Search

Controversies exist among liver surgeons regarding clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic versus the robotic approach for major complex hepatectomies. The authors therefore designed a study to examine and compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (L-LH/L-ELH) versus robotic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (R-LH/R-ELH) using a large international multicenter collaborative database.An international multicenter retrospective analysis of 580 patients undergoing L-LH/L-ELH or R-LH/R-ELH at 25 specialized hepatobiliary centers worldwide was undertaken. Propensity score-matching (PSM) was used at a 1:1 nearest-neighbor ratio according to 15 perioperative variables, including demographics, tumor characteristics, Child-Pugh score, presence of portal hypertension, multiple resections, histologic diagnosis, and Iwate difficulty grade.Before the PSM, 190 (32 %) patients underwent R-LH/R-ELH, and 390 (68 %) patients underwent L-LH/L-ELH. After the matching, 164 patients were identified in each arm without significant differences in demographics, preoperative variables, medical history, tumor pathology, tumor characteristics, or Iwate score. Regarding intra- and postoperative outcomes, the rebotic approach had significantly less estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 ml [IQR 200 ml] vs 200 ml [IQR 235 ml]; p = 0.029), fewer conversions to open operations (n = 4 [2.4 %] vs n = 13, [7.9 %]; p = 0.043), and a shorter hospital stay (6 days [IQR 3 days] vs 7 days [IQR 3.3 days]; p = 0.009).Both techniques are safe and feasible in major hepatic resections. Compared with L-LH/L-ELH, R-LH/R-ELH is associated with less EBL, fewer conversions to open operations, and a shorter hospital stay.

Background Minimally invasive right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) is a technically challenging procedure. This study was designed to determine outcomes following robotic RPS (R-RPS) and laparoscopic RPS (L-RPS). Methods An international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing R-RPS versus those who had purely L-RPS at 21 centres from 2010 to 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed retrospectively from a central database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, with analysis of 1 : 2 and 1 : 1 matched cohorts. Results Three-hundred and forty patients, including 96 who underwent R-RPS and 244 who had L-RPS, met the study criteria and were included. The median operating time was 295 minutes and there were 25 (7.4 per cent) open conversions. Ninety-seven (28.5 per cent) patients had cirrhosis and 56 (16.5 per cent) patients required blood transfusion. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 22.1 per cent and major morbidity rate was 6.8 per cent. The median postoperative stay was 6 days. After 1 : 1 matching of 88 R-RPS and L-RPS patients, median (i.q.r.) blood loss (200 (100–400) versus 450 (200–900) ml, respectively; P 500 ml; P = 0.001), need for intraoperative blood transfusion (10.2 versus 23.9 per cent, respectively; P = 0.014), and open conversion rate (2.3 versus 11.4 per cent, respectively; P = 0.016) were lower in the R-RPS group. Similar results were found in the 1 : 2 matched groups (66 R-RPS versus 132 L-RPS patients). Conclusion R-RPS and L-RPS can be performed in expert centres with good outcomes in well selected patients. R-RPS was associated with reduced blood loss and lower open conversion rates than L-RPS.

Presently, the adoption of laparoscopic hepatectomy is rapidly increasingly worldwide. However, the application of robotic hepatectomy (RH) remains limited and its role remains undefined today.A retrospective review of 43 consecutive patients who underwent RH at two institutions in the Singapore Health Services Group.Forty-three consecutive patients underwent 48 resections during the study period. Seven (16.3%) patients underwent major resections and seven (16.3%) underwent right posterior sectionectomies. Nineteen (44.2%) patients had tumours located in the difficult posterosuperior segments, five had multiple resections and three underwent repeat resections for recurrent tumours. RH was performed for malignant tumours in 32 (74%) patients and 16 (37.2%) had cirrhosis. Seven RH was performed with other concomitant procedures including three colectomies, three hilar lymphadenectomies and one portal vein ligation. The median operation time was 360 min (range 75-825) and the median blood loss was 300 mL (range 25-4500). There was one (2.3%) open conversion for bleeding. The median post-operative stay was 4 days (range 2-33) and there was one (2.3%) readmission. There was one (2.3%) major (grade 2 morbidity) in a patient with concomitant anterior resection who underwent reoperation for anastomotic leak. There was no 90 day/in-hospital mortality. Comparison between RH for tumours in the anterolateral segments versus posterosuperior segments demonstrated no significant difference in perioperative outcomes.Our initial experience demonstrated that RH is safe, feasible and associated with excellent post-operative outcomes. It can be performed successfully with low morbidity even for complex resections such as major hepatectomies, posterior sectionectomies, tumours in difficult posterosuperior segments and repeat liver resections.