Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis

The application of augmented reality in robotic general surgery: A mini-review

In robotic surgery, surgical planning and surgical navigation represent two crucial elements, allowing surgeons to maximize surgical outcomes while minimizing the risk of complications. In this context, an emerging imaging technology, namely augmented reality (AR), can represent a powerful tool to create an integration of preoperative 3D models into the live intraoperative view, providing an interactive visual interface rather than a simple operative field. In this way, surgeons can be guided by preoperative imaging during the operation. This makes the surgical procedure more accurate and safer, leading to so-called "precision surgery". This article aims to provide an overview of developments in the application of AR in robotic general surgery. The integration of this imaging technology in this surgical field is showing promising results. The main benefits include improved oncological outcomes and reduced occurrence of complications. In addition, its application may also be important for surgical education. However, we are still in the initial phase of the experience and some important limitations remain. Moreover, to our knowledge, to date, reports in the literature regarding the integration of AR in robotic general surgery are still very limited. To improve its application, close collaboration between engineers, software developers, and surgeons is mandatory.

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounting for approximately 90% of primary liver cancers. Advances in diagnostic and therapeutic tools, along with improved understanding of their application, are transforming patient treatment. Integrating these innovations into clinical practice presents challenges and necessitates guidance. These clinical practice guidelines offer updated advice for managing patients with HCC and provide a comprehensive review of pertinent data. Key updates from the 2018 EASL guidelines include personalised surveillance based on individual risk assessment and the use of new tools, standardisation of liver imaging procedures and diagnostic criteria, use of minimally invasive surgery in complex cases together with updates on the integrated role of liver transplantation, transitions between surgical, locoregional, and systemic therapies, the role of radiation therapies, and the use of combination immunotherapies at various stages of disease. Above all, there is an absolute need for a multiparametric assessment of individual risks and benefits, considering the patient's perspective, by a multidisciplinary team encompassing various specialties.

An updated meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopy hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy in the treatment of liver tumors

BACKGROUND

To compare the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy (RALH) with laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in the treatment of liver tumors.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of English-language literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to June 2024. Studies comparing RALH and LH for liver tumors were identified, and after qualitative evaluation, a meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 software.

RESULTS

After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 articles were included, including 29,969 patients, with 5673 in the RALH group and 24,296 in the LH group. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the LH group, surgery time was longer in the RALH group (MD = 55.33; 95% CI: 34.84-75.83; P < .001), the conversion to open surgery rate was higher (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.05; P < .001), the total cost was higher (MD = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.14-0.73; P = .004), and the tumor diameter was larger (MD = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.24-0.49; P < .001). Additionally, the R1 resection rate was higher in the RALH group (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.06; P < .001). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative transfusion rate, hepatic hilar occlusion rate, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, mortality rate, malignancy rate, or R0 resection rate (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, RALH is safe and effective, although it is associated with higher total costs, increased blood transfusion rates, and longer operative times. However, there were no significant differences between RALH and LH in terms of other outcome indicators, suggesting that both procedures offer similar surgical efficacy and safety. Further clinical randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Evaluation of forces applied to tissues during robotic-assisted surgical tasks using a novel force feedback technology

BACKGROUND

The absence of force feedback (FFB) is considered a technical limitation in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). This pre-clinical study aims to evaluate the forces applied to tissues using a novel integrated FFB technology, which allows surgeons to sense forces exerted at the instrument tips.

METHODS

Twenty-eight surgeons with varying experience levels employed FFB instruments to perform three robotic-assisted surgical tasks, including retraction, dissection, and suturing, on inanimate or ex-vivo models, while the instrument sensors recorded and conveyed the applied forces to the surgeon hand controllers of the robotic system. Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) models were used to analyze the mean and maximal forces applied during each task with the FFB sensor at the "Off" setting compared to the "High" sensitivity setting for retraction and to the "Low", "Medium", and "High" sensitivity settings for dissection and suturing. Sub-analysis was also performed on surgeon experience levels.

RESULTS

The use of FFB at any of the sensitivity settings resulted in a significant reduction in both the mean and maximal forces exerted on tissue during all three robotic-assisted surgical tasks (p < 0.0001). The maximal force exerted, potentially associated with tissue damage, was decreased by 36%, 41%, and 55% with the use of FFB at the "High" sensitivity setting while performing retraction, dissection, and interrupted suturing tasks, respectively. Further, the use of FFB resulted in substantial reductions in force variance during the performance of all three types of tasks. In general, reductions in mean and maximal forces were observed among surgeons at all experience levels. The degree of force reduction depends on the sensitivity setting selected and the types of surgical tasks evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that the utilization of FFB technology integrated in the robotic surgical system significantly reduced the forces exerted on tissue during the performance of surgical tasks at all surgeon experience levels. The reduction in the force applied and a consistency of force application achieved with FFB use, could result in decreases in tissue trauma and blood loss, potentially leading to better clinical outcomes in patients undergoing RAS. Future studies will be important to determine the impact of FFB instruments in a live clinical environment.

Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a review of systematic reviews on the clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery across a mix of intracavity procedures, using evidence mapping to inform the decision makers on the best utilisation of robotic-assisted surgery.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included systematic reviews with randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials describing any clinical outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library from 2017 to 2023.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We first presented the number of systematic reviews distributed in different specialties. We then mapped the body of evidence across selected procedures and synthesised major findings of clinical outcomes. We used a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The overlap of primary studies was managed by the corrected covered area method.

RESULTS

Our search identified 165 systematic reviews published addressing clinical evidence of robotic-assisted surgery. We found that for all outcomes except operative time, the evidence was largely positive or neutral for robotic-assisted surgery versus both open and laparoscopic alternatives. Evidence was more positive versus open. The evidence for the operative time was mostly negative. We found that most systematic reviews were of low quality due to a failure to deal with the inherent bias in observational evidence.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery has a strong clinical effectiveness evidence base to support the expanded use of robotic-assisted surgery in six common intracavity procedures, which may provide an opportunity to increase the proportion of minimally invasive surgeries. Given the high incremental cost of robotic-assisted surgery and longer operative time, future economic studies are required to determine the optimal use of robotic-assisted surgery capacity.

Digital robot-assisted minimally invasive impacted tooth extraction: A case report

Objective

This study investigated the clinical effects and applicability of minimally invasive impacted teeth extraction using digital robots.

Methods

A marker was bonded to the non-surgical area before surgery. A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scan was obtained and uploaded to the robot software to determine the drilling position of the ring drill. During the surgery, the robot arm automatically navigated to a predetermined position, and the ring drill removed part of the bone tissue and exposed and extracted the impacted teeth. Finally, the surgeon tightly sutured the wounds to the surgical area.

Results

Three minimally invasive extractions of impacted teeth with robotic assistance were performed without complications. The surgical area showed good healing during the one-month follow-up examination.

Conclusions

Digital robot-assisted minimally invasive extraction of impacted teeth is a highly feasible clinical procedure as it minimises trauma to the surgical area and protects the surrounding blood vessels and nerve bundles, making it a safe and valuable technique with significant potential for clinical application.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with Fontan-associated liver disease: a world-first case report

BACKGROUND

Fontan-associated liver disease (FALD) encompasses hepatic complications following the Fontan procedure, ranging from fibrosis to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Despite advancements in surgical techniques and perioperative care, robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy (RALH) for HCC in patients with FALD has not been previously reported owing to concerns about the Fontan circulation.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present the first case of RALH for recurrent HCC in a 45-year-old man after the Fontan procedure. The preoperative evaluation confirmed good cardiac function. The procedure involved meticulous monitoring and management of central venous pressure and was successfully completed with minimal blood loss. Postoperative recovery was uneventful. With thorough preoperative cardiac assessment and close collaboration between cardiologists and anesthesiologists, RALH can be safely performed in selected patients with FALD.

CONCLUSIONS

Even if a patient has a history of FALD, RALH can be safely performed in selected patients under appropriate conditions.

A Comprehensive Review on Comparative Analysis of Operative Efficiency and Postoperative Recovery in Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy

Minimally invasive liver surgery, particularly hepatectomy, has evolved significantly with the advent of laparoscopic and robotic techniques. These approaches offer potential benefits over traditional open surgery, including reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, faster recovery, and improved cosmetic outcomes. This comprehensive review aims to compare the operative efficiency and postoperative recovery outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy. It seeks to provide an in-depth analysis of the advantages and limitations of each technique, assess their cost-effectiveness, and explore emerging trends and future directions in minimally invasive liver surgery. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy. The review includes an analysis of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, complication rates, oncological outcomes, and overall cost. Additionally, advancements in technology and future research directions were explored to provide a comprehensive overview of the current landscape and future potential of these surgical techniques. Both robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy have demonstrated comparable outcomes in terms of oncological safety and effectiveness. However, robotic hepatectomy offers advantages in terms of precision and dexterity, particularly in complex cases, due to its advanced visualization and instrumentation. Laparoscopic hepatectomy, while associated with shorter operative times and lower costs, is limited by technical challenges, especially in major liver resections. The review also highlights the increasing adoption of robotic systems, despite their higher costs and the need for specialized training. Robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy are both viable options for minimally invasive liver surgery, each with distinct advantages and limitations. The choice between the two should be based on patient-specific factors, the complexity of the procedure, and the surgeon's expertise. Ongoing advancements in technology, including the integration of artificial intelligence and augmented reality, are expected to further refine these techniques, enhancing their efficacy and accessibility. Future research should focus on large-scale, multicenter trials to provide more definitive comparisons and guide clinical decision-making.

Robotic Complete ALPPS (rALPPS)-First German Experiences

BACKGROUND

ALPPS leads to fast and effective liver hypertrophy. This enables the resection of extended tumors. Conventional ALPPS is associated with high morbidity and mortality. MILS reduces morbidity and the robot adds technical features that make complex procedures safe.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The MD-MILS was screened for patients who underwent rALPPS. Demographic and perioperative data were evaluated retrospectively. Ninety days postoperative morbidity was scored according to the CD classification. The findings were compared with the literature.

RESULTS

Since November 2021, five patients have been identified. The mean age and BMI of the patients were 50.0 years and 22.7 kg/m2. In four cases, patients suffered from colorectal liver metastases and, in one case, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Prior to the first operation, the mean liver volume of the residual left liver was 380.9 mL with a FLR-BWR of 0.677%. Prior to the second operation, the mean volume of the residual liver was 529.8 mL with a FLR-BWR of 0.947%. This was an increase of 41.9% of the residual liver volume. The first and second operations were carried out within 17.8 days. The mean time of the first and second operations was 341.2 min and 440.6 min. The mean hospital stay was 27.2 days. Histopathology showed the largest tumor size of 39 mm in diameter with a mean amount of 4.7 tumors. The mean tumor-free margin was 12.3 mm. One complication CD > 3a occurred. No patient died during the 90-day follow up.

CONCLUSION

In the first German series, we demonstrated that rALPPS can be carried out safely with reduced morbidity and mortality in selected patients.

Preoperative Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy for Definite Biliary Drainage in Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma Laparoscopic Resection: A Hybrid Minimal-Invasive Technique

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Laparoscopic approach of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) is still challenging. We report the original use of a endoscopic hepaticogastrostomy (EHG) for definite biliary drainage in order to avoid biliary reconstruction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A 70-year-old man presenting with jaundice was referred for resection of a Bismuth type IIIa PHC. Repeated endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography failed to drain the future liver remnant, enabling only right anterior liver section drainage. EHG was performed three weeks before surgery. A hepatogastric anastomosis was created, placing a half-coated self-expanding endoprosthesis between biliary duct of segment 2 and the lesser gastric curvature.

RESULTS

A laparoscopic right hepatectomy extended to segment 1, common bile duct, and hepatic pedicle lymphadenectomy was performed. The left hepatic duct was sectioned and ligated downstream to the biliary confluence of segment 2-3 and 4 allowing exclusive biliary flow through the EHG. The patient was disease free at 12 months, postoperative outcomes were uneventful except three readmissions for acute cholangitis due to prosthesis obstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

EHG may be used as definite biliary drainage technique in laparoscopic PHC resection, at the expense of prosthesis obstruction and cholangitis.

Advancements in robotic surgery: innovations, challenges and future prospects

The use of robots has revolutionized healthcare, wherein further innovations have led to improved precision and accuracy. Conceived in the late 1960s, robot-assisted surgeries have evolved to become an integral part of various surgical specialties. Modern robotic surgical systems are equipped with highly dexterous arms and miniaturized instruments that reduce tremors and enable delicate maneuvers. Implementation of advanced materials and designs along with the integration of imaging and visualization technologies have enhanced surgical accuracy and made robots safer and more adaptable to various procedures. Further, the haptic feedback system allows surgeons to determine the consistency of the tissues they are operating upon, without physical contact, thereby preventing injuries due to the application of excess force. With the implementation of teleoperation, surgeons can now overcome geographical limitations and provide specialized healthcare remotely. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) aids in surgical decision-making by improving the recognition of minute and complex anatomical structures. All these advancements have led to faster recovery and fewer complications in patients. However, the substantial cost of robotic systems, their maintenance, the size of the systems and proper surgeon training pose major challenges. Nevertheless, with future advancements such as AI-driven automation, nanorobots, microscopic incision surgeries, semi-automated telerobotic systems, and the impact of 5G connectivity on remote surgery, the growth curve of robotic surgery points to innovation and stands as a testament to the persistent pursuit of progress in healthcare.

Propensity-score Matched and Coarsened-exact Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study of 4822 Cases

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH).

BACKGROUND

Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047].

CONCLUSIONS

This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.

Current Trends in Surgical Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Surgical management, including hepatic resection, liver transplantation, and ablation, offers the greatest potential for a curative approach. This review aims to discuss recent advancements in HCC surgery and identify unresolved issues in the field. Treatment selection relies on the BCLC staging system, with surgical therapies primarily recommended for early-stage disease. Recent studies have shown that patients previously considered unresectable, such as those with portal vein tumor thrombus and uncomplicated portal hypertension, may benefit from hepatic resection. Minimally invasive surgery and improved visualization techniques are also explored, alongside new techniques for optimizing future liver remnant, ex vivo resection, and advancements in hemorrhage control. Liver transplantation criteria, particularly the long-standing Milan criteria, are critically examined. Alternative criteria proposed and tested in specific regions are presented. In the context of organ shortage, bridging therapy plays a critical role in preventing tumor progression and maintaining patients eligible for transplantation. Lastly, we explore emerging ablation modalities, comparing them with the current standard, radiofrequency ablation. In conclusion, this comprehensive review provides insights into recent trends and future prospects in the surgical management of HCC, highlighting areas that require further investigation.

Current progress in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery at a high-volume center

There has been steady growth in the adoption of robotic HPB procedures world-wide over the past 20 years, but most of this increase has occurred only recently. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of robotics has been in the United States, with very few, select centers of adoption in Italy, South Korea, and Brazil, to name a few. We began our robotic HPB program in 2008, well before almost all other centers in the world, with the most notable exception of Giullianotti and colleagues. Our program began gradually, with smaller cases carefully selected to optimize the strengths of the original robotic platform and included complex biliary and pancreatic resections. We performed the first reported series of choledochojejunostomy for benign biliary strictures and first series of completion cholecystectomies. We began performing robotic distal pancreatectomies and longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomies, reporting our early experience for each of these procedures. Over time we progressed to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies. Initially, these were performed with planned conversions until we were able to optimize efficiency. Now we have performed over 200 robotic whipples, reaching a 100% robotic completion rate by 2020. Finally, we have added robotic major hepatectomies, including resections for hilar cholangiocarcinoma to our repertoire. Since the program began, we have performed over 1600 robotic HPB cases. Outcomes from our program have shown superior lymph node harvest, lower DGE rates, shorter hospitalizations, and fewer rehab admissions with similar overall complications to open and laparoscopic procedures, signifying that over time a robotic HPB program is not only feasible but advantageous as well.

Robotic hepatectomy: current evidence and future directions

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

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: A single-center, propensity score- matched study

BACKGROUND

Although the effectiveness of robotic hepatectomy (RH) has been evaluated in several studies, the superiority of RH over other approaches has not been definitely established. Therefore, in the present propensity score-matched cohort study, we compared RH and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in terms of perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent RH or LH for benign and malignant liver lesions at a single center in Taiwan at any time between 2014 and 2020. Confounding factors, specifically age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, IWATE criteria, and Charlson comorbidity index, were adjusted through propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 329 patients were finally included in this study. Two homogeneous groups (RH and LH; n, 72 each) were formed using PSM. The RH group had a longer operative time (median: 231 vs.180 min, respectively; P = .001) and lower conversion (to open surgery) rate (9.7% vs.0.0%, respectively; P = .013) than did the LH group. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of other perioperative outcomes, specifically blood loss, hospital stay, intensive care unit admission, mortality, morbidity, or tumor margin status.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of conversion to open surgery is lower in RH than in LH. Although operative time is longer in RH than in LH, RH is feasible and safe for patients with benign or malignant liver lesion. Our study also demonstrated comparable oncological results in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma between LH and RH group.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Total robotic right hepatectomy for multifocal hepatocellular carcinoma using vessel sealer

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

Validation of the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) society recommendations for liver surgery: a prospective, observational study

Background

Twenty-three recommendations were summarized by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) society for liver surgery. The aim was to validate the protocol especially with regard to adherence and the impact on morbidity.

Methods

Using the ERAS Interactive Audit System (EIAS), ERAS items were evaluated in patients undergoing liver resection. Over a period of 26 months, 304 patients were prospectively enrolled in an observational study (DRKS00017229). Of those, 51 patients (non-ERAS) were enrolled before and 253 patients (ERAS) after the implementation of the ERAS protocol. Perioperative adherence and complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

Overall adherence increased from 45.2% in the non-ERAS group to 62.7% in the ERAS group (P<0.001). This was associated with significant improvements in the preoperative and postoperative phase (P<0.001), rather than in the outpatient and intraoperative phase (both P>0.05). Overall complications decreased from 41.2% (n=21) in the non-ERAS group to 26.5% (n=67) in the ERAS group (P=0.0423), which was mainly due to the reduction of grade 1-2 complications from 17.6% (n=9) to 7.6% (n=19) (P=0.0322). As for patients undergoing open surgery, implementation of ERAS lead to a reduction of overall complications in patients scheduled for minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) (P=0.036).

Conclusions

Implementation of the ERAS protocol for liver surgery according to the ERAS guidelines of the ERAS Society reduced Clavien-Dindo grade 1-2 complications particularly in patients who underwent MILS. The ERAS guidelines are beneficial for the outcome, while adherence to the various items has not yet been satisfactorily defined.

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.

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.

Does Robotic Liver Surgery Enhance R0 Results in Liver Malignancies during Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery?-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic procedures are an integral part of modern liver surgery. However, the advantages of a robotic approach in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic approach are the subject of controversial debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic and laparoscopic liver resection with particular attention to the resection margin status in malignant cases.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Cochrane Library in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Only studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resections were considered for this meta-analysis. Furthermore, the rate of the positive resection margin or R0 rate in malignant cases had to be clearly identifiable. We used fixed or random effects models according to heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with a total number of 1530 cases were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Malignancies were identified in 71.1% (n = 1088) of these cases. These included hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal liver metastases and other malignancies of the liver. Positive resection margins were noted in 24 cases (5.3%) in the robotic group and in 54 cases (8.6%) in the laparoscopic group (OR = 0.71; 95% CI (0.42-1.18); p = 0.18). Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group (MD = 6.92; 95% CI (2.93-10.91); p = 0.0007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robotic procedure (MD = 28.12; 95% CI (3.66-52.57); p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches regarding the intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, overall and severe complications and conversion rate.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the robotic and laparoscopic procedures regarding the resection margin status. Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group. However, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate the benefits of robotics in liver surgery.

Robotic vs. laparoscopic liver surgery: a single-center analysis of 600 consecutive patients in 6 years

Background

While laparoscopic liver surgery has become a standard procedure, experience with robotic liver surgery is still limited. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate safety and feasibility of robotic liver surgery and compare outcomes with conventional laparoscopy.

Methods

We here report the results of a single-center, prospective, post-marketing observational study (DRKS00017229) investigating the safety and feasibility of robotic liver surgery. Baseline characteristics, surgical complexity (using the IWATE score), and postoperative outcomes were then compared to laparoscopic liver resections performed at our center between January 2015 and December 2020. A propensity score-based matching (PSM) was applied to control for selection bias.

Results

One hundred twenty nine robotic liver resections were performed using the da Vinci Xi surgical system (Intuitive) in this prospective study and were compared to 471 consecutive laparoscopic liver resections. After PSM, both groups comprised 129 cases with similar baseline characteristics and surgical complexity. There were no significant differences in intraoperative variables, such as need for red blood cell transfusion, duration of surgery, or conversion to open surgery. Postoperative complications were comparable after robotic and laparoscopic surgery (Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3a: 23% vs. 19%, p = 0.625); however, there were more bile leakages grade B–C in the robotic group (17% vs. 7%, p = 0.006). Length of stay and oncological short-term outcomes were comparable.

Conclusions

We propose robotic liver resection as a safe and feasible alternative to established laparoscopic techniques. The object of future studies must be to define interventions where robotic techniques are superior to conventional laparoscopy.

Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: −0.7 95%CI −1.0, −0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: −0.8 95%CI −1.4, −0.3), Clavien−Dindo complications I−II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.6 95%CI −1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.4 95%CI −0.8, −0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: −0.5 95%CI −0.9, −0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: −6.4 95%CI −11.3, −1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.

Utility of Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Transabdominal Preperitoneal Repair of Inguinal Hernia Following Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the utility of robot-assisted laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair (R-TAPP) of postprostatectomy inguinal hernia (PIH) in patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, single-centre retrospective cohort study. R-TAPP was conducted in 74 consecutive patients from September 2016 to March 2020. With the exception of women and patients who underwent previous abdominal surgery, 70 patients were classified into two groups based on the absence or presence of PIH. Their data were retrospectively compared to those who had not undergone RALP.

RESULTS

The median operative time for the PIH group was longer compared to the non-PIH group. However, postoperative complications, including seroma formation, haematoma and surgical site infections, were not significantly different between the groups. The estimated blood loss was small, and hospitalisation duration was 1 day in all cases. Moreover, there were no hernia recurrences within the 90-day follow-up period in either group.

CONCLUSION

R-TAPP is a feasible and safe approach for inguinal hernia repair, even in patients who undergo RALP for prostate cancer.

Integration of Three-Dimensional Liver Models in a Multimodal Image-Guided Robotic Liver Surgery Cockpit

Background: Robotic liver surgery represents the most recent evolution in the field of minimally-invasive liver surgery. For planning and guidance of liver resections, surgeons currently rely on preoperative 2-dimensional (2D) CT and/or MR imaging and intraoperative ultrasonography. Translating 2D images into digital 3-dimensional (3D) models may improve both preoperative planning and surgical guidance. The da Vinci^® robotic surgical system is a platform suitable for the integration of multiple imaging modalities into one single view. In this study, we describe multimodal imaging options and introduce the Robotic Liver Surgery Cockpit; Methods: in-house developed software was used and validated for segmentation and registration to create a virtual reality 3D model of the liver based on preoperative imaging. The accuracy of the 3D models in the clinical setting was objectively assessed in 15 patients by measuring tumor diameters and subjectively with a postoperative conducted questionnaire; Results: Implementation and applicability of the 3D model in the surgical cockpit was feasible in all patients and the quality of the 3D reconstructions was high in 14 (93%) of cases. Tumor diameters measured on CT and/or MR imaging were comparable to automated measurements using the segmentation software and 3D models; Conclusions: the 3D model was successfully incorporated in the robotic surgery console as part of a multimodality imaging platform and aided the surgeon in planning and guidance of the resection. Future studies should focus on further automation of 3D rendering and progress into augmented reality.

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.

Understanding the surgeon's behaviour during robot-assisted surgery: protocol for the qualitative Behav'Robot study

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted surgery is spreading worldwide, accounting for more than 1.2 million procedures in 2019. Data are sparse in the literature regarding the surgeon's mechanisms that mediate risk-taking during a procedure, especially robot-assisted. This study aims to describe and understand the behaviour of the surgeons during robot-assisted surgery and the change in their behaviour with increasing experience in using the robot.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with surgeons who perform robot-assisted surgery. An interview guide comprising open questions will be used to ensure that the points to be discussed are systematically addressed during each interview (ie, (1) difference in behaviour and preparation of the surgeon between a standard procedure and a robot-assisted procedure; (2) the influence of proprioceptive modifications, gain in stability and cognitive biases, inherent in the use of a surgical robot and (3) the intrinsic effect of the learning curve on the behaviour of the surgeons. After transcription, interviews will be analysed with the help of NVivo software, using thematic analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Since this project examines professional practices in the field of social and human sciences, ethics committee was not required in accordance with current French legislation (Decree no 2017-884, 9 May 2017). Consent from the surgeons is implied by the fact that the interviews are voluntary. Surgeons will nonetheless be informed that they are free to interrupt the interview at any time.Results will be presented in peer-reviewed national and international congresses and submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication. The communication and publication of the results will be placed under the responsibility of the principal investigator and publications will be prepared in compliance with the ICMJE uniform requirements for manuscripts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04869995.

Feasibility of robotic-assisted pancreatic resection in patients with previous minor abdominal surgeries: a single-center experience of the first three years

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery is limited to specialized high-volume centers and selected patient cohorts. Especially for patients with a history of previous abdominal surgeries, the standard procedure remains open surgery due to the fear of complications caused by abdominal adhesions.

METHODS

Clinical data of all consecutive patients undergoing robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery using the daVinci Xi system (Intuitive Surgical) at our center (Department of Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany) were collected prospectively and further analyzed from October 2017 to October 2020. Prior abdominal surgeries were specified according to the surgical approach and localization. In univariate and multivariate analysis, baseline and perioperative parameters of patients with a history of prior abdominal surgeries (PS) were compared to those of patients with no history of prior abdominal surgeries (NPS).

RESULTS

Out of 131 patients undergoing robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery, 62 (47%) had a history of abdominal surgery. Previous procedures included most often appendectomy (32%) followed by gynecological surgery (29%) and cholecystectomy (27%). 24% of PS had received multiple surgeries prior to the robotic-assisted pancreatic resections. Baseline characteristics and comorbidities were comparable between the groups. We did not detect differences in the duration of surgery (262 min), conversion rates (10%), and postoperative complications between NPS and PS. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and in-house mortality showed no significant differences between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed male sex and high BMI as a potential predictive factor for severe postoperative complications. Other characteristics like the type of pancreatic resection, ASA, and underlying malignancy showed no difference in the multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery to be safe and feasible for patients with a history of minor prior abdominal surgery. Hence, each patient should individually be evaluated for a minimally invasive approach regardless of a history of previous operations.

Augmented Reality and Image-Guided Robotic Liver Surgery

Artificial intelligence makes surgical resection easier and safer, and, at the same time, can improve oncological results. The robotic system fits perfectly with these more or less diffused technologies, and it seems that this benefit is mutual. In liver surgery, robotic systems help surgeons to localize tumors and improve surgical results with well-defined preoperative planning or increased intraoperative detection. Furthermore, they can balance the absence of tactile feedback and help recognize intrahepatic biliary or vascular structures during parenchymal transection. Some of these systems are well known and are already widely diffused in open and laparoscopic hepatectomies, such as indocyanine green fluorescence or ultrasound-guided resections, whereas other tools, such as Augmented Reality, are far from being standardized because of the high complexity and elevated costs. In this paper, we review all the experiences in the literature on the use of artificial intelligence systems in robotic liver resections, describing all their practical applications and their weaknesses.

Level 2a evidence comparing robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate comparative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy (LLS).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators and limits was conducted. Overall, minor (Clavien-Dindo grade < III) and major (Clavien-Dindo grade > III) postoperative complications, mortality, volume of blood loss, conversion to an open procedure, procedure time, length of hospital stay, cost-effectiveness and R1 resection were the evaluated outcome measures.

RESULTS

Seven comparative observational studies reporting a total of 319 patients of whom 150 underwent robotic LLS and the remaining 169 patients underwent laparoscopic LLS were included. The robotic approach was associated with significantly longer procedure time (MD: 29.40 min, p = 0.01) and higher cost (MD: $4170, p < 0.00001) compared to the laparoscopic approach. There was no significant difference in overall postoperative morbidity (OR: 1.29, p = 0.62), Clavien-Dindo grade < III (OR: 1.65, p = 0.49), Clavien-Dindo grade > III (OR: 1.18, p = 0.85), perioperative mortality (RD: 0.00, p = 1.00), volume of blood loss (MD: 1.96 mls, p = 0.91), conversion to an open procedure (RD: - 0.02, p = 0.46), length of hospital stay (MD: 0.22 day, p = 0.52) or R1 resection (RD:0.00, p = 1.00) between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis of the best available evidence (level 2) demonstrated that robotic LLS is associated with significantly longer procedure time and higher cost and similar perioperative outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach. Future randomised studies are required to evaluate short-term perioperative, long-term oncological and surgeon-centred outcomes.

Outcomes of robotic-assisted liver surgery versus laparoscopic liver surgery for treatment of stage I hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

This article investigated whether robotic-assisted liver surgery versus laparoscopic liver surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has similar or different short- and long-term clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 3049 patients from the National Cancer Database who received minimally invasive surgery (ie, robotic or laparoscopic surgery) for stage I HCC cancers between 2010 to 2015, of which 123 had robotic and 2926 had laparoscopic surgeries performed, were identified. Logistic regression was applied to evaluate short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards models were applied to estimate all-cause mortality at 1-year, 3-years, and 5-years after surgery, adjusting for potential confounders. Propensity score-matched analyses were conducted to compare long-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries.

RESULTS

Robotic surgery was associated with improved overall survival, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates (SRs) of 0.92, 0.75, and 0.63 compared with laparoscopic surgery SRs of 0.86, 0.60, and 0.45, respectively (P value <.01). Multivariate analyses showed that robotic compared with laparoscopic surgery had significantly lower 5-year total mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64 and 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45%-0.93% for intent-to-treat; HR, 0.62 and 95% CI, 0.42%-0.91% for end-treatment analyses). Similar results were found in propensity score matched analyses; robotic surgery was associated with improved overall survival compared with laparoscopic surgery (HR, 0.64 and 95% CI, 0.43%-0.96% for intent-to-treat; HR, 0.59 and 95% CI, 0.39%-0.90% for end-treatment).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is not inferior to laparoscopic surgery in treating early-stage HCC and may be associated with improved long-term survival.

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

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

Robotic surgery for colorectal liver metastases resection: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The role of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLMs) has never been investigated in large series.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was carried out on PubMed and Cochrane libraries.

RESULTS

We selected nine studies between 2008 and 2021. Two hundred sixty-two patients were included. One hundred thirty-one patients underwent simultaneous resections. The mean blood loss was 309.4 ml (range, 200-450 ml), the mean operative time was 250.5 min (range, 198.5-449.0 min). The mean length of hospital stay was 7.98 days (range, 4.5 to 12 days). The overall postoperative mortality was 0.4%. The overall morbidity rate was 37.0%, Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV complications were 8.4%. The mean 3-year overall survival was 55.25% (range, 44.4-66.1%), the mean 3-year disease free survival was 37% (range, 33.3-41.9%) CONCLUSION: We can conclude that robotic-assisted surgery might be considered as a technical upgrade option for minimally invasive approach to CRCLM resections even for simultaneous operations and challenging cases.

[Minimally invasive liver surgery]

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

Safety and feasibility of robotic liver resection after previous abdominal surgeries

BACKGROUND

While minimally invasive liver surgery has been increasingly adopted at least for minor resections, experience with robotic liver surgery is still limited to a few highly specialized centers. Due to the fear of abdominal adhesions, a history of prior surgeries is still used as an argument for open approaches.

METHODS

Clinical data of all consecutive robotic resections at our center, using the da Vinci Xi surgical system, between April, 2018 and December, 2020, were collected and analyzed as part of a prospective, post-marketing observational study (DRKS00017229). Prior abdominal surgeries were specified according to the surgical approach and localization. Baseline and perioperative outcome criteria were compared between patients with prior surgeries (PS) and patients with no prior surgeries (NPS) in univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Out of the 126 patients undergoing robotic liver resections, 59% had a history of abdominal surgeries, which were most often colorectal resections (28%) followed by liver resections (20%). Patients with NPS were more likely to undergo robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma or benign tumors, and to have underlying liver cirrhosis when compared to patients with PS. Other baseline characteristics as well as the extent of resections were similar. Duration of surgery (258 min), conversion rates (6%), and postoperative complications rates (21% Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) showed no differences between NPS and PS. A subgroup of patients with a history of prior liver surgery showed a longer duration of surgery in univariate analysis. However, this was not confirmed in multivariate analysis which instead revealed tumor entity and liver cirrhosis as independently correlated with duration of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose robotic liver resection to be safe and feasible, including in patients with prior abdominal surgeries. Each patient should be evaluated for a minimally invasive procedure regardless of a history of previous operations.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery are the most minimally invasive surgical approaches for the removal of liver lesions. Minor hepatectomy is a common surgical procedure. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies on robot-assisted vs. laparoscopicminor hepatectomy up to February, 2020. The odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies involving 751 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 297 patients were in the robot-assisted minor hepatectomy (RMH) group and 454 patients were in the LMH group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P = .43), transfusion rates (P = .14), length of hospital stay (P > .64), conversion rate (P = .62), R0 resection rate (P = .56), complications (P = .92), or mortaliy (P = .37) between the 2 groups. However, the RMH group was associated with a longer operative time (P = .0003), and higher cost (P < .00001) compared to the LMH group. No significant differences in overall survival or disease free survival between the 2 groups were observed. In the subgroup analysis of left lateral sectionectomies, RMH was still associated with a longer operative time, but no other differences in clinical outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although RMH is associated with longer operation times and higher costs, it exhibits the same safety and effectiveness as LMH. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials should now be considered to obtain better evidence for clinical consensus.

Robotic hepatectomy and biliary reconstruction for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a pioneer western case series

Open surgery is the standard of care for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). With the aim of oncologic radicality, it requires a complex major hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction. The postoperative course is consequently often complicated, with severe morbidity and mortality rates of up to 27.5–54% and 18%, respectively. Robotic liver surgery is emerging as a safe, minimally-invasive technique with huge potential for pCCA management. After the first case described by Giulianotti in 2010, here we present the first western series of robot-assisted liver resections with biliary reconstruction for pCCA with the aim to preliminarily assess the feasibility and repeatability of the procedure. At our high-volume teaching hospital center dedicated to HPB surgery, 128 pCCA patients have been surgically treated in the last 15 years whereas more than 800 laparoscopic liver resections have been performed. Since the Da Vinci Xi Robotic platform was introduced in late 2018, 6 major robotic liver resections with biliary reconstruction have been performed, 4 of which were for pCCA. All 4 cases involved a left hepatectomy with caudate lobectomy. The median operating time was 840 min, with a median blood loss of 700 ml. One case was converted to open surgery during the reconstruction due to a short mesentery preventing the hepatico-jejunostomy. None of the patients experienced major complications, while minor complications occurred in 3 out of 4 cases. One biliary leak was managed conservatively. The median postoperative stay was 9 days. Negative biliary margins were achieved in 3 of the 4 cases. An included video clip shows the most relevant technical details. This preliminary series demonstrates that robot-assisted liver resection for pCCA is feasible. We speculate that the da Vinci platform has a relevant potential in pCCA surgery with particular reference to the multi-duct biliary reconstruction. Further studies are needed to better clarify the role of this high-cost technology in the minimally-invasive treatment of pCCA.

[Evidence of minimally invasive oncological surgery of the liver]

BACKGROUND

The evidence for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the liver has significantly increased with the increasing number of publications on this topic in recent years; however, this technique has not yet gained broad acceptance among surgeons.

OBJECTIVE

Analysis and presentation of the current literature on MIS of the liver.

MATERIAL UND METHODS

Structured PubMed literature search and analysis.

RESULTS

According to the literature, MIS and open liver surgery are equivalent regarding the oncological quality. In addition to parenchyma-preserving resections, major hepatectomies (e.g. hemihepatectomy and sectorectomy), two-stage concepts and re-resections have increasingly been reported. The MIS of the liver is associated with less blood loss and other immunological advantages in addition to a shorter hospital stay. The highest level of evidence has been achieved for colorectal liver metastases for which a systematic review even revealed a survival benefit for patients undergoing MIS surgery. From an oncological perspective, laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery are considered to be equivalent.

CONCLUSION

According to the current literature MIS of the liver is recommended for the resection of colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma.