10 years, 100 robotic major hepatectomies: a single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Adoption of robotic liver resections has been gradually increasing throughout the HPB surgical community over the past decade. Currently there is limited literature which demonstrates a significant benefit of robotic surgery for major hepatectomies over open or laparoscopic. As one of the first centers to develop a robotic HPB program, we have experienced improved outcomes over time with increasing utilization of robotics. Herein, we present our 10-year experience and outcomes for major robotic liver resections. METHODS: From 2012 to 2022, 361 robotic liver procedures were performed, including 100 major hepatectomies. A retrospective data review of the electronic medical record was performed evaluating outcomes after robotic major hepatectomy. Outcomes for the first 50 cases (Group A) and second 50 cases (Group B) were compared to identify any improvements in practice. Demographic and clinical outcome variables were analyzed. Data were assessed for normality, and Wilcoxon rank-sum, χ2 tests, and a logistic regression model were performed appropriate for the data. Stata v.17 was utilized, and significance was set as p < .05. RESULTS: There was no difference in median operative time (258 vs 256 min), EBL (500 vs 500 mL), median LOS (5 vs 3.5 days), 90-day readmission (14% vs 24%), major complications (14% vs 20%), and 90-day mortality (6% vs 4%) between early and late cases, respectively. ICU admissions and conversion rates were significantly lower in group B (14.0% vs 48.0%), while expert level difficulty indices were higher (82% vs 58%). CONCLUSION: Development of a robotic liver program with good outcomes is feasible over time. Our data suggest that our institutional learning curve for robotic major hepatectomy plateaued at approximately 50 cases.

Technical aspects and learning curve of complex laparoscopic hepatectomy: how we do it.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic liver surgery has advanced significantly, offering benefits, such as reduced intraoperative complications and quicker recovery. However, complex laparoscopic hepatectomy (CLH) is technically demanding, requiring skilled surgeons. This study aims to share technical aspects, insightful tips, and outcomes of CLH at our center, focusing on the safety and learning curve. METHODS: We reviewed all patients undergoing liver resection at our center from July 2017 to December 2023, focusing on those who underwent CLH. Of 135 laparoscopic liver resections, 63 (46.7%) were CLH. The learning curve of CLH was also assessed through linear and piecewise regression analyses considering the operation time and intraoperative blood loss. RESULTS: Postoperative complications occurred only in 4.8% of patients, with a 90-day mortality rate of 3.2%. The mean operation time and blood loss significantly decreased after the first 20 operations, marking the learning curve's optimal cut-off. Significant improvements in R0 resection (p = 0.024) and 90-day mortality (p = 0.035) were noted beyond the learning curve threshold. CONCLUSION: CLH is a safe and effective approach, with a relatively short learning curve of 20 operations. Future large-scale studies should further investigate the impact of surgical experience on CLH outcomes to establish guidelines for training programs.

Impact of Tumor Size on the Difficulty of Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although tumor size (TS) is known to affect surgical outcomes in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), its impact on laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH) is not well studied. The objectives of this study were to investigate the impact of TS on the perioperative outcomes of L-MH and to elucidate the optimal TS cutoff for stratifying the difficulty of L-MH. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of 3008 patients who underwent L-MH at 48 international centers. A total 1396 patients met study criteria and were included. The impact of TS cutoffs was investigated by stratifying TS at each 10-mm interval. The optimal cutoffs were determined taking into consideration the number of endpoints which showed a statistically significant split around the cut-points of interest and the magnitude of relative risk after correction for multiple risk factors. RESULTS: We identified 2 optimal TS cutoffs, 50 mm and 100 mm, which segregated L-MH into 3 groups. An increasing TS across these 3 groups (≤ 50 mm, 51-100 mm, > 100 mm), was significantly associated with a higher open conversion rate (11.2%, 14.7%, 23.0%, P < 0.001), longer operating time (median, 340 min, 346 min, 365 min, P = 0.025), increased blood loss (median, 300 ml,  ml, 400 ml, P = 0.002) and higher rate of intraoperative blood transfusion (13.1%, 15.9%, 27.6%, P < 0.001). Postoperative outcomes such as overall morbidity, major morbidity, and length of stay were comparable across the three groups. CONCLUSION: Increasing TS was associated with poorer intraoperative but not postoperative outcomes after L-MH. We determined 2 TS cutoffs (50 mm and 10 mm) which could optimally stratify the surgical difficulty of L-MH.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the advances in minimally invasive (MI) liver surgery, most major hepatectomies (MHs) continue to be performed by open surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and outcomes of open conversion during MI MH, including the impact of the type of approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) on the occurrence and outcomes of conversions. METHODS: Data on 3880 MI conventional and technical (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) MHs were retrospectively collected. Risk factors and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analyzed. Multivariate analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis were performed to control for confounding factors. RESULTS: Overall, 3211 laparoscopic MHs (LMHs) and 669 robotic MHs (RMHs) were included, of which 399 (10.28%) had an open conversion. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that male sex, laparoscopic approach, cirrhosis, previous abdominal surgery, concomitant other surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3/4, larger tumor size, conventional MH, and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification III procedures were associated with an increased risk of conversion. After matching, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with non-converted cases, as evidenced by the increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative morbidity/major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality. Although RMH showed a decreased risk of conversion compared with LMH, converted RMH showed increased blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality compared with converted LMH. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risk factors are associated with conversion. Converted cases, especially those due to intraoperative bleeding, have unfavorable outcomes. Robotic assistance seemed to increase the feasibility of the MI approach, but converted robotic procedures showed inferior outcomes compared with converted laparoscopic procedures.

Pure robotic major hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction for hepatobiliary malignancies: first European results.

BACKGROUND: Combined liver and bile duct resection with biliary reconstruction for hepatobiliary malignancies are defined as highly complex surgical procedures. The robotic platform may overcome some major limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery for these complex cases but its precise role is however still to be defined. METHODS: In our institution, patients requiring major hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction for malignancies were consecutively selected for minimally invasive robotic surgery from September 2020. All surgeries were undertaken using the da Vinci Xi Surgical System® (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Intra-operative technique and postoperative outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: A total number of 10 patients (3 males and 7 females, median age 72 years) underwent robotic major hepatectomy and bile duct resection for hepatobiliary malignancies between September 2020 and March 2022. The indication for surgery was perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in 5 of 10 patients. Median operative time was 338 min and median blood loss was 110 mL. Postoperative length of stay was between 3 and 16 days (median: 9 days). There was no postoperative 90-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: A robotic approach for hepatobiliary malignancies requiring combined major hepatectomy and bile duct resection seems feasible and safe in experienced hands.

A "cui prodest" evaluation on the development of a minimally invasive liver surgery program: a differential benefit analysis of open and laparoscopic approach for left and right hemihepatectomies.

BACKGROUND: The correlation between technical feasibility and short-term clinical advantage provided by laparoscopic over open technique for major hepatectomies is unclear. This monocentric retrospective study investigates the possible differences in the benefit provided by minimally invasive approach between left and right hepatectomy, deepening the concept of differential benefit in the setting of anatomical major resections. METHODS: All hemihepatectomies performed from January 2004 to December 2021 were identified in the institutional database. A propensity score method was used to match minimal invasive (MILS) and open pairs in the left hemihepatectomies (LH) and right hemihepatectomies (RH) groups with a 1:1 ratio to adjust any potential selection bias. The differential benefit for left and right hepatectomy provided by laparoscopic over open technique was evaluated in a pure analysis (i.e., including cases converted to open) and a risk-adjusted analysis (i.e., after excluding open conversion from the laparoscopic series). RESULTS: The analysis of the risk-adjusted differential benefit demonstrated better result of the MILS in the RH group than in the LH group, in terms of blood loss (∆ blood loss - 150 and - 350, respectively; differential benefit: 200 mL, p < 0.05), morbidity (∆ rate of morbidity - 11.3% and - 18.1%, respectively; differential benefit: 6.8%, p < 0.05) and length of stay, LOS (∆ LOS - 1 day and - 3 days, respectively; differential benefit: 2 days, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: While MILS is associated with improved clinical outcomes both in left and right hepatectomy procedures, the greater advantage provided by laparoscopy was documented in patients undergoing right hepatectomy, i.e. for more technically demanding procedures. A MILS program should include the broadest range of liver resections to ensure the full benefits of the laparoscopic technique.

Central hepatectomy versus major hepatectomy for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: For those with a centrally located HCC, the two types of liver sectionectomy that can be performed are extended hepatectomy (EH) and central hepatectomy (CH). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between patients treated with CH and patients treated with EH for those with centrally located HCC. METHOD: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for eligible studies from inception to 1 April 2022 and a systematic review and meta-analysis were done to compare the outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS: we included 9 studies with a total of 1674 patients in this study. The pooled results in this meta-analysis showed equal long-term overall survival, Disease-free survival, recurrence and mortality between the two groups (5-year OS, RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.96-1.35, P = 0.12; I2 = 56%), (5-year DFS, RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.61-1.08, P = 0.15; I2 = 60%), (Recurrence, RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.94-1.15, P = 0.45; I2 = 27%), and (Mortality, RR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.26-1.15, P = 0.11; I2 = 0%). In addition to that, no significant difference could be detected in the overall incidence of complications between the two groups (Complications, RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.76-1.16, P = 0.57; I2 = 0%). However, CH is associated with a remarkable increase in the rate of biliary fistula (Biliary fistula, RR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.07-3.40, P = 0.03; I2 = 0%). And Liver cell failure was higher in the case of EH (LCF, RR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.30-0.76, P = 0.002; I2 = 0%). Regarding the operative details, CH is associated with longer operative time (Time of the operation, Mean difference = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.36, 1.27, P = 0.0004; I2 = 57%). CONCLUSION: No significant difference in the short and long-term survival and recurrence between CH and MH for CL-HCC. However, CH is associated with greater future remnant liver volume that decreases the incidence of LCF and provides more opportunities for a repeat hepatectomy after tumour recurrence.

Early postoperative decrease of skeletal muscle mass predicts recurrence and poor survival after surgical resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative sarcopenia is a predictor of poor survival in cancer patients. We hypothesized that sarcopenia could progress as occult metastasis arose, especially after highly invasive surgery for highly aggressive malignancy. This study aimed to evaluate the associations of postoperative changes in skeletal muscle mass volume with survival outcomes in patients who underwent surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: Fifty-six patients who underwent major hepatectomy with extrahepatic bile duct resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma were studied. The skeletal muscle index (SMI) at the third lumbar vertebra was calculated from axial computed tomography images taken preoperatively and 3-6 months postoperatively (early postoperative period). The associations of clinicopathological variables, including changes of SMI after surgery, with overall survival and recurrence-free survival were evaluated. Moreover, the associations of decreased SMI and elevated serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level with early recurrence and poor survival was compared. RESULTS: Among 56 patients, 26 (46%) had sarcopenia preoperatively and SMI decreased in 29 (52%) in the early postoperative period. During the median follow-up of 57.9 months, 35 patients (63%) developed recurrence and 29 (50%) died. Decreased SMI in the early postoperative period was independently associated with a shorter overall survival (hazard ratio, 2.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-6.18; P = 0.049) and a shorter recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-4.57; P = 0.039), whereas elevated carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level was not. CONCLUSIONS: Decreased SMI in the early postoperative period may be used as a predictor for recurrence and poor survival in patients undergoing surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy following a novel optimized portal vein embolization: a video case report.

BACKGROUND: This article is the first report of laparoscopic major hepatectomy of Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following optimized portal vein embolization (oPVE). CASE PRESENTATION: The patient was diagnosed with a single 3 × 3.5 cm HCC located in segment 5 and 8 detected by enhanced computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. The lesion was adjacent to the right anterior and posterior portal veins, making it difficult to confirm the adequate liver functional remnant volume, surgical margin and R0 resection. In addition, the liver cirrhosis induced by a long history of chronic hepatitis B virus increased the potential risk of postoperative liver failure and refractory ascites. Therefore, we conducted a laparoscopic surgery following oPVE, by which the safe tumor margin was ensured and the outcome of the surgery was improved. The patient was discharged on the seventh day after the surgery. The AFP gradually decreased to a normal level during the 90-day follow-up. CONCLUSION: This case report demonstrates that, in experienced hands for selected patients, laparoscopic hepatectomy after portal vein embolization is feasible and may be an alternative to open liver resection.

Improving safety of robotic major hepatectomy with extrahepatic inflow control and laparoscopic CUSA parenchymal transection: technical description and initial experience.

BACKGROUND: Blood loss is a major determinant of outcomes following hepatectomy. Robotic technology enables hepatobiliary surgeons to mimic open techniques for inflow control and parenchymal transection during major hepatectomy, increasing the ability to minimize blood loss and perform safe liver resections. METHODS: Initial experience of 20 consecutive major robotic hepatectomies from November 2018 to July 2020 at two co-located institutions was reviewed. All cases were performed with extrahepatic inflow control and parenchymal transection with the laparoscopic cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA), and a technical description is illustrated. Clinical characteristics, operative data, and surgical outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The median (range) patient age was 58 years (20-76) and the majority of 14 (70%) patients were ASA III-IV. There were 12 (60%) resections for malignancy and the median tumor size was 6.2 cm (1.2-14.6). Right or extended right hepatectomy was the most common procedure (12 or 60% of cases). There were 7 (35%) left or extended left hepatectomies and 1 (5%) central hepatectomy. The median operative time was 420 (177-622) minutes. Median estimated blood loss was 300 mL (25-800 mL). One (5%) case was converted to open. Two (10%) patients required blood transfusion. The median length of stay was 3 (1-6) days. Major complications included 1 (5%) Clavien-Dindo IIIa bile leak requiring percutaneous drainage placement. There was no 90-day mortality. CONCLUSION: Advanced techniques to reduce blood loss in robotic hepatectomy may optimize safety and minimize morbidity in these complex minimally invasive procedures.

Textbook outcome after major hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma - definitions and influencing factors.

PURPOSE: The concept of "textbook outcome" (TO) as composite quality measure depicting the ideal surgical has not yet been defined for patients undergoing major hepatectomy (MH) for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC). This study sought to propose a uniform definition through a systematic literature review as well as to identify patient- or procedure-related factors influencing TO. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analyzed all patients undergoing MH for PHC at our department between January 2005 and August 2019. After conducting a systematic literature search, we defined TO as the absence of 90-day mortality and major complications, no hospital readmission within 90 days after discharge, and no prolonged hospital stay (<75. percentile). A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors influencing TO. RESULTS: Of 283 patients, TO was achieved in 67 (24%) patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative biliary drainage was associated with a decreased (OR= 0.405, 95% CI: 0.194-0.845, p=0.016) and left-sided-resection (OR= 1.899, 95% CI: 1.048-3.440, p=0.035) with increased odds for TO. Overall survival (OS) and DFS (disease-free survival) did not differ significantly between the outcome groups (OS: p=0.280, DFS: p=0.735). However, there was a trend towards better overall survival, especially in the late course with TO. CONCLUSION: Our analysis proposed a uniform definition of TO after MH for PHC. We identified left hepatectomy as an independent factor positively influencing TO. In patients where both right- and left-sided resections are feasible, this underlines the importance of a careful selection of patients who are scheduled for right hepatectomy.

Morbidity analysis of left hepatic trisectionectomy for hepatobiliary disease and live donor.

BACKGROUND: Despite remarkable advances in surgical techniques and perioperative management, left hepatic trisectionectomy (LHT) remains a challenging procedure with a somewhat high postoperative morbidity rate compared with less-extensive resections. This study aimed to analyze the short- and long-term outcomes of LHT and identify factors associated with the postoperative morbidity of this technically demanding surgical procedure. METHODS: The medical records of 53 patients who underwent LHT between June 2005 and October 2019 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. The independent prognostic factor of postoperative morbidity was analyzed using the logistic regression model. RESULTS: Hepatocellular carcinoma was the most common indication for surgery (n = 21), followed by hilar cholangiocarcinoma (n = 14), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n = 10), and other pathologies (including colorectal liver metastasis, hepatolithiasis, gallbladder cancer, living donor, hemangioma, and multilocular biliary cyst; n = 8). The rates of postoperative morbidities of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher and 90-day mortality were 39.6% and 1.9%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 81.1%, 61.4%, and 44.6%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative jaundice [hazard ratio (HR) = 6.15, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.57-24.17, P = 0.009] and operative time > 420 min (HR = 4.66, 95% CI: 1.27-17.17, P = 0.021) were independent predictors of postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The in-hospital mortality of LHT surgery can be minimalized by a reliable preoperative evaluation of liver function and selection of the dominant anatomic features of right posterior sector, active and appropriate preoperative management for obstructive cholangitis and compensatory hypertrophy of the future remnant posterior sector, and the experience of the surgeon.

Robotic versus laparoscopic major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: short-term outcomes from a single institution.

BACKGROUND: Currently, an increasing number of robotic major hepatectomies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are being performed. Despite the advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic procedures, studies comparing robotic with laparoscopic major hepatectomy in terms of short-term results remain scarce. This study was performed to compare robotic major hepatectomy and laparoscopic major hepatectomy in terms of their intraoperative and postoperative results. METHODS: Data regarding demographics and intraoperative and postoperative results of 131 patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic major hepatectomy between January 2017 and March 2022 were retrieved from their medical records and compared between the two types of surgery. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and March 2022, 44 robotic major hepatectomies and 87 laparoscopic major hepatectomies were performed at the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Shenzhen People's Hospital. Patients undergoing robotic major hepatectomy were not significantly different from those undergoing laparoscopic major hepatectomy in terms of age (P = 0.397), sex (P = 0.624), body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.118), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) (P = 0.09), tumor size (P = 0.176), cirrhosis (P = 0.384), fatty liver (P = 0.162), preoperative antiviral treatment (P = 0.934), hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA (P = 0.646) and operation type (P = 0.054). Robotic major hepatectomy was associated with a longer operation time (median: 255.5 versus 206.8 min; P < 0.001) and less estimated blood loss (median: 118.9 versus 197.0 ml; P = 0.002) than laparoscopic major hepatectomy. However, robotic major hepatectomy was not significantly different from laparoscopic major hepatectomy regarding length of postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.849), open conversion (P = 0.077), ICU stay (P = 0.866), postoperative massive abdominal bleeding (P = 1.00), portal vein thrombosis (P = 1.00), abdominal infection (P = 1.00), pulmonary infection (P = 1.00), pulmonary embolism (P = 1.00), cardiac complications (P = 1.00), liver failure (P = 1.00), kidney failure (P = 1.00), biliary leak (P = 1.00), positive resection margin (P = 1.00), 30-day mortality (P = 1.00) and 90-day mortality (P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic major hepatectomy was as effective as laparoscopic surgery in terms of intraoperative and postoperative results but took longer and could more efficiently control intraoperative blood loss.

Future liver volume combined with platelet count predicts liver failure after major hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Major hepatectomy is associated with high incidence of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of future remnant liver volume combined with liver function tests on predicting PHLF. METHODS: Patients who underwent major hepatectomy from April 2009 to May 2017 were enrolled in the training cohort. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors of PHLF and generate a logistic regression model for the prediction of PHLF. A conditional inference tree was generated based on the optimal cutoff value of independent predictive factors of PHLF. The precedent results were validated in an independent cohort from June 2017 to March 2018. RESULTS: One hundred and eighteen patients were included in the training cohort, while another 34 in the validation cohort. Future remnant liver volume/estimated standard total liver volume (FLV/eTV) and preoperative platelet count were independent predictive factors of PHLF (P = 0.0021 and P = 0.012, respectively). The conditional inference tree showed that patients with FLV/eTV ≤0.56 and PLT count ≤145 × 109/L were at high risk of developing PHLF. CONCLUSION: FLV/eTV combined with preoperative PLT count is effective in predicting PHLF after major hepatectomy.

Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy with hepatic vein resection and reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Hepatectomy remains the most important treatment modality for most malignant liver tumors. Vascular involvement stays a reason for unresectability or major parenchymal resection. A possible way to avoid this is parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSHX) with vascular resection and reconstruction (HVRR). In this article, we aim to demonstrate the specific role of this technique in avoiding post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 10 patients who underwent HVRR was conducted. 99mTechnetium-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HBS) was used to predict the future liver remnant function (FLRF). Calculations were made for each patient to compare HVRR and major hepatectomy (with or without portal vein embolization). RESULTS: In our cohort, there was no perioperative mortality. Two patients suffered a Clavien-Dindo grade 3a complication and none had clinically significant PHLF. Estimated FLRF was significantly higher in HVRR compared to major hepatectomy after portal vein embolization (p < .005). CONCLUSIONS: Instead of focusing on inducing liver remnant hypertrophy, preserving parenchyma through HVRR can be an interesting treatment strategy. It can be performed with an acceptable operative risk. Calculations of FLRF (using HBS) suggest that this approach is able to reduce the risk for PHLF and related morbidity or mortality.

Robotic versus open hemihepatectomy: a propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive approach has been increasingly applied in liver resection. However, laparoscopic major hepatectomy is technically demanding and is practiced only in expert centers around the world. Conversely, use of robot may help to overcome the difficulty and facilitate major hepatectomy. METHODS: Between September 2010 and March 2019, 151 patients received robotic hepatectomy for various indications in our center. 36 patients received robotic hemihepatectomy: 26 left hepatectomy and 10 right hepatectomy. During the same period, 737 patients received open hepatectomy and out of these, 173 patients received open hemihepatectomy. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed in a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS: After matching, there were 36 patients each in the robotic and open group. The two groups were comparable in demographic data, type of hemihepatectomy, underlying pathology, size of tumor, and background cirrhosis. Conversion was needed in 3 patients (8.3%) in the robotic group. There was no operative mortality. The operative blood loss and resection margin were similar. Though not significantly different, there was a higher rate of complications in the robotic group (36.1% vs. 22.2%) and this difference was mostly driven by higher intra-abdominal collection (16.7% vs. 5.6%) and bile leak (5.6% vs. 2.8%). Operative time was significantly longer (400.8 ± 136.1 min vs 255.4 ± 74.4 min, P < 0.001) but the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter (median 5 days vs 6.5 days, P = 0.040) in the robotic group. When right and left hepatectomy were analyzed separately, the advantage of shorter hospital stay remained in left but not right hepatectomy. For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, there was no difference between the two groups in 5-year overall and disease-free survival. CONCLUSION: Compared with the open approach, robotic hemihepatectomy has longer operation time but shorter hospital stay. Thus, use of robot is feasible and effective in hemihepatectomy with the benefit of shorter hospital stay.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: a multicentric propensity score­based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Considering the increase in overall life expectancy and the rising incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), more elderly patients are considered for hepatic resection. Traditionally, major hepatectomy has not been proposed to the elderly due to severe comorbidities. Indeed, only a few case series are reported in the literature. The present study aimed to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) and open major hepatectomy (OMH) in elderly patients with HCC using propensity score matching (PSM). METHODS: We performed a multicentric retrospective study including 184 consecutive cases of HCC major liver resection in patients aged ≥ 70 years in _8 European Hospital Centers. Patients were divided into LMH and OMH groups, and perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 122 patients were enrolled, 38 in the LMH group and 84 in the OMH group. Postoperative overall complications were lower in the LMH than in the OMH group (18 vs. 46%, p < 0.001). Hospital stay was shorter in the LMH group than in the OMH group (5 vs. 7 days, p = 0.01). Mortality at 90 days was comparable between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 1, 3, and 5 years. CONCLUSION: LMH for HCC is associated with appropriate short-term outcomes in patients aged ≥ 70 years as compared to OMH. LMH is safe and feasible in elderly patients with HCC.

Laparoscopic versus robotic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of the laparoscopic and robotic approaches for major hepatectomy (LMH and RMH) was slower than that for minor hepatectomy, but has significantly increased over the past years. The role or advantages of RMH remains controversial, and we aimed to compare the peri-/postoperative outcomes of LMH versus RMH. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases according to the PRISMA guidelines (end-of-search date: March 16th, 2020). Only comparative studies (LMH vs. RMH) reporting on outcomes of interest were included. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model when substantial heterogeneity was encountered; otherwise, the fixed-effects model was implemented. Quality of evidence assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Seven retrospective cohort studies comparing LMH (n = 300) versus RMH (n = 225) were identified. No significant difference was observed between LMH and RMH regarding overall complications [odds ratio (OR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-2.23; p = 0.13], severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) [risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.05; p = 0.72], and overall mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.03; p = 0.73). The two approaches were also equivalent regarding conversion to open hepatectomy (RD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.08; p = 0.15), margin-positive resection (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.51-3.52; p = 0.55), and transfusion rate (RD - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.16 to 0.11; p = 0.67). No significant difference was observed for LMH versus RMH regarding blood loss [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27, 95% CI - 0.24 to 0.77; p = 0.30), operative time (SMD - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.51 to 0.34; p = 0.70), and length of stay (SMD 0.13, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.84; p = 0.72). CONCLUSION: LMH and RMH have equivalent peri-/postoperative outcomes when performed in select patients and high-volume centers.

A tailored approach in lymph node-positive perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Extended right hepatectomy is associated with wide surgical margins in PHC and often favored for oncological considerations. However, it remains uncertain whether established surgical principles also apply to the subgroup of node-positive patients. The aim of the present study was to define a tailored surgical approach for patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) and lymph node metastases. METHODS: We reviewed the course of all consecutive patients undergoing major hepatectomy for PHC between 2005 and 2015 at the Department of Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-one patients underwent major hepatectomy for PHC with 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates of 72%, 48%, and 36%, and 60%, 22%, and 12%, respectively. In lymph node-positive patients (n = 109, 47%), extended left hepatectomy was associated with improved OS and DFS, respectively, when compared to extended right hepatectomy (p = 0.008 and p = 0.003). Interestingly, OS and DFS did not differ between R0 and R1 resections in those patients (both p = ns). Patients undergoing extended left hepatectomy were more likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.022). This is of note as adjuvant chemotherapy, besides grading (p = 0.041), was the only independent prognostic factor in node-positive patients (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Patients with node-positive PHC might benefit from less aggressive approaches being associated with lower morbidity and a higher chance for adjuvant chemotherapy. Lymph node sampling might help to guide patients to the appropriate surgical approach according to their lymph node status.

Issues to be considered to address the future liver remnant prior to major hepatectomy.

An accurate preoperative evaluation of the hepatic function and application of portal vein embolization in selected patients have helped improve the safety of major hepatectomy. In planning major hepatectomy, however, several issues remain to be addressed. The first is which cut-off values for serum total bilirubin level and prothrombin time should be used to define post-hepatectomy liver failure. Other issues include what minimum future liver remnant (FLR) volume is required; whether the total liver volume measured using computed tomography or the standard liver volume calculated based on the body surface area should be used to assess the adequacy of the FLR volume; whether there is a discrepancy between the FLR volume and function during the recovery period after portal vein embolization or hepatectomy; and how best the function of a specific FLR can be assessed. Various studies concerning these issues have been reported with controversial results. We should also be aware that different strategies and management are required for different types of liver damage, such as cirrhosis in hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangitis in biliary tract cancer, and chemotherapy-induced hepatic injury.