Search

Simple Summary: Nowadays: minimal invasive distal pancreatectomy is becoming the standard approach for this procedure. Nevertheless, empirical evidence is still needed to validate the advantages associated with the various surgical approaches. This international retrospective multicenter cohort study conducted at three high-volume centers for HPB surgery attempted to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of the three primary surgical techniques—open, laparoscopic, and robotic—using propensity score matching analysis. The laparoscopic approach demonstrated notable benefits, including shorter operative times, lower blood loss, and reduced duration of both ICU and hospital stays. Furthermore, the robotic approach exhibited a significantly lower incidence of POPF. Notably, all three techniques demonstrated comparable levels of oncological safety, morbidity, and mortality. Background: Minimally invasive surgery is increasingly preferred for left-sided pancreatic resections. The SIMPLR study aims to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches using propensity score matching analysis. Methods: This study included 258 patients with tumors of the left side of the pancreas who underwent surgery between 2016 and 2020 at three high-volume centers. The patients were divided into three groups based on their surgical approach and matched in a 1:1 ratio. Results: The open group had significantly higher estimated blood loss (620 mL vs. 320 mL, p < 0.001), longer operative time (273 vs. 216 min, p = 0.003), and longer hospital stays (16.9 vs. 6.81 days, p < 0.001) compared to the laparoscopic group. There was no difference in lymph node yield or resection status. When comparing open and robotic groups, the robotic procedures yielded a higher number of lymph nodes (24.9 vs. 15.2, p = 0.011) without being significantly longer. The laparoscopic group had a shorter operative time (210 vs. 340 min, p < 0.001), shorter ICU stays (0.63 vs. 1.64 days, p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (6.61 vs. 11.8 days, p < 0.001) when compared to the robotic group. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality between the three techniques. Conclusion: The laparoscopic approach exhibits short-term benefits. The three techniques are equivalent in terms of oncological safety, morbidity, and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The resection margin status is one of the most relevant oncological factors in liver cancer surgery. Whether robotic liver surgery enhances R0 results in liver malignancies during minimally invasive liver surgery is not yet completely clear. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to compare robotic and laparoscopic approaches in liver surgery with particular attention to the resection margin status in liver malignancies. Background: Robotic procedures are an integral part of modern liver surgery. However, the advantages of a robotic approach in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic approach are the subject of controversial debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic and laparoscopic liver resection with particular attention to the resection margin status in malignant cases. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Cochrane Library in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Only studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resections were considered for this meta-analysis. Furthermore, the rate of the positive resection margin or R0 rate in malignant cases had to be clearly identifiable. We used fixed or random effects models according to heterogeneity. Results: Fourteen studies with a total number of 1530 cases were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Malignancies were identified in 71.1% (n = 1088) of these cases. These included hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal liver metastases and other malignancies of the liver. Positive resection margins were noted in 24 cases (5.3%) in the robotic group and in 54 cases (8.6%) in the laparoscopic group (OR = 0.71; 95% CI (0.42–1.18); p = 0.18). Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group (MD = 6.92; 95% CI (2.93–10.91); p = 0.0007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robotic procedure (MD = 28.12; 95% CI (3.66–52.57); p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches regarding the intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, overall and severe complications and conversion rate. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the robotic and laparoscopic procedures regarding the resection margin status. Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group. However, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate the benefits of robotics in liver surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Liver failure is a crucial predictor for relevant morbidity and mortality after hepatic surgery. Hence, a good patient selection is mandatory. We use the LiMAx test for patient selection for major or minor liver resections in robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery and share our experience here. Patients and methods: We identified patients in the Magdeburg registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS) who underwent robotic or laparoscopic minor or major liver surgery and received a LiMAx test for preoperative evaluation of the liver function. This cohort was divided in two groups: patients with normal (LiMAx normal) and decreased (LiMAx decreased) liver function measured by the LiMAx test. Results: Forty patients were selected from the MD-MILS regarding the selection criteria (LiMAx normal, n = 22 and LiMAx decreased, n = 18). Significantly more major liver resections were performed in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (13 vs. 2; p = 0.003). Hence, the mean operation time was significantly longer in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (356.6 vs. 228.1 min; p = 0.003) and the intraoperative blood transfusion significantly higher in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (8 vs. 1; p = 0.027). There was no significant difference between the LiMAx groups regarding the length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, liver surgery related morbidity or mortality, and resection margin status. Conclusion: The LiMAx test is a helpful and reliable tool to precisely determine the liver function capacity. It aids in accurate patient selection for major or minor liver resections in minimally invasive liver surgery, which consequently serves to improve patients' safety. In this way, liver resections can be performed safely, even in patients with reduced liver function, without negatively affecting morbidity, mortality and the resection margin status, which is an important predictive oncological factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The implementation of robotics in liver surgery offers several advantages compared to conventional open and laparoscopic techniques. One major advantage is the enhanced degree of freedom at the tip of the robotic tools compared to laparoscopic instruments. This enables excellent vessel control during inflow and outflow dissection of the liver. Parenchymal transection remains the most challenging part during robotic liver resection because currently available robotic instruments for parenchymal transection have several limitations and there is no standardized technique as of yet. We established a new strategy and share our experience. Methods: We present a novel technique for the transection of liver parenchyma during robotic surgery, using three devices (3D) simultaneously: monopolar scissors and bipolar Maryland forceps of the robot and laparoscopic-guided waterjet. We collected the perioperative data of twenty-eight patients who underwent this procedure for minor and major liver resections between February 2019 and December 2020 from the Magdeburg Registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). Results: Twenty-eight patients underwent robotic-assisted 3D parenchyma dissection within the investigation period. Twelve cases of major and sixteen cases of minor hepatectomy for malignant and non-malignant cases were performed. Operative time for major liver resections (≥ 3 liver segments) was 381.7 (SD 80.6) min vs. 252.0 (70.4) min for minor resections (p < 0.01). Intraoperative measured blood loss was 495.8 (SD 508.8) ml for major and 256.3 (170.2) ml for minor liver resections (p = 0.090). The mean postoperative stay was 13.3 (SD 11.1) days for all cases. Liver surgery-related morbidity was 10.7%, no mortalities occurred. We achieved an R0 resection in all malignant cases. Conclusions: The 3D technique for parenchyma dissection in robotic liver surgery is a safe and feasible procedure. This novel method offers an advanced locally controlled preparation of intrahepatic vessels and bile ducts. The combination of precise extrahepatic vessel handling with the 3D technique of parenchyma dissection is a fundamental step forward to the standardization of robotic liver surgery for teaching purposing and the wider adoption of robotic hepatectomy into routine patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]