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

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings. BACKGROUND: 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: (1) minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or (2) posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and (3) major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching 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 propensity score matching, 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 microscopically irradical resection margins (10.1% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.015), and shorter operative times (190 vs 210 minutes, P = 0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared with 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 produce excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.

Laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization: international multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver surgery is increasingly used for more challenging procedures. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and oncological safety of laparoscopic right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization. METHODS: This was an international retrospective multicentre study of patients with colorectal liver metastases who underwent open or laparoscopic right and extended right hepatectomy after portal vein embolization between 2004 and 2020. The perioperative and oncological outcomes for patients who underwent laparoscopic and open approaches were compared using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 338 patients, 84 patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure and 254 patients underwent an open procedure. Patients in the laparoscopic group less often underwent extended right hepatectomy (18% versus 34.6% (P = 0.004)), procedures in the setting of a two-stage hepatectomy (42% versus 65% (P < 0.001)), and major concurrent procedures (4% versus 16.1% (P = 0.003)). After propensity score matching, 78 patients remained in each group. The laparoscopic approach was associated with longer operating and Pringle times (330 versus 258.5 min (P < 0.001) and 65 versus 30 min (P = 0.001) respectively) and a shorter length of stay (7 versus 8 days (P = 0.011)). The R0 resection rate was not different (71% for the laparoscopic approach versus 60% for the open approach (P = 0.230)). The median disease-free survival was 12 (95% c.i. 10 to 20) months for the laparoscopic approach versus 20 (95% c.i. 13 to 31) months for the open approach (P = 0.145). The median overall survival was 28 (95% c.i. 22 to 48) months for the laparoscopic approach versus 42 (95% c.i. 35 to 52) months for the open approach (P = 0.614). CONCLUSION: The advantages of a laparoscopic over an open approach for (extended) right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization are limited.

Added Value of Liver MRI in Patients Eligible for Surgical Resection or Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases Based on CT: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Abdominal computed tomography (CT) is the standard imaging modality for detection and staging in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Although liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is superior to CT in detecting small lesions, guidelines are ambiguous regarding the added value of an additional liver MRI in the surgical workup of patients with CRLM. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical added value of liver MRI in patients eligible for resection or ablation of CRLM based on CT. Methods: A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases through June 23, 2023. Studies investigating the impact of additional MRI on local treatment plan following CT in patients with CRLM were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. The pooled weighted proportions for the primary outcome were calculated using random effect meta-analysis. Results: Overall, 11 studies with 1440 patients were included, of whom 468 patients (32.5%) were assessed for change in local treatment plan. Contrast-enhanced liver MRI was used in 10 studies, including gadoxetic acid in 9 studies. Liver MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging was used in 8 studies. Pooling of data found a 24.12% (95% confidence interval, 15.58%-32.65%) change in the local treatment plan based on the added findings of liver MRI following CT. Sensitivity analysis including 5 studies (268 patients) focusing on monophasic portal venous CT followed by gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging showed a change of local treatment plan of 17.88% (95% confidence interval, 5.14%-30.62%). Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that liver MRI changed the preinterventional local treatment plan in approximately one-fifth of patients eligible for surgical resection or ablation of CRLM based on CT. These findings suggest a clinically relevant added value of routine liver MRI in the preinterventional workup of CRLM, which should be confirmed by large prospective studies.

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.

The differential benefit of laparoscopic over open minor liver resection for lesions situated in the anterolateral or posterosuperior segments.

Background: It is well known that laparoscopic liver surgery can offer advantages over open liver surgery in selected patients. However, what type of procedures can benefit most from a laparoscopic approach has been investigated poorly thus far. The aim of this study is thus to define the extent of advantages of laparoscopic over open liver surgery for lesions in the anterolateral (AL) and posterosuperior (PS) segments. Methods: In this international multicentre retrospective cohort study, laparoscopic and open minor liver resections for lesions in the AL and PS segments were compared after propensity score matching. The differential benefit of laparoscopy over open liver surgery, calculated using bootstrap sampling, was compared between AL and PS resections and expressed as a Delta of the differences. Results: After matching, 3,040 AL and 2,336 PS resections were compared, encompassing open and laparoscopic procedures in a 1:1 ratio. AL and PS laparoscopic liver resections were more advantageous in comparison to open in terms of blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, and length of stay. However, AL resections benefitted more from laparoscopy than PS in terms of overall and severe complications (D-difference were 4.8%, P=0.046 and 3%, P=0.046) and blood loss (D-difference was 195 mL, P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the subset for high-volume centres, while in recent years no significant differences were found in the differential benefit between AL and PS segments. Conclusions: The advantage of laparoscopic over open liver surgery is greater in the AL segments than in the PS segments.