Robotic versus Laparoscopic Liver Resections for Colorectal Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, and the liver is the most common localization of metastatic disease. The incidence of minimally invasive liver surgery is increasing, and robotic surgery (RLR) is believed to overcome some limitations of a laparoscopic approach (LRL). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of operative and short-term oncologic outcomes of the laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted liver resection for colorectal liver metastases. An online search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases was performed. Eight studies involving 3210 patients were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. In the LRL group, a higher conversion to open rate (12.4%) was observed compared to the RLR (6.7%; p = <0.001). 30-day mortality was 0.7% for the LRL group compared to 0.5% for the RLR group (p = 0.76). Mortality in longer periods among LLR and RLR amounted to 18.2% vs. 8.0% for 1-year mortality (p = 0.07), 34.1% vs. 26.7% for 2-year mortality (p = 0.13), and 52.3% vs. 48.3% for 3-year mortality (p = 0.46). The length of hospital stay was 5.6 ± 2.5 vs. 5.8 ± 2.1 days, respectively (p = 0.47). There were no significant differences between the incidence of individual complications in the LRL and RLR groups (p = 0.78). Laparoscopic or robotic approaches for colorectal liver metastases are comparable in terms of safety and effectiveness. There are significant advantages to robotic surgery, although there is still no long-term evidence concerning overall survival, and the number of patients operated on using RLR remains small.

Early adoption of laparoscopic liver surgery in Poland: a national retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The need for safe and efficient dissemination of minimally invasive approach in liver surgery is among the current challenges for hepatobiliary surgeons. After the stage of innovators and pioneers, the following countries should adopt a laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to assess the national experience and trend in implementing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in Poland. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national registry of LLR performed in Poland was established in June 2020. All LLR cases performed before were included retrospectively, followed by prospectively collected new cases. Baseline characteristics, preoperative and intraoperative data, short-term results and long-term follow-up were recorded. RESULTS: Since 2010 up to the end of 2022 there were 718 LLRs performed in Poland. The national rate of laparoscopic approach has gradually increased since 2017 ( P <0.001), reaching the rate of 11.7% in 2022. There were 443 (61.7%), 107 (14.9%), and 168 (23.4%) LLRs performed in accordance to increasing grades of difficulty. The move towards more demanding cases had an increasing trend over the years ( P <0.001). Total intraoperative adverse event and postoperative severe complications rates were estimated for 13.5% ( n =97) and 6.7% ( n =48), respectively. 30-day reoperation, readmission and postoperative mortality rates were 3.6% ( n =26), 2.8% ( n =20), and 0.8% ( n =6), respectively. While the R0 resection margin was assessed in 643 (89.6%) cases, the total textbook outcomes (TO) were achieved in 525 (74.5%) cases. Overcoming the learning curve of 60 LLRs, resulted in an increasing TO rate from 72.3 to 80.6% ( P =0.024). CONCLUSIONS: It is the first national analysis of a laparoscopic approach in liver surgery in Poland. An increasing trend of minimizing invasiveness in liver resection has been observed. Responsible selection of cases in accordance with difficulty may provide results within global benchmark values and textbook outcomes already during the learning curve.

Timing of Loop Ileostomy Closure Does Not Play a Pivotal Role in Terms of Complications-Results of the Liquidation of iLEOstomy (LILEO) Study.

Loop ileostomy is commonly performed by colorectal and general surgeons to protect newly created large bowel anastomoses. The optimal timing for ileostomy closure remains debatable. Defining the timing associated with the best postoperative outcomes can significantly improve the clinical results for patients undergoing ileostomy closure. The LILEO study was a prospective multicenter cohort study conducted in Poland from October 2022 to December 2023. Full data analysis involved 159 patients from 19 surgical centers. Patients were categorized based on the timing of ileostomy reversal: early (<4 months), standard (4-6 months), and delayed (>6 months). Data on demographics, clinical characteristics, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed for each group separately and compared. No significant differences were observed in length of hospital stay (p = 0.22), overall postoperative complications (p = 0.43), or 30-day reoperation rates (p = 0.28) across the three groups. Additional analysis of Clavien-Dindo complication grades was performed and did not show significant differences in complication severity (p = 0.95), indicating that the timing of ileostomy closure does not significantly impact perioperative complications or hospital stay. Decisions on ileostomy reversal timing should be personalized and should consider individual clinical factors, including the type of adjuvant oncological treatment and the preventive measures performed for common postoperative complications.