Robotic Versus Open Hepatic Arterial Infusion Pump Placement for Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy is an effective treatment for patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). HAIP chemotherapy requires a catheter inserted in the gastroduodenal artery and a subcutaneous pump. The catheter can be placed using an open or robotic approach. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of robotic versus open HAIP placement in patients with unresectable iCCA. METHODS: We analyzed patients with unresectable iCCA included in the PUMP-II trial from January 2020 to September 2022 undergoing robotic or open HAIP placement at Amsterdam UMC, Erasmus MC, and UMC Utrecht. The primary outcome was time to functional recovery (TTFR). RESULTS: In total, 22 robotic and 28 open HAIP placements were performed. The median TTFR was 2 days after robotic placement versus 5 days after open HAIP placement (p < 0.001). One patient (4.5%) in the robotic group underwent a conversion to open because of a large bulky tumor leaning on the hilum immobilizing the liver. Postoperative complications were similar-36% (8/22) after robotic placement versus 39% (11/28) after open placement (p = 1.000). The median length of hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group-3 versus 5 days (p < 0.001). All 22 robotic patients initiated HAIP chemotherapy post-surgery, i.e. 93% (26/28) in the open group (p = 0.497). The median time to start HAIP chemotherapy was 14 versus 18 days (p = 0.153). CONCLUSION: Robotic HAIP placement in patients with unresectable iCCA is a safe and effective procedure and is associated with a significantly shorter TTFR and hospital stay than open HAIP placement.

Hybrid operating room applications for precision hepatobiliary surgery: A narrative review.

This review summarizes the key applications of a hybrid operating room (HOR) in hepatobiliary surgery and explores the advantages, limitations, and future directions of its utilization. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed to identify articles reporting on the utilization of HORs in liver surgery. So far, the HOR has been limitedly applied in hepatobiliary surgery. It can offer an optimal environment for combining radiological and surgical interventions and for performing image-guided surgical navigation.

Healthcare cost expenditure for robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a bottom-up economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is increasingly performed via the robot-assisted approach but may be associated with increased costs. This study is a post-hoc comparison of healthcare cost expenditure for robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a high-volume center. METHODS: In-hospital and 30-day postoperative healthcare costs were calculated per patient in a retrospective series (October 2015-December 2022). RESULTS: Overall, 298 patients were included (143 RLR and 155 LLR). Benefits of RLR were lower conversion rate (2.8% vs 12.3%, p = 0.002), shorter operating time (167 min vs 198 min, p = 0.044), and less blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, p < 0.001). Total per-procedure costs of RLR (€10260) and LLR (€9931) were not significantly different (mean difference €329 [95% bootstrapped confidence interval (BCI) €-1179-€2120]). Lower costs with RLR due to shorter surgical and operating room time were offset by higher disposable instrumentation costs resulting in comparable intraoperative costs (€5559 vs €5247, mean difference €312 [95% BCI €-25-€648]). Postoperative costs were similar for RLR (€4701) and LLR (€4684), mean difference €17 [95% BCI €-1357-€1727]. When also considering purchase and maintenance costs, RLR resulted in higher total per-procedure costs. DISCUSSION: In a high-volume center, RLR can have similar per-procedure cost expenditure as LLR when disregarding capital investment.

Outpatient and Ambulatory Extended Recovery Robotic Hepatectomy: Multinational Study of 307 Cases.

BACKGROUND: For open minor hepatectomy, morbidity and recovery are dominated by the incision. The robotic approach may transform this "incision dominant procedure" into a safe outpatient procedure. STUDY DESIGN: We audited outpatient (less than 2 midnights) robotic hepatectomy at 6 hepatobiliary centers in 2 nations to test the hypothesis that the robotic approach can be a safe and effective short-stay procedure. Establishing early recovery after surgery programs were active at all sites, and home digital monitoring was available at 1 of the institutions. RESULTS: A total of 307 outpatient (26 same-day and 281 next-day discharge) robotic hepatectomies were identified (2013 to 2023). Most were minor hepatectomies (194 single segments, 90 bi-segmentectomies, 14 three segments, and 8 four segments). Thirty-nine (13%) were for benign histology, whereas 268 were for cancer (33 hepatocellular carcinoma, 27 biliary, and 208 metastatic disease). Patient characteristics were a median age of 60 years (18 to 93 years), 55% male, and a median BMI of 26 kg/m 2 (14 to 63 kg/m 2 ). Thirty (10%) patients had cirrhosis. One hundred eighty-seven (61%) had previous abdominal operation. Median operative time was 163 minutes (30 to 433 minutes), with a median blood loss of 50 mL (10 to 900 mL). There were no deaths and 6 complications (2%): 2 wound infections, 1 failure to thrive, and 3 perihepatic abscesses. Readmission was required in 5 (1.6%) patients. Of the 268 malignancy cases, 25 (9%) were R1 resections. Of the 128 with superior segment resections (segments 7, 8, 4A, 2, and 1), there were 12 positive margins (9%) and 2 readmissions for abscess. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient robotic hepatectomy in well-selected cases is safe (0 mortality, 2% complication, and 1.6% readmission), including resection in the superior or posterior portions of the liver that is challenging with nonarticulating laparoscopic instruments.

Impact of stent-graft complexity on mid-term results in fenestrated endovascular aortic repair of juxtarenal and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: The impact of stent-graft complexity on clinical outcome after fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (FEVAR) has been conflicting in the literature. The objective of this study was to compare mid-term results of stent-grafts with renal fenestrations alone with more complex stent-grafts including mesenteric fenestrations. METHODS: A single center retrospective study was conducted on 154 patients, who underwent FEVAR from 2006 to 2020 at our institution. RESULTS: There were 54 (35.1%) patients in the renal FEVAR group and 100 (64.9%) patients in the complex FEVAR group. Median follow-up of the total group was 25 months (IQR 7-45). There were no significant differences in technical success and perioperative mortality. Intraoperative complications (4% vs. 18%, P=0.001), operative time (145 min vs. 191 min, P=0.001), radiation dose (119372 mGy*cm2 vs. 159573 mGy*cm2, P=0.004) and fluoroscopy time (39 min vs. 54 min, P=0.007) were significantly lower in the renal FEVAR group. During follow-up target vessel instability, endoleaks and reinterventions were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this single center retrospective study, renal FEVAR was a safe and effective treatment for patients with juxtarenal AAA demonstrating fewer intraoperative complications and similar mid-term outcomes as complex FEVAR. If the anatomy is compatible for renal FEVAR, it might be unnecessary to expose patients to potentially more complications by choosing a complex FEVAR strategy.