Analysis of surgical approach and tumor distance to margin after liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis.

This study was undertaken to compare tumor distance to margin after robotic vs. open hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) and to determine the relationship between perioperative variables, surgical approach and tumor distance to margin with overall survival. With IRB approval, we followed 56 patients who underwent a robotic or open hepatectomy for treatment of CLM. The relationships between the tumor distance to margin, operative approach, perioperative variables and survival was determined. The robotic approach yielded greater margins than the open approach (p = 0.04). The robotic vs. open approach had an operative duration of 375 vs. 269 min (p = 0.05), ICU length of stay (LOS) of 0 vs. 1 day (p = 0.01), and hospital LOS of 4 vs. 7 days (p = 0.04). Patients with a tumor distance to margin of ≤ 1 mm and 1.1-9.9 mm had an estimated median survival of 49 months and 24 months, respectively. Estimated median survival for patients with tumor distance to margin of ≥ 10 mm has not been reached but is > 84 months. The use of the robotic approach is associated with greater tumor distance to margin and shorter hospital LOS, but with longer operations. The robotic approach does not compromise oncological margins during resection for CLM.

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.

The effect of the robotic platform in hepatectomy after prior liver and non-liver abdominal operations: a comparative study of clinical outcomes.

Improvements in outcomes after primary hepatectomy have increased the eligibility of patients for reoperative hepatectomies, but this can be fraught with technical difficulties, particularly via a minimally invasive approach. The robotic approach provides superior visualization, articulated instrumentation, platform stability, and increased dexterity when compared to conventional laparoscopy. We sought to investigate the effect brought by the robotic system in the outcome of these operations. We followed 234 patients who underwent robotic liver resection from 2012 to 2021 for retrospective analysis. Patients were classified as: no prior abdominal operation, prior abdominal operation(s), and prior liver resection. Cohorts were compared by one-way ANOVA and 2 × 3 contingency table analyses. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Significance was accepted at p < 0.05. Of the 234 patients studied, 114 underwent primary hepatectomy, 105 had a prior laparoscopic or open abdominal operation (cholecystectomy, herniorrhaphy, colectomy, and appendectomy), and 15 had a redo hepatectomy. Demographic and preoperative ASA, MELD, neoplasm size, and extent of liver resection were similar among the cohorts. There were no statistically significant differences between the three cohorts for all outcome variables including blood loss, operative duration, intensive care unit length of stay, overall length of stay, morbidity, mortality, and readmission rate. There were no differences in morbidity nor mortality between patients undergoing primary nor reoperative robotic hepatectomy. The advantages afforded by the robotic platform may have contributed to the equalization of outcomes.

Cost Analysis of Pancreaticoduodenectomy at a High-Volume Robotic Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery Program.

BACKGROUND: The robotic approach to pancreaticoduodenectomy is thought by many to be associated with increased financial burden for hospitals. We undertook this study to analyze and compare the cost of "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy with that associated with the application of the robotic surgical system to pancreaticoduodenectomy in our hepatobiliary program. STUDY DESIGN: With IRB approval, all patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy at our institution, from August 2012 to November 2019, were prospectively followed. Cost, including total, variable, fixed-direct, fixed-indirect, and profitability for robotic and "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy were analyzed and compared. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: There were 386 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy; 205 patients underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy and 181 underwent "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy. Costs are presented as mean ± SD. Overall, the cost of care for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was $31,389 ($36,611 ± $20,545.40) vs $23,132 ($31,323 ± $28,885.50) for "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy (p = 0.04); total variable cost was $20,355 ($22,747 ± $11,127.60) vs $11,680 ($16,032 ± $14,817.20) (p = 0.01), total fixed direct cost was $1,999 ($2,330 ± $1,363.10) vs $2,073 ($2,983 ± $3,209.00) (p = 0.01), and total indirect cost was $7,217 ($9,354 ± $6,802.40) vs $6,802 ($9,505 ± $9,307.20) (p = 0.86), for robotic vs "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy, respectively. Since 2016, profitability was achieved in 29% of patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy had lower estimated blood loss and shorter length of stay. Cost of care for robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy was greater across all categories, except for total indirect cost, than "open" pancreaticoduodenectomy. For our institution, profitability was accomplished in less than one-third of patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. The role of the robotic platform for pancreaticoduodenectomy needs to be discussed among all stakeholders.