Search

Introduction: Despite the increasing widespread adoption and experience in minimally invasive liver resections (MILR), open conversion occurs not uncommonly even with minor resections and as been reported to be associated with inferior outcomes. We aimed to identify risk factors for and outcomes of open conversion in patients undergoing minor hepatectomies. We also studied the impact of approach (laparoscopic or robotic) on outcomes., Methods: This is a post-hoc analysis of 20,019 patients who underwent RLR and LLR across 50 international centers between 2004-2020. Risk factors for and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analysed. Multivariate and propensity score-matched analysis were performed to control for confounding factors., Results: Finally, 10,541 patients undergoing either laparoscopic (LLR; 89.1%) or robotic (RLR; 10.9%) minor liver resections (wedge resections, segmentectomies) were included. Multivariate analysis identified LLR, earlier period of MILR, malignant pathology, cirrhosis, portal hypertension, previous abdominal surgery, larger tumor size, and posterosuperior location as significant independent predictors of open conversion. The most common reason for conversion was technical issues (44.7%), followed by bleeding (27.2%), and oncological reasons (22.3%). After propensity score matching (PSM) of baseline characteristics, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with successful MILR cases as evidenced by longer operative times, more blood loss, higher requirement for perioperative transfusion, longer duration of hospitalization and higher morbidity, reoperation, and 90-day mortality rates., Conclusions: Multiple risk factors were associated with conversion of MILR even for minor hepatectomies, and open conversion was associated with significantly poorer perioperative outcomes., (© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Due to the success of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive donor hepatectomies (MIDH) are increasingly performed worldwide. We conducted a retrospective, multicentre, propensity score-matched analysis on right lobe MIDH by comparing the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches to assess the feasibility, safety, and early outcomes of MIDHs. From January 2016 until December 2020, 1194 donors underwent a right donor hepatectomy performed with a robotic (n = 92), laparoscopic (n = 306), and open approach (n = 796) at 6 high-volume centers. Donor and recipients were matched for different variables using propensity score matching (1:1:2). Donor outcomes were recorded, and postoperative pain was measured through a visual analog scale. Recipients' outcomes were also analyzed. Ninety-two donors undergoing robotic surgery were matched and compared to 92 and 184 donors undergoing laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Conversions to open surgery occurred during 1 (1.1%) robotic and 2 (2.2%) laparoscopic procedures. Robotic procedures had a longer operative time (493 ± 96 min) compared to laparoscopic and open procedures (347 ± 120 and 358 ± 95 min; p < 0.001) but were associated with reduced donor blood losses ( p < 0.001). No differences were observed in overall and major complications (≥ IIIa). Robotic hepatectomy donors had significantly less pain compared to the 2 other groups ( p < 0.001). Fifty recipients of robotic-procured grafts were matched to 50 and 100 recipients of laparoscopic and open surgery procured grafts, respectively. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative complications, and recipients' survival was similar ( p =0.455). In very few high-volume centers, robotic right lobe procurement has shown to be a safe procedure. Despite an increased operative and the first warm ischemia times, this approach is associated with reduced intraoperative blood losses and pain compared to the laparoscopic and open approaches. Further data are needed to confirm it as a valuable option for the laparoscopic approach in MIDH., (Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic limited liver resections (RLLR) versus laparoscopic limited liver resections (LLLR) of the posterosuperior segments., Background: Both laparoscopic and robotic liver resections have been used for tumors in the posterosuperior liver segments. However, the comparative performance and safety of both approaches have not been well examined in the existing literature., Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 5446 patients who underwent RLLR or LLLR of the posterosuperior segments (I, IVa, VII, and VIII) at 60 international centers between 2008 and 2021. Data on baseline demographics, center experience and volume, tumor features, and perioperative characteristics were collected and analyzed. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis (in both 1:1 and 1:2 ratios) was performed to minimize selection bias., Results: A total of 3510 cases met the study criteria, of whom 3049 underwent LLLR (87%), and 461 underwent RLLR (13%). After PSM (1:1: and 1:2), RLLR was associated with a lower open conversion rate [10 of 449 (2.2%) vs 54 of 898 (6.0%); P =0.002], less blood loss [100 mL [IQR: 50-200) days vs 150 mL (IQR: 50-350); P <0.001] and a shorter operative time (188 min (IQR: 140-270) vs 222 min (IQR: 158-300); P <0.001]. These improved perioperative outcomes associated with RLLR were similarly seen in a subset analysis of patients with cirrhosis-lower open conversion rate [1 of 136 (0.7%) vs 17 of 272 (6.2%); P =0.009], less blood loss [100 mL (IQR: 48-200) vs 160 mL (IQR: 50-400); P <0.001], and shorter operative time [190 min (IQR: 141-258) vs 230 min (IQR: 160-312); P =0.003]. Postoperative outcomes in terms of readmission, morbidity and mortality were similar between RLLR and LLLR in both the overall PSM cohort and cirrhosis patient subset., Conclusions: RLLR for the posterosuperior segments was associated with superior perioperative outcomes in terms of decreased operative time, blood loss, and open conversion rate when compared with LLLR., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) offer potential benefits such as reduced blood loss and morbidity compared with open liver resections. Several studies have suggested that the impact of cirrhosis differs according to the extent and complexity of resection. Our aim was to investigate the impact of cirrhosis on the difficulty and outcomes of MILR, focusing on major hepatectomies., Methods: A total of 2534 patients undergoing minimally invasive major hepatectomies (MIMH) for primary malignancies across 58 centers worldwide were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to compare patients with and without cirrhosis., Results: A total of 1353 patients (53%) had no cirrhosis, 1065 (42%) had Child-Pugh A and 116 (4%) had Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. Matched comparison between non-cirrhotics vs Child-Pugh A cirrhosis demonstrated comparable blood loss. However, after PSM, postoperative morbidity and length of hospitalization was significantly greater in Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, but these were not statistically significant with CEM. Comparison between Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis demonstrated the latter had significantly higher transfusion rates and longer hospitalization after PSM, but not after CEM. Comparison of patients with cirrhosis of all grades with and without portal hypertension demonstrated no significant difference in all major perioperative outcomes after PSM and CEM., Conclusions: The presence and severity of cirrhosis affected the difficulty and impacted the outcomes of MIMH, resulting in higher blood transfusion rates, increased postoperative morbidity, and longer hospitalization in patients with more advanced cirrhosis. As such, future difficulty scoring systems for MIMH should incorporate liver cirrhosis and its severity as variables., (© 2023. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Introduction: We performed this study in order to investigate the impact of liver cirrhosis (LC) on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR), focusing on minor resections in anterolateral (AL) segments for primary liver malignancies., Methods: This was an international multicenter retrospective study of 3675 patients who underwent MILR across 60 centers from 2004 to 2021., Results: 1312 (35.7%) patients had no cirrhosis, 2118 (57.9%) had Child A cirrhosis and 245 (6.7%) had Child B cirrhosis. After propensity score matching (PSM), patients in Child A cirrhosis group had higher rates of open conversion (p = 0.024), blood loss >500 mls (p = 0.001), blood transfusion (p < 0.001), postoperative morbidity (p = 0.004), and in-hospital mortality (p = 0.041). After coarsened exact matching (CEM), Child A cirrhotic patients had higher open conversion rate (p = 0.05), greater median blood loss (p = 0.014) and increased postoperative morbidity (p = 0.001). Compared to Child A cirrhosis, Child B cirrhosis group had longer postoperative stay (p = 0.001) and greater major morbidity (p = 0.012) after PSM, and higher blood transfusion rates (p = 0.002), longer postoperative stay (p < 0.001), and greater major morbidity (p = 0.006) after CEM. After PSM, patients with portal hypertension experienced higher rates of blood loss >500 mls (p = 0.003) and intraoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.025)., Conclusion: The presence and severity of LC affect and compound the difficulty of MILR for minor resections in the AL segments. These factors should be considered for inclusion into future difficulty scoring systems for MILR., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest, (©2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH)., Background: Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH., Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups., Results: A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047]., Conclusions: This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery., Competing Interests: B.K.P.G. has received travel grants and honorariums from Johnson and Johnson, Olympus and Transmedic, the local distributor for the Da Vinci Robot. M.V.M. is a consultant for CAVA robotics LLC. J.P. reports a research grant from Intuitive Surgical Deutschland GmbH and personal fees or non-financial support from Johnson and Johnson, Medtronic, AFS Medical, Astellas, CHG Meridian, Chiesi, Falk Foundation, La Fource Group, Merck, Neovii, NOGGO, pharma-consult Peterson, and Promedicis. M. Schmelzle reports personal fees or other support outside of the submitted work from Merck, Bayer, ERBE, Amgen, Johnson and Johnson, Takeda, Olympus, Medtronic, and Intuitive. A.A.F. reports receiving speaker fees from Bayer. F.R. reports speaker fees and support outside the submitted work from Integra, Medtronic, Olympus, Corza, Sirtex, and Johnson and Johnson. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The robotic liver resection (RLR) has been increasingly applied in recent years and its benefits shown in some aspects owing to the technical advancement of robotic surgical system, however, controversies still exist. Based on the foundation of the previous consensus statement, this new consensus document aimed to update clinical recommendations and provide guidance to improve the outcomes of RLR clinical practice. The guideline steering group and guideline expert group were formed by 29 international experts of liver surgery and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Relevant literature was reviewed and analyzed by the evidence evaluation group. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, the Guidance Principles of Development and Amendment of the Guidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in China 2022, a total of 14 recommendations were generated. Among them were 8 recommendations formulated by the GRADE method, and the remaining 6 recommendations were formulated based on literature review and experts' opinion due to insufficient EBM results. This international experts consensus guideline offered guidance for the safe and effective clinical practice and the research direction of RLR in future., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare no conflict of interest in the development of consensus guidelines., (©The Author(s) 2023. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is widely recognized as a safe and beneficial procedure in the treatment of both malignant and benign liver diseases. Hepatolithiasis has traditionally been reported to be endemic only in East Asia, but has seen a worldwide uptrend in recent decades with increasingly frequent and invasive endoscopic instrumentation of the biliary tract for a myriad of conditions. To date, there has been a woeful lack of high-quality evidence comparing the laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) approaches to treatment hepatolithiasis., Methods: This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 273 patients who underwent RLR or LRR for hepatolithiasis at 33 centers in 2003-2020. The baseline clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes of these patients were assessed. To minimize selection bias, 1:1 (48 and 48 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) and 1:2 (37 and 74 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) propensity score matching (PSM) was performed., Results: In the unmatched cohort, 63 (23.1%) patients underwent RLR, and 210 (76.9%) patients underwent LLR. Patient clinicopathological characteristics were comparable between the groups after PSM. After 1:1 and 1:2 PSM, RLR was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.005 in 1:1 PSM), less patients with blood loss greater than 300 ml (p = 0.024 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.027 in 1:1 PSM), and lower conversion rate to open surgery (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p < 0.001 in 1:1 PSM). There was no significant difference between RLR and LLR in use of the Pringle maneuver, median Pringle maneuver duration, 30-day readmission rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality., Conclusion: Both RLR and LLR were safe and feasible for hepatolithiasis. RLR was associated with significantly less blood loss and lower open conversion rate., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

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., (© 2023. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Background: Minimal invasive liver resections are a safe alternative to open surgery. Different scoring systems considering different risks factors have been developed to predict the risks associated with these procedures, especially challenging major liver resections (MLR). However, the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT) on the difficulty of minimally invasive MLRs remains poorly investigated., Methods: Patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic MLRs for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) performed across 57 centers between January 2005 to December 2021 were included in this analysis. Patients who did or did not receive NAT were matched based on 1:1 coarsened exact and 1:2 propensity-score matching. Pre- and post-matching comparisons were performed., Results: In total, the data of 5189 patients were reviewed. Of these, 1411 procedures were performed for CRLM, and 1061 cases met the inclusion criteria. After excluding 27 cases with missing data on NAT, 1034 patients (NAT: n = 641; non-NAT: n = 393) were included. Before matching, baseline characteristics were vastly different. Before matching, the morbidity rate was significantly higher in the NAT-group (33.2% vs. 27.2%, p-value = 0.043). No significant differences were seen in perioperative outcomes after the coarsened exact matching. After the propensity-score matching, statistically significant higher blood loss (mean, 300 (SD 128-596) vs. 250 (SD 100-400) ml, p-value = 0.047) but shorter hospital stay (mean, 6 [4-8] vs. 6 [5-9] days, p-value = 0.043) were found in the NAT-group., Conclusion: The current study demonstrated that NAT had minimal impact on the difficulty and outcomes of minimally-invasive MLR for CRLM., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive liver resections. While laparoscopic (L)-LLS is a well-established technique, over traditional open resection, it remains controversial if robotic (R)-LLS provides any advantages of L-LLS., Methods: A post hoc analysis of 997 patients from 21 international centres undergoing L-LLS or R-LLS from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. A total of 886 cases (214 R-LLS, 672 L-LLS) met study criteria. 1:1 and 1:2 propensity score matched (PSM) comparison was performed between R-LLS & L-LLS. Further subset analysis by Iwate difficulty was also performed. Outcomes measured include operating time, blood loss, open conversion, readmission rates, morbidity and mortality., Results: Comparison between R-LLS and L-LLS after PSM 1:2 demonstrated statistically significantly lower open conversion rate in R-LLS than L-LLS (0.6% versus 5%, p = 0.009) and median blood loss was also statistically significantly lower in R-LLS at 50 (80) versus 100 (170) in L-LLS (p = 0.011) after PSM 1:1 although there was no difference in the blood transfusion rate. Pringle manoeuvre was also found to be used more frequently in R-LLS, with 53(24.8%) cases versus to 84(12.5%) L-LLS cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other key perioperative outcomes such as operating time, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity and 90-day mortality between both groups., Conclusion: R-LLS was associated with similar key perioperative outcomes compared to L-LLS. It was also associated with significantly lower blood loss and open conversion rates compared to L-LLS., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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)., Conclusion: 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., (© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Background: Both laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy (LLDRH) and robotic living donor right hemihepatectomy (RLDRH) have been developed for minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH), although comparative analysis between the two surgical modalities is lacking. This study aims to compare surgical outcomes of LLDRH and RLDRH at a single institution., Materials and Methods: From March 2016 to March 2022, 171 patients who underwent MILH of right liver were enrolled and divided into RLDRH and LLDRH. Two surgeons with experience in both techniques performed all procedures. Clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes of donor and recipient, and donor anatomic variations were compared between both groups, and learning curves were estimated. Subgroup analysis was also performed, including only donors recruited after 2019, when LLDRH was initiated at our institution., Results: RLDRH and LLDRH were performed for 102 and 69 patients, respectively. Operative time was significantly longer for RLDRH than LLDRH (464 vs. 407 min, P < 0.001), although estimated blood loss was lower in RLDRH (104 vs. 238 mL, P = 0.002). Incidence of major complications was similar in both groups. After 2019, significantly more RLDRH vs. LLDRH patients had variation in the hepatic artery (14.3% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.020) and portal vein (16.1% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.027). Learning curve for RLDRH was stabilized after approximately the 16th case, whereas that of LLDRH stabilized immediately., Conclusion: RLDRH resulted in less intraoperative bleeding and comparable postoperative outcomes than LLDRH. Moreover, since 2019, RLDRH has been employed more frequently for donors with hilar structure anatomic variations. Based on our single-center experience, we propose that standardized procedures for RLDRH might help set up pure minimally invasive procedures for donor hepatectomy and facilitate safe implementation of laparoscopic approaches., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2022 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Limited liver resections (LLRs) for tumours located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver are technically demanding procedures. This study compared outcomes of robotic (R) and laparoscopic (L) LLR for tumours located in the posterosuperior liver segments (IV, VII, and VIII)., Methods: This was an international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients who underwent R-LLR or L-LLR at 24 centres between 2010 and 2019. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed; 1 : 3 propensity score matching (PSM) and 1 : 1 coarsened exact matching (CEM) were performed., Results: Of 1566 patients undergoing R-LLR and L-LLR, 983 met the study inclusion criteria. Before matching, 159 R-LLRs and 824 L-LLRs were included. After 1 : 3 PSM of 127 R-LLRs and 381 L-LLRs, comparison of perioperative outcomes showed that median blood loss (100 (i.q.r. 40-200) versus 200 (100-500) ml; P = 0.003), blood loss of at least 500 ml (9 (7.4 per cent) versus 94 (27.6 per cent); P < 0.001), intraoperative blood transfusion rate (4 (3.1 per cent) versus 38 (10.0 per cent); P = 0.025), rate of conversion to open surgery (1 (0.8 per cent) versus 30 (7.9 per cent); P = 0.022), median duration of Pringle manoeuvre when applied (30 (20-46) versus 40 (25-58) min; P = 0.012), and median duration of operation (175 (130-255) versus 224 (155-300); P < 0.001) were lower in the R-LLR group compared with the L-LLR group. After 1 : 1 CEM of 104 R-LLRs with 104 L-LLRs, R-LLR was similarly associated with significantly reduced blood loss and a lower rate of conversion to open surgery., Conclusion: Based on a matched analysis of well selected patients, both robotic and laparoscopic access could be undertaken safely with good outcomes for tumours in the posterosuperior liver segments., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Robotic liver resections (RLR) may have the ability to address some of the drawbacks of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) but few studies have done a head-to-head comparison of the outcomes after anterolateral segment resections by the two techniques., Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of 3202 patients who underwent minimally invasive LR of the anterolateral liver segments at 26 international centres from 2005 to 2020. Two thousand six hundred and six cases met study criteria of which there were 358 RLR and 1868 LLR cases. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups using a 1:3 Propensity Score Matched (PSM) and 1:1 Coarsened Exact Matched (CEM) analysis., Results: Patients matched after 1:3 PSM (261 RLR vs 783 LLR) and 1:1 CEM (296 RLR vs 296 LLR) revealed no significant differences in length of stay, readmission rates, morbidity, mortality, and involvement of or close oncological margins. RLR surgeries were associated with significantly less blood loss (50 mL vs 100 ml, P < .001) and lower rates of open conversion on both PSM (1.5% vs 6.8%, P = .003) and CEM (1.4% vs 6.4%, P = .004) compared to LLR. Though PSM analysis showed RLR to have a longer operating time than LLR (170 minutes vs 160 minutes, P = .036), this difference proved to be insignificant on CEM (167 minutes vs 163 minutes, P = .575)., Conclusion: This multicentre international combined PSM and CEM study showed that both RLR and LLR have equivalent perioperative outcomes when performed in selected patients at high-volume centres. The robotic approach was associated with significantly lower blood loss and allowed more surgeries to be completed in a minimally invasive fashion., (© 2022 Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.)

Importance: Laparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH)., Objective: To compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included., Interventions: Robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH., Main Outcomes and Measures: Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed., Results: Of 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P = .01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.0 [5.0-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.11 [7.52] days vs median [IQR], 7.0 [5.75-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.94 [8.99] days; P = .048). On subset analysis of cases performed between 2015 and 2020 after a center's learning curve (50 cases), robotic RH/ERH was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 6.0 [5.0-9.0] days vs 7.0 [6.0-9.75] days; P = .04) with a similar conversion rate (12 of 220 [7.6%] vs 17 of 220 [10.8%]; P = .46)., Conclusion and Relevance: Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with laparoscopic RH/ERH. The difference in open conversion rate was associated with a significant decrease for laparoscopic but not robotic RH/ERH after a center had mounted the learning curve. Use of robotic platform may help to overcome the initial challenges of minimally invasive RH/ERH.

Background: The dissemination of robotic liver surgery is slow-paced and must face the obstacle of demonstrating advantages over open and laparoscopic (LLS) approaches. Our objective was to show the current position of robotic liver surgery (RLS) worldwide and to identify if improved short-term outcomes are observed, including secondary meta-analyses for type of resection, etiology, and cost analysis., Methods: A PRISMA-based systematic review was performed to identify manuscripts comparing RLS vs open or LLS approaches. Quality analysis was performed using the Newcatle-Ottawa score. Statistical analysis was performed after heterogeneity test and fixed- or random-effect models were chosen accordingly., Results: After removing duplications, 2728 RLS cases were identified from the final set of 150 manuscripts. More than 75% of the cases have been performed on malignancies. Meta-analysis from the 38 comparative reports showed that RLS may offer improved short-term outcomes compared to open procedures in most of the variables screened. Compared to LLS, some advantages may be observed in favour of RLS for major resections in terms of operative time, hospital stay and rate of complications. Cost analyses showed an increased cost per procedure of around US$5000., Conclusions: The advantages of RLS still need to be demonstrated although early results are promising. Advantages vs open approach are demonstrated. Compared to laparoscopic surgery, minor perioperative advantages may be observed for major resections although cost analyses are still unfavorable to the robotic approach., (© 2020 Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.)

Objective: To investigate the feasibility and safety of RLDRH., Summary of Background Data: Data for minimally invasive living-donor right hepatectomy, especially RLDRH, from a relatively large donor cohort that have not been reported yet., Methods: From March 2016 to March 2019, 52 liver donors underwent RLDRH. The clinical and perioperative outcomes of RLDRH were compared with those of CODRH (n = 62) and LADRH (n = 118). Donor satisfaction with cosmetic results was compared between RLDRH and LADRH using a body image questionnaire., Results: Although RLDRH was associated with longer operative time (minutes) (RLDRH, 493.6; CODRH, 404.4; LADRH, 355.9; P < 0.001), mean estimated blood loss (mL) was significantly lower (RLDRH, 109.8; CODRH, 287.1; LADRH, 265.5; P = 0.001). Postoperative complication rates were similar among the 3 groups (RLDRH, 23.1%; CODRH, 35.5%; LADRH, 28.0%; P = 0.420). Regarding donor satisfaction, body image and cosmetic appearance scores were significantly higher in RLDRH than in LADRH. After propensity score matching, RLDRH showed less estimated blood loss compared to those of CODRH (RLDRH, 114.7 mL; CODRH, 318.4 mL; P < 0.001), but complication rates were similar among the three groups (P = 0.748)., Conclusions: RLDRH resulted in less blood loss compared with that of CODRH and similar postoperative complication rates to CODRH and LADRH. RLDRH provided better body image and cosmetic results compared with those of LADRH. RLDRH is feasible and safe when performed by surgeons experienced with both robotic and open hepatectomy., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 < 0.001), major blood loss (> 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., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Laparoscopic major anatomical liver resection is challenging. The robotic liver resection (RLR) approach, with Firefly indocyanine green (ICG) imaging, was proposed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy. The aim of this multi-centre international study was to evaluate the use of Firefly ICG imaging in anatomical RLR., Methods: A retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing RLR anatomical resection with intra-operative ICG administration from January 2015 to July 2018 were enrolled. Patients who underwent simultaneous or en-bloc resections of other organs were excluded., Results: A total of 52 patients were recruited of which 32 patients were healthy donors, 17 with malignancy and 3 for benign conditions. 12 patients had cirrhosis. 28 patients underwent a right hepatectomy (53.8%) with left hepatectomy performed with 18 patients. 40 patients underwent negative staining and 12 patients via direct portal vein injection for positive staining. ICG demarcation line was visualized in 43 patients and was clearer than the ischaemic demarcation line in 29 patients. All resections for malignancy had clear margins. There were no 30-day/inpatient mortalities., Conclusion: Robotic ICG guided hepatectomy technique for anatomical liver resection is safe, feasible and has the benefit for improved visualization in healthy donors and cirrhotic patients., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Robotic liver resection has not yet been widely implemented. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic major liver resection by performing a prospective multicenter study., Methods: From July 2017 to December 2018, five surgeons from five tertiary hospitals who were novices in robotic liver resection but experienced in open and laparoscopic liver resection performed 46 cases of robotic major anatomical liver resections. Perioperative clinical data and surgical data, including detailed procedure times were prospectively collected. All operations were performed according to a protocol for unify surgical techniques and instruments., Results: Twenty-two cases of left hemihepatectomy, one case of extended left hemihepatectomy, 14 cases of right hemihepatectomy, two cases of right anterior sectionectomy, six cases of right posterior sectionectomy, and one case of central bisectionectomy were performed. The most common indications were hepatocellular carcinoma (21 cases) followed by intrahepatic duct stones (10 cases), intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma (7 cases), liver metastases (3 cases), intraductal papillary neoplasms (2 cases), sarcoma (1 case), mucinous cystic neoplasm (1 case), and hemangioma (1 case). Surgical resection margins for all tumor cases were negative. The mean operation time was 378.58 ± 124.31 (190-696) minutes and the estimated intraoperative blood loss was 276.67 ± 397.41 mL (range, 10-2600 mL). Overall complications developed in 16 cases (34.8%). There were three cases of severe surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo classification of III or more). Only one of 46 cases was converted to conventional open left hemihepatectomy because of bleeding. The mean hospital stay was 7.3 ± 2.5 (4-18) days., Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that robotic anatomic major liver resection can be safely performed by robotic beginners who are advanced open and laparoscopic liver surgeons., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: A laparoscopic approach is increasingly being utilized in simultaneous colorectal and liver resection (SCLR) for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis. However, this approach is technically challenging and hence has not been widely adopted. Robotic surgical systems could potentially overcome this problem. We aim to describe the feasibility and outcomes of robotic SCLR for colorectal carcinoma with liver metastasis., Methods: The medical records of 12 patients who underwent robotic SCLR for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis between January 2008 and September 2018 were reviewed retrospectively., Results: The mean age was 59 years (range, 37-77 years). The liver resections were comprised of two right hepatectomies, one left hepatectomy, one left lateral sectionectomy, one segmentectomy of S3 and wedge resection (segment 7), one caudate lobectomy, one associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and five wedge resections involving segments 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8. The colorectal procedures involved seven low-anterior resections, two anterior resections, two right hemicolectomies, and one left hemicolectomy. The mean operative time was 449 min (range, 135-682 min) with a mean estimated blood loss of 274.3 mL (range, 40-780 mL). The mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (range, 5-28 days). No patients required conversion to laparotomy. Liver resection-related complications were two liver abscesses (Clavien-Dindo classification, one grade II and one grade III) and one case of ascites (grade I), whereas colorectal resection-related complications included one anastomosis leak (grade III) and one superficial wound infection (grade II). There were no deaths reported within 30 days of the procedure. With a mean follow-up duration of 31.5 ± 26.1 months, the overall survival and disease-free survival values were 75.2 and 47.1 months, respectively., Conclusion: Robotic SCLR for colorectal neoplasm with liver metastasis can be performed safely even in cases requiring major liver resections, especially in a specialized center with a well-trained team.

The robotic surgical system has been applied in liver surgery. However, controversies concerns exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. To promote the development of robotic hepatectomy, this study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic hepatectomy and provide sixty experts' consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 22 topics were prepared analyzed and widely discussed during the 4 meetings. Based on the published articles and expert panel opinion, 7 recommendations were generated by the GRADE method using an evidence-based method, which focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques and cost-effectiveness of hepatectomy. Given that the current evidences were low to very low as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized-controlled trials are needed in the future to validate these recommendations., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare no conflict of interest in the development of consensus.

Background: To date, there are few studies comparing the outcomes of robotic hepatectomy (RH) versus open hepatectomy (OH). We report the first systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of RH versus OH., Methods: A systemic review was performed of all comparative studies of RH versus OH that reported the perioperative outcome(s) of interest., Results: Seven retrospective cohort studies were included. There was no significant difference in patients' baseline characteristics. RH was associated with a longer operation time (mean difference (MD) 61.47 min; 95% confidence interval (CI) (7.03, 115.91); P = 0.03), shorter hospital stay (MD -2.57 days; 95% CI (-3.31, -1.82); P < 0.001), lower costs, less overall (risk ratio (RR) 0.63; 95% CI (0.46, 0.86); P = 0.004), minor (RR 0.64; 95% CI (0.43, 0.95); P = 0.03) and major (RR 0.45; 95% CI (0.22, 0.94); P = 0.03) post-operative complications compared to OH., Conclusion: RH had superior perioperative outcomes and was not cost prohibitive compared to OH, but had longer operation times., (© 2018 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.)

Background: Minor liver resections of posterosuperior segments (1, 4A, 7, 8) are challenging to perform laparoscopically and are mainly performed using an open approach. We determined the feasibility of robotic resections of posterosuperior segments and compared short-term outcomes with the open approach., Methods: Data on open and robotic minor (≤ 3 segments) liver resections including the posterosuperior segments, performed between 2009 and 2016, were collected retrospectively from four hospitals. Robotic and open liver resections were compared, before and after propensity score matching., Results: In total, 51 robotic and 145 open resections were included. After matching, 31 robotic resections were compared with 31 open resections. Median hospital stay was 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3-7) for the robotic group, versus 8 days (IQR 6-10) for the open group (p < 0.001). Median operative time was 222 min (IQR 164-505) for robotic cases versus 231 min (IQR 190-301) for open cases (p = 0.668). Median estimated blood loss was 200 mL (IQR 100-400) versus 300 mL (IQR 125-750), respectively (p = 0.212). In the robotic group, one patient (3%) had a major complication, versus three patients (10%) in the open group (p = 0.612). Readmissions were similar-10% in the robotic group versus 6% in the open group (p > 0.99). There was no mortality in either group., Conclusion: Minor robotic liver resections of the posterosuperior segments are safe and feasible and display a shorter length of stay than open resections in selected patients at expert centers.

Background: This study was designed to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes between minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) and conventional open liver resection (COLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using a propensity-score matched analysis., Methods: Ninety-nine patients who received MILR were matched with 198 patients treated with COLR out of 928 patients with HCC who received curative liver resection from 2002 to 2012. A multivariable logistic model based on factors related to the patient, tumor, and surgical procedure was used to estimate a propensity score., Results: The MILR group experienced significantly less intraoperative blood loss (mean: 389.55 vs 580.66 mL; P = 0.008), lower complication rates (13.1% vs 24.7%; P = 0.020), and a shorter length of hospital stay (mean: 8.40 vs 13.39 days; P < 0.001). The two groups did not differ significantly in disease-free (P = 0.701) or overall survival (P = 0.086)., Conclusions: MILR produced better perioperative and comparable oncologic outcomes than COLR for HCC. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: A few studies have reported only short-term outcomes of various robotic and laparoscopic liver resection types; however, published data in left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) have been limited. The aim of this study was to compare the long- and short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic LLS., Methods: We retrospectively compared demographic and perioperative data as well as postoperative outcomes of robotic (n = 12) and laparoscopic (n = 31) LLS performed between May 2007 and July 2013. Resection indications included malignant tumors (n = 31) and benign lesions (n = 12) including intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones (n = 9)., Results: There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes of estimated blood loss, major complications, or lengths of stay, but operating time was longer in robotic than in laparoscopic LLS (391 vs. 196 min, respectively) and the operation time for IHD stones did not differ between groups (435 vs. 405 min, respectively; p = 0.190). Disease-free (p = 0.463) and overall (p = 0.484) survival of patients with malignancy did not differ between groups. The 2- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 63.2 and 36.5 %, respectively. However, robotic LLS costs were significantly higher than laparoscopic LLS costs ($8183 vs. $5190, respectively; p = 0.009)., Conclusions: Robotic LLS was comparable to laparoscopic LLS in surgical outcomes and oncologic integrity during the learning curve. Although robotic LLS was more expensive and time intensive, it might be a good option for difficult indications such as IHD stones.

Background: The Glissonean pedicle approach is one of the most popular methods of anatomic liver surgery. Liver surgeons have attempted to reproduce this method laparoscopically. In this study, we introduce our technique of the extrahepatic Glissonean approach for anatomic liver resections, using a robotic system, and report on short-term perioperative outcomes., Methods: From December 2008 to July 2014, 10 patients underwent robotic anatomic liver resection in the right liver. The procedure is as follows: (1) mobilization of the liver and isolation and clamping of a selected Glissonean pedicle; (2) transection of the liver parenchyma using a rubber band retraction technique; (3) division of the Glissonean pedicle after full exposure, followed by completion of parenchymal transection., Results: The median age of the patients was 52.50 (range 28-59) years, and seven were male. All patients had hepatocellular carcinoma. The types of resections performed were as follows: segmentectomy 6 (n = 1), segmentectomy of 4b + 5 ventral segments (n = 2), right posterior sectionectomy (n = 3), extended right hepatectomy (n = 1), extended right posterior sectionectomy (n = 2), and central bisectionectomy (n = 1). Only one case was converted to open surgery due to severe tumor adhesions on the diaphragm. The median operative time was 555 min (range 413-848), and the median estimated blood loss was 225 ml (range 30-700), with no perioperative transfusions. The overall complication rate was 70 % (grade I, 5; grade II, 1; grade III, 1; grade IV, 0). The median length of hospital stay postsurgery was 7 days (range 6-11)., Conclusion: Robotic surgery allowed for successful anatomic liver resections via an extrahepatic Glissonean pedicle approach in the right liver and can be safely performed in selected patients.