Robotic liver resection: Hurdles and beyond

Outcomes of Robotic Surgery in a Single-institution, High-volume Hepatobiliary Oncology Unit

Hepatobiliary surgery has traditionally been performed via an open approach. With the advent of robotic surgery, the minimal access approach in hepatobiliary oncology has gained impetus due to its technical superiority and favorable learning curve over laparoscopy. We present our experience with the Da Vinci Xi system in hepatobiliary oncology. This is a retrospective study from a prospectively maintained database. All patients who underwent surgery between June 2015 and July 2023 for suspected gallbladder cancer and primary or metastatic liver tumors were included. After excluding all inoperables and conversions, a total of 92 patients were included for analysis. There was a conversion rate of 15.6% (17 of 109 patients). Sixty-four (69.6%) patients underwent surgery for gallbladder-related pathologies that included 39 (60.9%) radical cholecystectomies, 24 (37.5%) simple cholecystectomies, and 1 (0.01%) revision cholecystectomy. Twenty-eight patients underwent surgeries for primary or metastatic liver tumors, which included 25 (92.9%) minor and 2 (7.1%) major hepatectomies. Significant morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade III or more) was seen in 8 (8.6%). There was no postoperative mortality. In the group with gallbladder cancer, the median lymph nodal yield was 7 (2-22) in patients who underwent lymph nodal dissection. The median follow-up was 63.9 (0.49-100.67) (IQR = 37.76) months. The 5-year OS and DFS were 76.4 and 71.3%, respectively. Robotic hepatobiliary surgery is feasible and can be performed safely after adequate training. Patient selection is of utmost importance and is the key to establishing a robust robotic hepatobiliary oncosurgery program.

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.

Robotic ALPPS for primary and metastatic liver tumours: short-term outcomes versus open approach

Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) is one of the strategies available for patients initially unresectable. High risk of peri-operative morbidity and mortality limited its application and diffusion. We aimed to analyse short-term outcomes of robotic ALPPS versus open approach, to assess safety and reproducibility of this technique. A retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained databases at University of Modena and Reggio Emilia on patients that underwent ALPPS between January 2015 and September 2022 was conducted. The main aim of the study was to evaluate safety and feasibility of robotic approach, either full robotic or only first-stage robotic, compared to a control group of patients who underwent open ALPPS in the same Institution. 23 patients were included. Nine patients received a full open ALPPS (O-ALPPS), 7 received a full robotic ALPPS (R-ALPPS), and 7 underwent a robotic approach for stage 1, followed by an open approach for stage 2 (R + O-ALPPS). PHLF grade B-C after stage 1 was 0% in all groups, rising to 58% in the R + O-ALPPS group after stage 2 and remaining 0% in the R-ALPPS group. 86% of R-ALPPS cases were discharged from the hospital between stages 1 and 2, and median total in-hospital stay and ICU stay favoured full robotic approach as well. This contemporary study represents the largest series of robotic ALPPS, showing potential advantages from full robotic ALPPS over open approach, resulting in reduced hospital stay and complications and lower incidence of 90-day mortality.

Biochemical implications of robotic surgery: a new frontier in the operating room

Robotic surgery represents a milestone in surgical procedures, offering advantages such as less invasive methods, elimination of tremors, scaled motion, and 3D visualization. This in-depth analysis explores the complex biochemical effects of robotic methods. The use of pneumoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg positioning can decrease pulmonary compliance and splanchnic perfusion while increasing hypercarbia. However, robotic surgery reduces surgical stress and inflammation by minimizing tissue trauma. This contributes to faster recovery but may limit immune function. Robotic procedures also limit ischemia-reperfusion injury and oxidative damage compared to open surgery. They also help preserve native antioxidant defenses and coagulation. In a clinical setting, robotic procedures reduce blood loss, pain, complications, and length of stay compared to traditional procedures. However, risks remain, including device failure, the need for conversion to open surgery and increased costs. On the oncology side, there is still debate about margins, recurrence, and long-term survival. The advent of advanced technologies, such as intraoperative biosensors, localized drug delivery systems, and the incorporation of artificial intelligence, may further improve the efficiency of robotic surgery. However, ethical dilemmas regarding patient consent, privacy, access, and regulation of this disruptive innovation need to be addressed. Overall, this review sheds light on the complex biochemical implications of robotic surgery and highlights areas that require additional mechanistic investigation. It presents a comprehensive approach to responsibly maximize the potential of robotic surgery to improve patient outcomes, integrating technical skill with careful consideration of physiological and ethical issues.

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.

Application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery: a review of the literature

PURPOSE

To evaluate every stage of surgical innovation and generate high-quality research evidence, the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) framework was developed. This study aimed to explore the application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery and identify factors limiting its dissemination.

METHODS

We conducted a citation search of 8 core IDEAL framework articles in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from 2009 to 2022. Two independent reviewers screened and selected articles related to hepatopancreatobiliary surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 1621 articles were identified through citation search. Following screening, 132 articles were finally retained, including 75 original studies (57%) and 57 secondary studies (43%). Of the original studies, only 10 articles (13%) accurately applied the IDEAL framework in methodology, distributed as follows: 1 in pre-IDEAL stage (0), 2 in Idea stage (1), 7 in Development stage (2a), 1 in Exploration stage (2b), and no articles in Assessment and Long-term study stages (3, 4). In the secondary studies, 36 articles (63%) mentioned and discussed the IDEAL framework, and all supported its application.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of the IDEAL framework in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery is increasingly widespread, as evidenced by its substantial citation in numerous articles. However, the utilization of the IDEAL framework remains predominantly confined to the early stages of innovation in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery, coupled with instances of misapplication stemming from insufficient comprehension of the framework. Further efforts are necessary to extend the impact of the IDEAL framework and provide surgeons with comprehensive guidance for its judicious implementation.

Comparison of safety and effectiveness between robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic platform has been increasingly applied in major hepatectomy. However, the role or advantage of robotic approach comparing with laparoscopic approach in major hepatectomy remains controversial. This meta-analysis compares perioperative outcomes of robotic major hepatectomy (RMH) to laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatic neoplasms.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify comparative studies compared RMH versus LMH for hepatic neoplasms. The search timeframe was set before May 2023. Main outcomes were mortality, overall morbidities, serious complications, and conversion to open surgery. Secondary outcomes were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative length of hospital stay, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. Studies were evaluated for quality by Cochrane risk of bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023410951).

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective cohort studies concerning total 1657 patients (796 RMH, 861 LMH) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR=1.23, 95% CI=0.50-2.98, P =0.65), overall postoperative complications (OR=0.83, 95% CI=0.65-1.06, P =0.14), operative time (MD=6.47, 95% CI=-14.72 to 27.65, P =0.55), blood transfusion (OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.55-1.08, P =0.13), R0 resection (OR=1.45, 95% CI=0.91-2.31, P =0.12), reoperation (OR=0.76, 95% CI=0.31-1.88, P =0.56), and readmission (OR=0.63, 95% CI=0.28-1.44, P =0.27) between RMH and LMH. Incidence of serious complications (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.40-0.90, P =0.01), conversion to open surgery (OR=0.41, 95% CI=0.27-0.63, P <0.0001), blood loss (MD=-91.42, 95% CI=-142.18 to -40.66, P =0.0004), and postoperative hospital stay (MD=-0.64, 95% CI=-0.78 to -0.49, P <0.00001) were reduced for RMH versus LMH.

CONCLUSIONS

RMH is associated with comparable short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to LMH when performed by experienced surgeons at large centres. RMH may result in reduced major morbidities, conversion rate, blood loss, and hospital stay, but these results were volatile. Further randomized studies should address the potential advantages of RMH over LMH.

Robotic hepatectomy: current evidence and future directions

Minimally invasive hepatectomy continues to gain popularity and acceptance for treatment of benign and malignant liver disease. Robotic hepatectomy offers potential advantages over open and conventional laparoscopic approaches. Review of the literature on robotic hepatectomy was performed. Search terms included "robotic hepatectomy" and "minimally invasive hepatectomy." Search was further customized to include articles related to robotic surgical technology. Across many parameters in liver surgery, robotic liver resection appears to have comparable outcomes with respect to laparoscopic resection. The benefits over open resection are largely related to less morbidity and faster recovery times. There is evidence that the robotic approach may have a shorter learning curve and enable more difficult resections to be performed minimally invasively. The robotic platform may have the potential to achieve superior margin status or parenchymal sparing resection in oncologic resections, but numerous obstacles remain. The robotic platform has not been applied to liver surgery to the same extent as either laparoscopic or open surgery. Robotic surgical technology will need to continue developing to deliver on its potential advantages.

Ten years of Italian mini-invasiveness: the I Go MILS registry as a tool of dissemination, characterization and networking

Purposes of this study are to evaluate the main changes that have occurred in the Italian MILS activity in the last decade in terms of indications, approaches and outcomes as reported in the national registry and to provide specific details on the main areas of development of MILS. Data from patients undergoing minimally invasive liver resections at centers included in the I Go MILS Registry from its start-up (November 2014) to March 2023 were analyzed for the purposes of this study. The registry is intention-to-treat and prospective. Global recruitment trends stratified by indication to surgery and type of approach were analysed. 7413 MILS procedures were performed across all centers (median number of procedures per center: 63). Years (2020-2023) displayed a significantly higher proportion of treated patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (38.2% vs. 28.9% and 33.9%, p < 0.001) and cholangiocarcinoma (6.7% vs. 6.5% and 4.2%, p < 0.001) compared to the preceding triennial periods. Additionally, technical complexity demonstrated an increased prominence in Years (2019-2023) with a significantly higher percentage of grade III cases compared to the earlier periods (39.3% vs. 21.7% and 25.6%, p < 0.001). Annual case trends focusing on laparoscopic and robotic techniques demonstrated a steadily increase in the use of these techniques for complex case mix of indications. Overall, attitude and attention to MILS approach has evolved, so that currently indications to hepatic mini-invasiveness have expanded and surgical technique has been refined: Areas mainly involved in increasing growth trends are hepatocellular carcinoma, possible applications of MILS in transplant setting, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and robotic approach.

Validity of the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification system for robotic liver resection

BACKGROUND

The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) classification system is one of several widely accepted difficulty scoring systems for laparoscopic liver resections. Nothing is yet known about the applicability of this system for robotic liver resections.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 359 patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies between 2016 and 2022. Resections were classified into low, intermediate, and high difficulty level. Data were analyzed utilizing ANOVA of repeated measures, 3 x 2 contingency tables, and area under the receiving operating characteristic (AUROC) curves. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Of the 359 patients, 117 were classified as low-difficulty level, 92 as intermediate, and 150 as high. The IMM system correlates well with tumor size (p = 0.002). The IMM system was a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes including operative duration (p<0.001) and estimated blood loss (EBL) (p<0.001). The IMM system also showed a strong calibration for predicting an open conversion (AUC=0.705) and intraoperative complications (AUC=0.79). In contrast, the IMM system was a poor predictor of postoperative complications, mortality, and readmission.

CONCLUSION

The IMM system provides a strong correlation with intraoperative, but not postoperative outcomes. A dedicated difficulty scoring system should be developed for robotic hepatectomy.

Preoperative planning and intraoperative real-time navigation with indocyanine green fluorescence in robotic liver surgery

PURPOSE

We aimed at exploring indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence wide spectrum of applications in hepatobiliary surgery as can result particularly useful in robotic liver resections (RLR) in order to overcome some technical limitations, increasing safety, and efficacy.

METHODS

We describe our experience of 76 RLR performed between March 2020 and December 2022 exploring all the possible applications of pre- and intraoperative ICG administration.

RESULTS

Hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastases were the most common indications for RLR (34.2% and 26.7% of patients, respectively), and 51.3% of cases were complex resections with high IWATE difficulty scores. ICG was administered preoperatively in 61 patients (80.3%), intraoperatively in 42 patients (55.3%) and in both contexts in 25 patients (32.9%), with no observed adverse events. The most frequent ICG goal was to achieve tumor enhancement (59 patients, 77.6%), with a success rate of 94.9% and the detection of 3 additional malignant lesions. ICG facilitated evaluation of the resection margin for residual tumor and perfusion adequacy in 33.9% and 32.9% of cases, respectively, mandating a resection enlargement in 7.9% of patients. ICG fluorescence allowed the identification of the transection plane through negative staining in the 25% of cases. Vascular and biliary structures were visualized in 21.1% and 9.2% of patients, with a success rate of 81.3% and 85.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

RLR can benefit from the routine integration of ICG fluoresce evaluation according to each individual patient and condition-specific goals and issues, allowing liver functional assessment, anatomical and vascular evaluation, tumor detection, and resection margins assessment.

Propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic-assisted and hand-assisted laparoscopic liver resection versus pure laparoscopic liver resection: an international multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic-assisted (LALR) and hand-assisted (HALR) liver resections have been utilized during the early adoption phase by surgeons when transitioning from open surgery to pure LLR. To date, there are limited data reporting on the outcomes of LALR or HALR compared to LLR. The objective was to compare the perioperative outcomes after LALR and HALR versus pure LLR.

METHODS

This is an international multicentric analysis of 6609 patients undergoing minimal-invasive liver resection at 21 centers between 2004 and 2019. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) comparison between LALR and HALR versus LLR.

RESULTS

5279 cases met study criteria of whom 5033 underwent LLR (95.3%), 146 underwent LALR (2.8%) and 100 underwent HALR (1.9%). After 1:4 PSM, LALR was associated with inferior outcomes as evidenced by the longer postoperative stay, higher readmission rate, higher major morbidity rate and higher in-hospital mortality rate. Similarly, 1:6 PSM comparison between HALR and LLR also demonstrated poorer outcomes associated with HALR as demonstrated by the higher open conversion rate and higher blood transfusion rate. All 3 approaches technical variants demonstrated the same oncological radicality (R1 rate).

CONCLUSION

LALR and HALR performed during the learning curve was associated with inferior perioperative outcomes compared to pure LLR.

Robot-assisted versus open hepatectomy for liver tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted hepatectomy (RAH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) for liver tumors (LT).

METHODS

A computer-based literature search was conducted to identify all randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials of RAH and OH in the treatment of LT from January 2000 to July 2022. Study-specific effect sizes and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined to calculate the pooled values, using a fixed-effects or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included, with a combined total of 1079 patients. Compared with the OH group, the RAH group was found to involve less blood loss (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -152.52 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -266.85 to 38.18; p = 0.009), shorter hospital stay (SMD = -2.79; 95% CI = -4.19 to -1.40; p < 0.001), a lower rate of postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR] =0.67; 95% CI = 0.47-0.95; p = 0.02), and a lower recurrence rate (OR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.23-0.77; p = 0.005). However, operative time was longer in the RAH group than in the OH group (SMD = 70.55; 95% CI = 37.58-103.53; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows that RAH is safe and feasible in the treatment of LT.

Safety and Efficacy of Robotic vs Open Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Importance

Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery remain a hotly debated topic in surgical oncology, but sparse data have been published thus far.

Objective

To analyze short- and long-term outcomes of robotic liver resection (RLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from Western high-volume centers to assess the safety, reproducibility, and oncologic efficacy of this technique.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study evaluated the outcomes of patients receiving RLR vs open liver resection (OLR) for HCC between 2010 and 2020 in 5 high-volume centers. After 1:1 propensity score matching, a group of patients who underwent RLR was compared with a validation cohort of OLR patients from a high-volume center that did not perform RLR.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A retrospective analysis was performed of prospectively maintained databases at 2 European and 2 US institutions of patients who underwent RLR for HCC between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2020. The main outcomes were safety and feasibility of RLR for HCC and its oncologic outcomes compared with a European OLR validation cohort. A 2-sided P < .05 was considered significant.

Results

The study included 398 patients (RLR group: 125 men, 33 women, median [IQR] age, 66 [58-71] years; OLR group: 315 men, 83 women; median [IQR] age, 70 [64-74] years), and 106 RLR patients were compared with 106 OLR patients after propensity score matching. The RLR patients had a significantly longer operative time (median [IQR], 295 [190-370] minutes vs 200 [165-255] minutes, including docking; P < .001) but a significantly shorter hospital length of stay (median [IQR], 4 [3-6] days vs 10 [7-13] days; P < .001) and a lower number of admissions to the intensive care unit (7 [6.6%] vs 21 [19.8%]; P = .002). Incidence of posthepatectomy liver failure was significantly lower in the RLR group (8 [7.5%] vs 30 [28.3%]; P = .001), with no cases of grade C failure. The 90-day overall survival rate was comparable between the 2 groups (RLR, 99.1% [95% CI, 93.5%-99.9%]; OLR, 97.1% [95% CI, 91.3%-99.1%]), as was the cumulative incidence of death related to tumor recurrence (RLR, 8.8% [95% CI, 3.1%-18.3%]; OLR, 10.2% [95% CI, 4.9%-17.7%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study represents the largest Western experience to date of full RLR for HCC. Compared with OLR, RLR performed in tertiary centers represents a safe treatment strategy for patients with HCC and those with compromised liver function while achieving oncologic efficacy.

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting in 5-Year Quality-of-Life Comparison among Three Surgical Procedures for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

This prospective longitudinal cohort study analyzed long-term changes in individual subscales of quality-of-life (QOL) measures and explored whether these changes were related to effective QOL predictors after hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surgery. All 520 HCC patients in this study had completed QOL surveys before surgery and at 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years after surgery. Generalized estimating equation models were used to compare the 5-year QOL among the three HCC surgical procedures. The QOL was significantly (p < 0.05) improved at 6 months after HCC surgery but plateaued at 2−5 years after surgery. In postoperative surveys, the effect size was largest in the nausea and vomiting subscales in patients who had received robotic surgery, and the effect size was smallest in the dyspnea subscale in patients who had received open surgery. It revealed the following explanatory variables for postoperative QOL: surgical procedure type, gender, age, hepatitis C, smoking, tumor stage, postoperative recurrence, and preoperative QOL. The comparisons revealed that, when evaluating QOL after HCC surgery, several factors other than the surgery itself should be considered. The analysis results also implied that postoperative quality of life might depend not only on the success of the surgical procedure, but also on preoperative quality of life.

Selecting the Best Approach for the Treatment of Multiple Non-Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma

According to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, the optimal strategy for patients with multiple HCC within the Milan Criteria is liver transplantation (LT). However, LT cannot be offered to all the patients due to organ shortages and long waiting lists, as well as because of the advanced disease carrying a high risk of poor outcomes. For early stages, liver resection (LR) or thermal ablation (TA) can be proposed, while trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) still remains the treatment of choice for intermediate stages (BCLC-B). Asian guidelines and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network suggest LR for resectable multinodular HCCs, even beyond Milan criteria. In this scenario, a growing body of evidence shows better outcomes after surgical resection when compared with TACE. Trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE) and stereotaxic body radiation therapy (SBRT) can also play an important role in this setting. Furthermore, the role of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) specifically for patients with multiple HCC is still not clear. This review aims to summarize current knowledge about the best therapeutical strategy for multiple HCC while focusing on the role of minimally invasive surgery and on the most attractive future perspectives.

Comparison of surgical outcomes and learning curve for robotic versus laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Both laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy (LLDRH) and robotic living donor right hemihepatectomy (RLDRH) have been developed for minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH), although comparative analysis between the two surgical modalities is lacking. This study aims to compare surgical outcomes of LLDRH and RLDRH at a single institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From March 2016 to March 2022, 171 patients who underwent MILH of right liver were enrolled and divided into RLDRH and LLDRH. Two surgeons with experience in both techniques performed all procedures. Clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes of donor and recipient, and donor anatomic variations were compared between both groups, and learning curves were estimated. Subgroup analysis was also performed, including only donors recruited after 2019, when LLDRH was initiated at our institution.

RESULTS

RLDRH and LLDRH were performed for 102 and 69 patients, respectively. Operative time was significantly longer for RLDRH than LLDRH (464 vs. 407 min, P < 0.001), although estimated blood loss was lower in RLDRH (104 vs. 238 mL, P = 0.002). Incidence of major complications was similar in both groups. After 2019, significantly more RLDRH vs. LLDRH patients had variation in the hepatic artery (14.3% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.020) and portal vein (16.1% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.027). Learning curve for RLDRH was stabilized after approximately the 16th case, whereas that of LLDRH stabilized immediately.

CONCLUSION

RLDRH resulted in less intraoperative bleeding and comparable postoperative outcomes than LLDRH. Moreover, since 2019, RLDRH has been employed more frequently for donors with hilar structure anatomic variations. Based on our single-center experience, we propose that standardized procedures for RLDRH might help set up pure minimally invasive procedures for donor hepatectomy and facilitate safe implementation of laparoscopic approaches.

Innovation for the Sake of Innovation? How Does Robotic Hepatectomy Compare to Laparoscopic or Open Resection for HCC—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Simple Summary

Robot-assisted surgery has gained popularity in urology and colorectal surgery. Some benefits claimed are less complications and faster recovery due to a gentler approach. We aimed to evaluate current evidence on robot-assisted surgery in HCC resection in comparison to standard approaches—laparoscopic and open resections through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Robot-assisted resection was comparable to standardly utilized methods in terms of complication rates. Major complications occurred less but liver-specific complications, such as liver dysfunction or biliary leakage, were similar in frequency. Prospective studies are lacking but are needed to evaluate which patients would really benefit from robot-assisted liver surgery.

Abstract

Robot-assisted hepatectomy is a novel approach to treat liver tumors. HCC is on the rise as the cause of cancer and mortality and is often preceded by cirrhosis. Robot-assisted hepatectomy has been suggested to offer benefits to cirrhotic patients. We aimed to evaluate current evidence for robot-assisted hepatectomy for HCC and compare it to open and laparoscopic approaches. This systematic review and meta-analysis has been conducted in accordance with most recent PRISMA recommendations and the protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022328544). There were no randomized controlled trials available and no study focused on cirrhotic patients exclusively. Robot-assisted hepatectomy was associated with less major complications than the laparoscopic approach, but comparable with open hepatectomy. No difference was seen in overall or minor complications, as well as liver specific or infectious complications. Cumulative survivals were similar in robot-assisted hepatectomy and laparoscopic or open approaches. There is a clear lack of evidence to suggest particular benefits for robot-assisted hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients. Otherwise, the robot-assisted approach has similar complication rates as open or laparoscopic methods. Non-industry driven randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of robot-assisted liver surgery.

Cost analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy: Is the robotic platform more expensive?

The robotic platform is perceived to be more expensive when compared to laparoscopic and open operations. We aimed to compare the perioperative costs of robotic vs. open hepatectomy for the treatment of liver tumors at our facility. We followed 370 patients undergoing robotic and open hepatectomy for benign and malignant liver tumors. Demographic, perioperative, cost and payment data were collected and analyzed. For illustrative purposes, the data were presented as median (mean ± SD). Two hundred sixty-seven robotic and 104 open hepatectomies were analyzed. There were no significant differences in perioperative variables between the two cohorts. The robotic group had a significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (135 [208 ± 244.8] vs 300 [427 ± 502.5] ml, p < 0.0001), smaller lesion size (4 [5 ± 3.6] vs 5[6 ± 4.9] cm, p = 0.0052), shorter length of stay (LOS) (4 [4 ± 3.4] vs 6[8 ± 5.7] days, p < 0.0001) and decreased 90-day mortality (3 vs 7 p = 0.0028). There were no significant differences between the two groups any cost variable. The open group received significantly higher reimbursement ($29,297 [62,962 ± 75,377.96] vs $19,102 [38,975 ± 39,362.11], p < 0.001) and profit ($5005 [30,981 ± 79,541.09] vs $- 6682 [6146 ± 40,949.65], p < 0.001). Robotic hepatectomy is associated with lower EBL, shorter LOS and less mortality. There was no greater cost associated with the robotic platform despite a reduced reimbursement and profit.

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 donor hepatectomy: A major breakthrough in living donor liver transplantation

Living donation in many countries is the main resource of organs. Healthy, volunteering individuals deserve the highest safety standards possible in addition to the least invasive technique to procure the organs. Since the introduction of living donor liver transplantation, many efforts have been made to minimize the surgical trauma inherent to living donor surgery. The journey started with a large Mercedes incision and evolved to reverse L-shaped and small upper midline incisions before the introduction of minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques originated. The technical difficulties of the laparoscopic approach due to suboptimal instrumentation, challenging ergonomics, and the long learning curve limited the application of the fully laparoscopic approach to a few centers. The recent introduction of the robotic platform with its superb optical system and advanced instruments allows for the first time, a genuine emulation of open donor surgery in a closed abdomen, thus allowing all liver donors to benefit from minimally invasive surgery (better cosmesis, less pain and morbidity, and better quality of life) without compromising donor safety. This attribute in combination with the ubiquitous presence of the robot in major transplant centers may well lead to the desired endpoint of this technology, namely, the widespread dissemination of minimally invasive donor surgery.

Current trends in three-dimensional visualization and real-time navigation as well as robot-assisted technologies in hepatobiliary surgery

With the continuous development of digital medicine, minimally invasive precision and safety have become the primary development trends in hepatobiliary surgery. Due to the specificity and complexity of hepatobiliary surgery, traditional preoperative imaging techniques such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging cannot meet the need for identification of fine anatomical regions. Imaging-based three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction, virtual simulation of surgery and 3D printing optimize the surgical plan through preoperative assessment, improving the controllability and safety of intraoperative operations, and in difficult-to-reach areas of the posterior and superior liver, assistive robots reproduce the surgeon’s natural movements with stable cameras, reducing natural vibrations. Electromagnetic navigation in abdominal surgery solves the problem of conventional surgery still relying on direct visual observation or preoperative image assessment. We summarize and compare these recent trends in digital medical solutions for the future development and refinement of digital medicine in hepatobiliary surgery.

[Minimally invasive liver surgery]

Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and can be performed with results practically equal to those in open surgery. There are different techniques of parenchyma dissection and hemostasis available for the safe performance of minor and major resections, both laparoscopically and robotics based. Due to its technical options robotics-based surgery is a further development of laparoscopy. Expertise in minimally invasive and in liver surgery are essential prerequisites.

Liver resection versus transarterial chemoembolization for huge hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matched analysis

To date, it is unclear which treatment modality, liver resection (LR) or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the more appropriate for patients with huge (≥ 10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The study aim was to compare, using propensity score matching, short- and long-term outcomes of patients with huge HCC who underwent potentially curative LR or TACE. Patients with huge HCC who had been managed at the Clinical Center by curative-intent LR or by palliative TACE between November 2001 and December 2018 were retrospectively identified. The morbidity and mortality rates and overall survival were compared between the groups before and after the propensity score matching. Independent predictors of long-term survival were determined by multivariate analysis. A total of 103 patients with huge HCC were included; 68 were assigned to the LR group and 35 to the TACE group. The overall morbidity rate was higher in the LR group than in the TACE group before matching (64.7% vs. 37.1%, p = 0.012), while there was no difference after matching (60% vs. 30%, p = 0.055). The major morbidity and 30-days mortality were similar between the groups before and after matching. The LR group was associated with longer overall survival than the TACE group before matching (p = 0.032) and after matching (p = 0.023). Total bilirubin and TACE treatment were independent prognostic factors associated with long-term survival. In patients with huge HCC, liver resection provides better long-term survival than TACE and should be considered as the initial treatment whenever possible.

Major robotic hepatectomies: technical considerations

Robotic approach to the liver may allow to perform difficult resections with a minimally invasive strategy in an easier way as compared to standard laparoscopy. The aim of this study is to review our experience with robotic major hepatectomies, reporting technical considerations, and describing the outcomes of patients that underwent either left (LRH) or right robotic hepatectomy (RRH). Our prospectively maintained database was screened to identify all patients that received a major liver resection for benign or malignant disease. Preoperative data and postoperative short-term and long-term outcomes were reported. 261 robotic procedures were performed in our Center between May 2014 and October 2020. 12 patients underwent robotic left hepatectomy (RLH) and 10 patients were treated by robotic right hepatectomy (RRH). In the RLH group, median operative time (OT) was 383 min, median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 300 ml, and median in-hospital stay was of 3 days. In the RRH group, median OT was 490 min, median EBL 725 ml, and median hospital stay was 5 days. Although one of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery is to obtain radical resections with parenchyma sparing strategies, patients that need a major hepatectomy may benefit of a robotic resection with good postoperative outcomes. Team learning curve and growth instead of personal progression is crucial to expand the limits of novel surgical techniques.

Robotic Liver Resection Versus Percutaneous Ablation for Early HCC: Short- and Long-Term Results

BACKGROUND

The correct approach for early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is debatable, since multiple options are currently available. Percutaneous ablation (PA) is associated in some series to reduced morbidity compared to liver resection (LR); therefore, minimally invasive surgery may play a significant role in this setting.

METHODS

All consecutive patients treated by robotic liver resection (RLR) or PA between January 2014 and October 2019 for a newly diagnosed single HCC, less than 3 cm in size (very early/early stages according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC)) on chronic liver disease or liver cirrhosis, were enrolled in this retrospective study. The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes to define the best approach in this specific cohort.

RESULTS

60 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 24 RLR and 36 PA. The two populations were homogeneous in terms of baseline characteristics. There were no statistically significant differences regarding the incidence of postoperative morbidity (RLR 38% vs. PA 19%, p = 0.15). The cumulative incidence of recurrence (CIR) was significantly higher in patients who underwent PA, with the one, two, and three years of CIR being 42%, 69%, and 73% in the PA group and 17%, 27%, and 27% in the RLR group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RLR provides a significantly higher potential of cure and tumor-related free survival in cases of newly diagnosed single HCCs smaller than 3 cm. Therefore, it can be considered as a first-line approach for the treatment of patients with those characteristics in high-volume centers with extensive experience in the field of hepatobiliary surgery and minimally invasive approaches.