Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes Following Robotic Liver Resections for Primary Hepatobiliary Malignancies: A Multicenter Study

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults

Deaths from the majority of cancers are falling globally, but the incidence and mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing in the United Kingdom and in other Western countries. HCC is a highly fatal cancer, often diagnosed late, with an incidence to mortality ratio that approaches 1. Despite there being a number of treatment options, including those associated with good medium to long-term survival, 5-year survival from HCC in the UK remains below 20%. Sex, ethnicity and deprivation are important demographics for the incidence of, and/or survival from, HCC. These clinical practice guidelines will provide evidence-based advice for the assessment and management of patients with HCC. The clinical and scientific data underpinning the recommendations we make are summarised in detail. Much of the content will have broad relevance, but the treatment algorithms are based on therapies that are available in the UK and have regulatory approval for use in the National Health Service.

Gallbladder cancer: surgical treatment, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy

Gallbladder cancer is a common type of biliary tract tumor. Optimal management for early stage cases typically involves radical excision as the primary treatment modality. Various surgical techniques, including laparoscopic, robotic, and navigational surgery, have demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes in radical gallbladder excision. Unfortunately, most patients are ineligible for surgical intervention because of the advanced stage of the disease upon diagnosis. Consequently, non-surgical interventions, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy, have become the mainstay of treatment for patients in advanced stages. This review focuses on elucidating various surgical techniques as well as advancements in immunotherapy and targeted therapy in the context of recent advancements in gallbladder cancer research.

Comparing robotic and open surgical techniques in gallbladder cancer management: a detailed systematic review and meta-analysis

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and oncological outcomes of robotic surgery compared to open surgery in treating gallbladder cancer (GBC). In October 2023, we performed a literature search across major global databases such as PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We employed a Review Manager for parameter comparisons. This study has been registered with PROSPERO under the identifier CRD42023476686. Our final meta-analysis incorporated 5 cohort studies, encompassing a total of 353 patients. Compared to the Open Group (OG), the Robotic Group (RG) had reduced intraoperative blood loss (WMD - 217.72 ml, 95% CI - 371.08 to - 64.35; p = 0.005), shorter hospital stay (WMD - 1.80 days, 95% CI - 2.66 to - 0.95; p < 0.0001), and fewer overall complications (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10-0.97; p = 0.04). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of operation duration, postoperative inpatient days, readmission rate, major complications, 1-year postoperative survival, 2-year postoperative survival, and mortality rates. In our study, we found that for patients with gallbladder cancer, robotic radical cholecystectomy offers certain potential advantages over open radical cholecystectomy. This suggests that robotic radical cholecystectomy might be the optimal choice for treating gallbladder cancer. However, further validation from high-quality randomized clinical trials is required.

Innovations in surgery for gallbladder cancer: A review of robotic surgery as a feasible and safe option

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted surgical techniques in the treatment of gallbladder cancer, comparing it with traditional open and laparoscopic methods.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature searched for comparative analyses of patient outcomes following robotic, open, and laparoscopic surgeries, focusing on oncological results and perioperative benefits.

RESULTS

Five total studies published between 2019 and 2023 were identified. Findings indicate that robotic-assisted surgery for gallbladder cancer is as effective as traditional methods in terms of oncological outcomes, with potential advantages in precision and perioperative recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery offers a viable and potentially advantageous alternative for gallbladder cancer treatment, warranting further research to confirm its benefits and establish comprehensive surgical guidelines.

Robotic approach for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: from Bismuth 1 to vascular resection

BACKGROUND

Implementation of minimally invasive surgical approaches for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) has been relatively slow compared to other indications. This is due to the complexity of the disease and the need of advanced skills for the reconstructive phase. The robot may contribute to close the gap between open and minimally invasive surgery in patients with Klastkin tumors.

STUDY DESIGN

We report details of our experience with robotic approach in patients affected by pCCA. In particular selection criteria, ERAS management, technical tips and robotic setup are discussed. Finally, results from our cohort are reported. A video clip of a patient that underwent left hepatectomy with en-bloc caudatectomy and portal vein resection at the confluence with end-to-end reconstruction for a pCCA 3-b according to Bismuth-Corlette classification with full robotic approach is enclosed.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients underwent robotic resection of pCCA over the three-year interval with a median follow-up interval of 18.7 months. The pre-operative Bismuth-Corlette classification was 1 for two patients (14.2%) and 2 for one patient (7.1%), 3-a for three (21.4%) patients, 3-b for four (28.6%) patients and 4 for four (28.6%) patients. Median estimated blood loss was 150 ml (range 50-800 ml) and median operative time was 490 min (range 390-750 min). The median length of hospital stay after the index operation was 6 days (range 3-91). Final histology revealed a median of 19 (range 11-40) lymph nodes retrieved, with 92.9% R0 resections. 90-days mortality was nihil and 3-year survival exceeds 50%.

CONCLUSION

With adequate preparation, outcomes of robotic approach to pCCA can be safe and in line with the current international benchmark outcomes, as showed in this study, when performed in expert high volume centers for complex major hepatectomy and robotic HPB.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections: propensity-matched comparison of two-center experience

BACKGROUND

The advantages of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) are still debated. This study compares the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) liver resections in propensity score matched cohorts.

METHODS

Data regarding minimally invasive liver resections in two liver surgery units were retrospectively reviewed. A propensity score matched analysis (1:1 ratio) identified two groups of patients with similar characteristics. Intra- and post-operative outcomes were then compared. The difficulty of MILS was based on the IWATE criteria.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-nine patients underwent MILS between January 2014 and December 2021 (LLR = 192; RLR = 77). Propensity score matching identified 148 cases (LLR = 74; RLR = 74) consisting of compensated cirrhotic patients (100%) underwent non-anatomic resection of IWATE 1-2 class (90.5%) for a solitary tumor < 5 cm in diameter (93.2%). In such patients, RLRs had shorter operative time (227 vs. 250 min, p = 0.002), shorter Pringle's cumulative time (12 vs. 28 min, p < 0.0001), and less blood loss (137 vs. 209 cc, p = 0.006) vs. LLRs. Conversion rate was nihil (both groups). In RLRs compared to LLRs, R0 rate (93 vs. 96%, p > 0.71) and major morbidity (4.1 vs. 5.4%, p > 0.999) were similar, without post-operative mortality. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (6.2 vs. 6.6, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study supports the non-inferiority of RLR over LLR. In compensated cirrhotic patients underwent resection of low-to-intermediate difficulty for a solitary nodule < 5 cm, RLR was faster, with less blood loss despite the shorter hilar clamping, and required shorter hospitalization compared to LLR.

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

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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 Surgery for Biliary Tract Cancer

Biliary tract cancer consists of cholangiocarcinoma (CC) and gallbladder cancer (GBC). When resectable, surgery provides the best chance at long-term survival. Unfortunately, surgery for these tumors is associated with long operative times, high morbidities, and prolonged hospital stays. Minimally invasive surgery has been shown to impact selected outcomes, including length of stay, in other diseases, and robotic surgery may offer additional advantages compared to laparoscopic surgery in treating bile duct cancers. This is a systematic review of robotic surgery for biliary tract cancer. Predetermined selection criteria were used to appraise the literature. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. In total, 20 unique articles with a total of 259 patients with biliary tract cancer undergoing robotic surgery met the inclusion criteria. For CC and GBC, respectively, the weighted average operative time was 401 and 277 min, the estimated blood loss was 348 and 260 mL, the conversion rate to open was 7 and 3.5%, the all-cause morbidity was 52 and 9.7%, the major morbidity was 12 and 4.4%, the perioperative mortality was 1.4 and 0%, the length of stay was 15 and 4.8 days, the positive margin rate was 27 and 9%, and the number of lymph nodes retrieved was 4.2 and 8. Robotic surgery for biliary tract cancer appears non-inferior to open surgery when compared to the published contemporary data. However, the current literature on the topic is of low quality, and future prospective/randomized studies are needed.

Treatment of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma-A Multidisciplinary Approach

Simple Summary

This review discusses multimodality treatment strategies for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC). Surgical resection remains the only potentially curative therapeutic option and the central cornerstone of treatment. Adjuvant systemic treatment will be recommended after resection or in the palliative setting. Increasing knowledge of phenotypic subclassification and molecular profiling allows investigation of targeted therapies as (neo-)adjuvant treatment. High-dose brachytherapy, internal radiation therapy, and transarterial chemoembolization are among the interventional treatment options being evaluated for unresectable iCC. Given the multiple options of multidisciplinary management, any treatment strategy should be discussed in a multidisciplinary tumor board and treatment should be directed by a specialized treatment center.

Abstract

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC) is distinguished as an entity from perihilar and distal cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma. Recently, molecular profiling and histopathological features have allowed further classification. Due to the frequent delay in diagnosis, the prognosis for iCC remains poor despite major technical advances and multimodal therapeutic approaches. Liver resection represents the therapeutic backbone and only curative treatment option, with the functional residual capacity of the liver and oncologic radicality being deciding factors for postoperative and long-term oncological outcome. Furthermore, in selected cases and depending on national guidelines, liver transplantation may be a therapeutic option. Given the often advanced tumor stage at diagnosis or the potential for postoperative recurrence, locoregional therapies have become increasingly important. These strategies range from radiofrequency ablation to transarterial chemoembolization to selective internal radiation therapy and can be used in combination with liver resection. In addition, adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapies as well as targeted therapies and immunotherapies based on molecular profiles can be applied. This review discusses multimodal treatment strategies for iCC and their differential use.

Multivisceral Resection in Robotic Liver Surgery

Simple Summary

Liver surgery can be performed simultaneously with operations to remove other organs in certain circumstances, such as removal of colorectal cancer in the colon or rectum at the same time as metastatic lesions to the liver. These types of operations have been performed as open or laparoscopic procedures; however, more recently, they can be performed with a robotic approach. In this article, we review the literature and describe robotic liver resections performed with robotic resection of other organs, including colon, rectum, and pancreas. These published reports demonstrate that, in select cases and experienced hands, robotic multivisceral resection can be safely performed with good outcomes.

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery techniques are expanding in utilization in liver resections and now include robotic approaches. Robotic liver resection has been demonstrated to have several benefits, including surgeon ergonomics, wrist articulation, and 3D visualization. Similarly, for multivisceral liver resections, the use of minimally invasive techniques has evolved and expanded from laparoscopy to robotics. The aim of this article is to review the literature and describe multivisceral resections, including hepatectomy, using a robotic technique. We describe over 50 published cases of simultaneous robotic liver resection with colon or rectal resection. In addition, we describe several pancreatectomies performed with liver resection and one extra-abdominal pulmonary resection with liver resection. In total, these select reported cases at experienced centers demonstrate the safety of robotic multivisceral resection in liver surgery with acceptable morbidity and rare conversion to open surgery. As robotic technology advances and experience with robotic techniques grows, robotic multivisceral resection in liver surgery should continue to be investigated in future studies.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Robotic Resection of Gallbladder Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Comparative Study to Open Resection

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is gaining support for resection of gallbladder cancer (GBC). This study aims to compare operative and early outcomes of robotic resection (RR) to open resection (OR) from a single institution performing a high volume of robotic HPB surgery.

METHODS

Twenty patients with GBC underwent RR from January 2013 to August 2019. Outcomes were compared to a historical control of 23 patients with OR. Radical cholecystectomy for suspected GBC and completion operations for incidental GBC after routine cholecystectomy were both included.

RESULTS

Robotic resection had lower blood loss compared to OR (150 vs 350 mL, P = .002) and shorter postoperative length of stay (2.5 vs 6 days, P < .001), while median operative time was similar (193 vs 208 min, P = .604). There were no statistical differences in 30-day major complications or readmissions. No 30-day mortalities occurred. There was no statistical difference in survival trend (P = .438) or median lymph node harvest (5 vs 3, P = .189) for RR compared to OR.

CONCLUSION

Robotic resection of GBC is safe and efficient, with lower length of hospital stay and blood loss compared to OR. Technical benefits of robotic-assisted surgery may prove advantageous though larger studies are still needed.

Robotic infrahepatic vena cava clamping and Pringle manoeuvre for major hepatectomy: A safe and bloodless procedure - First technical report

Mini-invasive approaches in hepatic surgery are associated with a significant decrease in the incidence of post-operative morbidity and liver failure. Intraoperative blood loss represents the major intraoperative accident during hepatectomy. Infrahepatic inferior vena cava clamping is an emerging technical trick which guarantees a lower intraoperative blood loss and transfusion rates during liver surgery. Herein, we present the first report of infrahepatic caval clamping during robotic hepatectomy at our centre, highlighting some technical tips and tricks.

Current Surgical Management of Peri-Hilar and Intra-Hepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Cholangiocarcinoma accounts for approximately 10% of all hepatobiliary tumors and represents 3% of all new-diagnosed malignancies worldwide. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (i-CCA) accounts for 10% of all cases, perihilar (h-CCA) cholangiocarcinoma represents two-thirds of the cases, while distal cholangiocarcinoma accounts for the remaining quarter. Originally described by Klatskin in 1965, h-CCA represents one of the most challenging tumors for hepatobiliary surgeons, mainly because of the anatomical vascular relationships of the biliary confluence at the hepatic hilum. Surgery is the only curative option, with the goal of a radical, margin-negative (R0) tumor resection. Continuous efforts have been made by hepatobiliary surgeons in order to achieve R0 resections, leading to the progressive development of aggressive approaches that include extended hepatectomies, associating liver partition, and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, pre-operative portal vein embolization, and vascular resections. i-CCA is an aggressive biliary cancer that arises from the biliary epithelium proximal to the second-degree bile ducts. The incidence of i-CCA is dramatically increasing worldwide, and surgical resection is the only potentially curative therapy. An aggressive surgical approach, including extended liver resection and vascular reconstruction, and a greater application of systemic therapy and locoregional treatments could lead to an increase in the resection rate and the overall survival in selected i-CCA patients. Improvements achieved over the last two decades and the encouraging results recently reported have led to liver transplantation now being considered an appropriate indication for CCA patients.

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.

Robotic liver surgery: literature review and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) have been gaining popularity over the last decades. MILR provides superior peri-operative outcome. Despite these advantages, the penetrance of MILR in the clinical setting has been limited, and it was slowed down, among other factors, also by the laparoscopic technological limitations.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature review has been carried out (Pubmed, Embase and Scopus platforms) focusing on the role of robotic surgery in MILR.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The literature review results are presented and our additional remarks on the topic are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic MILR has been helping to expand the penetrance of MIS in liver surgery by making possible increasingly more challenging procedures. Minor resections still represent most of the robotic liver surgery data currently available. Robotic liver surgery is safe and effective, and it shows perioperative outcomes comparable with laparoscopic and open surgery. The oncological efficacy, within the limitations of the current level of evidence (mostly retrospective studies and literature heterogeneity), seems to show promising result. High quality prospective randomized studies, the use of prospective registry data, and multi-institutional efforts are needed.

An essential technique for modern hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: minimally invasive biliary reconstruction

Introduction: Minimally invasive reconstruction of the biliary tract is complex and involves multiple steps. The procedure is challenging and has been an essential technique in modern hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery in recent years. Additionally, the quality of the reconstruction directly affects long-and short-term complications and affects the prognosis and quality of life. Various minimally invasive reconstruction methods have been developed to improve the reconstruction effect; however, the optimal method remains controversial. Areas covered: In this study, were viewed published studies of minimally invasive biliary reconstruction within the last 5 years and discussed the current status and main complications of minimally invasive biliary reconstruction. More importantly, we introduced the current reconstruction strategies and technical details of minimally invasive biliary reconstruction, which may be potentially helpful for surgeons to choose reconstruction methods and improve reconstruction quality. Expert opinion: Although several improved and modified methods for biliary reconstruction have been developed recently, no single approach is optimal or adaptable to all situations. Patient-specific selection of appropriate technical strategies according to different situations combined with sophisticated and skilled minimally invasive techniques effectively improves the quality of anastomosis and reduces complications.

IWATE criteria are associated with perioperative outcomes in robotic hepatectomy: a retrospective review of 225 resections

Background

Robotic hepatectomy (RH) is increasingly utilized for minor and major liver resections. The IWATE criteria were developed to classify minimally invasive liver resections by difficulty. The objective of this study was to apply the IWATE criteria in RH and to describe perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RH over the last decade at our institution.

Methods

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of patients who underwent RH between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively collected. The difficulty level of each operation was assessed using the IWATE criteria, and outcomes were compared at each level. Univariate linear regression was performed to characterize the relationship between IWATE criteria and perioperative outcomes (OR time, EBL, and LOS), and a multivariable model was also developed to address potential confounding by patient characteristics (age, sex, BMI, prior abdominal surgery, ASA class, and simultaneous non-hepatectomy operation).

Results

Two hundred and twenty-five RH were performed. Median IWATE criteria for RH were 6 (IQR 5–9), with low, intermediate, advanced, and expert resections accounting for 23% (n = 51), 34% (n = 77), 32% (n = 72), and 11% (n = 25) of resections, respectively. The majority of resections were parenchymal-sparing approaches, including anatomic segmentectomies and non-anatomic partial resections. 30-day complication rate was 14%, conversion to open surgery occurred in 9 patients (4%), and there were no deaths within 30 days postoperatively. In the univariate linear regression analysis, IWATE criteria were positively associated with OR time, EBL, and LOS. In the multivariable model, IWATE criteria were independently associated with greater OR time, EBL, and LOS. Two-year overall survival for hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma was 94% and 50%, respectively.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the IWATE criteria are associated with surgical outcomes after RH. This series highlights the utility of RH for difficult hepatic resections, particularly parenchymal-sparing resections in the posterosuperior sector, extending the indication of minimally invasive hepatectomy in experienced hands and potentially offering select patients an alternative to open hepatectomy or other less definitive liver-directed treatment options.

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.

Long-Term and Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter, Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases as compared to a propensity-matched cohort of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). Although safety and short-term outcomes of RLR have been described and previously compared to LLR, long-term and oncologic data are lacking.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed of all patients who underwent RLR and LLR for CRC metastases at six high-volume centers in the USA and Europe between 2002 and 2017. Propensity matching was used to match baseline characteristics between the two groups. Data were analyzed with a focus on postoperative and oncologic outcomes, as well as long-term recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

RLR was performed in 115 patients, and 514 patients underwent LLR. Following propensity matching 115 patients in each cohort were compared. Perioperative outcomes including mortality, morbidity, reoperation, readmission, intensive care requirement, length-of-stay and margin status were not statistically different. Both prematching and postmatching analyses demonstrated similar overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between RLR and LLR at 5 years (61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.87, and 38 vs. 31% DFS, p = 0.25, prematching; 61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.78, and 38 vs. 44% DFS, p = 0.62, postmatching).

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity score matching with a large, multicenter database demonstrates that RLR for colorectal metastases is feasible and safe, with perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes and survival that are largely comparable to LLR.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a rare and aggressive hepatic malignancy. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted aiming to compare outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for patients with iCCA. A systematic literature search of Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed. A total of 8 studies comprising 2872 patients, who underwent LLR or OLR for iCCA, were included in our meta-analysis. LLR patients had smaller tumors [mean difference (MD): - 1.17 cm, 95% confidence intervals (CI) - 1.77 to - 0.57, p = 0.0001], underwent major resections less frequently [risk ratio (RR): 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.83, p < 0.00001] and R0 resections more frequently (RR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.01), while lymphadenectomy was less common in the laparoscopic group (RR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.92, p = 0.007). The LLR group presented reduced blood loss (MD: - 270.16 ml, 95% CI - 381.53 to - 32.79, p = 0.002), need for transfusion (RR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73, p = 0.003), overall morbidity (RR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.4-0.83, p = 0.003) and hospital stay (MD: - 3.48 days, 95% CI: - 6.94 to - 0.02, p = 0.05) compared to the OLR group. No differences were shown in operative time (MD: 1.6 min, 95% CI - 34.17-37.37, p = 0.93), major morbidity (RR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.38-1.11, p = 0.12), mortality (RR: 1.42, 95% CI 0.13-15.07, p = 0.77), overall (HR: 0.9, 95% CI 0.59-1.38, p = 0.63) and relapse-free survival (HR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.5-1.16, p = 0.21) between the two groups. LLR seems to benefit patients with iCCA in terms of short-term outcomes, whilst long-term outcomes are comparable among the two approaches.

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.

Current status and future perspectives of minimally invasive surgery in gallbladder carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Gallbladder carcinoma (GBC) is the most common biliary tract malignancy, which is characterized by easy local invasion, lymph nodes metastasis, local vascular invasion. Hence, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can be performed in a limited number of patients. In our study, we reviewed the current studies on laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic surgery (RS) for GBC and analysed the limitations and difficulties of MIS for GBC.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were used for a systematic literature retrieval. All studies involving MIS of GBC were included (up to August 2019).

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies were included, of which 18 studies involved LS for GBC and six studies concerned RS of GBC. For LS, 16 studies contained relevant information of T stage, and 323 patients (98.8%) had T3 or lower stage; the average rate of R0 resection, conversion, postoperative complications and mortality was 95.3% (range 80.5-100%), 1.9% (range 0-16.7%), 13.4% (range 0-33.3%) and 1.0% (range 0-10%), respectively. For RS, four studies contained relevant information of T stage, and all patients were T3 or lower stage; the average rate of R0 resection, conversion and postoperative complications was 96.8% (range 81.8-100%), 5.5% (range 0-14.8%) and11.9% (range 0-36.4%), respectively. In addition, no patient had perioperative mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS for GBC is limited to highly selected patients and is considered to be technically feasible in experienced surgeons. However, improvements in technical and instrumental are needed to reduce the associated postoperative complications and implantation metastasis, and to promote MIS in the treatment of GBC.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Single-Center Experience

Background: Despite recent advances in the field of laparoscopic liver surgery, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC) as an entity has been nearly exempted from the new approaches because of proposed technical difficulties in achieving lymphadenectomy (LAD) and beneficial oncologic outcomes. Materials and Methods: Clinical courses of all consecutive patients (n = 159) undergoing liver resection for iCC at the Department of Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin between January 2015 and October 2019 were studied. Ultimately, after applying selection criteria 27 laparoscopic liver resections were compared with 31 open liver resections. Results: Preoperative patient characteristics were similar with regard to general health and tumor characteristics. However, patients in the laparoscopic group tended to have more advanced liver fibrosis. When LAD was performed laparoscopically, a median of eight lymph nodes were resected, complying with current AJCC treatment guidelines. Patients undergoing laparoscopic resection showed lower overall morbidity contributing at least in part to a markedly decreased hospital stay. Conclusions: Herein, we report on one of the largest series of laparoscopically resected iCC, with a high proportion of major resections. Our data show laparoscopic resection to achieve noninferior outcomes to open resection despite impaired preoperative liver function.

Robotic liver resection: Hurdles and beyond

Laparoscopy is currently considered the standard of care for certain procedures such as left-lateral sectionectomies and wedge resections of anterior segments. The role of robotic liver surgery is still under debate, especially with regards to oncological outcomes. The purpose of this review is to describe how the field of robotic liver surgery has expanded, and to identify current limitations and future perspectives of the technology. Available evidences suggest that oncologic results after robotic liver resection are comparable to open and laparoscopic approaches for hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastases, with identifiable advantages for cirrhotic patients and patients undergoing repeat resections. Excellent outcomes and optimal patient safety can be only achieved with specific hepato-biliary and general minimally invasive training to overcome the learning curve.

Complex hepato-pancreato-biliary caseload during general surgery residency training: are we adequately training the next generation?

BACKGROUND

Information on procedure volume of graduating chief residents (GCRs) for hepato-pancreato-biliary(HPB) surgical procedures may inform assessments of resident training. This study sought to characterize trends in operative volumes over a 19-year period to define the degree to which general surgery residents gain exposure to HPB procedures during training.

METHODS

The ACGME was queried for all HPB operations performed by GCR between 2000-2018. Total procedures as well as means and fold change was calculated and reported for each year.

RESULTS

Between 2000-2018, the number of general surgery residency programs varied between 240 and 254. A total of 411,383 HPB procedures (36.2% liver, 42.8% pancreas, 21% complex biliary) were performed by 22,229 GCR. Each year of the study, GCR had similar mean number total procedures:liver 7.4, pancreas 8.7, and complex biliary 4.4. For liver procedures there was no difference in the fold change over time, however for pancreas there was an increase in the fold change from 2.25 to 3.25.

CONCLUSION

Most GCRs are graduating with a low number of HPB procedures and trends suggesting a decrease in the mean number of procedures per GCR and an increasing variability among residents.

Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Inconsistent Outcomes from Matched or Weighted Cohorts

BACKGROUND

The aim of the current study was to re-evaluate the role of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) among patients with early-stage (stage I or II) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing partial hepatectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was conducted to identify patients with early-stage HCC who underwent partial hepatectomy in the USA from 2010 to 2013. Overall survival (OS) was compared in three cohorts: crude; stabilized inverse probability of treatment propensity score weighting (IPTW); and propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Among 4027 patients included in the study, only 11.7%, (n = 473) underwent MILR. In the stabilized IPTW cohort, patients who underwent MILR versus open resection were more likely to have tumors greater than 3 cm (63.9%, n = 285 vs. 51.4%, n = 228, p < 0.001) and poorly/undifferentiated tumors (21.5%, n = 96 vs. 12.9%, n = 57, p < 0.001). Within the crude cohort, a 5-year OS was superior among patients in the open surgical group (67.8%) compared with patients who underwent MILR (56.6%) (p < 0.001). After classic PSM analysis, the 5-year OS of patients undergoing MILR and open surgery were noted to be comparable (57.3% vs 63.8%, p = 0.17; HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92-1.45). In contrast, after applying IPTW, the 5-year OS of patients who underwent MILR (55.5%) was worse compared with patients who had an open resection (67.5%) (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.84; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes of patients undergoing MILR were comparable with patients who had open surgery when assessed by standard PSM. The use of IPTW resulted in more unbalanced groups leading to residual confounding and bias.

Robotic Liver Resection

Robotic surgery has rapidly evolved. It is particularly attractive as an alternative minimally invasive approach in liver surgery because of improvements in visualization and articulated instruments. Limitations include increased operative times and lack of tactile feedback, but these have not been shown in studies. Considerations unique to robotic surgery, including safety protocols, must be put in place and be reviewed at the beginning of every procedure to ensure safety in the event of an emergent conversion. Despite the lack of early adoption by many hepatobiliary surgeons, robotic liver surgery continues to evolve and find its place within hepatobiliary surgery.

Liver resection and transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

The incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is increasing worldwide. Although several advances have been made in the past decades to better understand this complex malignancy and to develop new treatment strategies, the prognosis of iCCA remains dismal. Liver resection (LR) is the mainstay of treatment but only a minority of patients are amenable to surgery. In most cases, patients with iCCA will require a major hepatectomy for complete resection of the tumour. This may be contraindicated or increase the surgical burden in patients with chronic liver disease and small remnant liver volume. Lymphadenectomy with a minimal harvest of 6 lymph nodes is considered adequate, as microscopic nodal metastases have been shown in more than 40% of patients. Current 5-year overall survival following LR is in the range of 25%-40%. For locally advanced disease not amenable to upfront LR, neoadjuvant locoregional therapies may be used with the aim of converting these patients to resectability or even to transplantation in well-selected cases. Recent studies have shown that liver transplantation (LT) might be a treatment option for patients with unresectable very-early iCCA (i.e. ≤2 cm), with survival outcomes comparable to those of hepatocellular carcinoma. In patients with unresectable, advanced tumours, confined to the liver who achieve sustained response to neoadjuvant treatment, LT may be considered an option within prospective protocols. The role of adjuvant therapies in iCCA is still under debate. Herein, we review the recent advances in the surgical treatment of iCCA and examine its correlation with locoregional therapies, adjuvant and neo-adjuvant strategies.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Limitations for resectability, current surgical concepts and future perspectives

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is the second most common hepatic malignancy and its incidence has been shown to increase significantly during the past decades. Complete surgical resection is currently acknowledged as the only curative treatment option able to provide adequate long-term outcomes. We herein review technical, functional and oncologic limitations for resectability, discuss current surgical aspects as well as highlight the fields in which future research and practice should focus on in order to ameliorate long-term outcomes in patients with iCCA.

Short- and Long-term Outcomes after Robotic and Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Malignancies: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

OBJECTIVES

A laparoscopic approach improves short-term outcomes and maintains long-term outcomes compared to an open approach. In turn, the recent development of robotic surgery raises the question whether it performs as well as laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR) for malignancies.

METHOD

From 2011 to 2017, the study population included 111 patients in the LLR group and 61 in the RLR group. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Operative mortality rate was nil. The intraoperative blood transfusion rate was higher during RLR (15% vs. 2%, p = 0.0009). Major morbidity and hospital stay were not different between the two groups. The resection margin width (LLR 7 mm vs. RLR 10 mm, p = 0.13) and R1 resection rates (resection margin width < 1 mm; LLR 15% vs. RLR 11%, p = 0.49) were similar. After PSM (55 patients in each group), the blood transfusion, major morbidity, hospital stay and R1 resection were similar between the two groups. When considering the largest subset of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma including 114 patients (66%), the 3-year overall survival rate was 80% in the LLR group and 97% in the RLR group (p = 0.10) and remained similar after PSM (p = 0.27). The 3-year recurrence-free survival rate was 50% in the LLR group and 64% in the RLR group (p = 0.30) and remained similar after PSM (p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences were found in blood transfusion, incidence of positive resection margins and long-term outcomes between the two techniques. RLR does not compromise short-term and oncologic outcomes in patients with liver cancers.

Robotic approach to the liver: Open surgery in a closed abdomen or laparoscopic surgery with technical constraints?

The application of the minimally invasive approach has shown to be safe and effective for liver surgery and is in constant growth. The indications for laparoscopic surgery are steadily increasing across the field. In the early 2000s, robotic surgery led to some additional improvements, such as tremor filtration, instrument stability, 3D view and more comfort for the surgeon. These techniques bring in some advantages compared to the traditional OLR: less blood loss, shorter admissions, fewer adhesions, and a faster postoperative recovery and better outcomes in case of further hepatectomy for tumor recurrence has been shown. Concerning which is the best minimally invasive approach between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, the evidence is still conflicting. The latter shows good potential, since the endo-wristed instruments work similarly to the surgeon's hands, even with an intact abdominal wall. However, the technique is still under development, burdened by important costs, and limited by the lack of some instruments available for the laparoscopic approach. The paucity of universally accepted and proven data, especially concerning long-term outcomes, hampers drawing univocal acceptance at present. Furthermore, the number of variables related both to the patient and the disease further complicates the decision leading to a treatment tailored to each patient with strict selection. This review aims to explore the main differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, focusing on indications, operative technique and current debated clinical issues in recent literature.

Use of indocyanine green (ICG) augmented near-infrared fluorescence imaging in robotic radical resection of gallbladder adenocarcinomas

BACKGROUND

Gallbladder cancer remains a rare cancer with a poor prognosis. National guidelines recommend radical resection in the absence of metastatic disease. This often requires extensive dissection around the extrahepatic bile ducts. We report our experience of real-time near-infrared fluorescence imaging using indocyanine green during robotic radical resection of gallbladder adenocarcinomas.

METHODS

Ten patients with gallbladder adenocarcinoma underwent robotic radical resection entailing central hepatectomy (segments IV-B and V) with regional lymphadenectomy. Real-time NIRF imaging was performed using the da Vinci^® Firefly system after intravenous administration of ICG 30 to 60 min preoperatively. Primary objective was to determine safety of this technique.

RESULTS

Procedure was successfully completed in all patients. Seven patients (70%) had incidentally discovered gallbladder cancer after laparoscopic cholecystectomy and five patients had preoperatively known positive margins. Mean operative time was 173 min. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 88 mL (30-200 mL). Median number of lymph nodes retrieved was 5 (2-8). High ligation of cystic duct was performed close to the common bile duct (CBD) junction with the assist of NIRF and negative margins were achieved in all patients. No major complications (Grade III-IV) or mortality was seen at 30 days post-op.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from our limited experience demonstrate procedural safety and beneficial use of NIRF using ICG during robotic radical resection of gallbladder adenocarcinomas. It may assist in attainment of negative cystic duct margin and lymphatic clearance around the biliary tree especially in complex re-explorative biliary surgery.

Robotic Surgery for Malignant Liver Disease: a Systematic Review of Oncological and Surgical Outcomes

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is yet another modification of minimally invasive liver surgery. It is described as feasible and safe from the surgical point of view; however, oncological outcomes need to be adequately analysed to justify the use of this technique when resecting malignant liver tumours. We reviewed existing English medical literature on robot-assisted laparoscopic liver surgery. We analysed surgical outcomes and oncological outcomes. We analysed operative parameters including operative time, type of hepatectomy, blood loss, conversion rate, morbidity and mortality rates and length of stay. We also analysed oncological outcomes including completeness of resection (R status), recurrence, survival and follow-up data. A total of 582 patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic liver surgery were analysed from 17 eligible publications. Only 5 publications reported survival data. The overall morbidity was 19% with 0.2% reported mortality. R0 resection was achieved in 96% of patients. Robotic liver surgery is feasible and safe with acceptable morbidity and oncological outcomes including resection margins. However, well-designed trials are required to provide evidence in terms of survival and disease-free intervals when performed for malignancy.

International consensus statement on robotic hepatectomy surgery in 2018

The robotic surgical system has been applied in liver surgery. However, controversies concerns exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. To promote the development of robotic hepatectomy, this study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic hepatectomy and provide sixty experts’ consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 22 topics were prepared analyzed and widely discussed during the 4 meetings. Based on the published articles and expert panel opinion, 7 recommendations were generated by the GRADE method using an evidence-based method, which focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques and cost-effectiveness of hepatectomy. Given that the current evidences were low to very low as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized-controlled trials are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.

Laparoscopic Approach to Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma is Associated with an Exacerbation of Inadequate Nodal Staging

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic approach to liver resection is feasible and safe, though its utilization with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains poorly documented. We sought to evaluate the use laparoscopy for ICC, and to examine adherence to oncologic standards.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent resection for ICC. Patients were stratified by laparoscopic (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR). Clinicopathologic parameters and hospital volumes were recorded.

RESULTS

In total, 2309 patients with ICC underwent hepatic resection (1997 OLR, 312 LLR) between 2010 and 2015. LLR increased from 12 to 16% during the study period and was utilized more commonly than OLR for wedge and segmental resections (56% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Nodal evaluation was performed in 58% of all patients with ICC and was significantly more common in patients undergoing OLR (61%, n = 1210) versus LLR (39%, n = 120), p < 0.001. Of the 120 patients undergoing LLR with any nodal evaluation, 31% (n = 37) had a single node evaluated. Patients who underwent LLR were less likely to have ≥ 6 lymph nodes evaluated compared with those who underwent OLR (9% vs. 15%, respectively, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of laparoscopy for ICC is associated with an exacerbation of inadequate nodal evaluation compared with open resections.