes and fewer complications. Current data support the application of laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic surgery (RS) in surgical treatment of liver malignancies, but there are insufficient data concerning the application of robotic surgery in BLD. In the present systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the application of RS in BLD surgery.

METHODS

After a thorough search of Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, 12 studies were considered eligible with a total number of 115 patients with BLD.

DISCUSSION

In brief, RS appears to be a safe and feasible option for BLD surgery. When compared to open surgery, RS is associated with lower blood loss, shorter length of stay, and fewer complication rate. Regarding LS, the peri- and postoperative outcomes were similar, but RS can overcome the technical limitations of LS. However, the cost of RS remains a major drawback in its widespread application.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering our findings, RS can be a safe and feasible option for BLD surgery, but further studies are needed to justify the introduction of RS in liver surgery and to define the type of patients that will benefit the most from it.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following the publication of reports from landmark international consensuses (Louisville 2008 and Morioka 2014), minimally invasive hepatectomy became widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to open surgery. We aimed to compare the operative, hospitalization, and total economic costs of open (OLR) vs. laparoscopic (LLR) vs. robotic liver resection (RLR).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review (end-of-search date: July 3, 2020) according to the PRISMA statement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies reporting on 3847 patients (1783 OLR; 1674 LLR; 390 RLR) were included. The operative costs of LLR were significantly higher than those of OLR, while subgroup analysis also showed higher operative costs in the LLR group for major hepatectomy, but no statistically significant difference for minor hepatectomy. Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the LLR group, with subgroup analyses indicating lower costs for LLR in both major and minor hepatectomy series. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding total costs between LLR and OLR both overall and on subgroup analyses in either major or minor hepatectomy series. Meta-analyses showed higher operative, hospitalization, and total costs for RLR vs. LLR, but no statistically significant difference regarding total costs for RLR vs. OLR.

CONCLUSION

LLR's higher operative costs are offset by lower hospitalization costs compared to OLR leading to no statistically significant difference in total costs, while RLR appears to be a more expensive alternative approach.

Case Report: Successful DaVinci-Assisted Major Liver Resection for Alveolar Echinococcosis

We report a case of successful robot-assisted major liver resection in a patient with liver alveolar echinococcosis (AE). A 62-year-old male patient was incidentally diagnosed with a large infiltrative lesion in the right liver lobe suspicious for AE. A radical surgical resection as a right-sided hemihepatectomy was indicated. The operation was carried out via a robotic-assisted procedure using the DaVinci Xi Surgical System. The tumor measured 12.4 × 8.8 cm and was successfully resected through a suprapubic incision of 13 cm. The patient was free of pain after the second post-operative day. A fluid collection near the resection plate was easily drained without bile leakage. The patient had no surgical complications. Radical resection is inevitable for adequate curative therapy of AE and provides clear margins. Robotic surgery is a relatively new and safe option for curative resection of AE lesions, with remarkable advantages for patients and surgeons.

Simultaneous robotic-assisted resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: a systematic review

Simultaneous resections of primary colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) have emerged as safe and efficient procedures for selected patients. Besides the traditional open approach for simultaneous resections, similar outcomes have been reported for minimally invasive approaches. Over the past years, a number of studies have sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of simultaneous robotic-assisted resections (SRAR) for patients with synchronous CRC and CRLM. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the safety, technical feasibility and outcomes of SRAR of the primary CRC and CRLM. A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken. Nine studies comprising a total of 29 patients (16 males) who underwent SRAR were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary tumor site was the rectum in 22 (76%) patients and the colon in 7 (24%) patients. A minor liver resection was performed in the majority of the cases (n = 24; 82%). The median operative time and estimated blood loss were 399.5 min (range 300-682) and 274 ml (range 10-780 ml), respectively. No cases of conversion to open were reported. The median LOS was 7 days (range 2-28 days). All patients reportedly underwent R0 resection. Overall and major morbidity rates were 38% and 7%, respectively, while no perioperative deaths were reported. Despite the limited number of studies, SRAR seems to be a safe and efficient minimally invasive approach for highly selected patients always implemented in the context of multidisciplinary patient management.

Robotic Liver Surgery - Current Standards and Future Perspectives

BACKGROUND

 Robotic liver surgery is emerging as the future of minimal invasive surgery. The robotic surgical system offers a stable camera platform, elimination of physiologic tremor, augmented surgical dexterity as well as improved ergonomics because of a seated operating position. Due to the theoretical advantages of the robotic assisted system, complex liver surgery might be an especially interesting indication for a robotic approach since it demands delicate tissue dissection, precise intracorporeal suturing as well as difficult parenchymal transection with subsequent need for meticulous hemostasis and biliostasis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 An analysis of English and German literature on open, laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery was performed and this review provides a general overview of the existing literature along with current standards and aims to specifically point out future directions of robotic liver surgery.

RESULTS

 Robotic liver surgery is safe and feasible compared to open and laparoscopic surgery, with improved short-term postoperative outcomes and at least non-inferior oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSION

 In complex cases including major hepatectomies, extended hepatectomies with biliary reconstruction and difficult segmentectomies of the posterior-superior segments, robotic surgery appears to emerge as a reasonable alternative to open surgery rather than being an alternative to laparoscopic procedures.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a rare and aggressive hepatic malignancy. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted aiming to compare outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for patients with iCCA. A systematic literature search of Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed. A total of 8 studies comprising 2872 patients, who underwent LLR or OLR for iCCA, were included in our meta-analysis. LLR patients had smaller tumors [mean difference (MD): - 1.17 cm, 95% confidence intervals (CI) - 1.77 to - 0.57, p = 0.0001], underwent major resections less frequently [risk ratio (RR): 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.83, p < 0.00001] and R0 resections more frequently (RR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.01), while lymphadenectomy was less common in the laparoscopic group (RR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.92, p = 0.007). The LLR group presented reduced blood loss (MD: - 270.16 ml, 95% CI - 381.53 to - 32.79, p = 0.002), need for transfusion (RR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73, p = 0.003), overall morbidity (RR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.4-0.83, p = 0.003) and hospital stay (MD: - 3.48 days, 95% CI: - 6.94 to - 0.02, p = 0.05) compared to the OLR group. No differences were shown in operative time (MD: 1.6 min, 95% CI - 34.17-37.37, p = 0.93), major morbidity (RR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.38-1.11, p = 0.12), mortality (RR: 1.42, 95% CI 0.13-15.07, p = 0.77), overall (HR: 0.9, 95% CI 0.59-1.38, p = 0.63) and relapse-free survival (HR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.5-1.16, p = 0.21) between the two groups. LLR seems to benefit patients with iCCA in terms of short-term outcomes, whilst long-term outcomes are comparable among the two approaches.

State of the art in robotic liver surgery: a meta-analysis

Although the number of robotic hepatectomy (RH) performed is increasing, few studies have reported its efficacy in comparison with the conventional surgical modalities. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative results of RH vs. open hepatectomy (OH) and RH vs. laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH). We systematically searched for English papers published in PubMed (Medline), Embase, and Cochrane library before March 1, 2020. A total of 39 papers and 2999 patients were eventually included. Among the included patients, 1249, 1010, and 740 underwent RH, LH, and OH, respectively. Compared with OH, the operation time was significantly increased but the intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, incidence of severe complications, and length of postoperative hospitalization were significantly reduced in patients with RH. However, there was no significant difference in the use of Pringle maneuver and overall incidence of complications. Compared with LH, the operation time was significantly increased, and the intraoperative blood loss was also more in RH. However, there were no differences in blood transfusion rate, use of Pringle maneuver, incidence of complications, incidence of severe complications, and length of postoperative hospitalization between the two groups. A longer operation time remains the main shortcoming of RH. However, based on the perioperative clinical efficacy, we conclude that RH is comparable to LH but is better than OH for selected patients.

Stepwise implementation of robotic surgery in a high volume HPB practice in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Aims of this study were to describe the stepwise implementation and expansion of robotic HPB surgery in a high volume HPB unit in the Netherlands and to analyze clinical outcomes of all robotic liver resections and robotic pancreatoduodenectomies performed within this program.

METHODS

After proctoring by expert international surgeons, HPB surgeons were introduced to robotic liver resection and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in a stepwise fashion. Data from two prospective databases containing all consecutive patients who underwent robotic liver resection or robotic pancreatoduodenectomy between August 1st, 2015 and March 1st, 2019 were analyzed post hoc.

RESULTS

In total, 77 consecutive robotic liver resections and 68 consecutive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies were performed. Five surgeons were consecutively introduced to robotic HPB surgery. Mean operative time for robotic liver resection was 160 ± 78 min. Mean operative time for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was 420 ± 67 min. Operative times remained stable over time and were not affected by the introduction of new surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Stepwise implementation and expansion of robotic HPB surgery within one unit over a three-and-half year period is feasible and associated with good clinical outcomes. Despite introducing new surgeons to the technique, operative times, an indicator of the learning process, remained stable over time.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Liver Resections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model.

RESULT

Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.

A falciform ligament flap surface sealing technique for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted liver surgery

Whether sealing the hepatic resection surface after liver surgery decreases morbidity is still unclear. Nevertheless, various methods and materials are currently in use for this procedure. Here, we describe our experience with a simple technique using a mobilized falciform ligament flap in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). We retrospectively analyzed the charts from 46 patients who received minor MILS between 2011 and 2019 from the same surgical team in a university hospital setting in Germany. Twenty-four patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection, and 22 patients received robotic-assisted liver resection. Sixteen patients in the laparoscopic group and fourteen in the robotic group received a falciform ligament flap (FLF) to cover the resection surface after liver surgery. Our cohort was thus divided into two groups: laparoscopic and robotic patients with (MILS + FLF) and without an FLF (MILS-FLF). Twenty-eight patients (60.9%) in our cohort were male. The overall mean age was 56.8 years (SD 16.8). The mean operating time was 249 min in the MILS + FLF group vs. 235 min in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.682). The mean blood loss was 301 ml in the MILS + FLF group vs. 318 ml in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.859). Overall morbidity was 3.3% in the MILS + FLF group vs. 18.8% in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.114). One patient in the MILS-FLF group (overall 2.2%), who underwent robotic liver surgery, developed bile leakage, but this did not occur in the MILS + FLF group. Covering the resection surface of the liver after minor minimally invasive liver resection with an FLF is a simple and cost-effective technique that does not prolong surgical time or negatively affect other perioperative parameters. In fact, it is a safe add-on step during MILS that may reduce postoperative morbidity. Further studies with larger cohorts will be needed to substantiate our proof of concept and results.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Limitations for resectability, current surgical concepts and future perspectives

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is the second most common hepatic malignancy and its incidence has been shown to increase significantly during the past decades. Complete surgical resection is currently acknowledged as the only curative treatment option able to provide adequate long-term outcomes. We herein review technical, functional and oncologic limitations for resectability, discuss current surgical aspects as well as highlight the fields in which future research and practice should focus on in order to ameliorate long-term outcomes in patients with iCCA.