Robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: short-term outcome

[Robotic liver surgery]

Minimally invasive surgery is currently undergoing a paradigm shift from the classical laparoscopic approach to robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery has made significant progress in various surgical disciplines in recent years and is increasingly being used. This is due to the increasing clinical availability of robotic systems as well as better visualization, an increased surgical precision and a higher degree of freedom of the robotic instruments used, compared to classical laparoscopy, resulting in a flatter learning curve and better ergonomics for the surgeon. This article examines the current status of robot-assisted liver surgery, highlights the technical and clinical challenges and discusses future perspectives and potential developments in this dynamic field.

Short-Term Surgical Outcomes After Robotic Liver Surgery: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis With Conventional Open Liver Surgery at a High-Volume Centre in Denmark

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and Open liver surgery (OLS) in a centre with a high number of operations.

METHODS

A 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of a retrospective database of RLS and OLS was performed. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was performed to identify learning curves.

RESULT

After PSM analysis, operative time was significantly longer in the RLS group (p < 0.001). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the RLS group (p < 0.001). Transfusion rates were significantly lower in the RLS group. The length of hospital stay was shorter in the RLS group (3.5vs6.3 days, p < 0.001). Readmission rates were significantly lower in the RLS group (p < 0.049). CUSUM analysis showed a learning curve for at least 8 low-intermediate RLS procedures and 27 advanced-Expert RLS procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

RLS has many advantages, including being safe to perform, less blood loss and faster postoperative recovery compared with OLS.

A comprehensive review and meta-analysis comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic adrenalectomy in individuals with obesity

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic adrenalectomy in individuals with obesity. We performed an extensive review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for research on adrenalectomy in individuals with obesity up to August 2024. Only studies comparing robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopic surgery were included. Only articles written in English were included. We utilized established criteria for inclusion and exclusion, concentrating on randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The ROBINS-I instrument was employed to assess the bias risk in non-randomized control studies. Review Manager 5.4.1 was utilized to conduct the meta-analysis. The final analysis incorporated four retrospective cohort studies with a total of 492 individuals with obesity (261 receiving RA and 231 undergoing LA). The results showed that RA was linked to a shorter duration of hospitalization and less estimated blood loss in comparison to LA. Nonetheless, there were no notable distinctions between the two surgical methods in terms of OT, laparotomy conversion rates, overall postoperative complications, or death rates after surgery. In conclusion, RA is a reliable and safe choice for individuals with obesity. It offers notable advantages over LA in terms of LOHS and EBL.

Gallbladder cancer: surgical treatment, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy

Gallbladder cancer is a common type of biliary tract tumor. Optimal management for early stage cases typically involves radical excision as the primary treatment modality. Various surgical techniques, including laparoscopic, robotic, and navigational surgery, have demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes in radical gallbladder excision. Unfortunately, most patients are ineligible for surgical intervention because of the advanced stage of the disease upon diagnosis. Consequently, non-surgical interventions, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy, have become the mainstay of treatment for patients in advanced stages. This review focuses on elucidating various surgical techniques as well as advancements in immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the context of recent advancements in gallbladder cancer research.

Comparing robotic and open surgical techniques in gallbladder cancer management: a detailed systematic review and meta-analysis

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and oncological outcomes of robotic surgery compared to open surgery in treating gallbladder cancer (GBC). In October 2023, we performed a literature search across major global databases such as PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We employed a Review Manager for parameter comparisons. This study has been registered with PROSPERO under the identifier CRD42023476686. Our final meta-analysis incorporated 5 cohort studies, encompassing a total of 353 patients. Compared to the Open Group (OG), the Robotic Group (RG) had reduced intraoperative blood loss (WMD - 217.72 ml, 95% CI - 371.08 to - 64.35; p = 0.005), shorter hospital stay (WMD - 1.80 days, 95% CI - 2.66 to - 0.95; p < 0.0001), and fewer overall complications (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10-0.97; p = 0.04). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of operation duration, postoperative inpatient days, readmission rate, major complications, 1-year postoperative survival, 2-year postoperative survival, and mortality rates. In our study, we found that for patients with gallbladder cancer, robotic radical cholecystectomy offers certain potential advantages over open radical cholecystectomy. This suggests that robotic radical cholecystectomy might be the optimal choice for treating gallbladder cancer. However, further validation from high-quality randomized clinical trials is required.

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.

Robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis of surgical margins and clinical outcomes from a western tertiary hepatobiliary center

This study was undertaken to determine surgical outcomes of patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to investigate the correlation between tumor distance to margin and perioperative outcomes, as well as overall survival (OS). To our knowledge, this study represents the largest series of robotic liver resection for HCC in North America. We retrospectively analyzed 58 consecutive patients who underwent robotic liver resection for HCC. Patients were further stratified by tumor distance to margin (≤ 1 mm, 1.1-9.9 mm, ≥ 10 mm) and their clinical outcomes including OS were compared. A majority of patients attained a greater than 1 mm tumor distance to margin (81%). There were no differences in tumor size between patient cohorts who attained ≤ 1 mm, 1.1-9.9 mm, and ≥ 10 mm margins. There were no differences in pre-, intra-, and postoperative outcomes among the three cohorts. Cost variables of interest were also similar. OS was highest in the > 10 mm margin cohort, and this was statistically significant at 3 and 5 years. Robotic HCC resection was associated with adequate tumor distance to margin. Wide margins ≥ 10 mm are associated with the best OS.

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.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma with propensity score matching

Background

Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) is a rare primary hepatic neoplasm. Currently, there are no well-structured studies that analyze the feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection in cHCC-CCA alone. This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the long-term survival of laparoscopic liver resection with open liver resection in cHCC-CCA.

Methods

Patients with a postoperative pathologic report of cHCC-CCA who underwent liver resection from August 2004 to December 2017 were included in this study. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to analyze the 3-y disease-free survival and 3-y overall survival. Propensity score matching was done to reduce the influence of confounding variables.

Results

A total of 145 patients were pathologically confirmed to have cHCC-CCA, of which 10 patients were excluded due to having received palliative surgery. Of the remaining 135 patients, 43 underwent laparoscopic and 92 underwent open liver resection; propensity score matching yielded 30 patients for each group. The 3-y overall survival was 38 (88.4%) in the laparoscopic group and 84 (91.3%) in the open group before propensity score matching (P = .678), and 25 (83.3%) and 28 (93.3%), respectively, after matching (P = .257). The 3-y disease-free survival was 24 (55.8%) in the laparoscopic group and 32 (34.8%) in the open group before matching (P = .040), and 17 (56.7%) and 16 (53.3%), respectively, after matching (P = .958). The hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group before and after matching, while other operative outcomes were similar in both groups.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic liver resection for cHCC-CCA is technically feasible and safe, having a shorter hospital stay without compromising oncological outcomes.

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.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Primary Hepatobiliary Tumors-Possibilities and Limitations

Simple Summary

Primary liver malignancies are some of the most common and fatal tumors today. Robotic-assisted liver surgery is becoming increasingly interesting for both patients and surgeons alike. Up to date, prospective comparative studies around the topic are scarce. This leads us to an ever existing controversy about the efficacy, safety, and economic benefits of robotic surgery as an extension of traditional minimally invasive surgery over open liver surgery. However, there is evidence that robotic-assisted surgery is, after passing the learning curve, equivalent in terms of feasibility and safety, and in some cases superior to traditional laparoscopic hepatic resection. With this work, we want to provide an overview of the latest and most significant reviews and meta-analyses focusing on robotic hepatectomy in primary liver malignancies. We outline the technical aspects of robotic-assisted surgery and place them into the context of technical, surgical, and oncological outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open resection. When chosen per case individually, any hepatic resection can be performed robotically to overcome limitations of laparoscopic surgery by an experienced team. In this paper, we propose that prospective studies are needed to prove efficacy for robotic-assisted resection in liver malignancy.

Abstract

Hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma are fatal primary hepatic tumors demanding extensive liver resection. Liver surgery is technically challenging due to the complex liver anatomy, with an intensive and variant vascular and biliary system. Therefore, major hepatectomies in particular are often performed by open resection and minor hepatectomies are often performed minimally invasively. More centers have adopted robotic-assisted surgery, intending to improve the laparoscopic surgical limits, as it offers some technical benefits such as seven degrees of freedom and 3D visualization. The da Vinci^® Surgical System has dominated the surgical robot market since 2000 and has shown surgical feasibility, but there is still much controversy about its economic benefits and real benefits for the patient over the gold standard. The currently available retrospective case studies are difficult to compare, and larger, prospective studies and randomized trials are still urgently missing. Therefore, here we summarize the technical, surgical, and economic outcomes of robotic versus open and laparoscopic hepatectomies for primary liver tumors found in the latest literature reviews and meta-analyses. We conclude that complex robotic liver resections (RLR) are safe and feasible after the steep learning curve of the surgical team has plateaued. The financial burden is lower in high volume centers and is expected to decrease soon as new surgical systems will enter the market.

Robotic surgery for colorectal liver metastases resection: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The role of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLMs) has never been investigated in large series.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was carried out on PubMed and Cochrane libraries.

RESULTS

We selected nine studies between 2008 and 2021. Two hundred sixty-two patients were included. One hundred thirty-one patients underwent simultaneous resections. The mean blood loss was 309.4 ml (range, 200-450 ml), the mean operative time was 250.5 min (range, 198.5-449.0 min). The mean length of hospital stay was 7.98 days (range, 4.5 to 12 days). The overall postoperative mortality was 0.4%. The overall morbidity rate was 37.0%, Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV complications were 8.4%. The mean 3-year overall survival was 55.25% (range, 44.4-66.1%), the mean 3-year disease free survival was 37% (range, 33.3-41.9%) CONCLUSION: We can conclude that robotic-assisted surgery might be considered as a technical upgrade option for minimally invasive approach to CRCLM resections even for simultaneous operations and challenging cases.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery are the most minimally invasive surgical approaches for the removal of liver lesions. Minor hepatectomy is a common surgical procedure. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies on robot-assisted vs. laparoscopicminor hepatectomy up to February, 2020. The odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies involving 751 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 297 patients were in the robot-assisted minor hepatectomy (RMH) group and 454 patients were in the LMH group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P = .43), transfusion rates (P = .14), length of hospital stay (P > .64), conversion rate (P = .62), R0 resection rate (P = .56), complications (P = .92), or mortaliy (P = .37) between the 2 groups. However, the RMH group was associated with a longer operative time (P = .0003), and higher cost (P < .00001) compared to the LMH group. No significant differences in overall survival or disease free survival between the 2 groups were observed. In the subgroup analysis of left lateral sectionectomies, RMH was still associated with a longer operative time, but no other differences in clinical outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although RMH is associated with longer operation times and higher costs, it exhibits the same safety and effectiveness as LMH. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials should now be considered to obtain better evidence for clinical consensus.

Robotic liver surgery: literature review and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) have been gaining popularity over the last decades. MILR provides superior peri-operative outcome. Despite these advantages, the penetrance of MILR in the clinical setting has been limited, and it was slowed down, among other factors, also by the laparoscopic technological limitations.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature review has been carried out (Pubmed, Embase and Scopus platforms) focusing on the role of robotic surgery in MILR.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The literature review results are presented and our additional remarks on the topic are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic MILR has been helping to expand the penetrance of MIS in liver surgery by making possible increasingly more challenging procedures. Minor resections still represent most of the robotic liver surgery data currently available. Robotic liver surgery is safe and effective, and it shows perioperative outcomes comparable with laparoscopic and open surgery. The oncological efficacy, within the limitations of the current level of evidence (mostly retrospective studies and literature heterogeneity), seems to show promising result. High quality prospective randomized studies, the use of prospective registry data, and multi-institutional efforts are needed.

Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection in Hepatocarcinoma: Surgical and Oncological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches are spreading in every field of surgery, including liver surgery. However, studies comparing robotic hepatectomy with the conventional open approach regarding oncologic outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma are limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed demographics characteristics, pathologic features, surgical, and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent robotic and conventional open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

RESULTS

No significant differences in demographics features, tumor size, tumor location, and type of liver resection were found. The morbidity rate was similar, 23% for the open group versus 17% of the robotic group (P=0.605). Perioperative data analysis showed a greater estimated blood loss in patients who underwent open resection, if compared with robotic group (P=0.003). R0 resection and disease-free resection margins showed no statistically significant differences. The 3-year disease-free survival of the robotic group was comparable with that of the open group (54% vs. 37%; P=0.592), as was the 3-year overall survival (87% vs. 78%; P=0.203).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical and the oncological outcomes seem to be comparable between minimally invasive and open hepatectomy. Robotic liver resections are effective, and do not compromise the oncological outcome, representing a reasonable alternative to the open approach.

Long-Term and Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter, Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases as compared to a propensity-matched cohort of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). Although safety and short-term outcomes of RLR have been described and previously compared to LLR, long-term and oncologic data are lacking.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed of all patients who underwent RLR and LLR for CRC metastases at six high-volume centers in the USA and Europe between 2002 and 2017. Propensity matching was used to match baseline characteristics between the two groups. Data were analyzed with a focus on postoperative and oncologic outcomes, as well as long-term recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

RLR was performed in 115 patients, and 514 patients underwent LLR. Following propensity matching 115 patients in each cohort were compared. Perioperative outcomes including mortality, morbidity, reoperation, readmission, intensive care requirement, length-of-stay and margin status were not statistically different. Both prematching and postmatching analyses demonstrated similar overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between RLR and LLR at 5 years (61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.87, and 38 vs. 31% DFS, p = 0.25, prematching; 61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.78, and 38 vs. 44% DFS, p = 0.62, postmatching).

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity score matching with a large, multicenter database demonstrates that RLR for colorectal metastases is feasible and safe, with perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes and survival that are largely comparable to LLR.

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.

Robotic liver resection: Hurdles and beyond

Laparoscopy is currently considered the standard of care for certain procedures such as left-lateral sectionectomies and wedge resections of anterior segments. The role of robotic liver surgery is still under debate, especially with regards to oncological outcomes. The purpose of this review is to describe how the field of robotic liver surgery has expanded, and to identify current limitations and future perspectives of the technology. Available evidences suggest that oncologic results after robotic liver resection are comparable to open and laparoscopic approaches for hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastases, with identifiable advantages for cirrhotic patients and patients undergoing repeat resections. Excellent outcomes and optimal patient safety can be only achieved with specific hepato-biliary and general minimally invasive training to overcome the learning curve.

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.

New frontiers in liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver resection is one of the main curative options for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis and is the treatment of choice in non-cirrhotic patients. However, careful patient selection is required to balance the risk of postoperative liver failure and the potential benefit on long-term outcomes. In the last decades, improved surgical techniques and perioperative management, as well as better patient selection, have enabled the indications for liver resection to be expanded. In this review, we aim to describe the main indications for liver resection in the management of HCC, its role compared to percutaneous ablation and liver transplantation in the therapeutic algorithm, as well as the recent advances in liver surgery that could be used to improve the prognosis of patients with HCC.

Institutional First 100 Case Experience and Outcomes of Robotic Hepatectomy for Liver Tumors

The nascent robotic approach for hepatic resections is gaining momentum in the United States because it offers solutions to the known limitations of laparoscopic approach. Herein, we report our initial experience and short-term outcomes of the first 100 robotic hepatectomies. With Institutional Review Board approval, all patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy were prospectively followed up. Patient demographics, operative outcomes, complications, and 30-day readmissions were collected and analyzed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). One hundred consecutive patients underwent robotic hepatectomy. Patients were aged 62 (63 ± 13.6) years, 66 per cent were women, and BMI was 29 (29 ± 6.4) kg/m2. In all, 76 per cent of the hepatectomies were undertaken for malignancy [metastatic colorectal cancer (28%), hepatocellular carcinoma (21%), and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (15%)], and 20 per cent for benign lesions; 66 per cent of patients underwent nonanatomical partial hepatectomies, 17 per cent right hepatectomies, 16 per cent left hepatectomies, and 1 per cent trisegmentectomy. Operative time was 233 (268 ± 109.3) minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 123 (269 ± 322.1) mL. Conversion to “open” approach was necessary in one patient. The length of stay was 3 (5 ± 4.6) days. There were no intraoperative complications. Twelve patients experienced postoperative complications. Six patients required readmission to the hospital within 30 days of discharge. Robotic hepatectomy is safe and feasible with favorable short-term outcomes. The robotic system enhances application of minimally invasive surgery for complex hepatobiliary operations.

Robotic approach to the liver: Open surgery in a closed abdomen or laparoscopic surgery with technical constraints?

The application of the minimally invasive approach has shown to be safe and effective for liver surgery and is in constant growth. The indications for laparoscopic surgery are steadily increasing across the field. In the early 2000s, robotic surgery led to some additional improvements, such as tremor filtration, instrument stability, 3D view and more comfort for the surgeon. These techniques bring in some advantages compared to the traditional OLR: less blood loss, shorter admissions, fewer adhesions, and a faster postoperative recovery and better outcomes in case of further hepatectomy for tumor recurrence has been shown. Concerning which is the best minimally invasive approach between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, the evidence is still conflicting. The latter shows good potential, since the endo-wristed instruments work similarly to the surgeon's hands, even with an intact abdominal wall. However, the technique is still under development, burdened by important costs, and limited by the lack of some instruments available for the laparoscopic approach. The paucity of universally accepted and proven data, especially concerning long-term outcomes, hampers drawing univocal acceptance at present. Furthermore, the number of variables related both to the patient and the disease further complicates the decision leading to a treatment tailored to each patient with strict selection. This review aims to explore the main differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, focusing on indications, operative technique and current debated clinical issues in recent literature.

Robotic Liver Resection

Robotic surgery has rapidly evolved. It is particularly attractive as an alternative minimally invasive approach in liver surgery because of improvements in visualization and articulated instruments. Limitations include increased operative times and lack of tactile feedback, but these have not been shown in studies. Considerations unique to robotic surgery, including safety protocols, must be put in place and be reviewed at the beginning of every procedure to ensure safety in the event of an emergent conversion. Despite the lack of early adoption by many hepatobiliary surgeons, robotic liver surgery continues to evolve and find its place within hepatobiliary surgery.

A Review on Curability of Cancers: More Efforts for Novel Therapeutic Options Are Needed

Cancer remains a major cause of death globally. Given its relapsing and fatal features, curing cancer seems to be something hardly possible for the majority of patients. In view of the development in cancer therapies, this article summarizes currently available cancer therapeutics and cure potential by cancer type and stage at diagnosis, based on literature and database reviews. Currently common cancer therapeutics include surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. However, treatment with curative intent by these methods are mainly eligible for patients with localized disease or treatment-sensitive cancers and therefore their contributions to cancer curability are relatively limited. The prognosis for cancer patients varies among different cancer types with a five-year relative survival rate (RSR) of more than 80% in thyroid cancer, melanoma, breast cancer, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. The most dismal prognosis is observed in patients with small-cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, oesophagal cancer, acute myeloid leukemia, non-small cell lung cancer, and gastric cancer with a five-year RSR ranging between 7% and 28%. The current review is intended to provide a general view about how much we have achieved in curing cancer as regards to different therapies and cancer types. Finally, we propose a small molecule dual-targeting broad-spectrum anticancer strategy called OncoCiDia, in combination with emerging highly sensitive liquid biopsy, with theoretical curative potential for the management of solid malignancies, especially at the micro-cancer stage.

From digital world to real life: a robotic approach to the esophagogastric junction with a 3D printed model

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional (3D) printing may represent a useful tool to provide, in surgery, a good representation of surgical scenario before surgery, particularly in complex cases. Recently, such a technology has been utilized to plan operative interventions in spinal, neuronal, and cardiac surgeries, but few data are available in the literature about their role in the upper gastrointestinal surgery. The feasibility of this technology has been described in a single case of gastroesophageal reflux disease with complex anatomy due to a markedly tortuous descending aorta.

METHODS

A 65-year-old Caucasian woman was referred to our Department complaining heartburn and pyrosis. A chest computed tomography evidenced a tortuous thoracic aorta and consequent compression of the esophagus between the vessel and left atrium. A "dysphagia aortica" has been diagnosed. Thus, surgical treatment of anti-reflux surgery with separation of the distal esophagus from the aorta was planned. To define the strict relationship between the esophagus and the mediastinal organs, a life-size 3D printed model of the esophagus including the proximal stomach, the thoracic aorta and diaphragmatic crus, based on the patient's CT scan, was manufactured.

RESULTS

The robotic procedure was performed with the da Vinci Surgical System and lasted 175 min. The surgeons had navigational guidance during the procedure since they could consult the 3D electronically superimposed processed images, in a "picture-in-picture" mode, over the surgical field displayed on the monitor as well as on the robotic headset. There was no injury to the surrounding organs and, most importantly, the patient had an uncomplicated postoperative course.

CONCLUSIONS

The present clinical report highlights the feasibility, utility and clinical effects of 3D printing technology for preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance in surgery, including the esophagogastric field. However, the lack of published data requires more evidence to assess the effectiveness and safety of this novel surgical-applied printing technology.

Learning Curve in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Liver Resection

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the learning curve effect on the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted liver resection (RALR).

METHODS

In 140 consecutive cases, all data about demographic, surgical procedure, postoperative course were collected prospectively and analyzed. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum model was used for determining the learning curve based on the need for conversion.

RESULTS

Among all 140 patients, no patients suffered from any organ dysfunction postoperatively and the operative mortality was 0%. The CUSUM analysis showed that at the 30th consecutive patient, the open conversion rate reached to the average value, and it further improved thereafter. In the last 70 patients, only 3 patients (4.3%) required conversion and 7 patients (10%) needed blood transfusion. Only 1 patient (1.3%) out of 79 patients with HCC had a positive resection margin. Univariate analyses showed the following risk factors associated with significantly higher risks of conversion (P < 0.05): tumor number > 1, lesions in segments 1/4a/7/8, right posterior sectionectomy, and lesions which were beyond the indications of the Louisville statement. Multivariate logistic analysis revealed that both tumor number > 1 (OR: 2.10, P < 0.05) and right posterior sectionectomy (OR: 11.19, P < 0.01) were risk factors of conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach for hepatectomy is safe and feasible. A learning curve effect was demonstrated in this study after the 30th consecutive patient. The long-term oncological outcomes of robotic hepatectomy still need further investigation.

Robotic hepatic surgery in malignancy: review of the current literature

The use of minimally invasive liver surgery, such as laparoscopic and robotic surgery, is increasing worldwide. Robot-assisted laparoscopy is a new surgical technique that improves surgical handling. The advantage of this technique is improved dexterity, which leads to increased surgical precision and no tremor or fatigue. Comparable oncological results were documented for laparoscopic and open surgery. Currently, "conventional" laparoscopic liver surgery has limitations with respect to the treatment of lesions in the posterior-superior segments, and there are limited technical features for the reconstruction steps. These limitations might be overcome with the use of robotic surgery. The use of robotic surgery for hepatic procedures originated because of the technical potential to overcome several of the major technical limitations known from conventional laparoscopy and the possibility of performing more extended liver resections. Additionally, there is increasing evidence indicating that robotic hepatic surgery is feasible and safe in resections of the posterior segments. Studies showed that using the robotic technique is associated with a decreased or at least equal amount of intraoperative blood loss compared to that of the conventional laparoscopic or open technique. There is increasing evidence that robotic liver surgery might be as safe as conventional laparoscopic procedures in cancer cases in terms of resection margins, disease-free and overall survival. Furthermore, robotic surgery might be more favorable with respect to postoperative patient recovery. Despite promising results, still large, multicenter, randomized and prospective studies are needed to analyze the exact value of robotic liver surgery in patients with malignant liver tumors.

Early Morbidity and Mortality after Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Propensity-Score Matched Comparison with Open Resection

BACKGROUND

The impact of minimally invasive surgery on the short-term outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing liver resection remains poorly defined.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP-targeted hepatectomy database was used to identify patients who underwent liver resection for HCC during 2014-2016. A 1:1 propensity score matching was created between patients who underwent open (OLR) vs. minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) based on age, ASA score, liver resection type, liver texture, and stage of disease. The short-term outcomes of patients undergoing OLR vs. MILR were compared.

RESULTS

Among a total cohort of 1816 patients, propensity score matching resulted in 728 liver resections: 364 (50%) OLR and 364 (50%) MILR. Overall morbidity (29% vs. 23%, P = 0.04) was greater among patients undergoing OLR compared with MILR, whereas mortality did not differ between the two approaches (2% vs 1%, P = 0.57). MILR was associated with significant reductions in hospital LOS (6 vs. 4 days, P < 0.0001) but no difference in operative time (188 vs. 171 min, P = 0.13). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, age ≥ 65 (OR:1.6, 95%CI: 1.1-2.3, P = 0.0065), ASA class ≥ 3 (OR:2.7, 95%CI: 1.5-4.7, P = 0.0003), preoperative blood transfusion (OR:9.7, 95%CI: 1.06-90.3, P = 0.04), T ≥ 3 (OR:1.9, 95%CI: 1.09-3.4, P = 0.02), operative time > 200 min (OR:1.8, 95%CI: 1.2-2.5, P = 0.0011), and OLR (OR:1.4, 95%CI: 1.002-2.03, P = 0.04) were associated with increased odds of overall morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

MILR for HCC is associated with a shorter hospital LOS and reduced postoperative complication rates, even after controlling for important patient and clinicopathologic confounders, compared to OLR. Efforts to expand the use of MILR for hepatobiliary surgery are warranted.

Robotic Surgery for Malignant Liver Disease: a Systematic Review of Oncological and Surgical Outcomes

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is yet another modification of minimally invasive liver surgery. It is described as feasible and safe from the surgical point of view; however, oncological outcomes need to be adequately analysed to justify the use of this technique when resecting malignant liver tumours. We reviewed existing English medical literature on robot-assisted laparoscopic liver surgery. We analysed surgical outcomes and oncological outcomes. We analysed operative parameters including operative time, type of hepatectomy, blood loss, conversion rate, morbidity and mortality rates and length of stay. We also analysed oncological outcomes including completeness of resection (R status), recurrence, survival and follow-up data. A total of 582 patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic liver surgery were analysed from 17 eligible publications. Only 5 publications reported survival data. The overall morbidity was 19% with 0.2% reported mortality. R0 resection was achieved in 96% of patients. Robotic liver surgery is feasible and safe with acceptable morbidity and oncological outcomes including resection margins. However, well-designed trials are required to provide evidence in terms of survival and disease-free intervals when performed for malignancy.

Robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. This review attempts to clarify the role of robotic surgery for HCC in terms of oncologic outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed according to the PRISMA statement including papers comparing open, robotic, and laparoscopic approach for liver surgery. If more than one study was reported by the same institute, only the most recent or the highest quality study was included.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 302 articles; titles and abstracts were reviewed for inclusion. Ten papers were finally included in this review for a total of 307 patients who underwent robotic resection for HCC.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resection for HCC is effective in terms of oncological results as compared with open and laparoscopic approach when performed in experienced centers and is accurate in terms of R0 rates and disease-free surgical margin.

International consensus statement on robotic hepatectomy surgery in 2018

The robotic surgical system has been applied in liver surgery. However, controversies concerns exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. To promote the development of robotic hepatectomy, this study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic hepatectomy and provide sixty experts’ consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 22 topics were prepared analyzed and widely discussed during the 4 meetings. Based on the published articles and expert panel opinion, 7 recommendations were generated by the GRADE method using an evidence-based method, which focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques and cost-effectiveness of hepatectomy. Given that the current evidences were low to very low as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized-controlled trials are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.

Robotic surgery for gallbladder cancer: Operative technique and early outcomes

BACKGROUND

The objective was to elucidate the operative technique of robotic radical cholecystectomy (RRC) and to compare the early outcomes of RRC with open radical cholecystectomy (ORC) for gallbladder cancer (GBC).

METHODS

Patients who underwent RRC for suspected or incidental GBC between July 2015 and August 2018 were analyzed. Patients who underwent ORC during the same period and fulfilled the study criteria formed the control group.

RESULTS

During the study period, 27 patients who underwent RRC formed the study group (group A) and 70 matched patients who underwent ORC formed the control group (group B). Median surgical time was higher in group A (295 vs 200 minutes, P < 0.001). However, median blood loss (200 vs 600 mL, P < 0.001), postoperative hospital stay (4 vs 5 days, P = 0.046) and postoperative morbidity (1 vs 15 patients, P = 0.035) were lower in group A. Median lymph node yield was 10 (range = 2-21) for group A and 9 (range = 2-25) for group B, and was comparable (P = 0.408). During a median follow up of 9 (1-46) months, two patients in group A developed recurrence (no port site recurrence).

CONCLUSION

RRC is safe and feasible and the short-term results are compared with ORC.

Toward a fully robotic surgery: Performing robotic major liver resection with no table-side surgeon

BACKGROUND

Evidence has suggested that robotic system helps perform more major liver resections. However, the required table-side surgeon has remained a concern because of the uncertain performance and the incomplete control of console surgeon.

METHODS

Data were reviewed for consecutive 333 robotic liver resections, of which 56 patients underwent left liver resection with the usual setting, and 35 with no table-side surgeon.

RESULTS

No conversion was required in the setting with no table-side surgeon. The group without the table-side surgeon had similar complication rates, blood loss, and operative time compared with that of the normal settings, as well as focused analysis on major left hemihepatectomy.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that performing robotic major liver resection without the presence of the table-side surgeon is safe and feasible. The concise performance of robotic platforms might accelerate the machine learning process along with the ability to predict patterns of future autonomous surgery.

Single-Institution Early Experience and Learning Curve with Robotic Liver Resections

Robotic liver resection is being introduced with its potential to overcome limitations of conventional laparoscopy. This study was undertaken to document early experience and learning curve of robotic liver resection in our institution. All patients undergoing liver resection between 2013 and 2017 were prospectively followed. Patients were divided into three consecutive tertiles (cohort I–III). Thirty-three patients underwent robotic liver resection within the study period. Twenty-four per cent of patients underwent formal right or left hemihepatectomy, 21 per cent underwent sectionectomy, 6 per cent underwent central hepatectomy, and the remainder underwent non-anatomical liver resection. Formal hemihepatectomy and right posterosuperior segment resection were undertaken in two patients in cohort I, four patients in cohort II, and four patients in cohort III. Two cases were converted to “open” operation. Operative time was 172 (194.5 ± 65.1) minutes in cohort I, 222 (247.8 ± 109.8) minutes in cohort II, and 280 (302.5 ± 84.9) minutes in cohort III, reflecting increasing degree of technical complexity. Estimated blood loss decreased significantly throughout the cohorts, being 400 mL, 200 mL, and 100 mL in cohorts I to III, respectively. Major intraoperative complications were not seen. Three patients experienced postoperative complications, resulting in a single mortality. Length of hospital stay was three days, with two patients being readmitted within 30 days. Robotic technique for liver resection is feasible and safe. It offers good short-term clinical outcomes, including for patients who require major liver resection. As the proficiency developed, a notable improvement in technically ability to undertake more complex resections with decreasing blood loss and minimal morbidity was seen.

Robotic Developments in Cancer Surgery

Indications for robotic surgery have been rapidly expanding since the first introduction of the robotic surgical system in the US market in 2000. As the robotic systems have become more sophisticated over the past decades, there has been an expansion in indications. Many new tools have been added with the aim of optimizing outcomes after oncologic surgery. Complex abdominal cancers are increasingly operated on using robot-assisted laparoscopy and with acceptable outcomes. In this article, the authors discuss robotic developments, from the past and the future, with an emphasis on cancer surgery.

Technical approach of robotic total right hepatic lobectomy: How we do it?

Despite advantages of minimally invasive surgery, many hepatobiliary surgeons are hesitant to offer this approach for major hepatic resection due to concerns of difficulty in liver manipulation, bleeding control, and suboptimal oncologic outcomes. The robotic surgical system has revolutionized the way traditional laparoscopic liver resection is undertaken. Limitations of traditional laparoscopy are being resolved by robotic technology. We aimed to describe aspects of minimally invasive liver surgery and our standardized technical approach. We discussed technical aspects of performing robotic total right hepatic lobectomy and described our standardized institutional method. A 79-year-old man with an 11-cm biopsy-proven hepatocellular carcinoma was taken to the operating room for a robotic total right hepatic lobectomy. Past medical and surgical history was consistent with hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Robotic extrahepatic Glissonean pedicle approach was used to gain inflow vascular control. Right hepatic artery and portal vein were individually dissected and isolated prior to division. An intraoperative robotic ultrasound was utilized to guide liver parenchymal transection, securing negative margins. Robotic vessel sealing device was used as the main energy device during the parenchymal transection. Right hepatic vein was transected intrahepatically using a linear stapler. Operative time was 200 min without intraoperative complications. Estimated blood loss was 100 ml. Postsurgical recovery was uneventful and he was discharged home on postoperative day 4. Minimally invasive robotic total right hepatic lobectomy is feasible with excellent perioperative outcomes.

Intraoperative ultrasonography of robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy: initial experiences from 110 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of IOUS in robotic liver surgery and propose a standard protocol of IOUS for safe robot-assisted hepatectomy.

METHODS

Between February 2015 and December 2016, liver resection was performed in 110 patients with robotic approach in Tongji Hospital. In these patients, IOUS was routinely performed. All data about demographic, surgical procedure, postoperative course were collected prospectively and analyzed.

RESULTS

A four steps IOUS protocol in robotic liver surgery was proposed, including exploration, verification, guidance, and confirmation. A total of 11 additional lesions in 11 patients were detected and 7 patients accepted strategic surgical modification. No patient suffered from any single or multiple organ dysfunctions, and there were no mortalities observed.

CONCLUSION

IOUS is indispensable to understand lesions and vessels in robotic liver surgery. A four-step standard protocol of IOUS is essential for safe robot-assisted hepatectomy.

Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) by the means of meta-analytical techniques. We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and Web of Science databases, collecting randomized or non-randomized studies about robotic-assisted and laparoscopic liver resections. The searching cutoff date was 2017/6/30, all the data obtained were statistically analyzed using RevMan5.3 software recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. A total of thirteen articles, involving 938 patients were enrolled in meta-analysis. Among them, 435 cases underwent RLR, and 503 cases underwent LLR. Compared with LLR, the RLR had longer operative time [MD=65.49, 95%CI (42.00, 88.98) P＜0.00001＝more intraoperative blood loss [MD=69.88, 95%CI (27.11, 112.65) P=0.001] and a higher cost [MD=4.24, 95%CI (3.08, 5.39) P＜0.00001＝. There were no significant differences between the two groups in transfusion rate, complication rate, conversion rate, the R1 resection rate and hospital stay. In the subgroup analysis of surgery after 2010, a lower conversion rate was observed in RLR, other clinical outcomes are comparable between RLR and LLR. In the subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy, RLR is still associated with longer operative time, but there is no difference in other outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of left hemihepatectomy or left lateral hepatectomy, RLR is associated with more blood loss. Although RLR associated with Longer operative time and more intraoperative blood loss, it displays the same safety and effectiveness as LLR for hepatectomies. And the high cost is still a major hindrance for the widely application of robotic surgery.

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes Following Robotic Liver Resections for Primary Hepatobiliary Malignancies: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

Robotic liver surgery (RLS) has emerged as a feasible alternative to laparoscopic or open resections with comparable perioperative outcomes. Little is known about the oncologic adequacy of RLS. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term oncologic outcomes for patients undergoing RLS for primary hepatobiliary malignancies.

METHODS

We performed an international, multicenter, retrospective study of patients who underwent RLS for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CC), or gallbladder cancer (GBC) between 2006 and 2016. Age, gender, histology, resection margin status, extent of surgical resection, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 61 included patients, 34 (56%) had RLS performed for HCC, 16 (26%) for CC, and 11 (18%) for GBC. The majority of resections were nonanatomical or segmental resections (39.3%), followed by central hepatectomy (18%), left-lateral sectionectomy (14.8%), left hepatectomy (13.1%), right hepatectomy (13.1%), and right posterior segmentectomy (1.6%). R0 resection was achieved in 94% of HCC, 68% of CC, and 81.8% of GBC patients. Median hospital stay was 5 days, and conversion to open surgery was needed in seven patients (11.5%). Grade III-IV Dindo-Clavien complications occurred in seven patients with no perioperative mortality. Median follow-up was 75 months (95% confidence interval 36-113), and 5-year OS and DFS were 56 and 38%, respectively. When stratified by tumor type, 3-year OS was 90% for HCC, 65% for GBC, and 49% for CC (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

RLS can be performed for primary hepatobiliary malignancies with long-term oncologic outcomes comparable to published open and laparoscopic data.

Fully robotic left hepatectomy for malignant tumor: technique and initial results

Robotic liver surgery has been considered as a unique opportunity to overcome the traditional limitations of laparoscopy; thus, it can potentially extend the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery. From April 2015 to May 2017, 35 patients underwent fully robotic left hepatectomy. The mean operative time was 315 min (200-445 min) and the mean estimated blood loss was 245 ml (125-628 ml). Pringle maneuver was required in six cases. Cancer was the indication for surgery in all patients (14 liver metastases, 18 hepatocellular carcinomas and 3 cholangiocarcinomas). There were one to four lesions in a patient and the mean lesion size was 39.2 mm (15-85 mm). The average length of hospital stay was 6.5 days (5-14 days). Perioperative morbidity rate was 17.2%. Two patients underwent conversion to open surgery. The 90-day mortality rate was nil. The mean surgical resection margin was 12 (1-22) mm, and R0-resection was reached in 33 out of 35 cases. The robotic left hepatectomy provides interesting surgical outcomes and good oncologic adequacy. It can be safely applied for the management of liver malignancies.

Minimally Invasive Approaches for Surgical Management of Primary Liver Cancers

The benefits of minimally invasive approaches in oncologic surgery are increasingly recognized, and laparoscopic liver surgery has become increasingly widespread. In light of the complexity and technical challenges of hepatobiliary procedures, robotic approaches are also employed. The utility, safety, and oncologic integrity of these methods in the management of primary liver cancers are reported. PubMed was used to search the medical literature for studies and articles pertaining to laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery. Studies that particularly addressed hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma were identified and reviewed. Laparoscopic liver surgery, including for major resections, has been shown to be safe in experienced hands without any compromise of oncologic outcomes for either hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Some studies show improved clinical outcomes including shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates when compared to open surgery, particularly for patients with cirrhosis. Robotic liver surgeries seem to have equally acceptable clinical outcomes; however, there is limited data regarding oncologic integrity and considerable additional expense. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections are both feasible and safe for the management of primary liver tumors. Future studies should aim to clarify specific indications and optimize applications of these approaches.

Robotics in HPB surgery

Some major procedures and an assessment of their impact in the field

Selecting incision-dominant cases for robotic liver resection: towards outpatient hepatectomy with rapid recovery

Background

The premise of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is to minimize facial and muscle injury in order to enhance recovery from surgery. Robotic MIS surgery for resection of tumors in solid organs is gaining traction, though clear superiority of this approach is lacking and robotic surgery is more expensive. Our philosophy in robotically-assisted hepatectomy has been to employ this approach for cases where location of tumors make difficult a classical laparoscopic approach (superior/posterior tumors), and cases where the incision for an open operation dominates the course of recovery.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database.

Results

In this study we report 97 cases of liver resection subjected to the robotic approach, of which 90% were resected robotically. The mean operative time was 186±9 min; mean blood loss was 111±15 mL, and complications occurred in 9%. Two thirds of the patients remained in hospital 3 days or less, including three patients subjected to hemihepatectomy (2 left and 1 right). Fourteen individuals were discharged on the same day. The strongest predictors of long hospital stay (>3 days) were major hepatectomy (P=0.007), complications (P=0.008), and operative time >210 min (P=0.001).

Conclusions

With thoughtful case selection, this is a first demonstration that hepatectomy can be conducted as an out-patient or short-stay procedure.

Oncological and surgical result of hepatoma after robot surgery

BACKGROUND

Most liver resections are currently performed using an open approach. Robotic hepatectomy has been suggested as a safe and effective approach for hepatocellular carcinoma; however, studies regarding oncological and surgical outcomes are still limited. Accordingly, we performed this study to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes between robotic and open approaches.

METHODS

Between June, 2013 and July, 2016, a total of 63 HCC patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy, and 177 patients undergoing open hepatectomy were included in this study to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes after hepatectomy. The data of demographic, clinical features, hepatitis profile, tumor characters, TNM stage, surgical type, pathological outcomes, and postoperative results were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The demographic and clinical features of patients with HCC in both groups were statistically comparable. The robotic group had longer operative times (296 ± 84 vs. 182 ± 51 min, p = 0.032). The postoperative complications rate was slightly lower in the robotic group (11.1 vs. 15.3%, p = 0.418). The rate of Ro resection was similar in both groups (93.7 vs. 96%, p = 0.56). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robotic group (6.21 ± 2.06 vs. 8.18 ± 6.99 days, p = 0.001). The overall recurrence rate of HCC was lower in the robotic group (27 vs. 37.3%, p = 0.140). The 1, 2, 3 year disease-free survival rates were 72.5, 64.3, and 61.6%, respectively, for the open group, while they were 77.8, 71.9, and 71.9%, respectively, for the robotic group, (p = 0.325). The 1, 2, 3 year overall survival rates were 95.4, 92.3, and 92.3%, respectively, for the open group, while they were 100, 97.7, and 97.7%, respectively, for the robotic group (p = 0.137).

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is a safe and feasible procedure for liver resection in selected patients. The oncological and surgical outcomes of robotic hepatectomy were comparable to open surgery. The robotic hepatectomy carried significantly shorter length of hospital stay.

Highlights of the Third Expert Forum of Asia-Pacific Laparoscopic Hepatectomy; Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA) Visionary Summit 2017

The application of laparoscopy for liver surgery is rapidly increasing and the past few years have demonstrated a shift in paradigm with a trend towards more extended and complex resections. The development of instruments and technical refinements with the effective use of magnified caudal laparoscopic views have contributed to the ability to overcome the limitation of laparoscopic liver resection. The Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA) Visionary Summit 2017 and the 3^rd Expert Forum of Asia-Pacific Laparoscopic Hepatectomy organized hepatobiliary pancreatic sessions in order to exchange surgical tips and tricks and discuss the current status and future perspectives of laparoscopic hepatectomy. This report summarizes the oral presentations given at the 3^rd Expert Forum of Asia-Pacific Laparoscopic Hepatectomy.

[Robotic approach to hepatobiliary surgery. German version]

Robot-assisted hepatobiliary surgery has been steadily growing in recent years. It represents an alternative to the open and laparoscopic approaches in selected patients. Endowristed instruments and enhanced visualization provide important advantages in terms of selective bleeding control, microsuturing, and dissection. Cholecystectomies and minor hepatectomies are being performed with comparable results to open and laparoscopic surgery. Even complex procedures, such as major and extended hepatectomies, can have excellent outcomes, in expert hands. The addition of indocyanine green fluorescence provides an additional advantage for recognition of the vascular and biliary anatomy. Future innovations will allow for expanding its use and indications. Robotic surgery has become a very important component of modern minimally invasive surgery and the development of new robotic technology will facilitate a broader adoption of this technique.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Left Lateral Sectionectomy: Analysis of Surgical Outcomes and Costs by a Propensity Score Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

After comparing with open approach, left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) has become standard in terms of short-term outcomes without jeopardizing long-term survival when performed for malignancy. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term and economic outcomes of laparoscopic (L-LLS) and robotic (R-LLS) LLS.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent L-LLS or R-LLS from 1997 to 2014 were analyzed. Short-term and economic outcomes were compared between the two groups using a propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Ninety-six consecutive cases of LLS were performed using the laparoscopic (80 cases; 83 %) or robotic (16 cases; 17 %) approach. The two groups were similar for operative and surgical outcomes. Operation time was similar in the R-LLS compared to the L-LLS group (190 vs. 162 min; p = 0.10). Perioperative costs were higher (1457 € vs. 576 €; p < 0.0001) in the R-LLS group than in the L-LLS group; however, postoperative costs were similar between the two groups (4065 € in the R-LLS group vs. 5459 € in the L-LLS group; p = 0.30). Total costs were similar between the two groups (5522 € in the R-LLS group vs. 6035€ in the L-LLS group; p = 0.70). The PSM included 14 patients for each group. Surgical and economic outcomes remained similar after PSM, except for total operating time which was significantly longer in the R-LLS group than in the L-LLS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Even if feasible and safe, the robotic approach does not seem so far to offer additional benefit in terms of intra- and postoperative outcomes over the laparoscopic approach in patients requiring LLS. Total costs associated with the R-LLS group are not greater than that associated with the L-LLS group, which is the standard of care so far.