Robotic liver resection as a bridge to liver transplantation

Application of robotics in abdominal organ transplantation: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic transplant surgery has garnered worldwide attention since 2002. Discussions on this issue have led to more publications over the past decade. This study assessed global robotic organ transplantation studies using bibliometric analysis.

METHOD

The study sample was robotic technique use in organ transplantation publications from 2002 to 2021 in the Web of Science database. We analysed top-cited authors, countries, institutions, journals, and keywords. Citations were used to visualise and analyse target literature in VOSviewer.

RESULTS

160 articles were included in the bibliometric study. Among the nations that are presently involved in the use of robotics in organ transplantation research, the United States of America leads robotic organ transplantation studies. The American Journal of Transplantation published the most articles overall.

CONCLUSION

Based on publication and citation numbers, robotic organ transplantation techniques are becoming more global attention. This robotic abdominal organ transplant surgery bibliometric analysis review covers research output and hotspots.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe our experience with pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and to compare its outcomes with those of open right hepatectomy (ORH) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has been reported as a safe and effective approach for the management of liver cancer; however, its outcomes have not been evaluated in a large cohort of HCC patients with liver cirrhosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 152 patients who underwent pure LRH (n = 37) or ORH (n = 115) between June 2008 and July 2015 at the Asan Medical Center in Seoul, Korea. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the LRH and ORH groups. Subsequently, 33 patients were included in each group.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the LRH and ORH groups regarding the rate of complications (P = 0.053). However, the mean comprehensive complication index, which accounts for the severity of complications, was significantly lower in the LRH group (0.63 vs 4.42; P = 0.025). There were no significant differences between the LRH and ORH groups regarding 2-year disease-free survival rate or 2-year overall survival rate (P = 0.645 and P = 0.090, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in patients with cirrhosis, pure LRH is not less safe than the traditional open approach. The oncological outcomes of HCC were also comparable between the two groups. In selected patients, pure LRH for HCC appears to represent a viable alternative to ORH.

Robotic liver surgery is the optimal approach as bridge to transplantation

The role of minimally invasive liver surgery as a bridge to transplantation is very promising but still underestimated. However, it should be noted that surgical approach for hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) is not merely a technical or technological issue. Nowadays, the epidemiology of HCC is evolving due to the increasing role of non-alcoholic fatty-liver-disease, and the emerging concerns on direct-acting antivirals against hepatitis C virus in terms of HCC incidence. Therefore, a fully multidisciplinary study of the cirrhotic patient is currently more important than ever before, and the management of those patients should be reserved to tertiary referral hepatobiliary centers. In particular, minimally invasive approach to the liver showed several advantages compared to the classical open procedure, in terms of: (1) the small impact on abdominal wall; (2) the gentle manipulation on the liver; (3) the limited surgical trauma; and (4) the respect of venous shunts. Therefore, more direct indications should be outlined also in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer model. We believe that treatment of HCC in cirrhotic patients should be reserved to tertiary referral hepatobiliary centers, that should offer patient-tailored approaches to the liver disease, in order to provide the best care for each case, according to the individual comorbidities, risk factors, and personal quality of life expectations.

The use of robotic surgery in abdominal organ transplantation: A literature review

Minimally invasive surgical approaches in transplantation are gaining increasing interest, and many centers are reporting their, mainly laparoscopic, experiences. Robotic surgery (RS) has some hypothetical advantages over traditional laparoscopy and has been successfully applied, although infrequently to organ transplantation. Our goal was to review and critique the publications reporting RS use in organ transplantation. Most of the RS experience has been with living renal donor organ procurement and, to a lesser extent, with RS procedures in the transplant recipient. The available literature suggests that RS appears to be a safe surgical alternative to standard open procedures. RS in living liver donor surgery remains limited, and more experience is required before commenting on RS-related outcomes RS in pancreatic transplantation is exceedingly rare. The enhanced precision and ergonomics of RS may expand its applicability to liver living donation and pancreas transplantation at some point in the future.

Laparoscopic and robotic approach for hepatocellular carcinoma-state of the art

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common malignant tumor worldwide and the most common primary liver cancer, in over 80% of cases HCC grown on a cirrhotic liver. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now worldwide accepted considering the excellent results shown. Minimally invasive surgical approach for HCC is increasing continuously and in specialized centers seems to become the first-line approach for those patients. The aim of this review presents and discusses state of the art in the laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatment of HCC. An electronic search was performed to identify all studies dealing with HCC resected with laparoscopy or robotic approach. Indications for laparoscopic resection, robotic assisted and totally robotic resection of HCC will be doubtless increased in future years. LLR and robotic approach for HCC is safe and feasible.

SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci ® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA)

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci(®) Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is a computer-assisted (robotic) surgical system designed to enable and enhance minimally invasive surgery. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared computer-assisted surgical systems for use by trained physicians in an operating room environment for laparoscopic surgical procedures in general, cardiac, colorectal, gynecologic, head and neck, thoracic and urologic surgical procedures. There are substantial numbers of peer-reviewed papers regarding the da Vinci(®) Surgical System, and a thoughtful assessment of evidence framed by clinical opinion is warranted.

METHODS

The SAGES da Vinci(®) TAVAC sub-committee performed a literature review of the da Vinci(®) Surgical System regarding gastrointestinal surgery. Conclusions by the sub-committee were vetted by the SAGES TAVAC Committee and SAGES Executive Board. Following revisions, the document was evaluated by the TAVAC Committee and Executive Board again for final approval.

RESULTS

Several conclusions were drawn based on expert opinion organized by safety, efficacy, and cost for robotic foregut, bariatric, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, colorectal surgery, and single-incision cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrointestinal surgery with the da Vinci(®) Surgical System is safe and comparable, but not superior to standard laparoscopic approaches. Although clinically acceptable, its use may be costly for select gastrointestinal procedures. Current data are limited to the da Vinci(®) Surgical System; further analyses are needed.

Outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic liver resections.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Central. Participants of any age and sex, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic liver resection were considered following these criteria: (1) studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resection; (2) studies reporting at least one perioperative outcome; and (3) if more than one study was reported by the same institute, only the most recent was included. The primary outcome measures were set for estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and mortality rates, hospital stay and major hepatectomy rates.

RESULTS

A total of 7 articles, published between 2010 and 2014, fulfilled the selection criteria. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significant reduction in blood loss and lower operative time (MD = 83.96, 95%CI: 10.51-157.41, P = 0.03; MD = 68.43, 95%CI: 39.22-97.65, P < 0.00001, respectively). No differences were found with respect to conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in reduced blood loss and shorter surgical times compared to robotic liver resections. There was no difference in conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and length of postoperative stay.

A systematic review of robotic-assisted liver resection and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted liver resection (RALR) was introduced as procedures of overcoming the limitations of traditional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). The aim of this review was to evaluate the surgical results of RALR from all published studies and the results of comparative studies of RALR versus LLR for hepatic neoplasm.

METHODS

Eligible studies involved RALR that published between January 2001 and December 2014 were reviewed systematically. Comparisons between RALS and LLR were pooled and analyzed by meta-analytical techniques using random- or fixed-effects models, as appropriate.

RESULTS

In total, 29 studies, involving 537 patients undergoing RALR, were identified. The most common RALR procedure was a wedge resection and segmentectomy (28.67%), followed by right hepatectomy (17.88%), left lateral sectionectomy (13.22%), and bisegmentectomy (9.12%). The conversion and complication rates were 5.59 and 11.36%, respectively. The most common reasons for conversion were bleeding (46.67%) and unclear tumor margin (33.33%). Intracavitary fluid collections and bile leaks (40.98%) were the most frequently occurring morbidities. Nine studies, involving 774 patients, were included in meta-analysis. RALR had a longer operative time compared with LLR [mean difference (MD) 48.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 22.49-74.49 min; p = 0.0003]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in blood loss [MD 31.53; 95% CI -14.74 to 77.79 mL; p = 0.18], hospital stay [MD 0.13; 95% CI -0.54 to 0.80 days; p = 0.18], postoperative overall morbidity [odds ratio (OR) 0.76; 95% CI 0.49-1.19; p = 0.23], and surgical margin status (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.33-1.12; p = 0.11); cost was greater than robotic surgery (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RALR and LLR display similar safety, feasibility, and effectiveness for hepatectomies, but further studies are needed before any final conclusion can be drawn, especially in terms of oncologic and cost-effectiveness outcomes.

Salvage liver transplantation after laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter experience

Liver transplantation is the ideal treatment for patients affected by early stage hepatocellular carcinoma and chronic liver disease. Considering organs shortage, alternative treatments have to be adopted to minimize the waitlist drop-out, and in case of recurrence within the accepted criteria, salvage transplantation can be considered. Surgical resection is one of the most effective treatments, with the possibility of oncological radicality and pathological analysis of the specimen. Although these theoretical advantages, surgical strategy cannot be applied to all patients because of the impaired liver function as well as the amount of parenchyma to be resected does not allow a sufficient future liver remnant. Furthermore, resection by laparotomy may lead to strong intra-abdominal adhesions in a contest of portal hypertension and, as potential consequence, increase transplantation difficulty raising morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection is now performed as a routine procedure in tertiary referral centers, with increasing evidence of long-term results comparable to traditional surgery together with the advantages of a minimally invasive approach. In addition, with a salvage transplantation strategy that has been shown to be comparable to primary transplantation, the patient can live with his native liver avoiding an invasive procedure and long-term immunosuppression, allowing the use of liver grafts for the community. We present the results of an Italian multicenter experience of salvage liver transplantation following the recurrence of HCC initially treated by laparoscopic resection in 31 patients, performed by four referral centers. Mean operative transplantation time was 450 min, morbidity was 41.9%, 90-days mortality was 3.2%, and median post-operative length of stay was 17.9 days. Salvage liver transplantation after laparoscopic liver resection for HCC is comparable to open surgery in terms of operative time, oncologic radicality, morbidity and mortality, with the advantages of laparoscopic surgery.

Oncological and surgical results of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for HCC less than 5 cm: case-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is the evaluation of the surgical and oncological results of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by comparing laparoscopic and open liver resection (OLR) in the treatment of this disease. Retrospective analysis of laparoscopic and OLR for HCC (<5 cm) performed over a 4-year period was conducted. The LLR was done by a single surgeon.

METHODS

The study was performed on patients who received liver resection for HCC between July 2007 and August 2011 in our institution. Propensity-based matched analyses were used to account for operative method selection biases. During the 4 years, 1,050 patients with HCC received an operation. Among them patients who never received TACE or RFA before surgery and had HCC (<5 cm) were selected for this study.

RESULTS

174 patients had OLR, and 58 patients underwent LLR. Patients who received LLR had lower operative time, transfusion rate, complication rate, and shorter hospital days. There were significant differences in hospital mortality and morbidity between the two groups. Dietary recovery was relatively fast in the group of LLR. Overall and disease-free survival rates during the 4 years were also not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR is a developing and safe technique in a select group of patients including those with malignancies, and use of this procedure is associated with short hospital stays, a rapid return to a normal diet, full mobility, and minimal morbidity, with acceptable oncological parameters. It may be an optimal method of hepatectomy in HCC (<5 cm). Further, long-term follow-up should be acquired for adequate evaluation for survival.

Robotic surgery of the liver: Italian experience and review of the literature

Robotic liver resection is a new promising minimally invasive surgical technique not yet validated by level I evidence. During recent years, the application of the laparoscopic approach to liver resection has grown less than other abdominal specialties due to the intrinsic limitations of laparoscopic instruments. Robotics can overcome these limitations above all for complex operations. A review of the literature on major hepatic surgery was conducted on PubMed using selected keywords. Two hundred and thirty-five patients in 17 series were analysed and outcomes such as operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, conversion rate, and costs were described. The most commonly performed procedures were wedge resection and segmentectomy, but the predominance of major hepatectomies performed with robotic surgery is likely due to the superior control achieved by the robotic system.

The conversion and complication rates were 4.2% and 13.4%, respectively. Intracavitary fluid collections and bile leaks were the most frequently occurring morbidities. The mean operation time was 285 min. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 50–280 mL. The mean postoperative hospital stay was four to seven days. Overall survival and long-term outcomes were not reported. Robotic liver surgery in Italy has become a clinical reality that is gaining increasing acceptance; a survey was carried out on robotic surgery, which showed that it is perceived as a significant advantage for operators and a consistent gain for the patient. More than 100 robotic hepatic resections have been performed in Italy where important robotic training schools are active.

Robotic liver surgery is feasible and safe in trained and experienced hands. Further evaluation is required to assess the improvement in outcomes and long-term oncologic follow-up.

Robotic liver resection: initial experience with three-arm robotic and single-port robotic technique

Robotic liver surgery was found to offer advantages not inherent in conventional laparoscopic liver resection.

Background and Objective:

Robotic-assisted surgery offers a solution to fundamental limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, and its use is gaining wide popularity. However, the application of this technology has yet to be established in hepatic surgery.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis of our prospectively collected liver surgery database was performed. Over a 6-month period, all consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted hepatic resection for a liver neoplasm were included. Demographics, operative time, and morbidity encountered were evaluated.

Results:

A total of 7 robotic-assisted liver resections were performed, including 2 robotic-assisted single-port access liver resections with the da Vinci-Si Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Sunnyvalle, Calif.) USA. The mean age was 44.6 years (range, 21–68 years); there were 5 male and 2 female patients. The mean operative time (± SD) was 61.4 ± 26.7 minutes; the mean operative console time (± SD) was 38.2 ± 23 minutes. No conversions were required. The mean blood loss was 100.7 mL (range, 10–200 mL). The mean hospital stay (± SD) was 2 ± 0.4 days. No postoperative morbidity related to the procedure or death was encountered.

Conclusion:

Our initial experience with robotic liver resection confirms that this technique is both feasible and safe. Robotic-assisted technology appears to improve the precision and ergonomics of single-access surgery while preserving the known benefits of laparoscopic surgery, including cosmesis, minimal morbidity, and faster recovery.

Primary liver transplantation vs liver resection followed by transplantation for transplantable hepatocellular carcinoma: Liver functional quality and tumor characteristics matter

Liver resection (LR) and primary liver transplantation (LT) are two potentially curative treatment modalities for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). If an underlying chronic liver disease exists, however, making a decision on which method should be selected is difficult. If a patient has no chronic liver disease, LR may be the preferable option with salvage transplantation (ST) in mind in case of recurrence. Presence of a moderate-to-severe liver failure accompanying HCC usually warrants primary LT. The treatment of patients with HCC and early-stage chronic liver disease remains controversial. The advantages of “LR-followed-by-ST-if-needed” strategy include less complicated index operation, no need for immunosuppression, use of donor livers for other patients in today’s organ shortage setting and comparable survival rates. However, primary LT has its own advantages as it also treats underlying chronic liver disease with carcinogenic potential, removes undetected tumor nodules and potentially eliminates need for a ST. An article recently published by Fuks et al in Hepatology offers an approach by which selecting between LR-followed-by-ST and immediate LT might be easier. Here we discuss the results of the aforementioned report in the light of currently available knowledge.

Systematic review of robotic liver resection

Background

Robotic liver resection has emerged as a new modality in the field of minimally invasive surgery. However, the effectiveness of this approach for liver resection is not yet known.

Methods

A literature survey was performed using specific search phrases in PubMed. Case series that focused on biliary reconstruction were excluded. Characteristics, such as patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and oncological results for colorectal liver metastasis and hepatocellular carcinoma were analyzed.

Results

Nineteen series that described the cases of 217 eligible patients were reviewed. The most commonly performed procedures were wedge resection and segmentectomy. Right hepatectomy was performed in a few specialized centers. The conversion and complication rates were 4.6 and 20.3 %, respectively. The most common reason for conversion was unclear tumor margin. Intra-abdominal fluid collection was the most frequently occurring morbidity. Mean operation time was 200–507 min. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 50–660 mL, with a tendency toward increased blood loss observed in series that included major hepatectomies. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 5.5–11.7 days. The longest mean follow-up time was 36 months for colorectal liver metastasis and 25.1 months in hepatocellular carcinoma. Disease-free survival for mixed malignancies was comparable to that after laparoscopic procedures. Overall survival was not reported.

Conclusions

Robotic liver resection is safe and feasible for experienced surgeons with advanced laparoscopic skills. Long-term oncologic outcomes are unclear, but short-term perioperative results seem comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic liver resection.

Laparoscopy in Liver Transplantation: The Future has Arrived

In the last two decades, laparoscopy has revolutionized the field of surgery. Many procedures previously performed with an open access are now routinely carried out with the laparoscopic approach. Several advantages are associated with laparoscopic surgery compared to open procedures: reduced pain due to smaller incisions and hemorrhaging, shorter hospital length of stay, and a lower incidence of wound infections. Liver transplantation (LT) brought a radical change in life expectancy of patients with hepatic end-stage disease. Today, LT represents the standard of care for more than fifty hepatic pathologies, with excellent results in terms of survival. Surely, with laparoscopy and LT being one of the most continuously evolving challenges in medicine, their recent combination has represented an astonishing scientific progress. The intent of the present paper is to underline the current role of diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy in patients waiting for LT, in the living donor LT and in LT recipients.

Liver Transplantation for HCC: A Review

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) often occurs in patients with chronic liver disease or cirrhosis. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma has the potential to eliminate both the tumor as well as the underlying cirrhosis and is the ideal treatment for HCC in cirrhotic liver as well as massive HCC in noncirrhotic liver. Limitations in organ availability, necessitate stringent selection of patients who would likely to derive most benefit. Selection criteria have considered tumor size, number, volume as well as biological features. The Milan criteria set the benchmark for tumors that would benefit from liver transplantation but were found to be excessively restrictive. Modest expansion in criteria has also been shown to be associated with equivalent survival. Microvascular invasion is the single most important adverse prognostic factor for survival. Living donor liver transplantation has expanded donor options and has the advantage of lower waiting period and not impacting the non-HCC waiting list. Acceptable outcomes have been obtained with living donor liver transplantation for larger and more numerous tumors in the absence of microvascular invasion. Downstaging of tumors to prevent progression while waiting for an organ or for reduction in size to allow enrolment for transplantation has met with variable success.