Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection in complex cases of left lateral sectionectomy

A single institution's experience with robotic resections of biliary tract cancers: an analysis of the short-term outcomes and long-term survival

INTRODUCTION

Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and gall bladder cancer are difficult malignancies to treat and are characterized by a tendency for local recurrence and a generally unfavorable prognosis. Surgical resection offers the only potential cure, conventionally performed via the open approach. Although minimally invasive approaches show promise, data remain limited.

METHODS

With the institutional review board's approval, we prospectively followed 100 patients between 2013 and 2023 who underwent robotic surgical resection for perihilar, IHCC, and gallbladder cholangiocarcinoma. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Significance was accepted at P ≤ .05.

RESULTS

The median patient age was 70 years, and the median operative duration was 333 min, with an estimated blood loss of 200 mL. Importantly, no unplanned conversions occurred, and only 1 intraoperative complication occurred within the IHCC cohort. The median length of stay was 4 days. There were a total of 19 postoperative complications and 19 readmissions within 30 days. Additionally, there were 3 in-hospital mortalities and 5 90-day mortalities. R0 resection was achieved in 87% of patients and R1 resection in 13%. At a median follow-up of 36 months, 62% of patients demonstrated disease-free survival, whereas 6% continued to live with the disease, and 32% did not survive.

CONCLUSION

Our experience demonstrates the feasibility and safety of robotic resection for these complex malignancies, yielding promising short-term outcomes. Further investigation is required to ascertain the long-term oncologic outcomes.

Perioperative impact of liver cirrhosis on robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of robotic liver resection (RLR) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been reported worldwide. However, the exact role of RLR in HCC patients with liver cirrhosis is not sufficiently determined.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study on consecutive patients with cirrhosis or non-cirrhosis who received RLR for HCC from 2018 to 2023. Data on patients' demographics and perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the risk factors of prolonged postoperative length of stay (LOS) and morbidity.

RESULTS

Of the 571 patients included, 364 (64%) had cirrhosis. Among the cirrhotic patients, 48 (13%) were classified as Child-Pugh B. After PSM, the cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis group (n = 183) had similar operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion, LOS, overall morbidity (p > 0.05). In addition, the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were similar between the two groups in the subgroup analyses of patients with tumor size ≥ 5 cm, major hepatectomy, and high/expert IWATE difficulty grade. However, patients with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis had longer LOS and more overall morbidity than that of Child-Pugh A. Child-Pugh B cirrhosis, ASA score > 2, longer operative time, and multiple tumors were risk factors of prolonged LOS or morbidity in patients with cirrhosis.

CONCLUSION

The presence of Child-Pugh A cirrhosis didn't significantly influence the difficulty and perioperative outcomes of RLR for selected patients with HCC. However, even in high-volume center, Child-Pugh B cirrhosis was a risk factor for poor postoperative outcomes.

Healthcare cost expenditure for robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a bottom-up economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is increasingly performed via the robot-assisted approach but may be associated with increased costs. This study is a post-hoc comparison of healthcare cost expenditure for robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a high-volume center.

METHODS

In-hospital and 30-day postoperative healthcare costs were calculated per patient in a retrospective series (October 2015-December 2022).

RESULTS

Overall, 298 patients were included (143 RLR and 155 LLR). Benefits of RLR were lower conversion rate (2.8% vs 12.3%, p = 0.002), shorter operating time (167 min vs 198 min, p = 0.044), and less blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, p < 0.001). Total per-procedure costs of RLR (€10260) and LLR (€9931) were not significantly different (mean difference €329 [95% bootstrapped confidence interval (BCI) €-1179-€2120]). Lower costs with RLR due to shorter surgical and operating room time were offset by higher disposable instrumentation costs resulting in comparable intraoperative costs (€5559 vs €5247, mean difference €312 [95% BCI €-25-€648]). Postoperative costs were similar for RLR (€4701) and LLR (€4684), mean difference €17 [95% BCI €-1357-€1727]. When also considering purchase and maintenance costs, RLR resulted in higher total per-procedure costs.

DISCUSSION

In a high-volume center, RLR can have similar per-procedure cost expenditure as LLR when disregarding capital investment.

Efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Evidence concerning long-term outcome of robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients is scarce.

METHODS

This study enrolled all patients who underwent RLR and LLR for resectable HCC between July 2016 and July 2021. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to create a 1:3 match between the RLR and LLR groups. A comprehensive collection and analysis of patient data regarding efficacy and safety have been conducted, along with the evaluation of the learning curve for RLR.

RESULTS

Following PSM, a total of 341 patients were included, with 97 in the RLR group and 244 in the LLR group. RLR group demonstrated a significantly longer operative time (median [IQR], 210 [152.0-298.0] min vs. 183.5 [132.3-263.5] min; p = 0.04), with no significant differences in other perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes. Overall survival (OS) was similar between the two groups (p = 0.43), but RLR group exhibited improved recurrence-free survival (RFS) (median of 65 months vs. 56 months, p = 0.006). The estimated 5-year OS for RLR and LLR were 74.8% (95% CI: 65.4-85.6%) and 80.7% (95% CI: 74.0-88.1%), respectively. The estimated 5-year RFS for RLR and LLR were 58.6% (95% CI: 48.6-70.6%) and 38.3% (95% CI: 26.4-55.9%), respectively. In the multivariate Cox regression analysis, RLR (HR: 0.586, 95% CI (0.393-0.874), p = 0.008) emerged as an independent predictor of reducing recurrence rates and enhanced RFS. The operative learning curve indicates that approximately after the 11th case, the learning curve of RLR stabilized and entered a proficient phase.

CONCLUSIONS

OS was comparable between RLR and LLR, and while RFS was improved in the RLR group. RLR demonstrates oncological effectiveness and safety for resectable HCC.

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.

Feasibility and safety of robotic liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma in a single centre: A propensity score-matched single-surgeon study

BACKGROUND

The applicability of robot-assisted resection for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) of ≥10 cm remains contentious with limited available data.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis involved 337 patients who underwent robotic liver resection for HCC by a single surgeon. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to compare perioperative indicators between patients with regular and huge HCC.

RESULTS

The regular HCC group exhibited a shorter median operative duration than the huge HCC group. The IWATE criteria revealed higher scores in the huge HCC group than in the regular HCC group. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in Pringle time, drainage tube removal, duration of hospital stays, blood loss volume, blood product transfusion, margin status, conversion rate to open surgery, bile leakage, in-hospital mortality, and reoperation rate.

CONCLUSION

Robotic liver resection is feasible for huge HCC, with effective perioperative risk management potentially improving outcomes for subsequent minimally invasive surgeries.

Short-term and long-term outcomes after robotic versus open hepatectomy in patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatectomy (RH) is currently widely accepted and it is associated with some benefits when compared to open hepatectomy (OH). However, whether such benefits can still be achieved for patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing RH or OH.

METHODS

Perioperative and survival data from patients with large HCC who underwent RH or OH between January 2010 and December 2020 were collected from eight centres. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimise potential biases.

RESULTS

Using predefined inclusion criteria, 797 patients who underwent OH and 309 patients who underwent RH were enroled in this study. After PSM, 280 patients in the robotic group had shorter operative time (median 181 vs. 201 min, P <0.001), lower estimated blood loss (median 200 vs. 400 ml, P <0.001), and shorter postoperative length of stay (median 6 vs. 9 days, P <0.001) than 465 patients in the open group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall survival and recurrence-free survival. Cox analysis showed AFP greater than 400 ng/ml, tumour size greater than 10 cm, and microvascular invasion were independent risk factors for overall survival and recurrence-free survival. After PSM, subgroup analysis showed that patients with a huge HCC (diameter >10 cm) who underwent RH had significantly lower estimated blood loss (median 200.0 vs. 500.0 min, P <0.001), and shorter length of stay (median 7 vs. 10 days, P <0.001) than those who underwent OH.

CONCLUSION

Safety and feasibility of RH and OH for patients with large HCC were comparable. RH resulted in similar long-term survival outcomes as OH.

Early outcomes of single-port robotic left lateral sectionectomy in patients with hepatic tumor

Purpose

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) stands as a cornerstone procedure in hepatobiliary minimal surgery, frequently employed for various benign and malignant liver lesions. This study aimed to analyze the peri- and postoperative surgical outcomes of single-port robotic left lateral sectionectomy (SPR-LLS) vs. those of L-LLS in patients with hepatic tumors.

Methods

From January 2020 through June 2023, 12 patients underwent SPR-LLS. During the same period, 30 L-LLS procedures were performed. In total, 12 patients in the robotic group and 24 patients in the laparoscopic group were matched.

Results

When the SPR-LLS and L-LLS groups were compared, the operation time was longer in the SPR-LLS group with less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Postoperative complications were observed in 3 patients in the L-LLS group (12.5%) and 1 patient in the SPR-LLS group (8.3%).

Conclusion

SPR-LLS using the da Vinci SP system was comparable to laparoscopic LLS in terms of surgical outcomes. SPR-LLS was associated with lower blood loss and less postoperative length of stay compared to L-LLS. These findings suggest that left lateral sectionectomy is technically feasible and safe with the da Vinci SP system in select patients.

Robotic liver surgery: A new reality. Descriptive analysis of 220 cases of minimally invasive liver surgery in 182 patients

INTRODUCTION

The level of recommendation of the robotic approach in liver surgery is controversial. The objective of the study is to carry out a single-center retrospective descriptive analysis of the short-term results of the robotic and laparoscopic approach in liver surgery during the same period.

METHODS

Descriptive analysis of the short-term results of the robotic and laparoscopic approach on 220 resections in 182 patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery.

RESULTS

Between April 2018 and June 2022, a total of 92 robotic liver resections (RLR) were performed in 83 patients and 128 laparoscopic (LLR) in 99 patients. The LLR group showed a higher proportion of major surgery (P < .001) and multiple resections (P = .002). The two groups were similar in anatomical resections (RLR 64.1% vs. LLR 56.3%). In the LLS group, the average operating time was 212 min (SD 52.1). Blood loss was 276.5 mL (100-1000) and conversion 12.1%. Mean hospital stay was 5.7 (SD 4.9) days. Morbidity was 27.3% and 2% mortality. In the RLS group, the mean operative time was 217 min (SD 53.6), blood loss 169.5 mL (100.900), and conversion 2.5%. Mean hospital stay was 4.1 (SD 2.1) days. Morbidity was 15%, with no mortality.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive liver surgery is a safe technique, and in particular, RLS allows liver resections to be performed safely and reproducibly; it appears to be a non-inferior technique to LLS, but randomized studies are needed to determine the minimally invasive approach of choice in liver surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: A single-center, propensity score- matched study

BACKGROUND

Although the effectiveness of robotic hepatectomy (RH) has been evaluated in several studies, the superiority of RH over other approaches has not been definitely established. Therefore, in the present propensity score-matched cohort study, we compared RH and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in terms of perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent RH or LH for benign and malignant liver lesions at a single center in Taiwan at any time between 2014 and 2020. Confounding factors, specifically age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, IWATE criteria, and Charlson comorbidity index, were adjusted through propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 329 patients were finally included in this study. Two homogeneous groups (RH and LH; n, 72 each) were formed using PSM. The RH group had a longer operative time (median: 231 vs.180 min, respectively; P = .001) and lower conversion (to open surgery) rate (9.7% vs.0.0%, respectively; P = .013) than did the LH group. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of other perioperative outcomes, specifically blood loss, hospital stay, intensive care unit admission, mortality, morbidity, or tumor margin status.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of conversion to open surgery is lower in RH than in LH. Although operative time is longer in RH than in LH, RH is feasible and safe for patients with benign or malignant liver lesion. Our study also demonstrated comparable oncological results in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma between LH and RH group.

Robotic approach together with an enhanced recovery programme improve the perioperative outcomes for complex hepatectomy

Objective

Robotic surgery has more advantages than traditional surgical approaches to complex liver resection; however, the robotic approach is invariably associated with increased cost. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are beneficial in conventional surgeries.

Methods

The present study investigated the effects of robotic surgery combined with an ERAS protocol on perioperative outcomes and hospitalization costs of patients undergoing complex hepatectomy. Clinical data from consecutive robotic and open liver resections (RLR and OLR, respectively) performed in our unit in the pre-ERAS (January 2019-June 2020) and ERAS (July 2020-December 2021) periods were collected. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of ERAS and surgical approaches-alone or in combination-on LOS and costs.

Results

A total of 171 consecutive complex liver resections were analyzed. ERAS patients had a shorter median LOS and decreased total hospitalization cost, without a significant difference in the complication rate compared with the pre-ERAS cohort. RLR patients had a shorter median LOS and decreased major complications, but with increased total hospitalization cost, compared with OLR patients. Comparing the four combinations of perioperative management and surgical approaches, ERAS + RLR had the shortest LOS and the fewest major complications, whereas pre-ERAS + RLR had the highest hospitalization costs. Multivariate analysis found that the robotic approach was protective against prolonged LOS, whereas the ERAS pathway was protective against high costs.

Conclusions

The ERAS + RLR approach optimized postoperative complex liver resection outcomes and hospitalization costs compared with other combinations. The robotic approach combined with ERAS synergistically optimized outcome and overall cost compared with other strategies, and may be the best combination for optimizing perioperative outcomes for complex RLR.

An international multicentre propensity score matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive liver resections. While laparoscopic (L)-LLS is a well-established technique, over traditional open resection, it remains controversial if robotic (R)-LLS provides any advantages of L-LLS.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of 997 patients from 21 international centres undergoing L-LLS or R-LLS from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. A total of 886 cases (214 R-LLS, 672 L-LLS) met study criteria. 1:1 and 1:2 propensity score matched (PSM) comparison was performed between R-LLS & L-LLS. Further subset analysis by Iwate difficulty was also performed. Outcomes measured include operating time, blood loss, open conversion, readmission rates, morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Comparison between R-LLS and L-LLS after PSM 1:2 demonstrated statistically significantly lower open conversion rate in R-LLS than L-LLS (0.6% versus 5%, p = 0.009) and median blood loss was also statistically significantly lower in R-LLS at 50 (80) versus 100 (170) in L-LLS (p = 0.011) after PSM 1:1 although there was no difference in the blood transfusion rate. Pringle manoeuvre was also found to be used more frequently in R-LLS, with 53(24.8%) cases versus to 84(12.5%) L-LLS cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other key perioperative outcomes such as operating time, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity and 90-day mortality between both groups.

CONCLUSION

R-LLS was associated with similar key perioperative outcomes compared to L-LLS. It was also associated with significantly lower blood loss and open conversion rates compared to L-LLS.

Short- and long-term outcomes after robotic and open liver resection for elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver resection (RLR) has increasingly been accepted as it has overcome some of the limitations of open liver resection (OLR), while the outcomes following RLR in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the short and long-term outcomes of RLR vs. OLR in elderly HCC patients.

METHODS

Perioperative data of elderly patients (≥ 65 years) with HCC who underwent RLR or OLR between January 2010 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. A 1:2 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize the differences between RLR and OLR groups. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to identify independent prognosis factors for overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of these patients.

RESULTS

Of the 427 elderly HCC patients included in this study, 113 underwent RLR and 314 underwent OLR. After the 1:2 PSM, there were 100 and 178 patients in the RLR and the OLR groups, respectively. The RLR group had a less estimated blood loss (EBL), a shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS), and a lower complications rate (all P < 0.05), compared with the OLR group before and after PSM. Univariable and multivariable analyses showed that advanced age and surgical approaches were not independent risk factors for long-term prognosis. The two groups of elderly patients who were performed RLR or OLR had similar OS (median OS 52.8 vs. 57.6 months) and RFS (median RFS 20.4 vs. 24.6 months) rates after PSM.

CONCLUSIONS

RLR was comparable to OLR in feasibility and safety. For elderly patients with HCC, RLR resulted in similar oncologic and survival outcomes as OLR.

Laparoscopic versus Robotic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, with a special focus on the meta-analysis method. Original studies were collected from three Chinese databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Our systematic review was conducted on 682 patients with robotic liver resection, and 1101 patients were operated by laparoscopic platform. Robotic surgery has a long surgical duration (MD = 43.99, 95% CI: 23.45-64.53, p = 0.0001), while there is no significant difference in length of hospital stay (MD = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.38-0.58, p = 0.69), blood loss (MD = -20, 95% CI: -64.90-23.34, p = 0.36), the incidence of conversion (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.41-1.69, p = 0.62), and tumor size (MD = 0.30, 95% CI: -0-0.60, p = 0.05); the subgroup analysis of major and minor hepatectomy on operation time is (MD = -7.08, 95% CI: -15.22-0.07, p = 0.09) and (MD = 39.87, 95% CI: -1.70-81.44, p = 0.06), respectively. However, despite the deficiencies of robotic hepatectomy in terms of extended operation time compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy is still effective and equivalent to laparoscopic hepatectomy in outcomes. Scientific evaluation and research on one portion of the liver may produce more efficacity and more precise results. Therefore, more clinical trials are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy.

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.

Does Robotic Liver Surgery Enhance R0 Results in Liver Malignancies during Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery?-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic procedures are an integral part of modern liver surgery. However, the advantages of a robotic approach in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic approach are the subject of controversial debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic and laparoscopic liver resection with particular attention to the resection margin status in malignant cases.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Cochrane Library in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Only studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resections were considered for this meta-analysis. Furthermore, the rate of the positive resection margin or R0 rate in malignant cases had to be clearly identifiable. We used fixed or random effects models according to heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with a total number of 1530 cases were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Malignancies were identified in 71.1% (n = 1088) of these cases. These included hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal liver metastases and other malignancies of the liver. Positive resection margins were noted in 24 cases (5.3%) in the robotic group and in 54 cases (8.6%) in the laparoscopic group (OR = 0.71; 95% CI (0.42-1.18); p = 0.18). Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group (MD = 6.92; 95% CI (2.93-10.91); p = 0.0007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robotic procedure (MD = 28.12; 95% CI (3.66-52.57); p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches regarding the intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, overall and severe complications and conversion rate.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the robotic and laparoscopic procedures regarding the resection margin status. Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group. However, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate the benefits of robotics in liver surgery.

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic liver resection in ordinary cases of left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy was considered the standard method of left lateral sectionectomy. The robotic approach showed advantages in complex cases of left lateral sectionectomy. However, the impact of the robotic system on ordinary cases is still unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive robotic left lateral sectionectomy (R-LLS) and laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) from January 2015 to December 2019. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the effects of surgical method and surgical complexity on postoperative length of stay, surgical and overall cost.

RESULTS

258 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy were analyzed. L-LLS had comparable outcomes and decreased surgery (USD 2416.3 vs 4624.5; p < 0.001) and overall costs (USD 8004.5 vs 11897.1; p < 0.001) compared with R-LLS in the ordinary-case group, whereas R-LLS was associated with shorter postoperative LOS (5.0 vs 3.5 days; p = 0.004) in the complex-case group. On multivariable analysis, R-LLS was predictive of shorter postoperative LOS [odds ratio (OR) 0.388, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.198-0.760, p = 0.006], whereas R-LLS was predictive of higher surgery (OR 65.640, 95% CI 17.406-247.535, p < 0.001) and overall costs (OR 102.233, 95% CI 22.241-469.931, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Results of this study showed no clinical benefit to the R-LLS compared with L-LLS in ordinary cases. R-LLS had potential advantages in selected complex cases.

Level 2a evidence comparing robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate comparative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy (LLS).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators and limits was conducted. Overall, minor (Clavien-Dindo grade < III) and major (Clavien-Dindo grade > III) postoperative complications, mortality, volume of blood loss, conversion to an open procedure, procedure time, length of hospital stay, cost-effectiveness and R1 resection were the evaluated outcome measures.

RESULTS

Seven comparative observational studies reporting a total of 319 patients of whom 150 underwent robotic LLS and the remaining 169 patients underwent laparoscopic LLS were included. The robotic approach was associated with significantly longer procedure time (MD: 29.40 min, p = 0.01) and higher cost (MD: $4170, p < 0.00001) compared to the laparoscopic approach. There was no significant difference in overall postoperative morbidity (OR: 1.29, p = 0.62), Clavien-Dindo grade < III (OR: 1.65, p = 0.49), Clavien-Dindo grade > III (OR: 1.18, p = 0.85), perioperative mortality (RD: 0.00, p = 1.00), volume of blood loss (MD: 1.96 mls, p = 0.91), conversion to an open procedure (RD: - 0.02, p = 0.46), length of hospital stay (MD: 0.22 day, p = 0.52) or R1 resection (RD:0.00, p = 1.00) between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis of the best available evidence (level 2) demonstrated that robotic LLS is associated with significantly longer procedure time and higher cost and similar perioperative outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach. Future randomised studies are required to evaluate short-term perioperative, long-term oncological and surgeon-centred outcomes.

Minimally invasive management of de Garengeot hernia with staged robotic hernia repair

De Garengeot hernia is a rare phenomenon describing the migration of the appendix into a femoral hernia sac. Many repair strategies have been described although an open inguinal approach with suture repair is the most common technique. Despite strong evidence that mesh limits recurrence, most forgo mesh use in the presence of appendicitis for fear of contamination. We report a case in a 68-year-old man managed completely with minimally invasive strategies. We performed a staged laparoscopic appendectomy followed by robotic hernia repair with polypropylene mesh. This is the first described two-stage minimally invasive approach and the first report demonstrating the feasibility of robotic hernia repair in the setting of de Garengeot hernia. It is our opinion that using a staged approach may encourage mesh repair by minimising the risk of implant contamination. Furthermore, we believe a fully minimally invasive technique may result in improved outcomes.

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.

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.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Propensity-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

BACKGROUND

Robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomies having increased utilization as minimally invasive techniques are explored for hepatobiliary malignancies. Although the data on outcomes from these 2 approaches are emerging, the cost-benefit analysis of these approaches remains sparse. This study compares the costs associated with robotic vs. laparoscopic liver resections, taking into account 30-day complications.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, a propensity-matched cohort of patients with laparoscopic or robotic liver resections between 2014 and 2017 was identified. Costs were assigned to perioperative variables, including operating room (OR) time, length of stay, blood transfusions, and 30-day complications. Cost estimates were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services billing data (2017), American Hospital Association data (2017), relevant literature, and local institutional cost data.

RESULTS

In our matched cohort of 454 patients (227 per group), total costs associated with laparoscopic liver resections were estimated at $5.5 M ($24 K per patient) vs. $6.8 M ($29.8 K per patient) for robotic liver resections (21.3% difference, P < .001). The higher cost associated with robotic hepatectomies was related to blood transfusions ($22.0 K vs. $12.1 K, P = .02), length of stay ($2.05 M vs. $1.76 M, P = .046), and OR time ($4.01 M vs. $3.24 M, P < .0001).

DISCUSSION

Robotic hepatectomies were associated with higher costs compared to laparoscopic hepatectomies. The 2 major contributors to the cost disparity were increased OR time and increased length of stay. Future studies are warranted to analyze high-volume Minimally Invasive Surgery surgeons' impact in specialty centers on potentially mitigating this current cost disparity.

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.

Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As an emerging technology, robot-assisted surgical system has some potential merits in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted liver resection is still a controversial problem on its advantages compared with laparoscopic liver resection. We aimed to perform the meta-analysis to assess and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase databases, Clinicaltrials, and Opengrey through March 24, 2020, including references of qualifying articles. English-language, original investigations in humans about robot-assisted and laparoscopic hepatectomy were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers. Continuous and dichotomous variables were compared by the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR), respectively.

RESULTS

Of 936 titles identified in our original search, 28 articles met our criteria, involving 3544 patients. Compared with laparoscopy, the robot-assisted groups had longer operative time (WMD: 36.93; 95% CI, 19.74-54.12; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (OR: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87; P = 0.005), higher transfusion rate (WMD: 2.39; 95% CI, 1.51-3.76; P < 0.001) and higher total cost (WMD:0.49; 95% CI, 0.42-0.55; P < 0.001). In addition, the baseline characteristics of patients about largest tumor size was larger (WMD: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < 0.001) and malignant lesions rate was higher (WMD: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86; P < 0.001) in the robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. The subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 36.00; 95% CI, 12.59-59.41; P = 0.003), longer length of stay (WMD: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.02-1.01; p = 0.04) and higher total cost (WMD: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P < 0.001) (Table 3); while the subgroup analysis of major hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with lower estimated blood loss (WMD: -122.43; 95% CI, -151.78--93.08; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis revealed that robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time, lower conversion rate, higher transfusion rate and total cost, and robot-assisted has certain advantages in major hepatectomy compared with laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Robotic hepatic resection in postero-superior region of liver

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic hepatectomy in the posterosuperior hepatic region is technically challenging and demanding. However, minimally invasive procedures carried out using the Da Vinci robot provide potential advantages in complex hepatectomy. This study reported the experience of a single center on robotic hepatectomy in the posterosuperior hepatic region.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated the general characteristics and perioperative outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy in the posterosuperior hepatic region at our center from March 2015 to January 2020.

RESULTS

For 100 patients who were included into this study, 53 underwent anatomical segmentectomy or subsegmentectomy and 47 non-anatomical partial hepatectomy. There was no conversion to laparotomy. The R0 resection rate was 100%. The following perioperative outcomes were compared between patients who underwent anatomical segmentectomy/subsegmentectomy versus those who underwent non-anatomical partial hepatectomy: operation times of 160 versus 126 min, intraoperative blood losses of 100 versus 50 ml, intraoperative blood transfusion rates of 7.54% versus 4.26%, postoperative lengths of hospital stay of 5 versus 4 days, Clavien-Dindo Grade I-II complications rates of 15.09% versus 19.15%, Grade III-V complications rates of 3.77% versus 0%, bile leakage rates of 4% versus 7% and pleural effusion rates of also 4% versus 7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated the safety and feasibility of robotic anatomical and non-anatomical liver resections in the posterosuperior hepatic region. The robotic transabdominal approach is an option for hepatectomy in the posterosuperior hepatic region.

Robotic isolated partial and complete hepatic caudate lobectomy: A single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Current reports on robotic hepatic caudate lobectomy are limited to Spiegel lobectomy. This study aimed to compare the safety and feasibility of robotic isolated partial and complete hepatic caudate lobectomy.

METHODS

Clinical data of 32 patients who underwent robotic resection of the hepatic caudate lobe in our department from May 2016 to January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into three groups according to the lobectomy location: left dorsal segment lobectomy (Spiegel lobectomy), right dorsal segment lobectomy (caudate process or paracaval portion lobectomy), and complete caudate lobectomy. General information and perioperative results of the three groups were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 32 patients, none had conversion to laparotomy, three received intraoperative blood transfusion (9.38%), and none had complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher or died in the perioperative period. Among them, 17 patients (53.13%) underwent Spiegel lobectomy, 7 (21.88%) underwent caudate process or paracaval portion lobectomy, and 8 (25.00%) underwent complete caudate lobectomy. The operative time and blood loss in the left dorsal segment lobectomy group were significantly better than those in the right dorsal segment lobectomy and complete caudate lobectomy groups (operative time: P = 0.010 and P = 0.005; blood loss: P = 0.005 and P = 0.017, respectively). The postoperative hospital stay in the left dorsal segment lobectomy group was significantly shorter than that in the complete caudate lobectomy group (P = 0.003); however, there was no difference in the postoperative hospital stay between the left dorsal segment lobectomy group and right dorsal segment lobectomy group (P = 0.240).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic isolated partial and complete caudate lobectomy is safe and feasible. Spiegel lobectomy is relatively straightforward and suitable for beginners.

Robotic anatomic isolated complete caudate lobectomy: Left-side approach and techniques

BACKGROUND

To demonstrate the surgical procedures and techniques of the robotic anatomical isolated complete caudate lobectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on the demographic, operative, postoperative outcomes of seven patients who underwent robotic anatomical isolated complete caudate lobectomy at our department from January 2018 to November 2019. Mobilization of the left lateral and Spiegel lobe, dissection of the short hepatic veins and liver parenchyma transection from the dorsal plane of middle and right hepatic vein were crucial procedures for the robotic left-side approach. Anatomic complete caudate lobectomy was defined as total removal of the caudate lobe, in which the dorsal middle and right hepatic vein, the inferior vena cava and its right side were fully exposed on the raw surface.

RESULTS

All patients successfully underwent the robotic anatomical isolated caudate lobectomy with a left-side approach without conversion to laparotomy, and without Clavien-Dindo Grade III or higher complications. The average tumor diameter was 65.00 ± 10.61 mm, the average operation time was 212.00 ± 74.53 min, the median bleeding loss was 100 mL, and the average postoperative hospital stay was 8.71 ± 4.89 d, respectively. There were four patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma, one with tumor recurrence five months after surgery and three patients were free of recurrence. All patients survived at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Robotic anatomical isolated complete caudate lobectomy with a left-sided approach is safe and feasible for selected patients.

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.