Robotic versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Various Settings: An International Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study of 10.075 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Clear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined. METHODS: In this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥grade 2, postoperative bile leak ≥grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+. RESULTS: Among the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After PSM, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs. 71.8%, P<0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs. 50.4%, P=0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs. 47.1%, P<0.001), blood loss (100 vs. 200 milliliters, P<0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs. 7.9%, P=0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P<0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs. 25.7%, P<0.001) and R0 resection margins (89.8% vs. 86%, P=0.015), but longer operative times (190 vs. 210 min, P=0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared to LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n=431 per group, 75.9% vs. 71.2%, P=0.184) and major resections (n=321 per group, 72.9% vs. 67.5%, P=0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: While both producing excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.

Post-Operative Care of the Cancer Patient: Emphasis on Functional Recovery, Rapid Rescue, and Survivorship.

A cancer diagnosis and its subsequent treatments are life-changing events, impacting the patient and their family. Treatment options available for cancer care are developing at pace, with more patients now able to achieve a cancer cure. This is achieved through the development of novel cancer treatments, surgery, and modern imaging, but also as a result of better understanding treatment/surgical trauma, rescue after complications, perioperative care, and innovative interventions like pre-habilitation, enhanced recovery, and enhanced post-operative care. With more patients living with and beyond cancer, the role of survivorship and quality of life after cancer treatment is gaining importance. The impact cancer treatments can have on patients vary, and the "scars" treatments leave are not always visible. To adequately support patients through their cancer journeys, we need to look past the short-term interactions they have with medical professionals and encourage them to consider their lives after cancer, which often is not a reflection of life before a cancer diagnosis.

Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon's Experience.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (L-RHH) is still considered a technically complex procedure, which should only be performed by experienced surgeons in specialized centers. Future liver remnant modulation (FLRM) strategies, including portal vein embolization (PVE), and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS), might increase the surgical difficulty of L-RHH, due to the distortion of hepatic anatomy, periportal inflammation, and fibrosis. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of L-RHH after FLRM, when compared with ex novo L-RHH. METHODS: All consecutive right hemihepatectomies performed by a single surgeon in the period between October 2007 and March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes of L-RHH after FLRM and ex novo L-RHH were compared. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 33 underwent FLRM. Patients undergoing FLRM prior to L-RHH were most often male (93.9% vs. 42.3%, p < 0.001), had an ASA-score >2 (45.5% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.006), and underwent a two-stage hepatectomy (45.5% vs. 3.8% p < 0.001). L-RHH after FLRM was associated with longer operative time (median 360 vs. 300 min, p = 0.008) and Pringle duration (31 vs. 24 min, p = 0.011). Intraoperative blood loss, unfavorable intraoperative incidents, and conversion rates were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay and 30-day overall and severe morbidity rates. Radical resection margin (R0) and textbook outcome rates were equal. One patient who underwent an extended RHH in the FLRM group deceased within 90 days of surgery, due to post-hepatectomy liver failure. CONCLUSION: L-RHH after FLRM is more technically complex than L-RHH ex novo, as objectified by longer operative time and Pringle duration. Nevertheless, this procedure appears safe and feasible in experienced hands.