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.

Prevention of Post-Hepatectomy Liver Failure in Cirrhotic Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for HCC: Has the Round Ligament to Be Preserved?

Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality after liver resection. The factors related to PHLF are represented not only by the volume and function of the future liver remnant but also by the severity of portal hypertension. The aim of this study was to assess whether the preservation of the round ligament (RL) may mitigate portal hypertension, thus decreasing the risk of PHLF and ascites in cirrhotic patients while undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). All the cirrhotic patients who underwent MILS for HCC from 2016 to 2021 in two international tertiary referral centers were retrospectively analyzed, comparing cases with the RL preserved vs. those with the RL divided. Only patients with cirrhosis ≥ Child A6, portal hypertension, and ICG-R15 > 10% were included. Main postoperative outcomes were compared, and the risk factors for postoperative ascites (severe PHLF, grade B/C) were investigated through a logistic regression. After the application of the selection criteria, a total of 130 MILS patients were identified, with 86 patients with the RL preserved and 44 with the RL divided. The RL-preserved group showed lower incidences of severe PHLF (7.0% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.023) and ascites (5.8% vs. 18.2%, p = 0.026) in comparison with the RL-divided group. After uni/multivariate analysis, the risk factors related to postoperative ascites were RL division and platelets < 92 × 103/µL, calculated with ROC analysis. The preservation of the round ligament during MILS may mitigate portal hypertension, preventing PHLF and ascites in cirrhotic patients with borderline liver function.

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.