Robotic Versus Open Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Matched Comparison

Exploring the feasibility of robotic liver resection in a limited resource setting

The transition from open hepatectomy to minimally invasive techniques has reduced morbidity and mortality. However, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) requires substantial expertise. Robotic liver resection (RLR) combines minimal invasiveness with open surgical precision. It may facilitate complex procedures without the learning required for LLR. We evaluated RLR outcomes in a limited resource setting and assessed its efficacy and practicality. This retrospective study analyzed 67 robotic hepatectomies conducted from 2020 to 2023. Demographic, perioperative factors, and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Major hepatectomies were required in 46/67 (68.7%) patients who underwent RLR. No open conversions, 30-day mortalities, or readmissions occurred. Complications occurred in 7.4% of patients; major complications occurred in 5.9%. Learning curve analysis showed a negative correlation between operation sequence and operative time. Effective use of robotic technology combined with the expertise of well-trained surgeons facilitates successful execution of RLR with feasible surgical outcomes, even at smaller centers.

Learning curve analysis after 500 robotic hepatectomies

BACKGROUND

The robotic platform is growing in popularity for hepatobiliary resections. Although the learning curve for basic competency has been reported, this is the first study to analyze the learning curve to achieve long-term mastery on a decade of experience with more than 500 robotic hepatectomies.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, 500 consecutive robotic hepatectomies from 2013 to 2023 were analyzed. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis using operative duration was used to determine the learning curves.

RESULTS

A total of 500 patients were included in this study: composed of 230 men (46.0 %) and 270 women (54.0 %), aged 63.0 (61.0 ± 14.6) years, with a body mass index of 28.0 (29.0 ± 8.0) kg/m2, a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 7 (8 ± 3.0), an albumin-bilirubin score of -3.0 (-3.0 ± 0.6), and a Child-Pugh score of 5.0 (5.0 ± 0.7). Operative duration was 235.0 (260.1 ± 131.9) minutes, estimated blood loss was 100.0 (165.0 ± 208.1) mL, tumor size was 4.0 (5.0 ± 3.5) cm, and 94.0 % of patients achieved R0 margins. The length of hospital stay was 3.0 (4.0 ± 3.7) days, with 4.0 % of patient having major complications. Of note, 30-day readmission was 17.0 %, 30-day mortality was 2.0 %, and 90-day mortality was 3.0 %. On CUSUM analysis, the learning curve for minor resection (n = 215) was 75 cases, major resection (n = 154) was 100 cases, and technically challenging minor resection (n = 131) was 57 cases. Gaining more experience in performing surgical procedures resulted in shorter operative duration, lower blood loss, higher R0 resections, and lower major postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

The minimum number of robotic hepatectomies to overcome the learning curves for mastery of minor, major, and technically challenging minor resections was significant. Our study can help guide surgeons in their early experience to optimize patient safety and outcomes.

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.

Current Status of Robotic Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery

Laparoscopic surgery is performed worldwide and has clear economic and social benefits in terms of patient recovery time. It is used for most gastrointestinal surgical procedures, but laparoscopic surgery for more complex procedures in the esophageal, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic regions remains challenging. Minimally invasive surgery that results in accurate tumor dissection is vital in surgical oncology, and development of surgical systems and instruments plays a key role in assisting surgeons to achieve this. A notable advance in the latter half of the 1990s was the da Vinci Surgical System, which involves master-slave surgical support robots. Featuring high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) imaging with magnification capabilities and forceps with multi-joint function, anti-shake function, and motion scaling, the system compensates for the drawbacks of conventional laparoscopic surgery. It is expected to be particularly useful in the field of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery, which requires delicate reconstruction involving complex liver anatomy with diverse vascular and biliary systems and anastomosis of the biliary tract, pancreas, and intestines. The learning curve is said to be short, and it is hoped that robotic surgery will be standardized in the near future. There is also a need for a standardized robotic surgery training system for young surgeons that can later be adapted to a wider range of surgeries. This systematic review describes trends and future prospects for robotic surgery in the hepatobiliary-pancreatic region.

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.

A propensity score matched analysis of robotic and open hepatectomy for treatment of liver tumors. Clinical outcomes, oncological survival, and costs comparison

Minimally invasive robotic hepatectomy is gaining popularity with a faster rate of adoption when compared to laparoscopic approach. Technical advantages brought by the robotic surgical system facilitate a transition from open to minimally invasive technique in hepatic surgery. Published matched data examining the results of robotic hepatectomy using the open approach as a benchmark are still limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, survival, and costs between robotic and open hepatectomy undertaken in our tertiary hepatobiliary center. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 285 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for neoplastic liver diseases between 2012 and 2020. Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open hepatectomy was conducted by 1:1 ratio. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The matching process assigned 49 patients to each arm, open and robotic hepatectomy. There were no differences in R1 resection rates (4% vs 4%; p = 1.00). Differences in perioperative variables between open and robotic hepatectomy included postoperative complications (16% vs 2%; p = 0.02) and length of stay (LOS) [6 (7 ± 5.0) vs 4 (5 ± 4.0) days; p = 0.002]. There were no differences between open and robotic hepatectomy regarding postoperative hepatic insufficiency (10% vs 2%; p = 0.20). No difference was seen in long-term survival outcomes. While there were no differences in costs, robotic hepatectomy was associated with lower reimbursement [$20,432 (39,191 ± 41,467.81) vs $33,190 (67,860 ± 87,707.81); p = 0.04] and lower contribution margin [$-11,229 (3902 ± 42,572.43) vs $8768 (34,690 ± 89,759.56); p = 0.03]. Compared to open approach, robotic hepatectomy robotic offers lower rates of postoperative complications, shorter LOS and similar costs, while not compromising long-term oncological outcomes. Robotic hepatectomy may eventually become the preferred approach in minimally invasive treatment of liver tumors.

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 vs. Open Approach for Older Adults Undergoing Retromuscular Ventral Hernia Repair

OBJECTIVE

To describe 30-day outcomes including post-operative complications, readmissions, and quality of life score changes for older adults undergoing elective ventral hernia repair with retromuscular mesh placement and to compare rates of these outcomes for individuals undergoing robotic versus open approaches.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Over one third of patients presenting for elective ventral hernia repair are over the age of 65 and many have complex surgical histories that warrant intricate hernia repairs. Robotic ventral hernia repairs have gained increasing popularity in the US and in some studies have demonstrated decreased rates of postoperative complications, and less pain resulting in shorter hospital stays. However, the robotic approach has several downsides including prolonged operative times as well as the use of pneumo-peritoneum which may be risky in older patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data in a national hernia specific registry (the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative) and identified patients over the age of 65 undergoing either an open or robotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair. After propensity score matching adjusting for demographic, clinical, and hernia related factors, logistic regression was used to compare 30-day complications, readmission, and quality of life (QoL) scores as captured by the HerQLes scale for patients undergoing each approach.

RESULTS

Of 2128 patients who met inclusion criteria, 1695 (79.7%) underwent open ventral hernia repair while 433 (20.3%) underwent robotic repair. After propensity score matching, there were 350 robotic cases and 759 open cases for analysis. Patients undergoing robotic repairs demonstrated significantly shorter length of stays (1 vs 4 days, P < 0.01) and had equivalent odds of both 30-day post-operative complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.15 95% confidence interval 0.92-1.44) and readmission (OR 1.09 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.6) compared to the open approach. QoL scores were similar between groups at 30 days but were slightly better for robotic patients at 1 year (92 vs 84 P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic ventral hernia repair is an option for appropriately selected older patients undergoing retromuscular ventral hernia repair, demonstrating shorter hospital stays and equivalent rates of complications and readmissions in the post-operative period. However, more data is needed regarding QoL outcomes and long-term function, especially as it relates to recurrence rates, between the two approaches.

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.

Based on the IWATE criteria: to investigate the influence of different surgical approaches on the perioperative outcomes of hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

In terms of perioperative outcomes, compared with traditional open surgery and laparoscopic surgery, studies of robotic liver resection have been limited and must be further clarified.

METHODS

Clinical data from 465 patients who underwent liver resection were collected in this retrospective study, and the IWATE criteria were used to evaluate the difficulty level of each operation. We compared perioperative outcomes of open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches for patients with uncomplicated and complex hepatectomy according to different IWATE scores. Among patients with uncomplicated hepatectomy, the median operation time was significantly longer in the robotic liver resection (RLR) group than in the open liver resection (OLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) groups; however, the RLR group had the shortest hospital stay. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, conversion rate, total complication rate, or serious complication rate among the three groups.

RESULTS

Among patients with complex hepatectomy, the RLR group had the smallest intraoperative blood loss and shortest mean length of stay. The cases converted to open hepatectomy were lower in the RLR group than in the laparoscopic group, mainly based on the IWATE score of expert hepatectomy. The incidence of general and serious postoperative complications in the RLR group was significantly lower than that in the OLR and LLR groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resection is a safe and feasible surgical method that is more advantageous than laparoscopic and open liver resection, especially in complex liver surgery.

Life expectancy of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma according to the upfront treatment: A nationwide analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to update the life expectancy of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in an exhaustive nationwide population according to the upfront treatment performed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From the French Program for the Medicalization of Information System database, all patients older than 18 years diagnosed with a de novo HCC from January 2011 to December 2018 were retrospectively selected. Five-year survival rates (95% confidence intervals [CI]) were computed according to the first surgical or interventional radiology procedures performed.

RESULTS

A total of 63,996 patients (80% men) with a median age of 68 years (Q₁, Q₃: 61, 77) were selected, including 24,007 patients who underwent at least one procedure (5-year survival of 45.5%; (95% CI: 44.8-46.2), and 39,989 with none (5-year survival, 9.6%; (95% CI: 9.3-10.0). Only 20.5% (13,101/63,996) of patients could undergo an upfront curative procedure. Liver transplantation achieved the best outcome, whether performed upfront (n = 791; 5-year survival, 79.0% [95% CI: 76.1-82.1]) or during subsequent steps (n = 2217; 5-year survival 80.9% [95% CI: 79.2-82.7]). Tumor ablation (n = 5306), open resection (n = 5171), and minimally-invasive resection (n = 1833) achieved 5-year survival rates of 53.8% (95% CI: 52.3-55.4), 54.1% (95% CI: 52.6-55.6), and 66.2% (95% CI: 63.7-68.7), respectively, with more patients with cirrhosis and subsequent procedures in the tumor ablation group. Patients with upfront transarterial (chemo)embolization (n = 10,247) and selective internal radiation therapy (n = 659) had 5-year survival rates of 31.3% (95% CI: 30.3-32.4) and 18.5% (95% CI: 15.2-22.5).

CONCLUSION

While HCC remains mostly diagnosed at an advanced stage associated with a poor prognosis, all the curative options provide 5-year survival rates above 50%.

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.

A Prospective Study Using Propensity Score Matching to Compare Long-term Survival Outcomes After Robotic-assisted, Laparoscopic, or Open Liver Resection for Patients With BCLC Stage 0-A Hepatocellular Carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted (RALR), laparoscopic (LLR), or open liver resection (OLR) in the treatment of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage 0-A hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Following the Balliol IDEAL classification, long-term oncological outcomes can be used to evaluate the value of minimally invasive techniques in the treatment of HCC, and to assess whether they should become a standard practice.

METHODS

Data from prospective cohorts of patients with BCLC stage 0-A HCC who underwent curative liver resection using OLR, LLR, or RALR at Tongji Hospital were reviewed. The short-term and long-term oncological outcomes of these 3 different surgical approaches after adequate follow-up were compared using propensity score matching to reduce selection bias.

RESULTS

Of 369 patients included in this study (71, RALR; 141, LLR; and 157, OLR), 56 patients in each of the 3 groups were chosen for further comparison, after propensity score matching. In the minimally invasive group (RALR+LLR), both the operative time and duration of Pringle's maneuver were significantly longer than those in the OLR group; however, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter. There were no significant differences in the other intraoperative parameters and the incidence of postoperative complications among the 3 groups. HCC recurrence in the minimally invasive group when compared with the OLR group was characterized by a significantly higher proportion of single lesion or early-stage HCC. However, there were no significant differences in the 5-year disease-free survival (63.8%, 54.4%, and 50.6%) or overall survival rates (80.8%, 78.6%, and 75.7%, respectively) among the 3 groups. Clinically significant portal hypertension was the only risk factor that negatively affected the 5-year disease-free survival rate. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that clinically significant portal hypertension, serum alpha-fetoprotein level (≥400 ng/mL), and Edmondson-Steiner grading (III+IV) were independent risk factors for poor long-term survival.

CONCLUSION

Both robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomies were safe and effective for patients with BCLC stage 0-A HCC when compared with open hepatectomy.

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.

Robotic major and minor hepatectomy: critical appraisal of learning curve and its impact on outcomes

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatectomy has gained increasing acceptance across the US. Although the robotic approach offers significant technical advantages, it is still bound by the individual surgeon's learning curve. Proficiency in this approach should theoretically lead to improved peri-operative outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2020, data on 148 consecutive robotic hepatectomies performed by a single surgeon was retrospectively analyzed. Using cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, intraoperative blood loss (EBL) and operative time were used to assess learning curves for robotic major (n = 58) and minor (n = 90) hepatectomy patients. Perioperative outcomes were compared in regards with proficiency.

RESULTS

Proficiency for robotic major and minor hepatectomy was achieved after 22 cases and 34 cases, respectively. No significant differences were observed in patient demographics or tumor characteristics. For robotic major hepatectomy, when compared to early experience, proficiency was associated with a significant improvement in mean EBL (242 mL vs 118 mL, p = 0.0004), operative time (330 min vs 247 min, p = 0.0002), decreased overall complication rate (23% vs 3%, p = 0.039), and length of hospital stay (5.7 days vs 4.1 days, p = 0.004). No difference in conversion rate, mortality or 30 day readmission was seen. For robotic minor hepatectomy, proficiency was associated with significantly decreased mean EBL (115 mL vs 54 mL, p = 0.005), operative time (168 vs 125 min, p = 0.014), and length of hospital stay (2.8 days vs 2.1 days, p = 0.021). No difference was observed in conversion rate, overall complications, mortality or 30 day readmission.

CONCLUSION

In the modern era, robotic hepatectomy offers a safe approach with excellent perioperative outcomes. Post learning curve proficiency is associated with significant improvements in perioperative outcomes in both major and minor hepatectomy. Results from our study can serve as a guide to surgeons and programs looking to adopt this technique.

Robotic versus open extended cholecystectomy for T1a–T3 gallbladder cancer: A matched comparison

Background

The feasibility and safety of robotic extended cholecystectomy (REC) are still uncertain. This study was performed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of REC with those of open extended cholecystectomy (OEC) for T1a–T3 gallbladder cancer.

Methods

From January 2015 to April 2022, 28 patients underwent REC in our center. To minimize any confounding factors, a 1:2 propensity score-matching analysis was conducted based on the patients’ demographics, liver function indicators, T stage, and symptoms. The data regarding demographics, perioperative outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes were reviewed.

Results

The visual analogue scale score was significantly lower in the REC than OEC group immediately postoperatively (3.68 ± 2.09 vs. 4.73 ± 1.85, P = 0.008), on postoperative day 1 (2.96 ± 1.75 vs. 3.69 ± 1.41, P = 0.023), and on postoperative day 2 (2.36 ± 1.55 vs. 2.92 ± 1.21, P = 0.031). In addition, the REC group exhibited a shorter time to first ambulation (P = 0.043), a shorter time to drainage tube removal (P = 0.038), and a shorter postoperative stay (P = 0.037), but hospital costs were significantly higher in the REC group (P &lt; 0.001). However, no statistically significant difference was found in the operation time (P = 0.134), intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.467), or incidence of postoperative morbidity (P = 0.227) or mortality (P = 0.289) between the REC and OEC groups. In regard to long-term outcomes, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was comparable between the OEC and REC groups (43.1% vs. 57.2%, P = 0.684), as was the 3-year overall survival rate (62.8% vs. 75.0%, P = 0.619).

Conclusion

REC can be an effective and safe alternative to OEC for selected patients with T1a–T3 gallbladder cancer with respect to short- and long-term outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of survival and post-operation outcomes for minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-matched studies

Background

With the rapid development of minimally invasive techniques and instruments, more and more patients begin to accept minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has obvious advantages in terms of surgical incision, but there is still no strong evidence of its long-term survival effect.

Purpose

The primary objective of this study was to compare long-term survival outcomes between MIH and Open hepatectomy (OH) in hepatocellular carcinoma based on high-quality case-control studies.

Methods

The study on the comparison of MIH (including RH or LH) and OH in the treatment of HCC from the date of establishment to June 1, 2022 was searched through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The main results were long-term overall and disease-free survival and short-term postoperative effect; All studies were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, and meta-analysis of random effect models was adopted.

Results

43 articles included 6673 patients. In these studies, the data from 44 studies need to be extracted and pooled in the meta-analysis. Our results showed that compared with OH group, OS (HR 1.17; 95%CI 1.02, 1.35; P=0.02) and DFS (HR 1.15; 95%CI 1.05, 1.26; P=0.002) in MIH group were slightly lower than those in OH group. The operation time (Z=2.14, P=0.03, MD8.01, 95% CI: 2.60–13.42) was longer than OH group. In terms of length of hospital stay (Z=10.76, p&lt;0.00001, MD -4.0, 95% CI: -4.72 to -3.27), intraoperative blood loss (Z=5.33, P&lt;0.00001, MD -108.33, 95% CI: -148.15 to -68.50), blood transfusion rate (Z=5.06, p&lt;0.00001, OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76, I2 = 0%), postoperative complications (Z=9.24, p&lt;0.00001, OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.55, I2 = 21%), major morbidity (Z=6.11, p&lt;0.00001, OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.59,I2 = 0%), R0 resection (Z=2.34, P=0.02, OR=1.46, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.0, I2 = 0%) and mortality(Z=2.71,P=0.007, OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85), the MIH group was significantly better than the OH group. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of major hepatectomy Z=0.47, P=0.64, OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, I2 = 0%), anatomical resection (Z=0.48, P=0.63, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.67 to 1.27), satellite nodules (Z=0.54, P=0.59, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.23, I2 = 0%), microvascular invasion (Z=1.15, P=0.25, OR=1.11, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.34, I2 = 0%) and recurrence (Z=0.71, p=0.48, OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12, I2 = 19%).

Conclusion

This study is the first to compare the clinical efficacy of MIH and OH in the treatment of HCC based on a high-quality propensity score matching study. The results show that in terms of long-term survival outcomes (OS and DFS), although the gap between MIH and OH is not obvious, OH was better than MIH on the whole. However, in terms of short-term postoperative outcomes (post-operation outcomes), MIH was slightly better than OH.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022332556.

Novel Liver Parenchymal Transection Technique Using Saline-linked Monopolar Cautery Scissors (SLiC-Scissors) in Robotic Liver Resection

Introduction

Although there are a number of benefits to using robotics in liver surgery over conventional open and laparoscopic approaches, liver parenchymal transection is still the most difficult aspect of robotic liver resection (RLR) due to the limitations of the currently available robotic instruments and the lack of a standardized method.

Methods

We present a novel method for transecting the liver parenchyma during RLR employing saline-linked monopolar cautery (SLiC) scissors (SLiC-Scissors method). Between September 2021 and April 2022, 10 RLRs were performed utilizing the SLiC-Scissors method for both anatomical and non-anatomical liver resections. We assessed the short-term results, as well as the safety and practicality of our robotic liver parenchymal transection technique.

Results

Six of the 10 patients had malignant liver tumors, and four of them had liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Except for S1, the target lesions were present everywhere, and their median size was 25 mm (14-43 mm). The median amount of intraoperative bleeding was 5 mL (5-30 mL), and the median operative and console times were 223 and 134 min, respectively. There were no conversions to open liver resections. The median length of the postoperative stay was seven (4-13) days, and there were no serious postoperative complications or mortality.

Conclusions

The SLiC-Scissors method is a safe and practical procedure for liver parenchymal transection in RLR. In order to standardize and broadly implement RLR into normal patient treatment, this unique approach enables an advanced, locally controlled preparation of intrahepatic vessels and bile ducts.

Paradigm shift in the treatment options of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is prevalent worldwide with suboptimal therapeutic outcomes. The advancement of therapeutic options and the development of new systemic therapies expand the armamentarium to tackle HCC. Treatment options should be provided based on the hierarchy of efficacy in a multidisciplinary perspective, instead of the traditional stage-guided scheme. In advanced HCC, lenvatinib has a comparable efficacy as sorafenib for the first-line therapy of HCC; while regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab have been approved as second-line therapy after the failure of sorafenib. Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy prolongs response rate and survival and enables long-term cure. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is superior to sorafenib as the first-line therapy for advanced HCC. Several emerging regimens by the combination of various systemic therapies are currently under clinical trials. Systemic therapy may be used in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant or even as initial therapy for intermediate-stage HCC. The paradigm shift of HCC treatment will improve patient outcomes.

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.

Short- and long-term outcomes following robotic and open resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A national cohort study

BACKGROUND

Curative-intent liver resection with porta hepatis lymphadenectomy provides the best chance for long-term survival for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). While the robotic approach has been increasingly utilized, its impact on perioperative and long-term outcomes of patients with ICC are largely unknown.

METHODS

Patients with stages I-III ICC who underwent surgical resection between 2004 and 2017 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Descriptive statistics and multivariate models were constructed to examine the association between surgical approach and surgical and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1876 patients with ICC who underwent open (n = 1804, 96.2%) and robotic-assisted (n = 72, 3.8%) resection were identified. Following surgery, patients who underwent a robotic-assisted resection had a shorter length of hospital stay yet there was no difference in 30-day readmission or 90-day mortality. Older age, disease stage, and higher comorbidity were associated with worse OS. Patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery had no difference in long-term risk of death compared with patients who underwent an open procedure.

CONCLUSION

This national cohort study demonstrated that the robotic approach for patients undergoing resection for ICC resulted in a shorter hospitalization while not compromising oncological outcomes such as negative margins, postoperative mortality, and long-term survival.

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.

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.

Current status of laparoscopic hepatectomy for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) was first introduced in the 1990s and has now become widely accepted for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is considered a safe and effective approach for liver disease. However, the role of laparoscopic hepatectomy in HCC with cirrhosis remains controversial and needs to be further assessed, and the present literature review aimed to review the surgical and oncological outcomes of Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH). According to Hong and colleagues laparoscopic resection for liver cirrhosis is a very safe and feasible procedure for both ideal cases and select patients with high risk factors [29]. The presence of only 1 of these factors does not represent an absolute contraindication for LH.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We selected 23 studies involving about 1363 HCC patients treated with LH. 364 (27%) patients experienced major resections. The mean operative time was 244.9 minutes, the mean blood loss was 308.1 mL and blood transfusions were required in only 4.9% of patients. There were only 2 (0.21%) postoperative deaths and overall morbidity was 9.9%. Tumor recurrence ranged from 6 to 25 months. The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year disease free Survival (DFS) rates ranged from 71.9% to 99%, 50.3% to 91.2%, and 19% to 82% respectively. Overall survival rates ranged from 88% to 100%, 73.4% to 94.5%, and 52.6% to 94.5% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In our summery LH is lower risk and safer than conventional open liver surgery and is just as efficacious. Also, the LH approach decreased blood-loss, operation time, postoperative morbidity and had a lower conversion rate compared to other procedures whether open or robotic. Finally, LH may serve as a promising alternative to open procedures.

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.

Implementing a robotic liver resection program does not always require prior laparoscopic experience

Background

Preliminary experience in laparoscopic liver surgery is usually suggested prior to implementation of a robotic liver resection program.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing robotic (RLR) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma at a center with concomitant initiation of robotic and laparoscopic programs

Results

A total of 92 consecutive patients operated on between May 2014 and February 2019 were included: 40 RLR versus 52 LLR. Median age (69 vs. 67; p = 0.74), male sex (62.5% vs. 59.6%; p = 0.96), incidence of chronic liver disease (97.5% vs.98.1%; p = 0.85), median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (8 vs. 9; p = 0.92), and median largest nodule size (22 vs. 24 mm) were similar between RLR and LLR. In the LLR group, there was a numerically higher incidence of nodules located in segment 4 (20.0% vs. 16.6%; p = 0.79); a numerically higher use of Pringle’s maneuver (32.7% vs. 20%; p = 0.23), and a shorter duration of surgery (median of 165.5 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.04). Incidence of complications (25% vs.32.7%; p = 0.49), blood transfusions (2.5% vs.9.6%; p = 0.21), and median length of stay (6 vs. 5; p = 0.54) were similar between RLR and LLR. The overall (OS) and recurrence-free (RFS) survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 100 and 79 and 95 and 26% for RLR versus 96.2 and 76.9 and 84.6 and 26.9% for LLR (log-rank p = 0.65 for OS and 0.72 for RFS).

Conclusions

Based on our results, concurrent implementation of a robotic and laparoscopic liver resection program appears feasible and safe, and is associated with similar oncologic long-term outcomes.

Improving safety of robotic major hepatectomy with extrahepatic inflow control and laparoscopic CUSA parenchymal transection: technical description and initial experience

BACKGROUND

Blood loss is a major determinant of outcomes following hepatectomy. Robotic technology enables hepatobiliary surgeons to mimic open techniques for inflow control and parenchymal transection during major hepatectomy, increasing the ability to minimize blood loss and perform safe liver resections.

METHODS

Initial experience of 20 consecutive major robotic hepatectomies from November 2018 to July 2020 at two co-located institutions was reviewed. All cases were performed with extrahepatic inflow control and parenchymal transection with the laparoscopic cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA), and a technical description is illustrated. Clinical characteristics, operative data, and surgical outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The median (range) patient age was 58 years (20-76) and the majority of 14 (70%) patients were ASA III-IV. There were 12 (60%) resections for malignancy and the median tumor size was 6.2 cm (1.2-14.6). Right or extended right hepatectomy was the most common procedure (12 or 60% of cases). There were 7 (35%) left or extended left hepatectomies and 1 (5%) central hepatectomy. The median operative time was 420 (177-622) minutes. Median estimated blood loss was 300 mL (25-800 mL). One (5%) case was converted to open. Two (10%) patients required blood transfusion. The median length of stay was 3 (1-6) days. Major complications included 1 (5%) Clavien-Dindo IIIa bile leak requiring percutaneous drainage placement. There was no 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

Advanced techniques to reduce blood loss in robotic hepatectomy may optimize safety and minimize morbidity in these complex minimally invasive procedures.

Persistent opioid use after curative-intent hepatectomy for neoplastic disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study analyzed persistent opioid use in opioid-naïve and nonopioid-naïve patients undergoing hepatectomy for neoplastic disease.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of a prospective database using inclusion criteria of hepatectomy for neoplastic disease from October 2013 to December 2017. Prescription data were collected from the North Carolina Controlled Substance Reporting System. Persistent opioid use was defined as patients who continued filling opioid prescriptions 90 days to 1 year after surgery. Patients who did not receive opioid prescriptions between 12 months and 31 days before surgery were defined as naïve.

RESULTS

The analysis included 75 surgeries on naïve and 58 surgeries on nonnaïve patients. 56% of naïve patients and 79% of nonnaïve patients developed persistent opioid use, respectively (p = .0056). Naïve patients received 2.24 ± 4.30 MMEs/day, while nonnaïve patients received 5.50 ± 5.98 MMEs/day during Postoperative days 90-360 (95% CI, 1.41-5.10; p < .001). Naïve patients with a lower Preoperative ECOG score were more likely to develop persistent opioid use (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.99; p = .048).

CONCLUSION

More than half of naïve patients undergoing hepatectomy developed persistent opioid use within the first year, though significantly less than nonnaïve patients. Improved performance status was associated with an increased risk of persistent opioid use in naïve patients.

Comparison between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic left hemi-hepatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic left hemi-hepatectomies in a single academic medical center.

METHODS

A cohort of 52 patients, who underwent robotic-assisted or laparoscopic left hemi-hepatectomies between April 2015 and January 2020 in Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University was recruited into the study. Their clinicopathological features and short-term outcomes were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

There were 25 robotic-assisted and 27 laparoscopic cases, with a median age of 55 years (34-77 years). There was one conversion to open in laparoscopic group. There were no significant differences in clinicopathological features between two groups, except robotic group had higher body mass index (23.9 vs. 22.0 kg/m², p = 0.047). Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic groups had similar operative time (300 vs. 310 min, p = 0.515), length of hospital stay (8 vs. 8 days, p = 0.981) and complication rates (4.0% vs. 14.8%, p = 0.395), but the former had less blood loss (100 vs. 200 ml, p < 0.001) and lower incidence of blood transfusion (0% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.023) in comparison with laparoscopic group. R0 resection was achieved for all patients with malignancies. There was no perioperative mortality in both groups. The cost of robotic group was higher than laparoscopic group (105,870 vs. 64,191 RMB yuan, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The robotic-assisted and laparoscopic approaches had similar safety and short-term outcomes in left hemi-hepatectomy, and the former can reduce operative blood loss and blood transfusion. However, the costs were higher in robotic group.

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.

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.

Robotic major liver resections: Surgical outcomes compared with open major liver resections

Backgrounds/Aims

Laparoscopic major liver resections are still considered innovative procedures despite the recent development of laparoscopic liver surgery. Robotic surgery has been introduced as an innovative system for laparoscopic surgery. In this study, we investigated surgical outcomes after major liver resections using robotic systems.

Methods

From January 2009 to October 2018, 70 patients underwent robotic major liver resections, which included conventional major liver resections and right sectionectomy. The short-term and long-term outcomes were compared with 252 open major resections performed during the same period.

Results

Operative time was longer in the robotic group (472 min vs. 349 min, p<0.001). However, estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic group compared with the open resection group (269 ml vs. 548 ml, p=0.009). The overall postoperative complication rate of the robotic group was lower than that of the open resection group (31.4% vs. 58.3%, p<0.001), but the major complication rate was similar between the two groups. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (9.5 days vs. 15.1 days, p=0.006). Among patients with HCC, cholangiocarcinoma, and colorectal liver metastasis, there was no difference in overall and disease-free survival between the two groups. After propensity score matching in 37 patients with HCC for each group, the robotic group still showed a shorter hospital stay and comparable long-term outcomes.

Conclusions

Robotic major liver resections provided improved perioperative outcomes and comparable long-term oncologic outcome compared with open resections. Therefore, robotic surgery should be considered one of the options for minimally invasive major liver resections.

Changing trends in hepatocellular carcinoma management: Results from a nationwide database in the last decade

OBJECTIVE

The therapeutic strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have greatly expanded in recent years. However, the actual usage of each of these treatments in clinical routine remains unknown. Here, we analysed the distribution and changes of the main surgical and radiological therapeutic procedures nationwide during the last decade.

METHODS

Retrospectively, analysis of the data on all >18-year-old patients with a diagnosis of HCC identified in the French Program for the Medicalization of Information Systems database that contains all discharge summaries from all French hospitals. The number and percentage of the therapeutic procedures performed from January 2010 to December 2019 were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 68,416 therapeutic procedures were performed in 34,000 HCC patients. Whereas HCC incidence remained stable, the annual number of procedures frankly increased over the decade (from 4267 to 8042). Trans-arterial chemoembolization was the most frequently performed technical procedure, with a double-digit annual growth from 2010 (n = 1932) to 2015 (n = 4085), before stabilization from 2016. Selective internal radiation therapy displayed the highest increase in the decade (+475%). Among curative treatments, the annual number of percutaneous tumour ablations more than doubled in 10 years, till representing 64% of curative treatments in cirrhotic patients in 2019. Surgical tumour resections showed a 1.5-fold increase in 10 years, due to the great increase in minimally invasive approaches, whereas the proportion of open resection progressively decreased.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive procedures have gained major importance in HCC management during the last decade. Percutaneous thermal ablation has emerged as the first curative treatment performed for patients with HCC.

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.

Robotic Liver Surgery - Current Standards and Future Perspectives

BACKGROUND

 Robotic liver surgery is emerging as the future of minimal invasive surgery. The robotic surgical system offers a stable camera platform, elimination of physiologic tremor, augmented surgical dexterity as well as improved ergonomics because of a seated operating position. Due to the theoretical advantages of the robotic assisted system, complex liver surgery might be an especially interesting indication for a robotic approach since it demands delicate tissue dissection, precise intracorporeal suturing as well as difficult parenchymal transection with subsequent need for meticulous hemostasis and biliostasis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 An analysis of English and German literature on open, laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery was performed and this review provides a general overview of the existing literature along with current standards and aims to specifically point out future directions of robotic liver surgery.

RESULTS

 Robotic liver surgery is safe and feasible compared to open and laparoscopic surgery, with improved short-term postoperative outcomes and at least non-inferior oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSION

 In complex cases including major hepatectomies, extended hepatectomies with biliary reconstruction and difficult segmentectomies of the posterior-superior segments, robotic surgery appears to emerge as a reasonable alternative to open surgery rather than being an alternative to laparoscopic procedures.

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.

Modern therapeutic approaches for the treatment of malignant liver tumours

Malignant liver tumours include a wide range of primary and secondary tumours. Although surgery remains the mainstay of curative treatment, modern therapies integrate a variety of neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies and have achieved dramatic improvements in survival. Extensive tumour loads, which have traditionally been considered unresectable, are now amenable to curative treatment through systemic conversion chemotherapies followed by a variety of interventions such as augmentation of the healthy liver through portal vein occlusion, staged surgeries or ablation modalities. Liver transplantation is established in selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma but is now emerging as a promising option in many other types of tumour such as perihilar cholangiocarcinomas, neuroendocrine or colorectal liver metastases. In this Review, we summarize the available therapies for the treatment of malignant liver tumours, with an emphasis on surgical and ablative approaches and how they align with other therapies such as modern anticancer drugs or radiotherapy. In addition, we describe three complex case studies of patients with malignant liver tumours. Finally, we discuss the outlook for future treatment, including personalized approaches based on molecular tumour subtyping, response to targeted drugs, novel biomarkers and precision surgery adapted to the specific tumour.

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.

Association of surgical approach and prolonged opioid prescriptions in patients undergoing major pelvic cancer procedures

BACKGROUND

The rise in deaths attributed to opioid drugs has become a major public health problem in the United States and in the world. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with a faster postoperative recovery and our aim was to investigate if the use of MIS was associated with lower odds of prolonged opioid prescriptions after major procedures.

METHODS

Retrospective study using the IBM Watson Health Marketscan® Commerical Claims and Encounters Database investigating opioid-naïve cancer patients aged 18-64 who underwent open versus MIS radical prostatectomy (RP), partial colectomy (PC) or hysterectomy (HYS) from 2012 to 2017. Propensity weighted logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the independent effect of surgical approach on prolonged opioid prescriptions, defined as prescriptions within 91-180 days of surgery.

RESULTS

Overall, 6838 patients underwent RP (MIS 85.5%), 4480 patients underwent PC (MIS 61.6%) and 1620 patients underwent HYS (MIS 41.8%). Approximately 70-80% of all patients had perioperative opioid prescriptions. In the weighted model, patients undergoing MIS were significantly less likely to have prolonged opioid prescriptions in all three surgery types (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.737, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.595-0.914, p = 0.006; OR 0.728, 95% CI 0.600-0.882, p = 0.001; OR 0.655, 95% CI 0.466-0.920, p = 0.015, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The use of the MIS was associated with lower odds of prolonged opioid prescription in all procedures examined. While additional studies such as clinical trials are needed for further confirmation, our findings need to be considered for patient counseling as postoperative differences between approaches do exist.

Applying the Delphi process for development of a hepatopancreaticobiliary robotic surgery training curriculum

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) procedures are performed worldwide and establishing processes for safe adoption of this technology is essential for patient benefit. We report results of the Delphi process to define and optimize robotic training procedures for HPB surgeons.

METHODS

In 2019, a robotic HPB surgery panel with an interest in surgical training from the Americas and Europe was created and met. An e-consensus-finding exercise using the Delphi process was applied and consensus was defined as 80% agreement on each question. Iterations of anonymous voting continued over three rounds.

RESULTS

Members agreed on several points: there was need for a standardized robotic training curriculum for HPB surgery that considers experience of surgeons and based on a robotic hepatectomy includes a common approach for "basic robotic skills" training (e-learning module, including hardware description, patient selection, port placement, docking, troubleshooting, fundamentals of robotic surgery, team training and efficiency, and emergencies) and an "advanced technical skills curriculum" (e-learning, including patient selection information, cognitive skills, and recommended operative equipment lists). A modular approach to index procedures should be used with video demonstrations, port placement for index procedure, troubleshooting, and emergency scenario management information. Inexperienced surgeons should undergo training in basic robotic skills and console proficiency, transitioning to full procedure training of e-learning (video demonstration, simulation training, case observation, and final evaluation). Experienced surgeons should undergo basic training when using a new system (e-learning, dry lab, and operating room (OR) team training, virtual reality modules, and wet lab; case observations were unnecessary for basic training) and should complete the advanced index procedural robotic curriculum with assessment by wet lab, case observation, and OR team training.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimization and standardization of training and education of HPB surgeons in robotic procedures was agreed upon. Results are being incorporated into future curriculum for education in robotic surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of the learning curves for robotic left and right hemihepatectomy: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Robotic hepatectomy has been continuously improving and shown to be safe and reliable. The learning curve of robotic hemihepatectomy is required which enable beginners to benefit from previous experience. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curve of robotic left (RLH) and right hemihepatectomy (RRH) in terms of operative time (OT) to determine which procedure has an easier learning curve for beginners.

METHODS

Data records for each 100 consecutive patients who underwent RLH and RRH between July 2012 and May 2019 were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. The data included demographics, OT, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative hospital stay (PHS), and rates of morbidity and mortality. The cumulative sum method was used to evaluate the learning curve of OT.

RESULTS

All patients underwent the RRH and RLH procedure performed by the same surgical team. RRH and RLH learning curve consisted of two phases: the first and second phase. The first phase of RRH included 45 patients, while RLH outcomes were optimized after 35 cases were completed. Compared with the first phase, the mean OT and the median blood loss were decreased significantly in the second phase in both learning curves. No significant decrease in the rates of morbidity and conversion to laparotomy or PHS was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the safety and feasibility of RLH and RRH. The surgeons who previously lacked robotic experience are able to overcome the learning curve for RLH faster than RRH.