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

Evaluation of the economic impact of the robotic approach in major and postero-superior segment liver resections: a multicenter retrospective analysis

Background

Economic impact of robotic liver surgery (RLS) is still a debated issue due to the heterogeneity of liver resections considered and the lack of a rigorous methodology. Therefore, the aim of this study is to perform a time-driven activity-based costing (TD-ABC) comparing the costs of RLS, laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) and open liver surgery (OLS) in the context of complex liver resections and to compare short term perioperative outcomes.

Methods

The institutional databases of two Italian high volume hepatobiliary centres were retrospectively reviewed from February 2021 to April 2022. Patients submitted to major hepatectomies or postero-superior liver resections were selected and divided into three groups according to the approach scheduled (RLS, LLS and OLS) and compared. Major contributors of perioperative expenses were calculated using the TD-ABC model and accurately quantifying each unit resource consumed per patient and the time spent performing each activity. A primary intention-to-treat analysis (ITT-A) including conversions in the RLS and LLS groups was performed.

Results

Forty-seven RLS, 101 LLS and 124 OLS were collected. LLS and RLS showed reduced blood loss, morbidity, mortality and hospital stay compared with open. A trend towards reduced conversion rate in RLS compared to LLS was registered. Total costs associated with RLS were estimated at €10,637 vs. €9,543 for LLS and vs. €13,960 for OLS. The higher intraoperative costs associated with RLS (+153.3% vs. OLS and +148.2% vs. LLS, P<0.001), primarily related to surgical equipment expenses, were slightly offset by the postoperative savings (-56.0% vs. OLS and -29.4% vs. LLS, P<0.001) resulting from significantly reduced hospital stays.

Conclusions

RLS offers economic advantages over OLS, as initial higher costs are offset by better perioperative outcomes. The evolving robotic marketplace is expected to drive down RLS costs, promoting widespread adoption in minimally invasive procedures. Despite its higher costs than LLS, RLS's ability to enhance minimally invasive feasibility makes it a preferred choice for complex cases, reducing the need for conversions.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to compare short-term outcomes between robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) using data collected from propensity score-matched studies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to collect propensity score-matched studies comparing RLR and LLR. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models. Meta-regression analysis was performed for primary outcome measures. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed for outcomes exhibiting high heterogeneity. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-two propensity score-matched studies were included to comprise 5272 patients (RLR group, 2422 cases; LLR group, 2850 cases). Intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-0.31 ml, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; P =0.0005), open conversion (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.37-0.58; P <0.0001), and severe complications (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.95; P =0.02) were significantly lower in the RLR group. Operation time, odds of use, and duration of Pringle maneuver, length of hospital stay, and odds of intraoperative blood transfusion, overall complications, R0 resection, reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality did not significantly differ between the groups. Further subgroup and sensitivity analyses suggested that the results were stable. Meta-regression analysis did not suggest a correlation between primary outcomes and study characteristics. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was medium or low, while that for the secondary outcomes was medium, low, or very low.

CONCLUSION

Although some short-term outcomes are similar between RLR and LLR, RLR is superior in terms of less blood loss and lower odds of open conversion and severe complications. In the future, RLR may become a safe and effective replacement for LLR.

Comparative study of operative expenses: robotic vs. laparoscopic vs. open liver resections at a university hospital in the UK

Robotic liver resections (RLR) are increasingly being performed and has previously been considered more costly. The aim is to explore the cost of RLR compared with laparoscopic and open liver resection in a single National Health Service (NHS) hospital. A retrospective review of patients who underwent RLR, LLR, and OLR from April 2014 to December 2022 was conducted. The primary outcomes were the cost of consumables and median income, and the secondary outcomes were the overall length of stay and mortality at 90 days. Overall, 332 patients underwent liver resections. There were 204 males (61.4%) and 128 females (38.6%), with a median age of 62 years (IQR: 51-77 years). Of these, 60 patients (18.1%) underwent RLR, 21 patients (6.3%) underwent LLR, and 251 patients (75.6%) underwent OLR. Median consumables cost per case was £3863 (IQR: £3458-£5061) for RLR, £4326 (IQR: £4273-£4473) for LLR, and £4,084 (IQR: £3799-£5549) for the OLR cohort (p = 0.140). Median income per case was £7999 (IQR: £4509-£10,777) for RLR, £7497 (IQR: £2407-£14,576) for LLR, and £7493 (IQR: £2542-£14,121) for OLR. The median length of stay (LOS) for RLR was 3 days (IQR: 2-4.7 days) compared to 5 days for LLR (IQR: 4.5-7 days) and 6 days for OLR (IQR: 5-8 days, p < 0.001). Within the NHS, RLR has consumable costs comparable to OLR and LLR. It is also linked with a shorter LOS and generates similar income for patients undergoing OLR and LLR.

Prince and princesses: The current status of robotic surgery in surgical oncology

Robotic surgery has experienced a dramatic increase in utilization across general surgery over the last two decades, including in surgical oncology. Although urologists and gynecologists were the first to show that this technology could be utilized in cancer surgery, the robot is now a powerful tool in the treatment of gastrointestinal, hepato-pancreatico-biliary, colorectal, endocrine, and soft tissue malignancies. While long-term outcomes are still pending, short-term outcomes have showed promise for this technologic advancement of cancer surgery.

Reproducibility challenges in robotic surgery

Reproducibility of results is, in all research fields, the cornerstone of the scientific method and the minimum standard for assessing the value of scientific claims and conclusions drawn by other scientists. It requires a systematic approach and accurate description of the experimental procedure and data analysis, which allows other scientists to follow the steps described in the published work and obtain the “same results.” In general and in different research contexts with “same” results, we mean different things. It can be almost identical measures in a fully deterministic experiment or “validation of a hypothesis” or statistically similar results in a non-deterministic context. Unfortunately, it has been shown by systematic meta-analysis studies that many findings in fields like psychology, sociology, medicine, and economics do not hold up when other researchers try to replicate them. Many scientific fields are experiencing what is generally referred to as a “reproducibility crisis,” which undermines the trust in published results, imposes a thorough revision of the methodology in scientific research, and makes progress difficult. In general, the reproducibility of experiments is not a mainstream practice in artificial intelligence and robotics research. Surgical robotics is no exception. There is a need for developing new tools and putting in place a community effort to allow the transition to more reproducible research and hence faster progress in research. Reproducibility, replicability, and benchmarking (operational procedures for the assessment and comparison of research results) are made more complex for medical robotics and surgical systems, due to patenting, safety, and ethical issues. In this review paper, we selected 10 relevant published manuscripts on surgical robotics to analyze their clinical applicability and underline the problems related to reproducibility of the reported experiments, with the aim of finding possible solutions to the challenges that limit the translation of many scientific research studies into real-world applications and slow down research progress.

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.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

Simple Summary

Robotic liver surgery is being applied with increasing frequency. Comparable, and in specific settings superior, perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic liver surgery have been reported. In its current form, the most commonly mentioned advantage of robotic surgery is improved dexterity. Important obstacles to its wider implementation in daily clinical practice are the associated costs, technical difficulties, and a scarce amount of evidence. Robotic liver surgery will likely continue to evolve in parallel with technological developments that enhance the robots’ abilities.

Abstract

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots’ abilities.