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.

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.

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.