Analysis of Oncological Outcomes After Robotic Liver Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Anesthetic Considerations for Robotic Liver Transplantation

Liver transplantation has traditionally been performed through a large, bilateral subcostal incision. Recently, liver transplant programs across the world, including our own, have reported successful liver transplants via total robotic approaches on recipients with low Model for End-stage Liver Disease scores and preexisting abdominal wall laxity. This review discusses the unique anesthetic considerations of robotic liver transplantation based on our group's initial experience with this novel surgical approach. Robotic liver transplantation presents a unique set of considerations and challenges for the anesthesiologist, and a thorough understanding of liver disease, liver transplant surgery, venovenous bypass, and the various implications of robotic surgery is essential to ensure optimal patient outcomes. Specific management topics discussed here include appropriate patient selection, preoperative assessment, and intraoperative management. We also discuss certain theoretical and actual challenges that our group has experienced.

Implications of robotic platforms for repeat hepatectomies: a propensity score matched study of clinical outcomes

Robotic surgical approaches have demonstrated improved outcomes in primary hepatectomies. However, data on their effectiveness in redo hepatectomies (subsequent liver resections) are limited. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing primary and redo robotic hepatectomies, with additional analysis comparing outcomes of robotic versus open redo hepatectomies. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 101 patients from a parent population of 465, who were classified as either primary (non-redo) or redo robotic hepatectomy patients between 2013 and 2023. A Propensity Score Matched (PSM) analysis was conducted to compare perioperative variables between the two cohorts, using age, sex, BMI, IWATE score, tumor size, and tumor type as matching variables. Data are presented as median (mean ± standard deviation). Significance was accepted at p ≤ 0.05. After 3:1 PSM analysis (3 primary patients to 1 robotic redo patient), no significant differences were observed in pre-, intra-, or postoperative variables, except for the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (p = 0.022). Additional analysis comparing robotic and open redo hepatectomies showed similar perioperative outcomes, with the robotic approach demonstrating comparable safety and feasibility. Length of stay, blood loss, operative duration, morbidity, and mortality showed no significant differences between the two groups. Major complications (Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III) occurred in 4% of non-redo patients, with none observed in the redo group. The findings suggest that patients undergoing redo robotic hepatectomies achieve outcomes comparable to those of primary hepatectomy patients. This indicates the potential of robotic platforms to mitigate the added complexities and risks associated with redo hepatectomies. Further multi-center collaboration is necessary to validate these findings.

Caudate lobe and posterosuperior segment hepatectomy using the robotic approach. Outcome analysis of liver resection in difficult locations

BACKGROUND

Caudate and posterosuperior hepatectomy are technically challenging resections, especially in a minimally invasive approach. We aimed to analyze the outcomes of isolated caudate resection (ICR), en-bloc caudate resection with right/left hepatic lobectomy (ECR), and posterosuperior segment resection (PSR) using our institutional database.

METHODS

Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 500 consecutive patients between 2013 and 2023 who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Posterosuperior segments include segment 4 ​A, 7, and 8. The data are presented as median (mean ​± ​standard deviation).

RESULTS

Of the 500 patients included in this study, 19 (4 ​%) underwent ICR, 65 (13 ​%) underwent ECR, and 131 (26 ​%) patients underwent PSR. ECR was associated with significantly longer operative time, increased EBL, and longer LOS when compared with those of ICR and PSR. The patients who underwent ICR had the shortest operation duration, lowest EBL, and shortest LOS compared to ECR and PSR.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic resection of liver tumors located in difficult segments is safe and feasible with excellent clinical and oncological outcomes. With appropriate expertise, a minimally invasive approach to those operations should not be avoided.

Comparison of robot-assisted, open, and laparoscopic-assisted surgery for cholangiocarcinoma: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted, laparoscopic-assisted and open surgery in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma, and to evaluate the clinical effect of three surgical methods in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma by network Meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematical retrieval in PubMed and Web of Science was performed for relative literature on the effects of robot-assisted(RA), laparoscopy-assisted(LA), and open surgery(OA) for cholangiocarcinoma in treating cholangiocarcinoma. A literature search updated to September 1st, 2024, was performed.

RESULTS

Studies have shown that the length of R0 resection, complication rate, 30-day mortality, Transfusion rate, Lymph Node Metastasis Rate, and hospital stay in RA are superior to LA and open surgery. The relative effectiveness of the three surgical methods in terms of operation time were: open surgery, laparoscope-assisted surgery, and robot-assisted surgery, and there was no significant difference among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery is safe and feasible in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma, but more clinical evidence is needed to confirm these findings.

Internal validation of the Tampa Robotic Difficulty Scoring System: real-time assessment of the novel robotic scoring system in predicting clinical outcomes after hepatectomy

INTRODUCTION

As the robotic approach in hepatectomy gains prominence, the need to establish a robotic-specific difficulty scoring system (DSS) is evident. The Tampa Difficulty Score was conceived to bridge this gap, offering a novel and dedicated robotic DSS aimed at improving preoperative surgical planning and predicting potential clinical challenges in robotic hepatectomies. In this study, we internally validated the recently published Tampa DSS by applying the scoring system to our most recent cohort of patients.

METHODS

The Tampa Difficulty Score was applied to 170 recent patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy in our center. Patients were classified into: Group 1 (score 1-8, n = 23), Group 2 (score 9-24, n = 120), Group 3 (score 25-32, n = 20), and Group 4 (score 33-49, n = 7). Key variables for each of the groups were analyzed and compared. Statistical significance was accepted at p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

Notable correlations were found between the Tampa Difficulty Score and key clinical parameters such as operative duration (p < 0.0001), estimated blood loss (p < 0.0001), and percentage of major resection (p = 0.00007), affirming the score's predictive capacity for operative technical complexity. The Tampa Difficulty Score also correlated with major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III) (p < 0.0001), length of stay (p = 0.011), and 30-day readmission (p = 0.046) after robotic hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The Tampa Difficulty Score, through the internal validation process, has confirmed its effectiveness in predicting intra- and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy. The predictive capacity of this system is useful in preoperative surgical planning and risk categorization. External validation is necessary to further explore the accuracy of this robotic DSS.

Robotic-assisted radical resection versus open surgery for cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted resection and open surgery for cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases for studies comparing treatment for CCA, covering the period from database inception to January 30, 2024. Two researchers will independently screen literature and extract data, followed by meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 software. A total of 5 articles with 513 patients were finally included. Among them, 231 in the robotic group, and 282 in the open group. The Meta-analysis revealed that the robotic group had a significant advantage in terms of intraoperative blood loss (MD =  - 101.44, 95% CI - 135.73 to - 67.15, P < 0.05), lymph node harvest(MD = 1.03, 95% CI 0.30- 1.76, P < 0.05) and length of hospital stay(MD =  - 1.92, 95% CI - 2.87 to- 0.97, P < 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of transfusion rate (OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.31-1.23, P > 0.05), R0 resection (OR = 1.49, 95% CI 0.89- 2.50, P > 0.05), 30-day mortality (OR = 1.68, 95% CI 0.43-6.65, P > 0.05) and complications (OR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.30- 1.95, P > 0.05). Robotic-assisted radical resection for CCA is feasible and safe, and its long-term efficacy and oncological outcomes need to be confirmed by further studies.

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.

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.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots' abilities.