Unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: short-term outcomes and suggested stepwise approach for a safe conversion.

OBJECTIVE: With the increased adoption of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, the effects of unplanned conversions to an 'open' operation are ill-defined. This study aims to describe the impact of unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy on short-term outcomes and suggest a stepwise approach for safe unplanned conversions during robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. METHODS: This is an analysis of 400 consecutive patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy in a single high-volume institution. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD), and significance is accepted with 95% probability. RESULTS: Between November 2012 and February 2023, 184 (46%) women and 216 (54%) men, aged 70 (68 ± 11.0) years, underwent a robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Unplanned conversions occurred in 42 (10.5%) patients; 18 (5%) were converted due to unanticipated vascular involvement, 13 (3%) due to failure to obtain definitive control of bleeding, and 11 (3%) due to visceral obesity. Men were more likely to require a conversion than women (29 vs. 13, p = 0.05). Conversions were associated with shorter operative time (376 (323 ± 182.2) vs. 434 (441 ± 98.7) min, p < 0.0001) but higher estimated blood loss (675 (1010 ± 1168.1) vs. 150 (196 ± 176.8) mL, p < 0.0001). Patients that required an unplanned conversion had higher rates of complications with Clavien-Dindo scores of III-V (31% vs. 12%, p = 0.003), longer length of stay (8 (11 ± 11.6) vs. 5 (7 ± 6.2), p = 0.0005), longer ICU length of stay (1 (2 ± 5.1) vs. 0 (0 ± 1.3), p < 0.0001) and higher mortality rates (21% vs. 4%, p = 0.0001). The conversion rate significantly decreased over time (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned conversions of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy significantly and negatively affect short-term outcomes, including postoperative mortality. Men were more likely to require a conversion than women. The unplanned conversions rates significantly decreased over time, implying that increased proficiency and patient selection may prevent unplanned conversions. An unplanned conversion should be undertaken in an organized stepwise approach to maximize patient safety.

Outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without preoperative hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

Background: Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy is an alternative method against the deleterious effects of ischemic/reperfusion (I/R) injury and its inflammatory response. This study assessed the effect of preoperative HBO2 on patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Study Design: Patients were randomized via a computer-generated algorithm. Patients in the HBO2 cohort received two sessions of HBO2 the evening before and the morning of surgery. Measurements of inflammatory mediators and self-assessed pain scales were determined pre-and postoperatively. In addition, perioperative variables and long-term survival were collected and analyzed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Results: 33 patients were included; 17 received preoperative HBO2, and 16 did not. There were no intraoperative or postoperative statistical differences between patients with or without preoperative HBO2. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), IL-6, and IL-10 increased slightly before returning to normal, while TGF-alpha decreased before increasing. However, there were no differences with or without HBO2. At postoperative day 30, the pain level measured with VAS score (Visual Analog Score) was lower after HBO2 (1 ± 1.3 vs. 3 ± 3.0, p=0.05). Eleven (76%) patients in the HBO2 cohort and 12 (75%) patients in the non- HBO2 had malignant pathology. The percentage of positive lymph nodes in the HBO2 was 7% compared to 14% in the non-HBO2 (p<0.001). Overall survival was inferior after HBO2 compared to the non- HBO2 (p=0.03). Conclusions: Preoperative HBO2 did not affect perioperative outcomes or significantly change the inflammatory mediators for patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Long-term survival was inferior after preoperative HBO2. Further randomized controlled studies are required to assess the full impact of this treatment on patients' prognosis.

Does metabolic syndrome affect perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy? A propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome is a known risk factor for postoperative complications after general surgical procedures. Literature analyzing perioperative outcomes of patients with metabolic syndrome undergoing a minimally invasive hepatectomy is limited. We sought to investigate if metabolic syndrome significantly impacts the perioperative course and outcomes of patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy. METHODS: With IRB, we prospectively followed patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy from 2016 through 2020. A 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was applied to patients with and without metabolic syndrome. Demographic and clinical data were analyzed for those cohorts before and after PSM. Metabolic syndrome was defined as BMI ≥ 28.8 kg/m2, diabetes, and hypertension. RESULTS: A total of 272 patients underwent robotic hepatectomy, 39 (14%) of whom had metabolic syndrome. After performing PSM, we ended up with 74 patients, 37 in each cohort, 28% of them had liver cirrhosis. Patients with metabolic syndrome had higher BMI (34 ± 5.6 vs. 28 ± 5.9 kg/m2, p < 0.001) and MELD scores (10 ± 4.5 vs. 8 ± 3.2, p < 0.001) compared to patients without metabolic syndrome. Additionally, patients with metabolic syndrome had an increased incidence of liver cirrhosis (33% vs. 9%, p = 0.0002). Following PSM, BMI (34 ± 5.7 vs. 26 ± 4.4 kg/m2, p < 0.001) was the only preoperative variables associated with metabolic syndrome. There were no statistical differences before and after PSM between patients with and without metabolic syndrome in terms of intraoperative metrics including operative time, blood loss, conversion to 'open,' and intraoperative complications. All postoperative outcomes metrics before and after PSM did not correlate with the presence or absence of metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic syndrome had no impact on intra- or postoperative metrics, complications, or outcomes after robotic hepatectomy. We believe that the robotic approach may mitigate the adverse effects of metabolic syndrome for patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy.

Validity of the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification system for robotic liver resection.

BACKGROUND: The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) classification system is one of several widely accepted difficulty scoring systems for laparoscopic liver resections. Nothing is yet known about the applicability of this system for robotic liver resections. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 359 patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies between 2016 and 2022. Resections were classified into low, intermediate, and high difficulty level. Data were analyzed utilizing ANOVA of repeated measures, 3 x 2 contingency tables, and area under the receiving operating characteristic (AUROC) curves. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: Of the 359 patients, 117 were classified as low-difficulty level, 92 as intermediate, and 150 as high. The IMM system correlates well with tumor size (p = 0.002). The IMM system was a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes including operative duration (p<0.001) and estimated blood loss (EBL) (p<0.001). The IMM system also showed a strong calibration for predicting an open conversion (AUC=0.705) and intraoperative complications (AUC=0.79). In contrast, the IMM system was a poor predictor of postoperative complications, mortality, and readmission. CONCLUSION: The IMM system provides a strong correlation with intraoperative, but not postoperative outcomes. A dedicated difficulty scoring system should be developed for robotic hepatectomy.

Robotic resection of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Institutional outcomes of bile duct cancer surgery using a minimally invasive technique.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to report our early experience and outcomes, the first in North America, of Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (EHC) resection with Roux-en Y Hepaticojejunostomy reconstruction via the robotic approach. METHODS: With Institutional Review Board approval, 15 patients who underwent robotic resection of EHC were studied. RESULTS: Patients were 74 (73 ± 8.9) years of age. There were 9 men and 6 women. Average body mass index was 24 (27 ± 6.3) kg·m-2 . Mean & Median ASA class was 3. Median Tumor size was 2 (2 ± 1.3) cm. There were no intraoperative complications. Operative duration was 453 (443 ± 85.0) minutes and the estimated blood loss was 150 (182 ± 138.4) ml. No patient required admission to the intensive care unit. Hospital length of stay was 4 (6 ± 3.2) days. There was one patient with Clavien-Dindo Class 3 or greater complication. No mortality was seen in this series. DISCUSSION: Robotic resection of EHC is safe, feasible, and reproducible with excellent clinical outcomes. Consequently, the robotic technique should be considered in some patients requiring EHC resection.

Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open major hepatectomy for malignant liver tumors.

BACKGROUND: Outcome data on robotic major hepatectomy are lacking. This study was undertaken to compare robotic vs. 'open' major hepatectomy utilizing patient propensity score matching (PSM). METHODS: With institutional review board approval, we prospectively followed 183 consecutive patients who underwent robotic or 'open' major hepatectomy, defined as removal of three or more Couinaud segments. 42 patients who underwent 'open' approach were matched with 42 patients who underwent robotic approach. The criteria for PSM were age, resection type, tumor size, tumor type, and BMI. Survival was individually stratified for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and colorectal liver metastases (CLM). The data are presented as: median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: Operative duration for the robotic approach was 293 (302 ± 131.5) vs. 280 (300 ± 115.6) minutes for the 'open' approach (p = NS). Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) was 200 (239 ± 183.6) vs. 300 (491 ± 577.1) ml (p = 0.01). There were zero postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III for the robotic approach and three for the 'open' approach (p = NS). ICU length of stay (LOS) was 1 (1 ± 0) vs. 2 (3 ± 2.0) days (p = 0.0001) and overall LOS was 4 (4 ± 3.3) vs. 6 (6 ± 2.7) days (p = 0.003). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, overall survival was similar for patients with IHCC and CLM regardless of the approach. However, patients with HCC who underwent robotic resection lived significantly longer (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Utilizing propensity score matched analysis, the robotic approach was associated with a lower EBL, shorter ICU LOS, and shorter overall LOS while maintaining similar operative duration and promoting survival in patients with HCC. We believe that the robotic approach is safe and efficacious and should be considered a preferred alternative approach for major hepatectomy.

Analysis of survival outcomes following robotic hepatectomy for malignant liver diseases.

BACKGROUND: Despite increased adoption of the robotic platform for complex hepatobiliary resections for malignant disease, little is known about long-term survival outcomes. This is the first study to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, and short- and long-term survival rates after a robotic hepatectomy for five major malignant disease processes. METHODS: A prospectively collected database of patients who underwent a robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease was reviewed. Pathologies included colorectal liver metastases (CLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), Klatskin tumor, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and gallbladder cancer (GC). Data are presented as median (mean â€‹± â€‹standard deviation) for illustrative purposes. RESULTS: Of the 210 consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease, 75 (35 â€‹%) had CLM, 69 (33 â€‹%) had HCC, 27 (13 â€‹%) had Klatskin tumor, 20 (10 â€‹%) had IHCC, and 19 (9 â€‹%) had GC. Patients were 66 (65 â€‹± â€‹12.4) years old with a BMI of 29 (29 â€‹± â€‹6.5) kg/m2. R0 resection was achieved in 91 â€‹%, and 65 â€‹% underwent a major hepatectomy. Postoperative major complication rate was 6 â€‹%, length of stay was four (5 â€‹± â€‹4.3) days, and 30-day readmission rate was 17 â€‹%. Survival at 1, 3, and 5-years were 93 â€‹%/75 â€‹%/72 â€‹% for CLM, 84 â€‹%/71 â€‹%/64 â€‹% for HCC, 73 â€‹%/55 â€‹%/55 â€‹% for Klatskin tumor, 80 â€‹%/69 â€‹%/69 â€‹% for IHCC, 79 â€‹%/65 â€‹%/65 â€‹% for GC. CONCLUSION: This study suggests a favorable 5-year overall survival benefit with use of the robotic platform in hepatic resection for colorectal metastases, hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Klatskin tumor, and gallbladder cancer. The robotic platform facilitates fine dissection in complex hepatobiliary operations, with a high rate of R0 resections and excellent perioperative clinical outcomes.

Tampa Difficulty Score: a novel scoring system for difficulty of robotic hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Difficulty scoring system (DSS) has been established for laparoscopic hepatectomy and serves as useful tools to predict difficulty and guide preoperative planning. Despite increased adoption of robotics and its unique technical characteristics compared with laparoscopy, no DSS currently exists for robotic hepatectomy. We aimed to introduce a new DSS for robotic hepatectomy. METHODS: A total of 328 patients undergoing a robotic hepatectomy were identified. After removing the first 24 major and 30 minor hepatectomies using cumulative-sum analysis, 274 patients were included in this study. Relevant clinical variables underwent linear regression using operative time and/or estimated blood loss (EBL) as markers for operative difficulty. Score distribution was analyzed to develop a difficulty-level grouping system. RESULTS: Of the 274 patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; tumor location, size, and type; the extent of parenchymal resection; the need for portal lymphadenectomy; and the need for biliary resection with hepaticojejunostomy were significantly associated with operative time and/or EBL. They were used to develop the difficulty scores from 1 to 49. Grouping system results were group 1 (less demanding/beginner), 1 to 8 (n = 39); group 2 (intermediate), 9 to 24 (n = 208); group 3 (more demanding/advanced), 25 to 32 (n = 17); and group 4 (most demanding/expert), 33 to 49 (n = 10). When stratified by group, age, previous abdominal operation, Child-Pugh score, operative duration, EBL, major resection, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and length of stay were significantly different among the groups. CONCLUSION: In addition to established variables in laparoscopic systems, new factors such as the need for portal lymphadenectomy and biliary resection specific to the robotic approach have been identified in this new robotic DSS. Internal and external validations are the next steps in maturing this robotic DSS.

Comparison of IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, and Southampton Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Scoring Systems for Predicting Intra and Postoperative Outcomes in Robotic Hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM), and Southampton are established difficulty scoring systems (DSS) for laparoscopic hepatectomy, yet none specifically address robotic hepatectomy. Our study evaluates these 3 DSS for predicting perioperative outcomes in robotic hepatectomy. METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 359 consecutive patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies, assessing categorical metrics like conversions to open, intra/postoperative issues, Clavien-Dindo Score (≥III), 30 and 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmissions using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Area Under the Curve (AUC) to determine efficacy in predicting their occurrence for each DSS. Continuous metrics such as operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, and total cost were analyzed using Spearman's correlation and regression. Predictive strength was significant with an AUC or correlation ≥.700 and P-value ≤.05. RESULTS: IMM had highest predictive accuracy for conversions to open (AUC = .705) and postoperative complications (AUC = .481). Southampton was most accurate in predicting Clavien Dindo ≥ III complications (AUC = .506). IWATE excelled in predicting 30-day mortality (AUC = .552), intraoperative issues (AUC = .798), In-hospital mortality (AUC = .450), 90-day mortality (AUC = .596), and readmissions (AUC = .572). Regression showed significant relationships between operative duration, EBL, and hospital cost with increasing scores for all DSS (P ≤ .05). DISCUSSION: Statistical analysis of the 3 DSS indicates that each has specific strengths that can best predict intra- and/or postoperative outcomes. However, all showed inaccuracies and conflicting relationships with the variables, indicating lack of substantial hierarchy between DSS. Given these inconsistencies, a dedicated comprehensive DSS should be created for robotic hepatectomy.

Weighing the outcomes: the role of BMI in complex robotic esophageal and hepatobiliary operations.

BACKGROUND: The correlation between body mass index (BMI) and surgical outcomes has emerged as a critical consideration in complex abdominal operations. While elevated BMI is often associated with increased perioperative risk, its specific effects on the outcomes of robotic surgeries remain inadequately explored. This study assesses the impact of BMI on perioperative variables of complex esophageal and hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) robotic operations. METHODS: Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 607 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, trans-hiatal esophagectomy (THE), major liver resection or distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy, all performed robotically. Perioperative data retrieved included operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversions to an 'open' operation and length of stay (LOS). Z scores were assigned to each variable to standardize operations, and the variables were then regressed against BMI. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median(mean ± standard deviation). RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2020, surgeries included 71 THE, 122 distal pancreatectomies with splenectomies, 129 major hepatectomies and 285 pancreaticoduodenectomies. Median age was 67(65 ± 12.5) years old, and BMI was 27(28 ± 5.5) kg/m2. Operative duration for all operations was 349(355 ± 124.5) min and had a positive correlation with increasing BMI (p = 0.004), specifically for robotic THE and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy, with both operative durations having positive correlation with increasing BMI (p = 0.02 and p = 0.05). No significant correlation with BMI was found for EBL, intraoperative or postoperative complications, conversion to 'open' surgery, or LOS. CONCLUSION: Elevated BMI is associated with longer operative durations in select robotic surgeries, such as trans-hiatal esophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, and highlights the need for strategic planning in these patients.

Is the robotic approach the future of distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy? A propensity score matched analysis.

Our study provides a comparative analysis of the Laparo-Endoscopic Single Site (LESS) and robotic surgical approaches for distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, examining their cosmetic advantages, patient outcomes, and operative efficiencies through propensity score matching (PSM). We prospectively followed 174 patients undergoing either the LESS or robotic procedure, matched by cell type, tumor size, age, sex, and BMI from 2012 to 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM) was utilized for data adjustment, with results presented as median (mean ± SD). Post-PSM analysis showed no significant differences in age or BMI between the two groups. LESS approach exhibited a shorter operative duration (180(180 ± 52.0) vs. 248(262 ± 78.5) minutes, p = 0.0002), but increased estimated blood loss (200(317 ± 394.4) vs. 100 (128 ± 107.2) mL, p = 0.04). Rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, readmissions within 30 days, in-hospital mortalities, and costs were comparably similar between the two procedures. While the robotic approach led to lower blood loss, LESS was more time-efficient. Patient outcomes were similar in both methods, suggesting that the choice between these surgical techniques should balance cosmetic appeal with technical considerations.

Robotic Resection of Retroperitoneal Perinephric Tumor. Application of Intraurethral Indocyanine Green Injection As an Adjunct to Avoid Ureteral Injury.

The majority of retroperitoneal mass excision is performed via conventional "open" laparotomy due to concerns of technical difficulty and adequate oncological margins in cases of a malignant sarcoma. A very few cases of minimally invasive resection by laparoscopy had been reported in the literature. Despite the rapid adoption of robotic technology in general surgery and surgical oncology, the robotic technique has not been applied for this pathology. We discussed a complete resection of a large perinephric tumor using a robotic platform. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report the robotic technique of retroperitoneal tumor excision, highlighting the application and usefulness of intraurethral indocyanine green (ICG) injection.

Robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis of surgical margins and clinical outcomes from a western tertiary hepatobiliary center.

This study was undertaken to determine surgical outcomes of patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to investigate the correlation between tumor distance to margin and perioperative outcomes, as well as overall survival (OS). To our knowledge, this study represents the largest series of robotic liver resection for HCC in North America. We retrospectively analyzed 58 consecutive patients who underwent robotic liver resection for HCC. Patients were further stratified by tumor distance to margin (≤ 1 mm, 1.1-9.9 mm, ≥ 10 mm) and their clinical outcomes including OS were compared. A majority of patients attained a greater than 1 mm tumor distance to margin (81%). There were no differences in tumor size between patient cohorts who attained ≤ 1 mm, 1.1-9.9 mm, and ≥ 10 mm margins. There were no differences in pre-, intra-, and postoperative outcomes among the three cohorts. Cost variables of interest were also similar. OS was highest in the > 10 mm margin cohort, and this was statistically significant at 3 and 5 years. Robotic HCC resection was associated with adequate tumor distance to margin. Wide margins ≥ 10 mm are associated with the best OS.

A propensity score matched analysis of robotic and open hepatectomy for treatment of liver tumors. Clinical outcomes, oncological survival, and costs comparison.

Minimally invasive robotic hepatectomy is gaining popularity with a faster rate of adoption when compared to laparoscopic approach. Technical advantages brought by the robotic surgical system facilitate a transition from open to minimally invasive technique in hepatic surgery. Published matched data examining the results of robotic hepatectomy using the open approach as a benchmark are still limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, survival, and costs between robotic and open hepatectomy undertaken in our tertiary hepatobiliary center. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 285 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for neoplastic liver diseases between 2012 and 2020. Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open hepatectomy was conducted by 1:1 ratio. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The matching process assigned 49 patients to each arm, open and robotic hepatectomy. There were no differences in R1 resection rates (4% vs 4%; p = 1.00). Differences in perioperative variables between open and robotic hepatectomy included postoperative complications (16% vs 2%; p = 0.02) and length of stay (LOS) [6 (7 ± 5.0) vs 4 (5 ± 4.0) days; p = 0.002]. There were no differences between open and robotic hepatectomy regarding postoperative hepatic insufficiency (10% vs 2%; p = 0.20). No difference was seen in long-term survival outcomes. While there were no differences in costs, robotic hepatectomy was associated with lower reimbursement [$20,432 (39,191 ± 41,467.81) vs $33,190 (67,860 ± 87,707.81); p = 0.04] and lower contribution margin [$-11,229 (3902 ± 42,572.43) vs $8768 (34,690 ± 89,759.56); p = 0.03]. Compared to open approach, robotic hepatectomy robotic offers lower rates of postoperative complications, shorter LOS and similar costs, while not compromising long-term oncological outcomes. Robotic hepatectomy may eventually become the preferred approach in minimally invasive treatment of liver tumors.

The Effect of Body Mass Index on Patients' Outcomes Following Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy and Splenectomy.

Background and Objectives: Obesity has increased over the past decade, yet the correlation among body mass index (BMI), surgical outcomes, and the robotic platform are not well established. This study was undertaken to measure the impact of elevated BMI on outcomes after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Methods: We prospectively followed patients who underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Regression analysis was utilized to identify significant relationships with BMI. For illustrative purposes, the data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Significance was determined at p ≤ 0.05. Results: A total of 122 patients underwent robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Median age was 68 (64 ± 13.3), 52% were women, and BMI was 28 (29 ± 6.1) kg/m2. One patient was underweight (< 18.5 kg/m2), 31 had normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), 43 were overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), and 47 were obese (≥ 30 kg/m2). BMI was inversely correlated with age (p = 0.05) but there was no correlation with sex (p = 0.72). There were no statistically significant relationships between BMI and operative duration (p = 0.36), estimated blood loss (p = 0.42), intraoperative complications (p = 0.64), and conversion to open approach (p = 0.74). Major morbidity (p = 0.47), clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (p = 0.45), length of stay (p = 0.71), lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.79), tumor size (p = 0.26), and 30-day mortality (p = 0.31) were related to BMI. Conclusion: BMI has no significant effect on patients undergoing robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. BMI greater than 30 kg/m2 should not defer proceeding with robotic distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. Limited empirical evidence exists in the literature regarding patients with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m2, and thus any proposed operative intervention should invoke sufficient planning and preparation.

A Single Institution's Experience With Robotic Minor and Major Hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resection is gradually becoming the preferred technique to treat liver tumors due its salutary benefits when compared with traditional "open" method. While robotic technology improves surgeon dexterity to better perform complex operations, outcomes of robotic hepatectomy have not been adequately studied. We therefore describe our institutional experience with robotic minor and major hepatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively study all patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy from 2016 to 2020. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients underwent robotic hepatectomy. 138 (63%) were major hepatectomies while 82 (37%) were minor hepatectomies. Median age was 63 (62 ± 13) years, 118 (54%) were female. 168 patients had neoplastic disease and 52 patients had benign disease. Lesion size in patients who had undergone minor hepatectomy was 2 (3 ± 2.5) cm, compared to 5 (5 ± 3.0) cm in patients who undergone major hepatectomy (P < .001). 97% of patients underwent R0 resections while none of the patients had R2 resection. Operative duration was 226 (260 ± 122.7) vs 282 (299 ± 118.7) minutes (P ≤ .05); estimated blood loss was 100 (163 ± 259.2) vs 200 (251 ± 246.7) mL (P ≤ .05) for minor and major hepatectomy, respectively. One patient had intraoperative bleeding requiring "open" conversion. Nine (4%) patients had experienced notable postoperative complications and 2 (1%) patients died postoperatively. Length of stay was 3 (5 ± 4.6) vs 4 (5 ± 2.8) days for minor vs major hepatectomy (P = .84). Reoperation and readmission rate for minor vs major hepatectomy was 1% vs 3% (P = .65) and 9% vs 10% (P = .81), respectively. DISCUSSION: Robotic major hepatectomy is safe, feasible, and efficacious with excellent postoperative outcomes.

Analysis of Oncological Outcomes After Robotic Liver Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding minimally invasive liver resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) include inadequate resection margins and inferior long-term overall survival (OS) when compared to an "open" approach. Limited data exists to address these issues. We aimed to compare perioperative variables, tumor distance to margin, and long-term outcomes after IHCC resection based on surgical approach (robotic vs open) in our hepatobiliary center to address these concerns. METHODS: With IRB approval, 34 patients who underwent robotic or open hepatectomy for IHCC were prospectively followed. Patients were stratified by tumor distance to resection margin (≤1 mm, 1.1-9.9 mm, ≥10 mm) for illustrative purposes and by approach (robotic vs open). Where appropriate, regression analysis and cox model of proportional hazards were utilized. Survival was stratified by margin distance and approach utilizing Kaplan-Meier curves. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: Patients undergoing robotic vs open hepatectomy had similar demographics. Patients undergoing the robotic approach had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL). Tumor distance to margin between the two approaches were similar (P = .428). Median OS between the two approaches was similar in patients of any margin distance.In the subgroup analysis by margin distance, the robotic approach yielded less EBL for patients in the 1.1-9.9 mm and ≥10 mm margin groups, and a shorter ICU length of stay for patients with ≥10 mm margin. DISCUSSION: Similar margins were attained via either approach, translating into oncological non-inferiority of robotic IHCC resection. Robotic approach for the treatment of IHCC should be considered an alternative to an open approach.

Comparative Analysis of NSQIP National Outcomes and Projected Outcomes versus Our Institutional Outcomes for Robotic Gastrectomy: The Future of Gastric Resection.

BACKGROUND: The robotic approach has vast applications in surgery; however, the utility of robotic gastrectomy has yet to be clearly defined. This study aimed to compare outcomes following robotic gastrectomy at our institution to the national patient-specific predicted outcomes data provided by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). METHODS: We prospectively studied 73 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy under our care. ACS NSQIP outcomes after gastrectomy and predicted outcomes for our patients were compared with our actual outcomes utilizing students t test and chi-square analysis, where applicable. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: Patients were 65 (66 ± 10.7) years old with a BMI of 26 (28 ± 6.5) kg/m2. 35 patients had gastric adenocarcinomas and 22 had gastrointestinal stromal tumors Operative duration was 245 (250 ± 114.7) minutes, estimated blood loss was 50 (83 ± 91.6) mL, and there were no conversions to 'open'. 1% of patients experienced superficial surgical site infections compared to the NSQIP predicted rate of 10% (P < .05). Length of stay (LOS) was 5 (6 ± 4.2) days vs NSQIP's predicted LOS of 8 (8 ± 3.2) days (P < .05). Three patients died during their postoperative hospital course (4%), due to multi-system organ failure and cardiac arrest. 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year estimated survival for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma was 76%, 63%, and 63%, respectively. DISCUSSION: Robotic gastrectomy yields salutary patient outcomes and optimal survival for varying gastric diseases, particularly gastric adenocarcinoma. Our patients experienced shorter hospital stays and reduced complications relative to patients in NSQIP and predicted outcome for our patients. Gastrectomy undertaken robotically is the future of gastric resection.

The Impact of Smoking History on Outcomes and Morbidity After Robotic Hepatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: The detrimental effects that smoking has on patient health and postoperative morbidity are well documented. However, literature on the impact that smoking history has on robotic surgery, specifically robotic hepatectomy, is scarce. This study was undertaken to determine whether smoking history impacts the postoperative course of patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy. METHODS: We prospectively followed 353 patients that underwent robotic hepatectomy. 125 patients had an apposite history of smoking (ie, smokers) and 228 patients were classified as non-smokers. Data were presented as median (mean ± SD). Patients were then propensity-score matched based on patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Prior to the matching, the MELD score and cirrhosis status in patients who smoke were found to be significantly higher when compared to those who do not (mean MELD score 9 vs 8 and cirrhosis in 25% vs 13% of patients, respectively). Both smokers and non-smokers have similar BMIs, number of previous abdominal operations, ASA physical status classifications, and Child-Pugh scores. Six percent smokers vs one percent non-smokers experienced pulmonary complications (pneumonia, pneumothorax, and COPD exacerbation) (P = .02). No differences were found for postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo score ≥ III, 30-day mortality, or 30-day readmissions. After the matching, no differences were found between the smokers and the non-smokers. CONCLUSION: After a propensity-score match analysis, smoking did not appear to negatively affect the intra- and postoperative outcomes after robotic liver resections. We believe that the robotic approach as the most modern minimally invasive technique in liver resection may have the potential to mitigate the known adverse effects of smoking.

Analysis of Clinical Outcomes After Robotic Hepatectomy Applying the Western-Model Southampton Laparoscopic Difficulty Scoring System. An Experience From a Tertiary US Hepatobiliary Center.

BACKGROUND: Identification of resections with high risk of intraoperative complications is critical in guiding case selection for minimally invasive liver surgery. Several Japanese and European difficulty scoring systems have been proposed for laparoscopic liver surgery. However, the applicability of these systems for robotic liver resections has not been fully investigated. This study considers the Southampton system and examines its validity when applied to robotic hepatectomies. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective review of 372 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomies for various indications between 2013 and 2022. Of these patients, 63 operations were classified as low risk, 91 as moderate risk, 198 as high risk and 20 as extremely high risk based on Southampton criteria. Patient outcomes were compared by utilizing an ANOVA of repeated measures. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: The Southampton difficulty scoring system was a strong predictor of intraoperative variables including tumor size, operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), and incidence of major vs minor resection (all P < .0001). In contrast, the Southampton system was a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes including 30-day mortality (P = .15), length of stay (P = .13), and readmissions within 30 days (P = .38). CONCLUSION: The Southampton difficulty scoring system is a valid system for classifying robotic liver resections and is a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes. However, the system was found to be a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes. This finding may suggest the need for proposal of a new difficulty scoring system for robotic hepatectomies.