Financial Impact of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery: A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes and Costs Between the Robotic and Open Technique in a Single Institution

A Decade of Experience With 530 Minimally Invasive Robotic Hepatectomies From a Single Tertiary Hepatobiliary Center. Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes and Oncological Survival

BACKGROUND

This research presents the first study in the United States to document more than a decade of experience with 530 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy from a single high-volume institution.

METHODS

With IRB approval, a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients who underwent a robotic hepatectomy from 2012 to January 2024 was reviewed. Data are presented as median (mean ± standard deviation).

RESULTS

Of the 530 robotic hepatectomies, 231 (44%) were minor, 133 (25%) were technically major, and 166 (31%) were major resections. Patients were 63 (61±14.7) years old with a BMI of 28 (29±7.9). Cirrhosis was present in 80 (19%) of patients, with an ASA score of 3 (3±0.5), and MELD score of 7 (8±3.0). 280 (53%) had prior abdominal operations and 44 (8%) had prior liver resections. Operative time was 233 (260±130.7) minutes and estimated blood loss was 100 (165±205.0)mL. 353 (66%) of patients had hepatectomies for neoplastic disease. 500 (95%) had an R0 resection margin. Tumor size was 4 (5±3.6) cm. The total 90-day postoperative complications were 45 (8%) of which 21 (4%) were classified as major complications (Clavien-Dindo >3). The length of stay was 3 (4±3.7) days, and the 30-day readmission rate was 86 (16%). Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 82%/65%/59% for colorectal liver metastases, 84%/68%/60% for hepatocellular carcinoma, and 79%/61%/50% for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

After a decade of application and optimization at a high-volume institution, the robotic approach has demonstrated its utility as a safe and effective approach to liver resections.

Current status and future perspectives of robotic liver surgery

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

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.

Tampa Difficulty Score: a novel scoring system for difficulty of robotic hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Difficulty scoring system (DSS) has been established for laparoscopic hepatectomy and serves as useful tools to predict difficulty and guide preoperative planning. Despite increased adoption of robotics and its unique technical characteristics compared with laparoscopy, no DSS currently exists for robotic hepatectomy. We aimed to introduce a new DSS for robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

A total of 328 patients undergoing a robotic hepatectomy were identified. After removing the first 24 major and 30 minor hepatectomies using cumulative-sum analysis, 274 patients were included in this study. Relevant clinical variables underwent linear regression using operative time and/or estimated blood loss (EBL) as markers for operative difficulty. Score distribution was analyzed to develop a difficulty-level grouping system.

RESULTS

Of the 274 patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; tumor location, size, and type; the extent of parenchymal resection; the need for portal lymphadenectomy; and the need for biliary resection with hepaticojejunostomy were significantly associated with operative time and/or EBL. They were used to develop the difficulty scores from 1 to 49. Grouping system results were group 1 (less demanding/beginner), 1 to 8 (n = 39); group 2 (intermediate), 9 to 24 (n = 208); group 3 (more demanding/advanced), 25 to 32 (n = 17); and group 4 (most demanding/expert), 33 to 49 (n = 10). When stratified by group, age, previous abdominal operation, Child-Pugh score, operative duration, EBL, major resection, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and length of stay were significantly different among the groups.

CONCLUSION

In addition to established variables in laparoscopic systems, new factors such as the need for portal lymphadenectomy and biliary resection specific to the robotic approach have been identified in this new robotic DSS. Internal and external validations are the next steps in maturing this robotic DSS.

A meta-analysis between robotic hepatectomy and conventional open hepatectomy

Current meta-analysis was performed to compare robotic hepatectomy (RH) with conventional open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were all searched up for comparative studies between RH and OH. RevMan5.3 software and Stata 13.0 software were used for statistical analysis. Nineteen studies with 1747 patients who received RH and 23,633 patients who received OH were included. Pooled results indicated that patients who received RH were generally younger than those received OH (P < 0.00001). Moreover, RH was associated with longer operative time (P = 0.0002), less intraoperative hemorrhage (P < 0.0001), lower incidence of intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.003), lower incidence of postoperative any morbidity (P < 0.00001), postoperative major morbidity (P = 0.0001), mortalities with 90 days after surgery (P < 0.0001), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.00001). Comparable total hospital costs were acquired between RH and OH groups (P = 0.46). However, even at the premise of comparable R0 rate (P = 0.86), RH was associated with smaller resected tumor size (P < 0.00001). Major hepatectomy (P = 0.02) and right posterior hepatectomy (P = 0.0003) were less frequently performed in RH group. Finally, we concluded that RH was superior to OH in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. RH could lead to less intraoperative hemorrhage, less postoperative complications and an enhanced postoperative recovery. However, major hepatectomy and right posterior hepatectomy were still less frequently performed via robotic approach. Future more powerful well-designed studies are required for further exploration.

Evaluation of the economic impact of the robotic approach in major and postero-superior segment liver resections: a multicenter retrospective analysis

Background

Economic impact of robotic liver surgery (RLS) is still a debated issue due to the heterogeneity of liver resections considered and the lack of a rigorous methodology. Therefore, the aim of this study is to perform a time-driven activity-based costing (TD-ABC) comparing the costs of RLS, laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) and open liver surgery (OLS) in the context of complex liver resections and to compare short term perioperative outcomes.

Methods

The institutional databases of two Italian high volume hepatobiliary centres were retrospectively reviewed from February 2021 to April 2022. Patients submitted to major hepatectomies or postero-superior liver resections were selected and divided into three groups according to the approach scheduled (RLS, LLS and OLS) and compared. Major contributors of perioperative expenses were calculated using the TD-ABC model and accurately quantifying each unit resource consumed per patient and the time spent performing each activity. A primary intention-to-treat analysis (ITT-A) including conversions in the RLS and LLS groups was performed.

Results

Forty-seven RLS, 101 LLS and 124 OLS were collected. LLS and RLS showed reduced blood loss, morbidity, mortality and hospital stay compared with open. A trend towards reduced conversion rate in RLS compared to LLS was registered. Total costs associated with RLS were estimated at €10,637 vs. €9,543 for LLS and vs. €13,960 for OLS. The higher intraoperative costs associated with RLS (+153.3% vs. OLS and +148.2% vs. LLS, P<0.001), primarily related to surgical equipment expenses, were slightly offset by the postoperative savings (-56.0% vs. OLS and -29.4% vs. LLS, P<0.001) resulting from significantly reduced hospital stays.

Conclusions

RLS offers economic advantages over OLS, as initial higher costs are offset by better perioperative outcomes. The evolving robotic marketplace is expected to drive down RLS costs, promoting widespread adoption in minimally invasive procedures. Despite its higher costs than LLS, RLS's ability to enhance minimally invasive feasibility makes it a preferred choice for complex cases, reducing the need for conversions.

Microfracture-coagulation for the real robotic liver parenchymal transection

The use of the robotic approach in liver surgery is exponentially increasing. Although technically the robot introduces several innovative features, the instruments linked with the traditional laparoscopic approach for the liver parenchymal transection are not available, which may result in multiple technical variants that may bias the comparative analysis between the different series worldwide. A real robotic approach, minimally efficient for the liver parenchymal transection, with no requirement of external tool, available for the already existing platforms, and applicable to any type of liver resection, counting on the selective use of the plugged bipolar forceps and the monopolar scissors, or "microfracture-coagulation" (MFC) transection method, is described in detail. The relevant aspects of the technique, its indications and methodological basis are discussed.

Robotic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases in a "referral centre Hub&Spoke learning program". A multicenter propensity score matching analysis of perioperative outcomes

Background

Surgical resection is still considered the optimal treatment for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). Although laparoscopic and robotic surgery demonstrated their reliability especially in referral centers, the comparison between perioperative outcomes of robotic liver resection (RLR) and open (OLR) liver resection are still debated when performed in referral centers for robotic surgery, not dedicated to HPB. Our study aimed to verify the efficacy and safety of perioperative outcomes after RLR and OLR for CRLM in an HUB&Spoke learning program (H&S) between a high volume center for liver surgery and high volume center for robotic surgery.

Methods

We analyzed prospective databases of Pineta Grande Hospital (Castel Volturno) and Robotic Surgical Units (Foligno-Spoleto and Arezzo) from 2011 to 2021. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed according to baseline characteristics of patients, solitary/multiple CRLM, anterolateral/posterosuperior location.

Results

383 patients accepted to be part of the study (268 ORL and 115 RLR). After PSM, 45 patients from each group were included. Conversion rate was 8.89 %. RLR group had a significantly lower blood loss (226 vs. 321 ml; p=0.0001), and fewer major complications (13.33 % vs. 17.78 %; p=0.7722). R0 resection was obtained in 100% of OLR (vs.95.55%, p =0.4944. Hospital stay was 8.8 days in RLR (vs. 15; p=0.0001).Conclusion: H&S represents a safe and effective program to train general surgeons also in Hepatobiliary surgery providing R0 resection rate, blood loss volume and morbidity rate superimposable to referral centers. Furthermore, H&S allow a reduction of health mobility with consequent money saving for patients and institutions.

Analysis of survival outcomes following robotic hepatectomy for malignant liver diseases

BACKGROUND

Despite increased adoption of the robotic platform for complex hepatobiliary resections for malignant disease, little is known about long-term survival outcomes. This is the first study to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, and short- and long-term survival rates after a robotic hepatectomy for five major malignant disease processes.

METHODS

A prospectively collected database of patients who underwent a robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease was reviewed. Pathologies included colorectal liver metastases (CLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), Klatskin tumor, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and gallbladder cancer (GC). Data are presented as median (mean ​± ​standard deviation) for illustrative purposes.

RESULTS

Of the 210 consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease, 75 (35 ​%) had CLM, 69 (33 ​%) had HCC, 27 (13 ​%) had Klatskin tumor, 20 (10 ​%) had IHCC, and 19 (9 ​%) had GC. Patients were 66 (65 ​± ​12.4) years old with a BMI of 29 (29 ​± ​6.5) kg/m2. R0 resection was achieved in 91 ​%, and 65 ​% underwent a major hepatectomy. Postoperative major complication rate was 6 ​%, length of stay was four (5 ​± ​4.3) days, and 30-day readmission rate was 17 ​%. Survival at 1, 3, and 5-years were 93 ​%/75 ​%/72 ​% for CLM, 84 ​%/71 ​%/64 ​% for HCC, 73 ​%/55 ​%/55 ​% for Klatskin tumor, 80 ​%/69 ​%/69 ​% for IHCC, 79 ​%/65 ​%/65 ​% for GC.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests a favorable 5-year overall survival benefit with use of the robotic platform in hepatic resection for colorectal metastases, hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Klatskin tumor, and gallbladder cancer. The robotic platform facilitates fine dissection in complex hepatobiliary operations, with a high rate of R0 resections and excellent perioperative clinical outcomes.

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

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

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.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience of 629 Consecutive Minimally Invasive Liver Resections

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has the potential to broaden the indications for minimally invasive liver surgery owing to its technical advantages. This paper compares our experience with robotic liver surgery (RLS) with conventional laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS).

METHODS

All consecutive liver resections between October 2011 and October 2022 were selected from our prospective database to be included in this cohort study. Patients who underwent RLS were compared with a LLS group for operative and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 629 patients were selected from our database, including 177 patients who underwent a RLS and 452 patients who had LLS. Colorectal liver metastasis was the main indication for surgery in both groups. With the introduction of RLS, the percentage of open resections decreased significantly (32.6% from 2011 to 2020 vs. 11.5% from 2020 onward, P < 0.001). In the robotic group, redo liver surgery was more frequent (24.3% vs. 16.8%, P = 0.031) and the Southampton difficulty score was higher (4 [IQR 4 to 7] vs. 4 [IQR 3 to 6], P = 0.02). Median blood loss was lower (30 vs. 100 ml, P < 0.001), and postoperative length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the robotic group (median 3 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications. Cost related to the used instruments and LOS was significantly lower in the RLS group (median €1483 vs. €1796, P < 0.001 and €1218 vs. €1624, P < 0.001, respectively), while cost related to operative time was higher (median €2755 vs. €2470, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RLS may allow for a higher percentage of liver resections to be completed in a minimally invasive way with lower blood loss and a shorter LOS.

International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023

The robotic liver resection (RLR) has been increasingly applied in recent years and its benefits shown in some aspects owing to the technical advancement of robotic surgical system, however, controversies still exist. Based on the foundation of the previous consensus statement, this new consensus document aimed to update clinical recommendations and provide guidance to improve the outcomes of RLR clinical practice. The guideline steering group and guideline expert group were formed by 29 international experts of liver surgery and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Relevant literature was reviewed and analyzed by the evidence evaluation group. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, the Guidance Principles of Development and Amendment of the Guidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in China 2022, a total of 14 recommendations were generated. Among them were 8 recommendations formulated by the GRADE method, and the remaining 6 recommendations were formulated based on literature review and experts' opinion due to insufficient EBM results. This international experts consensus guideline offered guidance for the safe and effective clinical practice and the research direction of RLR in future.

Implementation and Outcome of Robotic Liver Surgery in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the nationwide implementation and surgical outcome of minor and major robotic liver surgery (RLS) and assess the first phase of implementation of RLS during the learning curve.

BACKGROUND

RLS may be a valuable alternative to laparoscopic liver surgery. Nationwide population-based studies with data on implementation and outcome of RLS are lacking.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients who underwent RLS for all indications in 9 Dutch centers (August 2014-March 2021). Data on all liver resections were obtained from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit (DHBA) including data from all 27 centers for liver surgery in the Netherlands. Outcomes were stratified for minor, technically major, and anatomically major RLS. Learning curve effect was assessed using cumulative sum analysis for blood loss.

RESULTS

Of 9437 liver resections, 400 were RLS (4.2%) procedures including 207 minor (52.2%), 141 technically major (35.3%), and 52 anatomically major (13%). The nationwide use of RLS increased from 0.2% in 2014 to 11.9% in 2020. The proportion of RLS among all minimally invasive liver resections increased from 2% to 28%. Median blood loss was 150 mL (interquartile range 50-350 mL] and the conversion rate 6.3% (n=25). The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 7.0% (n=27), median length of hospital stay 4 days (interquartile range 2-5) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 0.8% (n=3). The R0 resection rate was 83.2% (n=263). Cumulative sum analysis for blood loss found a learning curve of at least 33 major RLS procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The nationwide use of RLS in the Netherlands has increased rapidly with currently one-tenth of all liver resections and one-fourth of all minimally invasive liver resections being performed robotically. Although surgical outcomes of RLS in selected patient seem favorable, future prospective studies should determine its added value.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Impact of shifting from laparoscopic to robotic surgery during 600 minimally invasive pancreatic and liver resections

BACKGROUND

Many centers worldwide are shifting from laparoscopic to robotic minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary resections (MIS-HPB) but large single center series assessing this process are lacking. We hypothesized that the introduction of robot-assisted surgery was safe and feasible in a high-volume center.

METHODS

Single center, post-hoc assessment of prospectively collected data including all consecutive MIS-HPB resections (January 2010-February 2022). As of December 2018, all MIS pancreatoduodenectomy and liver resections were robot-assisted. All surgeons had participated in dedicated training programs for laparoscopic and robotic MIS-HPB. Primary outcomes were in-hospital/30-day mortality and Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications.

RESULTS

Among 1875 pancreatic and liver resections, 600 (32%) were MIS-HPB resections. The overall rate of conversion was 4.3%, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications 25.7%, and in-hospital/30-day mortality 1.8% (n = 11). When comparing the period before and after the introduction of robotic MIS-HPB (Dec 2018), the overall use of MIS-HPB increased from 25.3 to 43.8% (P < 0.001) and blood loss decreased from 250 ml [IQR 100-500] to 150 ml [IQR 50-300] (P < 0.001). The 291 MIS pancreatic resections included 163 MIS pancreatoduodenectomies (52 laparoscopic, 111 robotic) with 4.3% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with reduced operation time (450 vs 361 min; P < 0.001), reduced blood loss (350 vs 200 ml; P < 0.001), and a decreased rate of delayed gastric emptying (28.8% vs 9.9%; P = 0.009). The 309 MIS liver resections included 198 laparoscopic and 111 robotic procedures with a 3.6% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic liver resection was associated with less overall complications (24.7% vs 10.8%; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (4 vs 3 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of robotic surgery was associated with greater implementation of MIS-HPB in up to nearly half of all pancreatic and liver resections. Although mortality and major morbidity were not affected, robotic surgery was associated with improvements in some selected outcomes. Ultimately, randomized studies and high-quality registries should determine its added value.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Total robotic right hepatectomy for multifocal hepatocellular carcinoma using vessel sealer

Rapid adoption of a robotic approach as a minimally invasive surgery tool has enabled surgeons to perform more complex hepatobiliary surgeries than conventional laparoscopic surgery. Although various types of liver resections have been performed robotically, parenchymal transection is challenging as commonly used instruments (Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator [CUSA] and Harmonic) lack articulation. Further, CUSA also requires a patient-side assistant surgeon with hepatobiliary laparoscopic skills. We present a case report of total robotic right hepatectomy for multifocal hepatocellular carcinoma in a 70-year-old male using 'Vessel Sealer' for parenchymal transection. Total operative time was 520 minutes with a blood loss of ~400 mL. There was no technical difficulty or instrument failure encountered during surgery. The patient was discharged on postoperative day five without any significant complications such as bile leak. Thus, Vessel Sealer, a fully articulating instrument intended to seal vessels and tissues up to 7 mm, can be a promising tool for parenchymal transection in a robotic surgery.

Initial experience with robotic liver resection: Audit of 120 consecutive cases at a single center and comparison with open and laparoscopic approaches

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Surgical outcomes and utility of robotic liver resection (RLR) are undefined.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied perioperative and long-term outcomes of the single-center 120 RLRs including non-anatomic (NAR, n = 58) and anatomic (AR, n = 62) resections. To evaluate the feasibility and safety of RLR, perioperative outcomes of RLR (n = 103) were compared to those of open (OLR, n = 495) or laparoscopic (LLR, n = 451) resection in liver-only resections without reconstruction, using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). The changing trends from the earlier to the later RLR cases were assessed. Long-term outcomes were compared between RLR and LLR.

RESULTS

Various types of RLR with different surgical difficulties were performed, with mostly comparable postoperative morbidity between AR and NAR, or among AR subtypes. In segmentectomy and sectionectomy cases, perioperative outcomes significantly improved in the later period. In comparison between PSM-selected OLR and RLR cases (87:87), RLR had significantly longer operative time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. PSM-selected LLR and RLR cases (91:91) showed comparable perioperative outcomes. Overall and recurrence-free survivals after RLR for newly diagnosed hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal metastasis were comparable to those after LLR.

CONCLUSIONS

RLR is applicable to various types of liver resection with acceptable perioperative and long-term outcomes in select patients.

Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. However, the added benefit of the robotic platform over conventional laparoscopy is a matter of ongoing investigation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an up-to-date and balanced evaluation of the benefits and shortcomings of robotic liver surgery for the modern hepatobiliary surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Advantages of a robotic approach to liver resection include a shortened learning curve, the ability to complete more extensive or complex minimally invasive operations, and integrated fluorescence guidance. However, the robotic platform remains limited by a paucity of parenchymal transection devices, complete lack of haptic feedback, and added operating time associated with docking and instrument exchange. Like laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy may provide patients with more rapid recovery and a shorter hospital stay, which can help offset the substantial costs of robot acquisition and maintenance. The oncologic outcomes of robotic hepatectomy appear to be equivalent to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for appropriately selected patients.

Data Resources for Evaluating the Economic and Financial Consequences of Surgical Care in the United States

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

Pan-European survey on the implementation of robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive liver surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is gaining popularity. Recent data and views on the implementation of laparoscopic and robotic MILS throughout Europe are lacking.

METHODS

An anonymous survey consisting of 46 questions was sent to all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 120 surgeons from 103 centers in 24 countries. Median annual center volume of liver resection was 100 [IQR 50-140]. The median annual volume of MILS per center was 30 [IQR 16-40]. For minor resections, laparoscopic MILS was used by 80 (67%) surgeons and robotic MILS by 35 (29%) surgeons. For major resections, laparoscopic MILS was used by 74 (62%) surgeons and robotic MILS by 33 (28%) surgeons. The majority of the surgeons stated that minimum annual volume of MILS per center should be around 21-30 procedures/year. Of the surgeons performing robotic surgery, 28 (70%) felt they missed specific equipment, such as a robotic-CUSA. Seventy (66%) surgeons provided a formal MILS training to residents and fellows. In 5 years' time, 106 (88%) surgeons felt that MILS would have superior value as compared to open liver surgery.

CONCLUSION

In the participating European liver centers, MILS comprised about one third of all liver resections and is expected to increase further. Laparoscopic MILS is still twice as common as robotic MILS. Development of specific instruments for robotic liver parenchymal transection might further increase its adoption.

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 LIVER RESECTION. REPORT OF THE FIRST 50 CASES

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained growing acceptance in recent years, expanding to liver resection.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to report the experience with our first fifty robotic liver resections.

METHODS

This was a single-cohort, retrospective study. From May 2018 to December 2020, 50 consecutive patients underwent robotic liver resection in a single center. All patients with indication for minimally invasive liver resection underwent robotic hepatectomy. The indication for the use of minimally invasive technique followed practical guidelines based on the second international laparoscopic liver consensus conference.

RESULTS

The proportion of robotic liver resection was 58.8% of all liver resections. Thirty women and 20 men with median age of 61 years underwent robotic liver resection. Forty-two patients were operated on for malignant diseases. Major liver resection was performed in 16 (32%) patients. Intrahepatic Glissonian approach was used in 28 patients for anatomical resection. In sixteen patients, the robotic liver resection was a redo hepatectomy. In 10 patients, previous liver resection was an open resection and in six it was minimally invasive resection. Simultaneous colon resection was done in three patients. One patient was converted to open resection. Two patients received blood transfusion. Four (8%) patients presented postoperative complications. No 90-day mortality was observed.

CONCLUSION

The use of the robot for liver surgery allowed to perform increasingly difficult procedures with similar outcomes of less difficult liver resections.

A Single Institution's Experience With Robotic Minor and Major Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection is gradually becoming the preferred technique to treat liver tumors due its salutary benefits when compared with traditional "open" method. While robotic technology improves surgeon dexterity to better perform complex operations, outcomes of robotic hepatectomy have not been adequately studied. We therefore describe our institutional experience with robotic minor and major hepatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively study all patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy from 2016 to 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients underwent robotic hepatectomy. 138 (63%) were major hepatectomies while 82 (37%) were minor hepatectomies. Median age was 63 (62 ± 13) years, 118 (54%) were female. 168 patients had neoplastic disease and 52 patients had benign disease. Lesion size in patients who had undergone minor hepatectomy was 2 (3 ± 2.5) cm, compared to 5 (5 ± 3.0) cm in patients who undergone major hepatectomy (P < .001). 97% of patients underwent R0 resections while none of the patients had R2 resection. Operative duration was 226 (260 ± 122.7) vs 282 (299 ± 118.7) minutes (P ≤ .05); estimated blood loss was 100 (163 ± 259.2) vs 200 (251 ± 246.7) mL (P ≤ .05) for minor and major hepatectomy, respectively. One patient had intraoperative bleeding requiring "open" conversion. Nine (4%) patients had experienced notable postoperative complications and 2 (1%) patients died postoperatively. Length of stay was 3 (5 ± 4.6) vs 4 (5 ± 2.8) days for minor vs major hepatectomy (P = .84). Reoperation and readmission rate for minor vs major hepatectomy was 1% vs 3% (P = .65) and 9% vs 10% (P = .81), respectively.

DISCUSSION

Robotic major hepatectomy is safe, feasible, and efficacious with excellent postoperative outcomes.

Three-Device (3D) Technique for Liver Parenchyma Dissection in Robotic Liver Surgery

Background: The implementation of robotics in liver surgery offers several advantages compared to conventional open and laparoscopic techniques. One major advantage is the enhanced degree of freedom at the tip of the robotic tools compared to laparoscopic instruments. This enables excellent vessel control during inflow and outflow dissection of the liver. Parenchymal transection remains the most challenging part during robotic liver resection because currently available robotic instruments for parenchymal transection have several limitations and there is no standardized technique as of yet. We established a new strategy and share our experience. Methods: We present a novel technique for the transection of liver parenchyma during robotic surgery, using three devices (3D) simultaneously: monopolar scissors and bipolar Maryland forceps of the robot and laparoscopic-guided waterjet. We collected the perioperative data of twenty-eight patients who underwent this procedure for minor and major liver resections between February 2019 and December 2020 from the Magdeburg Registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). Results: Twenty-eight patients underwent robotic-assisted 3D parenchyma dissection within the investigation period. Twelve cases of major and sixteen cases of minor hepatectomy for malignant and non-malignant cases were performed. Operative time for major liver resections (≥ 3 liver segments) was 381.7 (SD 80.6) min vs. 252.0 (70.4) min for minor resections (p < 0.01). Intraoperative measured blood loss was 495.8 (SD 508.8) ml for major and 256.3 (170.2) ml for minor liver resections (p = 0.090). The mean postoperative stay was 13.3 (SD 11.1) days for all cases. Liver surgery-related morbidity was 10.7%, no mortalities occurred. We achieved an R0 resection in all malignant cases. Conclusions: The 3D technique for parenchyma dissection in robotic liver surgery is a safe and feasible procedure. This novel method offers an advanced locally controlled preparation of intrahepatic vessels and bile ducts. The combination of precise extrahepatic vessel handling with the 3D technique of parenchyma dissection is a fundamental step forward to the standardization of robotic liver surgery for teaching purposing and the wider adoption of robotic hepatectomy into routine patient care.

Systematic Review Comparing the Effectiveness of Robotic verse Laparoscopic Liver Surgery in Colorectal Liver Metastasis (CRLM)

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the world. The liver is the most common site of metastasis with 15 to 25% of patients presenting with synchronous colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). This study is aimed at evaluating the long- and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic CRLM surgery, and directly comparing their respective effectiveness. Methodology: A literature search was performed and all studies that reported on operative characteristics, oncological outcomes for CRLM, morbidity or mortality and cost-effectiveness on robotic or laparoscopic surgery were included. The study design was in keeping with the PRISMA guidelines. Results: From the initial 606 manuscripts identified, 19 studies were included in the final qualitative analysis. A total of 1340 patients with 1194 LLR (Laparoscopic Liver Resection) and 146 RLR (Robotic Liver Resection) cases were analysed. Within the LLR group, the average tumour size excised was 32.1 mm compared to the RLR group of 33.8 mm. The average operative time in the LLR was 193 min, CI of 95% (147.4 min to 238.6 min) compared to RLR 257 min, CI of 95% (201.5 min to 313.8 min) with a p-value < 0.0001. Estimated blood loss was lower in the RLR group (210 mL) compared with the LLR group (246 mL). Conclusion: Despite the higher operative cost, RLRs do not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss and excision of larger CRLMs. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favourable with LLRs. Our study has shown that robotic liver surgery is safe and feasible in well-selected patients.

Colonic leiomyoma mimicking a liver tumor: an unusual diagnosis after en-block robotic resection

Colonic leiomyomas are rare. Their clinical presentation ranges from asymptomatic polyps detected on endoscopy to large symptomatic abdominopelvic masses. Imaging findings are usually non-specific, and percutaneous biopsy might help with differential diagnosis. However, radical surgery with negative margins is ultimately needed to rule out malignancy. We describe an uncommon presentation of a colonic leiomyoma mimicking a right hepatic lobe tumor on preoperative imaging. The robotic approach allowed a precise abdominal exploration with confirmation of colonic and hepatic infiltration and subsequent oncological en-block resection. Surgeons operating on hepatic tumors close to the right colic flexure should be aware of this diagnosis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

Comprehensive analysis of laparoscopic, robotic, and open hepatectomy outcomes using the nationwide readmissions database

Although open resections have been the most prevalent method of hepatectomies in the United States, laparoscopic and robotic methods of liver resection have since gained significant traction. Given the augmenting role of minimally invasive techniques in liver resection, a study that explores and analyzes the surgical outcomes of the approaches mentioned above to liver resection on a national basis is warranted. A retrospective analysis was performed in this study using the 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). Patients who underwent liver resections via one of the following methods were selected and grouped: open, laparoscopic, or robotic. Our primary outcome variable of interest was the 45-day readmission rate. 11,186 patients were included in the analysis. The 45-day readmission rate was 13.5%, 12.9%, and 8.7% in the open, laparoscopic, and robotic groups, respectively (p < 0.001). A significantly lower complication rate (7.3%) was seen in the robotic group than its counterparts (11.4% in open vs. 9.1% in the laparoscopic group). Patients undergoing hepatectomies may benefit from the robotic approach given that it is associated with a shorter hospital length of stay and lower readmission rates.

Robotic minor hepatectomy: optimizing outcomes and cost of care

BACKGROUND

The advantages of robotic liver surgery are strongest for minor resections, where incision size drives recovery time, but cost remains a concern. We hypothesized that patients who underwent robotic minor liver resections would have superior peri-operative outcomes resulting in decreased cost.

METHODS

We queried the medical record and cost data for patients who underwent open or robotic minor (1-2 segment) liver resection from 1/2016-8/2019. Financial data were normalized to Medicare reimbursements.

RESULTS

There were 87 patients who underwent minor liver resections (robotic n = 46, open n = 41). Specimen size (173 ± 203 vs 257 ± 481 cm³), surgical duration (233 ± 87 vs 227 ± 83 min), estimated blood loss (187 ± 236 vs 194 ± 165 mL), and margin status (89% vs 93% R0) were similar for robotic and open resections respectively, yet complications (3/46, 7% vs 10/41, 24%, p = 0.02) and length of stay (2.2 ± 2.2 vs 6.2 ± 2.9, p < 0.001) were significantly lower for patients who underwent robotic resection. These factors contributed to minor robotic liver resections costing $534 less than open resections ($3597 ± 1823 vs $4131 ± 1532, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing robotic minor hepatectomy had superior peri-operative outcomes resulting in lower total cost of care when compared to open minor hepatectomy. Financial considerations should not adversely influence selection of a robotic approach for minor hepatectomy.

Hospitalization Costs and Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Liver Resections

INTRODUCTION

Most liver resections performed in the United States are open. With the ever-increasing role of robotic surgery, our study's role is to assess national outcomes based on the surgical approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the 2015 National Readmission Database (NRD). We selected patients undergoing open, laparoscopic, and robotic hepatectomy. Propensity score matching was performed to match the three groups in terms of demographics, hospital characteristics, and resection type. Our primary outcome was 6-month readmission rates and associated costs.

RESULTS

3,872 patients were included in the analysis (open = 3,420, laparoscopic = 343, and robotic = 109). Robotic liver resection has lower 6-month readmission rates (18.3%) than the laparoscopic (26.7%) and open (30%) counterparts. The robotic approach was more cost-effective ($127,716.56 ± 12,567.31) than the open ($157,880.82 ± 18,560.2) and laparoscopic approach ($152,060.78 ± 8,890.13) in terms of the total cost which includes cost per readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a financial benefit of using robotics in terms of cost, hospital length of stay, and readmission rates in patients undergoing liver resection, cost.

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.

[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.

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.

Predicting the Risk of Postoperative Complications in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Resection of Primary Liver Tumors

Minimal-invasive techniques are increasingly applied in clinical practice and have contributed towards improving postoperative outcomes. While comparing favorably with open surgery in terms of safety, the occurrence of severe complications remains a grave concern. To date, no objective predictive system has been established to guide clinicians in estimating complication risks as the relative contribution of general patient health, liver function and surgical parameters remain unclear. Here, we perform a single-center analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection for primary hepatic malignancies since 2010. Among the 210 patients identified, 32 developed major complications. Several independent predictors were identified through a multivariate analysis, defining a preoperative model: diabetes, history of previous hepatectomy, surgical approach, alanine aminotransferase levels and lesion entity. The addition of operative time and whether conversion was required significantly improved predictions and were thus incorporated into the postoperative model. Both models were able to identify patients with major complications with acceptable performance (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for a preoperative model = 0.77 vs. postoperative model = 0.80). Internal validation was performed and confirmed the discriminatory ability of the models. An easily accessible online tool was deployed in order to estimate probabilities of severe complication without the need for manual calculation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Robots in the operating room-(co)operation during surgery]

Hintergrund

Medizinrobotik birgt das Potenzial, chirurgische oder endoluminale Eingriffe zu verbessern, indem diese Technologie hochpräzise Bewegungen und übermenschliche Perzeption ermöglicht.

Ziel der Arbeit

Darstellung historischer, existierender und zukünftiger robotischer Assistenten sowie Herausstellung deren Auswirkungen auf die robotische Chirurgie und Endoskopie.

Methoden

Insbesondere werden historische Medizinroboter sowie konventionelle Telemanipulatoren vorgestellt und diese mit minimal-invasiven Kontinuumsrobotern und neuartigen robotischen Konzepten aus Praxis und Forschung verglichen. Zusätzlich wird eine Perspektive für die zukünftige Generation von Chirurgie- und Endoskopierobotern geboten.

Schlussfolgerung

Roboterassistierte Medizin bietet einen großen Mehrwert für die Qualität der Intervention sowie Sicherheit für Chirurgen und Patientinnen. Zukünftig werden vermehrt Prozessschritte (teil‑)autonom in Kooperation mit Experten durchgeführt.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic versus open hemihepatectomy: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approach has been increasingly applied in liver resection. However, laparoscopic major hepatectomy is technically demanding and is practiced only in expert centers around the world. Conversely, use of robot may help to overcome the difficulty and facilitate major hepatectomy.

METHODS

Between September 2010 and March 2019, 151 patients received robotic hepatectomy for various indications in our center. 36 patients received robotic hemihepatectomy: 26 left hepatectomy and 10 right hepatectomy. During the same period, 737 patients received open hepatectomy and out of these, 173 patients received open hemihepatectomy. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

After matching, there were 36 patients each in the robotic and open group. The two groups were comparable in demographic data, type of hemihepatectomy, underlying pathology, size of tumor, and background cirrhosis. Conversion was needed in 3 patients (8.3%) in the robotic group. There was no operative mortality. The operative blood loss and resection margin were similar. Though not significantly different, there was a higher rate of complications in the robotic group (36.1% vs. 22.2%) and this difference was mostly driven by higher intra-abdominal collection (16.7% vs. 5.6%) and bile leak (5.6% vs. 2.8%). Operative time was significantly longer (400.8 ± 136.1 min vs 255.4 ± 74.4 min, P < 0.001) but the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter (median 5 days vs 6.5 days, P = 0.040) in the robotic group. When right and left hepatectomy were analyzed separately, the advantage of shorter hospital stay remained in left but not right hepatectomy. For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, there was no difference between the two groups in 5-year overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the open approach, robotic hemihepatectomy has longer operation time but shorter hospital stay. Thus, use of robot is feasible and effective in hemihepatectomy with the benefit of shorter hospital stay.

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.

Laparoscopic liver resection: indications, limitations, and economic aspects

Background

Minimally invasive techniques have increasingly found their way into liver surgery in recent years. A multitude of mostly retrospective analyses suggests several advantages of laparoscopic over open liver surgery. Due to the speed and variety of simultaneous technical and strategic developments, it is difficult to maintain an overview of the current status and perspectives in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Purpose

This review highlights up-to-date aspects in laparoscopic liver surgery. We discuss established indications with regard to their development over time as well as continuing limitations of applied techniques. We give an assessment based on the current literature and according to our own center experiences, not least with regard to a highly topical cost discussion.

Conclusions

While in the beginning mainly benign tumors were laparoscopically operated on, liver metastasis and hepatocellular carcinoma are now among the most frequent indications. Technical limitations remain and should be evaluated with the overall aim not to endanger quality standards in open surgery. Financial aspects cannot be neglected with the necessity of cost-covering reimbursement.

A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence of pairwise meta-analysis of Robotic Hepatectomy (RH) vs Laparoscopic Hepatectomy (LH) and RH vs Open Hepatectomy (OH) is inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study, was to compare the outcomes of RH, LH and OH by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the following databases: Pubmed, Google scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Cost-effectiveness and survival benefits were selected as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The cost was less in OH compared to both minimally invasive procedures, LH demonstrated lower cost compared to RH, but the differences were not statistically significant. Both the RH and LH cohorts demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss, reduced major morbidity rate and shorter length of stay compared to OH cohort. The LH and OH cohorts demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and duration of clamping compared to the RH cohort. The LH cohort included significantly smaller tumours compared to the OH cohort.

CONCLUSION

The present network meta-analysis, demonstrated that both RH and LH in malignant and benign conditions were associated with lower morbidity rates, shorter hospital stay and the procedure related costs were statistically nonsignificant between RH, LH and OH.