Total robotic liver transplant: the final frontier of minimally invasive surgery.

The use of robotic surgery in transplantation is increasing; however, robotic liver transplantation (RLT) remains a challenging undertaking. To our knowledge, this is a report of the first RLT in North America and the first RLT using a whole graft from a deceased donor in the world. This paper describes the preparation leading to the RLT and the surgical technique of the operation. The operation was performed in a 62-year-old man with hepatitis C cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma with a native Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 10. The total console time for the operation was 8 hours 30 minutes, and the transplant hepatectomy took 3 hours 30 minutes. Warm ischemia time was 77 minutes. Biliary reconstruction was performed in a primary end-to-end fashion and took 19 minutes to complete. The patient had an uneventful recovery without early allograft dysfunction or surgical complications and continues to do well after 6-months follow-up. This paper demonstrates the feasibility of this operation in highly selected patients with chronic liver disease. Additional experience is required to fully understand the role of RLT in the future of transplant surgery. Narrated video is available at https://youtu.be/TkjDwLryd3I.

Impact of Liver Cirrhosis, Severity of Cirrhosis, and Portal Hypertension on the Difficulty and Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic Major Liver Resections for Primary Liver Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) offer potential benefits such as reduced blood loss and morbidity compared with open liver resections. Several studies have suggested that the impact of cirrhosis differs according to the extent and complexity of resection. Our aim was to investigate the impact of cirrhosis on the difficulty and outcomes of MILR, focusing on major hepatectomies. METHODS: A total of 2534 patients undergoing minimally invasive major hepatectomies (MIMH) for primary malignancies across 58 centers worldwide were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to compare patients with and without cirrhosis. RESULTS: A total of 1353 patients (53%) had no cirrhosis, 1065 (42%) had Child-Pugh A and 116 (4%) had Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. Matched comparison between non-cirrhotics vs Child-Pugh A cirrhosis demonstrated comparable blood loss. However, after PSM, postoperative morbidity and length of hospitalization was significantly greater in Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, but these were not statistically significant with CEM. Comparison between Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis demonstrated the latter had significantly higher transfusion rates and longer hospitalization after PSM, but not after CEM. Comparison of patients with cirrhosis of all grades with and without portal hypertension demonstrated no significant difference in all major perioperative outcomes after PSM and CEM. CONCLUSIONS: The presence and severity of cirrhosis affected the difficulty and impacted the outcomes of MIMH, resulting in higher blood transfusion rates, increased postoperative morbidity, and longer hospitalization in patients with more advanced cirrhosis. As such, future difficulty scoring systems for MIMH should incorporate liver cirrhosis and its severity as variables.

Initial clinical outcomes of robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: Is it safe and effective?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe our outcomes of robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, the largest single institutional series in the Western hemisphere to date. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2022, we prospectively followed all patients who underwent robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. RESULTS: In total, 23 patients underwent robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, 18 receiving concomitant hepatectomy. The median age was 73 years. Operative time was 470 min with an estimated blood loss of 150 mL. No intraoperative conversions to open or other intraoperative complications occurred. Median length of stay was 5 days. Four postoperative complications occurred. Three readmissions occurred within 30 days with one 90-day mortality. R0 resection was achieved in 87% of patients and R1 in 13% of patients. At a median follow-up of 27 months, 15 patients were alive without evidence of disease, two patients with local recurrence at 1 year, and six were deceased. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of the robotic platform for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is safe and feasible with excellent perioperative outcomes. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (≥ than 10 cm): a retrospective analysis from a high-volume referral center.

BACKGROUND: There is still poor evidence about the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for huge (> 10 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC). The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long-term outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for patients with huge HCC from real-life data from consecutive patients. METHODS: Data regarding all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for huge HCC were retrospectively collected from a Korean referral HPB center. Primary outcomes were the postoperative results, while secondary outcomes were the oncologic survivals. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were included in the study: 46 undergoing OLR and 17 LLR. Regarding postoperative outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, operation time, transfusions, postoperative bile leak, ascites, severe complications, and R1 resection rates. After a median follow-up of 48.4 (95% CI 8.9-86.8) months, there were no statistically significant differences in 3 years OS (59.3 ± 8.7 months vs. 85.2 ± 9.8 months) and 5 years OS (31.1 ± 9 months vs. 73.1 ± 14.1 months), after OLR and LLR, respectively (p = 0.10). Similarly, there was not a statistically significant difference in both 3 years DFS (23.5% ± 8.1 months vs. 51.6 ± months) and 5 years DFS (15.7 ± 7.1 months vs. 38.7 ± 15.3 months), respectively (p = 0.13), despite a potential clinically significant difference. CONCLUSION: LLR for huge HCC may be safe and effective in selected cases. Further studies with larger sample size and more appropriate design are needed to confirm these results.

Robotic or laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy after open hepatectomy: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Repeat hepatectomies are technically complex procedures. The evidence of robotic or laparoscopic (= minimally invasive) repeat hepatectomies (MIRH) after previous open hepatectomy is poor. Therefore, we compared postoperative outcomes of MIRH vs open repeat hepatectomies (ORH) in patients with liver tumors after previous open liver resections. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent repeat hepatectomies after open liver resections were identified from a prospective database between April 2018 and May 2023. Postoperative complications were graded in line with the Clavien-Dindo classification. We stratified patients by intention to treat into MIRH or ORH and compared outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was performed to define variables associated with the utilization of a minimally invasive approach. RESULTS: Among 46 patients included, 20 (43%) underwent MIRH and 26 (57%) ORH. Twenty-seven patients had advanced or expert repeat hepatectomies (59%) according to the IWATE criteria. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the study groups. The use of a minimally invasive approach was not dependent on preoperative or intraoperative variables. All patients had negative resection margins on final histology. MIRH was associated with less blood loss (450 ml, IQR (interquartile range): 200-600 vs 600 ml, IQR: 400-1500 ml, P = 0.032), and shorter length of stay (5 days, IQR: 4-7 vs 7 days, IQR: 5-9 days, P = 0.041). Postoperative complications were similar between the groups (P = 0.298). CONCLUSIONS: MIRH is feasible after previous open hepatectomy and a safe alternative approach to ORH. (German Clinical Trials Register ID: DRKS00032183).

Robotic liver parenchymal transection using the SynchroSeal.

BACKGROUND: There is much heterogeneity in the instrumentation used for parenchymal transection in minimally invasive liver surgery. Instruments specifically designed for robotic parenchymal transection of the liver are lacking. We aim to gain insight into the safety and effectiveness of the SynchroSeal (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA), a novel bipolar electrosurgical device, in the context of liver surgery. METHODS: The present study is a post-hoc analysis of prospectively collected data from patients undergoing robotic liver resection (RLR) using the SynchroSeal in two high-volume centres. The results of the SynchroSeal were compared with that of the previous generation bipolar-sealer; Vessel Sealer Extend (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) using propensity score matching, after excluding the first 25 Vessel Sealer procedures per center. RESULTS: During the study period (February 2020-March 2023), 155 RLRs meeting the eligibility criteria were performed with the SynchroSeal (after implementation in June 2021) and 145 RLRs with the Vessel Sealer. Excellent outcomes were achieved when performing parenchymal transection with the SynchroSeal; low conversion rate (n = 1, 0.6%), small amounts of intraoperative blood loss (median 40 mL [IQR 10-100]), short hospital stays (median 3 days [IQR 2-4]), and adequate overall morbidity (19.4%) as well as severe morbidity (11.0%). In a matched comparison (n = 94 vs n = 94), the SynchroSeal was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (48 mL [IQR 10-143] vs 95 mL [IQR 30-200], p = 0.032) compared to the Vessel Sealer. Other perioperative outcomes were similar between the devices. CONCLUSION: The SynchroSeal is a safe and effective device for robotic liver parenchymal transection.

Evolution of minimally invasive liver surgery in France over the last decade.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of benefits on postoperative outcomes, minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) had a very low diffusion up to 2014, and recent evolution is unknown. Our aim was to analyze the recent diffusion and adoption of MILS and compare the trends in indications, extent of resection, and institutional practice with open liver surgery (OLS). METHODS: We analyzed the French nationwide, exhaustive cohort of all patients undergoing a liver resection in France between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2022. Average annual percentage changes (AAPC) in the incidence of MILS and OLS were compared using mixed-effects log-linear regression models. Time trends were analyzed in terms of extent of resection, indication, and institutional practice. RESULTS: MILS represented 25.2% of 74,671 liver resections and year incidence doubled from 16.5% in 2013 to 35.4% in 2022. The highest AAPC were observed among major liver resections [+ 22.2% (19.5; 24.9) per year], primary [+ 10.2% (8.5; 12.0) per year], and secondary malignant tumors [+ 9.9% (8.2; 11.6) per year]. The highest increase in MILS was observed in university hospitals [+ 14.7% (7.7; 22.2) per year] performing 48.8% of MILS and in very high-volume (> 150 procedures/year) hospitals [+ 12.1% (9.0; 15.3) per year] performing 19.7% of MILS. OLS AAPC decreased for all indications and institutions and accelerated over time from - 1.8% (- 3.9; - 0.3) per year in 2013-2018 to - 5.9% (- 7.9; - 3.9) per year in 2018-2022 (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first reported trend reversal between MILS and OLS. MILS has considerably increased at a national scale, crossing the 20% tipping point of adoption rate as defined by the IDEAL framework.

Impact of Tumor Size on the Difficulty of Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although tumor size (TS) is known to affect surgical outcomes in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), its impact on laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH) is not well studied. The objectives of this study were to investigate the impact of TS on the perioperative outcomes of L-MH and to elucidate the optimal TS cutoff for stratifying the difficulty of L-MH. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of 3008 patients who underwent L-MH at 48 international centers. A total 1396 patients met study criteria and were included. The impact of TS cutoffs was investigated by stratifying TS at each 10-mm interval. The optimal cutoffs were determined taking into consideration the number of endpoints which showed a statistically significant split around the cut-points of interest and the magnitude of relative risk after correction for multiple risk factors. RESULTS: We identified 2 optimal TS cutoffs, 50 mm and 100 mm, which segregated L-MH into 3 groups. An increasing TS across these 3 groups (≤ 50 mm, 51-100 mm, > 100 mm), was significantly associated with a higher open conversion rate (11.2%, 14.7%, 23.0%, P < 0.001), longer operating time (median, 340 min, 346 min, 365 min, P = 0.025), increased blood loss (median, 300 ml,  ml, 400 ml, P = 0.002) and higher rate of intraoperative blood transfusion (13.1%, 15.9%, 27.6%, P < 0.001). Postoperative outcomes such as overall morbidity, major morbidity, and length of stay were comparable across the three groups. CONCLUSION: Increasing TS was associated with poorer intraoperative but not postoperative outcomes after L-MH. We determined 2 TS cutoffs (50 mm and 10 mm) which could optimally stratify the surgical difficulty of L-MH.

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection for cavernous hemangioma: a propensity score matching study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive techniques have increasingly been adopted for liver resection. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for liver cavernous hemangioma and to evaluate the treatment feasibility and safety. METHODS: A retrospective study of prospectively collected data was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent RALR (n = 43) and LLR (n = 244) for liver cavernous hemangioma between February 2015 and June 2021 at our institution. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared using propensity score matching. RESULTS: The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter (P = 0.016) in the RALR group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rates, conversion to open surgery or complication rates. There was no perioperative mortality. Multivariate analysis showed that hemangiomas located in posterosuperior liver segments and those in close proximity to major vascular structures were independent predictors of increased intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.013 and P = 0.001, respectively). For patients with hemangioma in close proximity to major vascular structures, there were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between the two groups, with the exception that intraoperative blood loss in the RALR group was significantly less than that in the LLR group (350 ml vs. 450 ml, P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Both RALR and LLR were safe and feasible for treating liver hemangioma in well-selected patients. For patients with liver hemangioma in close proximity to major vascular structures, RALR was better than conventional laparoscopic surgery in reducing intraoperative blood loss.

Association of standardized liver volume and body mass index with outcomes of minimally invasive liver resections.

INTRODUCTION: While minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) have demonstrated advantages in improved post-operative recovery, widespread adoption is hampered by inherent technical difficulties. Our study attempts to analyze the role of anthropometric measures in MILR-related outcomes. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2020, 676 consecutive patients underwent MILR at the Singapore General Hospital of which 565 met study criteria and were included. Patients were stratified based on Body Mass Index (BMI) as well as Standardized Liver Volumes (SLV). Associations between BMI and SLV to selected peri-operative outcomes were analyzed using restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: A BMI of ≥ 29 was associated with increase in blood loss [Mean difference (MD) 69 mls, 95% CI 2 to 137] as well as operative conversions [Relative Risk (RR) 1.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.62] among patients undergoing MILR while a SLV of 1600 cc or higher was associated with an increase in blood loss (MD 30 mls, 95% CI 10 to 49). In addition, a BMI of ≤ 20 was associated with an increased risk of major complications (RR 2.25, 95% 1.16 to 4.35). The magnitude of differences observed in these findings increased with each unit change in BMI and SLV. CONCLUSION: Both BMI and SLV were useful anthropometric measures in predicting peri-operative outcomes in MILR and may be considered for incorporation in future difficulty scoring systems for MILR.

Practice variation and outcomes of minimally invasive minor liver resections in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: In 2017, the Southampton guideline stated that minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) should considered standard practice for minor liver resections. This study aimed to assess recent implementation rates of minor MILR, factors associated with performing MILR, hospital variation, and outcomes in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: This population-based study included all patients who underwent minor liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2021. Factors associated with MILR and nationwide hospital variation were assessed using multilevel multivariable logistic regression. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was applied to compare outcomes between minor MILR and minor open liver resections. Overall survival (OS) was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis on patients operated until 2018. RESULTS: Of 4,488 patients included, 1,695 (37.8%) underwent MILR. PSM resulted in 1,338 patients in each group. Implementation of MILR increased to 51.2% in 2021. Factors associated with not performing MILR included treatment with preoperative chemotherapy (aOR 0.61 CI:0.50-0.75, p < 0.001), treatment in a tertiary referral hospital (aOR 0.57 CI:0.50-0.67, p < 0.001), and larger diameter and number of CRLM. Significant hospital variation was observed in use of MILR (7.5% to 93.0%). After case-mix correction, six hospitals performed fewer, and six hospitals performed more MILRs than expected. In the PSM cohort, MILR was associated with a decrease in blood loss (aOR 0.99 CI:0.99-0.99, p < 0.01), cardiac complications (aOR 0.29, CI:0.10-0.70, p = 0.009), IC admissions (aOR 0.66, CI:0.50-0.89, p = 0.005), and shorter hospital stay (aOR CI:0.94-0.99, p < 0.01). Five-year OS rates for MILR and OLR were 53.7% versus 48.6%, p = 0.21. CONCLUSION: Although uptake of MILR is increasing in the Netherlands, significant hospital variation remains. MILR benefits short-term outcomes, while overall survival is comparable to open liver surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections for hepatolithiasis: an international multicenter propensity score matched analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is widely recognized as a safe and beneficial procedure in the treatment of both malignant and benign liver diseases. Hepatolithiasis has traditionally been reported to be endemic only in East Asia, but has seen a worldwide uptrend in recent decades with increasingly frequent and invasive endoscopic instrumentation of the biliary tract for a myriad of conditions. To date, there has been a woeful lack of high-quality evidence comparing the laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) approaches to treatment hepatolithiasis. METHODS: This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 273 patients who underwent RLR or LRR for hepatolithiasis at 33 centers in 2003-2020. The baseline clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes of these patients were assessed. To minimize selection bias, 1:1 (48 and 48 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) and 1:2 (37 and 74 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. RESULTS: In the unmatched cohort, 63 (23.1%) patients underwent RLR, and 210 (76.9%) patients underwent LLR. Patient clinicopathological characteristics were comparable between the groups after PSM. After 1:1 and 1:2 PSM, RLR was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.005 in 1:1 PSM), less patients with blood loss greater than 300 ml (p = 0.024 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.027 in 1:1 PSM), and lower conversion rate to open surgery (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p < 0.001 in 1:1 PSM). There was no significant difference between RLR and LLR in use of the Pringle maneuver, median Pringle maneuver duration, 30-day readmission rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality. CONCLUSION: Both RLR and LLR were safe and feasible for hepatolithiasis. RLR was associated with significantly less blood loss and lower open conversion rate.

Transatlantic registries for minimally invasive liver surgery: towards harmonization.

BACKGROUND: Several registries focus on patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). This study compared transatlantic registries focusing on the variables collected and differences in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment in patients undergoing MILS. Furthermore, key variables were identified. METHODS: The five registries for liver surgery from North America (ACS-NSQIP), Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, and Europe were compared. A set of key variables were established by consensus expert opinion and compared between the registries. Anonymized data of all MILS procedures were collected (January 2014-December 2019). To summarize differences for all patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, the relative and absolute largest differences (RLD, ALD) between the smallest and largest outcome per variable among the registries are presented. RESULTS: In total, 13,571 patients after MILS were included. Both 30- and 90-day mortality after MILS were below 1.1% in all registries. The largest differences in baseline characteristics were seen in ASA grade 3-4 (RLD 3.0, ALD 46.1%) and the presence of liver cirrhosis (RLD 6.4, ALD 21.2%). The largest difference in treatment was the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RLD 4.3, ALD 20.6%). The number of variables collected per registry varied from 28 to 303. From the 46 key variables, 34 were missing in at least one of the registries. CONCLUSION: Despite considerable variation in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment of patients undergoing MILS in the five transatlantic registries, overall mortality after MILS was consistently below 1.1%. The registries should be harmonized to facilitate future collaborative research on MILS for which the identified 46 key variables will be instrumental.

Minimally invasive versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis of 224 patients.

PURPOSE: To compare the peri-operative and long-term survival outcomes of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) (robotic or laparoscopic) with open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Data of patients who underwent liver resection for HCC were reviewed from a prospectively collected database. Outcomes of MILR were compared with those of OLR. A propensity score matching analysis with a ratio of 1:1 was performed to minimise the potential bias in clinical pathological factors. RESULTS: From January 2003 to December 2017, a total of 705 patients underwent liver resection for HCC. Amongst them, 112 patients received MILR and 593 patients received OLR. After propensity score matching, there were 112 patients in each of the MILR and OLR groups. Patients were matched by age, sex, hepatitis status, presence of cirrhosis, platelet count, albumin level, bilirubin level, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level, alanine transferase (ALT) level, creatinine level, tumour differentiation, tumour size, tumour number, presence of tumour rupture, presence of vascular invasion, extent of liver resection (minor/major) and difficulty score. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 94.4%, 90.4% and 82.3% in the MILR group vs 95.4%, 80.5% and 71.8% in the open group (p = 0.240). The 1-, 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 81.0%, 63.1% and 55.8% in the MILR group vs 79.1%, 58.1% and 45.7 in the open group (p = 0.449). The MILR group demonstrated significantly less blood loss (p < 0.001), less blood transfusion (p = 0.004), lower post-operative complications (p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) when compared with the OLR group. CONCLUSIONS: Our data shows MILR yielded superior post-operative outcomes to OLR, with comparable survival outcomes.

Correlation Between Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Patterns and Grade of Differentiation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Western Prospective Cohort Study.

Background. Most of the available evidence on the use of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence in clinical practice consists of articles published by surgeons of the Asian-Pacific area. We performed a prospective cohort study to assess the patterns of ICG fluorescence in Western hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) counterparts.Methods. From April 2019 to January 2022, a total of 31 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for superficial HCC were enrolled in this prospective study. All patients underwent laparoscopic staging with both laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) and ICG fluorescence imaging.Results. A total of 38 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) were enrolled: 23 superficial (surfacing at the liver's Glissonian capsule), 5 exophytic, 5 shallow (<8 mm from the hepatic surface) and 5 deep (>10 mm from the hepatic surface). The detection rate with preoperative imaging (abdominal CT/MRI), LUS, ICG fluorescence and combined modalities (ICG and LUS) was 97.4%, 94.9%, 89.7% and 100%, respectively. The five deep seated lesions underwent ultrasound-guided laparoscopic thermal ablation. The other 33 HCCs were treated with minimally invasive liver resection. Intraoperative ultrasound patterns were registered for each single nodule resected. The ICG fluorescence pattern was classified in two types: total fluorescence (all the tumoral tissue showed strong and homogeneous fluorescence), n = 9/33 (27.3%), and non-total fluorescence (partial and rim fluorescence), n = 24/33 (72.7%). There was a statistical correlation between ICG patterns and grade of differentiation. Almost all lesions with uniform fluorescence pattern were well-differentiated HCCs (G1-G2), while partial and rim-type fluorescence pattern were more common among moderately and poorly differentiated HCCs (G3-G4) (88.9% vs 11.1%, 37.5% vs 62.5%, P = .025, respectively).Conclusions. ICG fluorescence imaging could be used to identify early the grade of HCC, ie intraoperatively, thus influencing the intraoperative treatment.

Impact of non-liver-related previous abdominal surgery on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resections: a propensity score-matched controlled study.

INTRODUCTION: The presence of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) has traditionally been considered to add difficulty to and increase risk of complications of laparoscopic procedures. This study aims to analyse the impact of non-liver-related PAS on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After exclusion of patients with concomitant major surgical procedures as well as previous liver resections, 515 consecutive patients undergoing MILR in Singapore General Hospital from 2006 to 2019 were analysed, consisting of 161 MILR in patients with previous abdominal surgery (WPAS) and 354 MILR in patients without previous abdominal surgery (WOPAS). Propensity score-matched (PSM) comparison was performed between WPAS and WOPAS groups. In addition, subgroup analysis was made comparing previous upper or lower abdominal surgery and open versus minimally invasive approach of PAS. Outcomes measured include those associated with operative difficulty such as open conversion rates, operative time, blood loss, as well as morbidity and mortality rates. RESULTS: MILR outcomes in patients WPAS are not inferior to those WOPAS. Overall open conversion rate was 8.2%, higher in patients WOPAS compared to patients WPAS (11.9% versus 3.5%, p = 0.015). Operating time (p = 0.942), blood loss (p = 0.063), intraoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.750), length of hospital stay (p = 0.206), morbidity (p = 0.217) and 30- and 90-day mortality (p = 1 & p = 0.367) were comparable between the two groups and subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: Outcomes of MILR in patients with previous non-liver-related abdominal surgery are not inferior to patients without previous abdominal surgery.

Safety and feasibility of robotic liver resection after previous abdominal surgeries.

BACKGROUND: While minimally invasive liver surgery has been increasingly adopted at least for minor resections, experience with robotic liver surgery is still limited to a few highly specialized centers. Due to the fear of abdominal adhesions, a history of prior surgeries is still used as an argument for open approaches. METHODS: Clinical data of all consecutive robotic resections at our center, using the da Vinci Xi surgical system, between April, 2018 and December, 2020, were collected and analyzed as part of a prospective, post-marketing observational study (DRKS00017229). Prior abdominal surgeries were specified according to the surgical approach and localization. Baseline and perioperative outcome criteria were compared between patients with prior surgeries (PS) and patients with no prior surgeries (NPS) in univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Out of the 126 patients undergoing robotic liver resections, 59% had a history of abdominal surgeries, which were most often colorectal resections (28%) followed by liver resections (20%). Patients with NPS were more likely to undergo robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma or benign tumors, and to have underlying liver cirrhosis when compared to patients with PS. Other baseline characteristics as well as the extent of resections were similar. Duration of surgery (258 min), conversion rates (6%), and postoperative complications rates (21% Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) showed no differences between NPS and PS. A subgroup of patients with a history of prior liver surgery showed a longer duration of surgery in univariate analysis. However, this was not confirmed in multivariate analysis which instead revealed tumor entity and liver cirrhosis as independently correlated with duration of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We propose robotic liver resection to be safe and feasible, including in patients with prior abdominal surgeries. Each patient should be evaluated for a minimally invasive procedure regardless of a history of previous operations.

Technical feasibility and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic isolated caudate lobe resection: an IgoMILS (Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery) registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: Although isolated caudate lobe (CL) liver resection is not a contraindication for minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), feasibility and safety of the procedure are still poorly investigated. To address this gap, we evaluate data on the Italian prospective maintained database on laparoscopic liver surgery (IgoMILS) and compare outcomes between MILS and open group. METHODS: Perioperative data of patients with malignancies, as colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), non-colorectal liver metastases (NCRLM) and benign liver disease, were retrospectively analyzed. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the potential selection bias for MILS and open group. RESULTS: A total of 224 patients were included in the study, 47 and 177 patients underwent MILS and open isolated CL resection, respectively. The overall complication rate was comparable between the two groups; however, severe complication rate (Dindo-Clavien grade ≥ 3) was lower in the MILS group (0% versus 6.8%, P = ns). In-hospital mortality was 0% in both groups and mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MILS group (P = 0.01). After selection of 42 MILS and 43 open CL resections by PSM analysis, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes remained similar except for the hospital stay which was not significantly shorter in MILS group. CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional cohort study shows that MILS CL resection is feasible and safe. The surgical procedure can be technically demanding compared to open resection, whereas good perioperative outcomes can be achieved in highly selected patients.

A chronological review of 500 minimally invasive liver resections in a North American institution: overcoming stagnation and toward consolidation.

BACKGROUND: Although interest in expanding the application of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is high the world over, most of the extensive experience in MILR has been reported from Far East Asia and Europe and its adoption in North America is limited. The aim of this study was to review the experience of MILR in a single North American institute over a 15-year period, highlighting both the obstacles encountered and strategies adopted to overcome the stagnation in its uptake. METHODS: This study included 500 MILR cases between 2006 and 2020. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, surgical technique, and perioperative outcomes are summarized. The major hepatectomy rate and conversion rate were assessed according to case numbers (first 100, 101-300, and 301-500 cases) to assess chronological trends. RESULTS: Of 500, 402 MILRs were done by pure laparoscopic (80.4%), 67 were hand assisted (13.4%), and 31 were robotic (6.2%). The majority (64%) of cases were performed for malignancy (n = 320; 100 Hepatocellular carcinoma, 153 Colorectal metastases, 27 Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and others, 40, 64%). A total of 71 cases were converted to open (14.2%). The annual case number gradually increased over the first few years; however, case numbers stayed around 30 between 2009 and 2017. In this period, despite accumulating MILR experience, open conversion rates increased despite no change in major hepatectomy rate. After this period of long-term stagnation, we introduced crucial changes in team composition and laparoscopic instrumentation. Our MILR case number and major hepatectomy rate thereafter increased significantly without increasing conversion or complication rates. CONCLUSION: Our recovery from long-term stagnation by instituting key changes as detailed in this study could be used as a guidepost for programs that are contemplating transitioning their MILR program from minor to advanced resections. Establishing a formal MILR training model through proper mentorship/proctorship and building a dedicated MILR team would be imperative to this strategy.

Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resection is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. However, the added benefit of the robotic platform over conventional laparoscopy is a matter of ongoing investigation. PURPOSE: The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an up-to-date and balanced evaluation of the benefits and shortcomings of robotic liver surgery for the modern hepatobiliary surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: Advantages of a robotic approach to liver resection include a shortened learning curve, the ability to complete more extensive or complex minimally invasive operations, and integrated fluorescence guidance. However, the robotic platform remains limited by a paucity of parenchymal transection devices, complete lack of haptic feedback, and added operating time associated with docking and instrument exchange. Like laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy may provide patients with more rapid recovery and a shorter hospital stay, which can help offset the substantial costs of robot acquisition and maintenance. The oncologic outcomes of robotic hepatectomy appear to be equivalent to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for appropriately selected patients.