Risk factors and outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive hepatectomy with unplanned conversion: a contemporary NSQIP analysis

Risk factors and outcomes of conversions in robotic and laparoscopic liver resections: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Unfavorable intraoperative findings or incidents during minimally invasive liver surgery may necessitate conversion to open surgery. This study aimed to identify predictors for conversion in minimally invasive liver surgery and gain insight into outcomes following conversions.

METHODS

This nationwide, retrospective cohort study compared converted and non-converted minimally invasive liver surgery procedures using data from 20 centers in the Dutch Hepatobiliary Audit (2014-2022). Propensity score matching was applied. Subgroup analyses of converted robotic liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection and emergency versus non-emergency conversions were performed. Predictors for conversions were identified using backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 3,530 patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (792 robotic liver resection, 2,738 laparoscopic liver resection), 408 (11.6%) were converted (4.9% robotic liver resection, 13.5% laparoscopic liver resection). Conversion was associated with increased blood loss (580 mL [interquartile range 250-1,200] vs 200 mL [interquartile range 50-500], P < .001), major blood loss (≥500 mL, 58.8% vs 26.7%, P < .001), intensive care admission (19.0% vs 8.4%, P = .005), overall morbidity (38.9% vs 21.0%, P < .001), severe morbidity (17.9% vs 9.6%, P = .002), and a longer hospital stay (6 days [interquartile range 5-8] vs 4 days [interquartile range 2-5], P < .001) but not mortality (2.2% vs 1.2%, P = .387). Emergency conversions had increased intraoperative blood loss (1,500 mL [interquartile range 700-2,800] vs 525 mL [interquartile range 208-1,000], P < .001), major blood loss (87.5% vs 59.3%, P = .005), and intensive care admission (27.9% vs 10.6%, P = .029), compared with non-emergency conversions. Robotic liver resection was linked to lower conversion risk, whereas American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥3, larger lesion size, concurrent ablation, technically major, and anatomically major resections were risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Both emergency and non-emergency conversions negatively impact perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive liver surgery. Robotic liver resection reduces conversion risk compared to laparoscopic liver resection.

An updated meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopy hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy in the treatment of liver tumors

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy (RALH) with laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in the treatment of liver tumors.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of English-language literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to June 2024. Studies comparing RALH and LH for liver tumors were identified, and after qualitative evaluation, a meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 software.

RESULTS

After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 articles were included, including 29,969 patients, with 5673 in the RALH group and 24,296 in the LH group. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the LH group, surgery time was longer in the RALH group (MD = 55.33; 95% CI: 34.84-75.83; P < .001), the conversion to open surgery rate was higher (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.05; P < .001), the total cost was higher (MD = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.14-0.73; P = .004), and the tumor diameter was larger (MD = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.24-0.49; P < .001). Additionally, the R1 resection rate was higher in the RALH group (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.06; P < .001). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative transfusion rate, hepatic hilar occlusion rate, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, mortality rate, malignancy rate, or R0 resection rate (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, RALH is safe and effective, although it is associated with higher total costs, increased blood transfusion rates, and longer operative times. However, there were no significant differences between RALH and LH in terms of other outcome indicators, suggesting that both procedures offer similar surgical efficacy and safety. Further clinical randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Recommendations on Robotic Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery. The Paris Jury-Based Consensus Conference

OBJECTIVE

To establish the first consensus guidelines on the safety and indications of robotics in Hepato-Pancreatic-Biliary (HPB) surgery. The secondary aim was to identify priorities for future research.

BACKGROUND

HPB robotic surgery is reaching the IDEAL 2b exploration phase for innovative technology. An objective assessment endorsed by the HPB community is timely and needed.

METHODS

The ROBOT4HPB conference developed consensus guidelines using the Zurich-Danish model. An impartial and multidisciplinary jury produced unbiased guidelines based on the work of 10 expert panels answering predefined key questions and considering the best-quality evidence retrieved after a systematic review. The recommendations conformed with the GRADE and SIGN50 methodologies.

RESULTS

Sixty-four experts from 20 countries considered 285 studies, and the conference included an audience of 220 attendees. The jury (n=10) produced recommendations or statements covering 5 sections of robotic HPB surgery: technology, training and expertise, outcome assessment, and liver and pancreatic procedures. The recommendations supported the feasibility of robotics for most HPB procedures and its potential value in extending minimally invasive indications, emphasizing, however, the importance of expertise to ensure safety. The concept of expertise was defined broadly, encompassing requirements for credentialing HPB robotics at a given center. The jury prioritized relevant questions for future trials and emphasized the need for prospective registries, including validated outcome metrics for the forthcoming assessment of HPB robotics.

CONCLUSIONS

The ROBOT4HPB consensus represents a collaborative and multidisciplinary initiative, defining state-of-the-art expertise in HPB robotics procedures. It produced the first guidelines to encourage their safe use and promotion.

Current status and future perspectives of robotic liver surgery

Robotic liver resection has been reported in case series since the early 2000s. The surgical robot is capable of precise operation using articulated forceps with seven degrees of freedom. The robot also eliminates tremors and provides a good surgical field with highly detailed 3D high-definition images. The clinical results demonstrating their usefulness have been increasing year by year. Initially, a shorter hospital stay was observed in comparison with open hepatectomy. Recent reports have also shown lower conversion and complication rates in comparison with laparoscopic hepatectomy. The clamp and crush method with bipolar forceps, sealing devices, ultrasonic shears, and the combined procedure of Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator and robotic forceps as hybrid procedures have been reported as effective methods of parenchymal transection in robotic surgery. Theoretically, the advantages of the robotic platform allow for more complex liver resection around hilar structures and major blood vessels, as well as for vascular reconstruction or biliary reconstruction. The application of robotic liver surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma, living donor hepatectomy, and living donor liver transplantation has been reported. Robotic liver surgery is becoming more popular for certain indications; however, it is important to further evaluate its long-term surgical and oncological outcomes and costs in comparison with conventional laparoscopic and open liver surgery, based on accumulated experience.

Textbook outcome in liver surgery: open vs minimally invasive hepatectomy among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

We sought to investigate whether minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) was superior to open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of achieving textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS) after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection of HCC between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international database. TOLS was defined by the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 events, R1 resection margin, posthepatectomy liver failure, bile leakage, major complications, in-hospital mortality, and readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 1039 patients who underwent HCC resection were included in the analysis. Although most patients underwent OH (n = 724 [69.7%]), 30.3% (n = 315) underwent MIH. Patients who underwent MIH had a lower tumor burden score (3.6 [IQR, 2.6-5.2] for MIH vs 6.1 [IQR, 3.9-10.1] for OH) and were more likely to undergo minor hepatectomy (84.1% [MIH] vs 53.6% [OH]) than patients who had an OH (both P < .001). After propensity score matching to control for baseline differences between the 2 cohorts, the incidence of TOLS was comparable among patients who had undergone MIH (56.6%) versus OH (64.8%) (P = .06). However, MIH was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (6.0 days [IQR, 4.0-8.0] for MIH vs 9.0 days [IQR, 6.0-12.0] for OH). Among patients who had MIH, the odds ratio of achieving TOLS remained stable up to a tumor burden score of 4; after which the chance of TOLS with MIH markedly decreased.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HCC who underwent resection with MIH versus OH had a comparable likelihood of TOLS, although MIH was associated with a short length of stay.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to compare short-term outcomes between robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) using data collected from propensity score-matched studies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to collect propensity score-matched studies comparing RLR and LLR. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models. Meta-regression analysis was performed for primary outcome measures. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed for outcomes exhibiting high heterogeneity. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-two propensity score-matched studies were included to comprise 5272 patients (RLR group, 2422 cases; LLR group, 2850 cases). Intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-0.31 ml, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; P =0.0005), open conversion (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.37-0.58; P <0.0001), and severe complications (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.95; P =0.02) were significantly lower in the RLR group. Operation time, odds of use, and duration of Pringle maneuver, length of hospital stay, and odds of intraoperative blood transfusion, overall complications, R0 resection, reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality did not significantly differ between the groups. Further subgroup and sensitivity analyses suggested that the results were stable. Meta-regression analysis did not suggest a correlation between primary outcomes and study characteristics. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was medium or low, while that for the secondary outcomes was medium, low, or very low.

CONCLUSION

Although some short-term outcomes are similar between RLR and LLR, RLR is superior in terms of less blood loss and lower odds of open conversion and severe complications. In the future, RLR may become a safe and effective replacement for LLR.

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.

Circumstances and implications of conversion from minimally invasive to open liver resection: a multi-center analysis from the AMILES registry

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection (MILR) are associated with favorable outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the implications of conversion to an open procedure on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MILR at 10 North American institutions were identified from the Americas Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (AMILES) database. Outcomes of patients who required conversion were compared to those who did not. Additionally, outcomes after conversion due to unfavorable findings (poor visualization/access, lack of progress, disease extent) versus intraoperative events (bleeding, injury, cardiopulmonary instability) were compared.

RESULTS

Of 1675 patients who underwent MILR, 102 (6.1%) required conversion. Conversion rate ranged from 4.4% for left lateral sectionectomy to 10% for right hepatectomy. The primary reason for conversion was unfavorable findings in 67 patients (66%) and intraoperative adverse events in 35 patients (34%). By multivariable analysis, major resection, cirrhosis, prior liver surgery, and tumor proximity to major vessels were identified as risk factors for conversion (p < 0.05). Patients who required conversion had higher blood loss, transfusion requirements, operative time, and length of stay, (p < 0.05). They also had higher major complication rates (23% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (8.8% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001). When compared to those who required conversion due to unfavorable findings, patients who required conversion due to intraoperative adverse events had significantly higher major complication rates (43% vs. 14%, p = 0.012) and 30-day mortality (20% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion from MILR to open surgery is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. Conversion due to intraoperative adverse events is rare but associated with significantly higher complication and mortality rates, while conversion due to unfavorable findings is associated with similar outcomes as planned open resection. High-risk patients may benefit from early conversion in a controlled fashion if difficulties are encountered or anticipated.

A "cui prodest" evaluation on the development of a minimally invasive liver surgery program: a differential benefit analysis of open and laparoscopic approach for left and right hemihepatectomies

BACKGROUND

The correlation between technical feasibility and short-term clinical advantage provided by laparoscopic over open technique for major hepatectomies is unclear. This monocentric retrospective study investigates the possible differences in the benefit provided by minimally invasive approach between left and right hepatectomy, deepening the concept of differential benefit in the setting of anatomical major resections.

METHODS

All hemihepatectomies performed from January 2004 to December 2021 were identified in the institutional database. A propensity score method was used to match minimal invasive (MILS) and open pairs in the left hemihepatectomies (LH) and right hemihepatectomies (RH) groups with a 1:1 ratio to adjust any potential selection bias. The differential benefit for left and right hepatectomy provided by laparoscopic over open technique was evaluated in a pure analysis (i.e., including cases converted to open) and a risk-adjusted analysis (i.e., after excluding open conversion from the laparoscopic series).

RESULTS

The analysis of the risk-adjusted differential benefit demonstrated better result of the MILS in the RH group than in the LH group, in terms of blood loss (∆ blood loss - 150 and - 350, respectively; differential benefit: 200 mL, p < 0.05), morbidity (∆ rate of morbidity - 11.3% and - 18.1%, respectively; differential benefit: 6.8%, p < 0.05) and length of stay, LOS (∆ LOS - 1 day and - 3 days, respectively; differential benefit: 2 days, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While MILS is associated with improved clinical outcomes both in left and right hepatectomy procedures, the greater advantage provided by laparoscopy was documented in patients undergoing right hepatectomy, i.e. for more technically demanding procedures. A MILS program should include the broadest range of liver resections to ensure the full benefits of the laparoscopic technique.