Robotic liver surgery is the optimal approach as bridge to transplantation

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Liver resection in Cirrhotic liver: Are there any limits?

Liver resection remains one of the most technically challenging surgical procedure in abdominal surgery due to the complex anatomical arrangement in the liver and its rich blood supply that constitutes about 20% of the cardiac output per cycle. The challenge for resection in cirrhotic livers is even higher because of the impact of surgical stress and trauma imposed on borderline liver function and the impaired ability for liver regeneration in cirrhotic livers. Nonetheless, evolution and advancement in surgical techniques as well as knowledge in perioperative management of liver resection has led to a substantial improvement in surgical outcome in recent decade. The objective of this article was to provide updated information on the recent developments in liver surgery, from preoperative evaluation, to technicality of resection, future liver remnant augmentation and finally, postoperative management of complications.

Improving Outcomes Defending Patient Safety: The Learning Journey in Robotic Liver Resections

Background

While laparoscopy is currently adopted for hepatic resections, robotic approaches to the liver have not gained wide acceptance. We decided to analyze the learning curve in the field of robotic liver surgery comparing short-term outcomes between the first and the second half of our series.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed demographics and clinical data of patients who underwent robotic liver resection at our institution from July 2014 through September 2017. 60 patients diagnosed with primary or secondary liver neoplasms or hydatid disease were included in this study. ASA PS >3, heart failure, respiratory insufficiency, and general contraindication to pneumoperitoneum were exclusion criteria.

Results

60 patients were included. We observed a statistically significant decrease in operative time (p<0.001), intraoperative blood loss (p=0.01), and postoperative complications (p<0.001) after 30 cases. From the interpretation of the CUSUM curve, the time of operation appears to be significantly reduced after the first 30 operations.

Discussion

This is the first European analysis of the learning curve for robotic liver resection in an HPB and liver transplant referral center. However, more studies are needed to confirm such results outside a HPB referral center. This is crucial to develop formal credentialing protocols for both junior and senior surgeons.

Laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma: the first 46 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma has a growing incidence worldwide, and represents a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. Nowadays, minimally invasive approaches are spreading in every field of surgery and in liver surgery as well.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed demographics, clinical, and pathologic characteristics and short-term outcomes of patients who had undergone minimally invasive resections for hepatocellular carcinoma at our institution between June 2012 and May 2016.

RESULTS

No significant differences in demographics and comorbidities were found between patients in the laparoscopic (n = 24) and robotic (n = 22) groups, except for the rates of cirrhotic patients (91.7% and 68.2%, respectively, P = 0.046). Perioperative data analysis showed that the operative time (mean, 211 and 318 min, respectively, P < 0.001) was the only parameter in favor of laparoscopy. Conversely, robotic-assisted resections were related to less Clavien I-II postoperative complications (22 cases versus 13 cases; P = 0.03). As regards resection margins, the two groups were similar with no statistically significant differences in rates of disease-free resection margins.

CONCLUSIONS

A modern hepatobiliary center should offer both open and minimally invasive approaches to liver disease to provide the best care for each patient, according to the individual comorbidities, risk factors, and personal quality of life expectations. Our results show that the robotic approach is a reliable tool for accurate oncologic surgery, comparable to the laparoscopic approach. Robotic surgery also allows the surgeon to safely approach liver segments that are difficult to resect in laparoscopy, namely segments I-VII-VIII.