Search

Background: The risk factors of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) requiring conversion to open surgery have not been adequately studied. This study aimed to determine the risk factors and postoperative outcomes of conversion in patients with ICC. Methods: From May 2014 to September 2022, Unplanned conversions were compared with successful LLRs. Results: 153 patients with ICC initially underwent LLR, of which 41 (26.8%) required conversion to open surgery. Multivariate analysis for those factors that were statistically significant or confirmed by clinical studies, tumor proximity to the major vessels (OR 6.643, P < 0.001), and previous upper abdominal surgery (OR 3.140, P = 0.040) were independent predictors of unplanned conversions. Compared to successful LLRs, unplanned conversions showed longer operative times (300.0 vs. 225.0 min, P < 0.001), more blood loss (500.0 vs. 200.0 mL, P < 0.001), higher transfusion rates (46.3% vs. 11.6%, P < 0.001), longer length of stays (13.0 vs. 8.0 days, P < 0.001), and higher rates of major morbidity (39.0% vs. 11.6%, P < 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day or 90-day mortality between the conversion group and the laparoscopic group. Conclusion: Conversion during LLR should be anticipated in ICC patients with prior upper abdominal surgery or tumor proximity to major vessels as features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: With the increasing demand for repeat hepatectomy, preventing perihepatic adhesion formation following initial hepatectomy is crucial. Adhesion-preventative barriers, like the new spray-type AdSprayTM (Terumo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), have been proposed to reduce adhesion risk. However, data on their safety in minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) remain scarce. This is the first prospective study to evaluate the safety and feasibility of AdSprayTM in MIH. (2) Methods: A total of 124 patients who underwent MIH with AdSprayTM and 20 controls were analyzed. Subgroup analysis according to the AdSpray™ application area was conducted. Major complications were assessed using the Clavien–Dindo classification. Moreover, intraperitoneal pressure during AdSpray™ application was monitored in 20 cases. (3) Results: Major complications occurred in 6.4% of the patients, which was comparable to that in open hepatectomy. Intraperitoneal pressure remained stable below 12 mmHg during AdSpray™ application without any complications. No significant difference in complication rates was observed among subgroups. However, a potential increase in intra-abdominal abscess formation was suspected with AdSpray™ application to the resected liver surfaces. (4) Conclusions: AdSpray™ can be safely used in MIH; however, further research is needed to confirm the appropriacy of using AdSpray™, particularly over resected liver surfaces. Overall, AdSpray™ is a promising tool for enhancing the safety of MIH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cirrhotic patients with primary liver cancer may undergo curative-intent resection when selected appropriately. Patients with T1 tumors and low-MELD are generally referred for resection. We aim to evaluate whether minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) is associated with improved outcomes versus open hepatectomy (OH). Methods: NSQIP hepatectomy database 2014–2021 was used to select patients with T1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) or Intra-hepatic Cholangiocarcionoma (IHCC) and low-MELD cirrhosis (MELD ≤ 10) who underwent partial hepatectomy. Propensity score matching was applied between OH and MIH patients, and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared. Multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) in the selected population. Results: There were 922 patients: 494 (53.6%) OH, 372 (40.3%) MIH, and 56 (6.1%) began MIH converted to OH (analyzed with the OH cohort). We matched 354 pairs of patients with an adequate balance between the groups. MIH was associated with lower rates of bile leak (HR 0.37 [0.19–0.72)], PHLF (HR 0.36 [0.15–0.86]), collections requiring drainage (HR 0.30 [0.15–0.63]), postoperative transfusion (HR 0.36 [0.21–0.61]), major (HR 0.45 [0.27–0.77]), and overall morbidity (HR 0.44 [0.31–0.63]), and a two-day shorter median hospitalization (3 vs. 5 days; HR 0.61 [0.45–0.82]). No difference was noted in operative time, wound, respiratory, and septic complications, or mortality. Regression analysis identified ascites, prior portal vein embolization (PVE), additional hepatectomies, Pringle's maneuver, and OH (vs. MIH) as independent predictors of PHLF. Conclusion: MIH for early-stage HCC/IHCC in low-MELD cirrhotic patients was associated with improved postoperative outcomes over OH. These findings suggest that MIH should be considered an acceptable approach in this population of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Minimally invasive robotic hepatectomy is gaining popularity with a faster rate of adoption when compared to laparoscopic approach. Technical advantages brought by the robotic surgical system facilitate a transition from open to minimally invasive technique in hepatic surgery. Published matched data examining the results of robotic hepatectomy using the open approach as a benchmark are still limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, survival, and costs between robotic and open hepatectomy undertaken in our tertiary hepatobiliary center. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 285 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for neoplastic liver diseases between 2012 and 2020. Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open hepatectomy was conducted by 1:1 ratio. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The matching process assigned 49 patients to each arm, open and robotic hepatectomy. There were no differences in R1 resection rates (4% vs 4%; p = 1.00). Differences in perioperative variables between open and robotic hepatectomy included postoperative complications (16% vs 2%; p = 0.02) and length of stay (LOS) [6 (7 ± 5.0) vs 4 (5 ± 4.0) days; p = 0.002]. There were no differences between open and robotic hepatectomy regarding postoperative hepatic insufficiency (10% vs 2%; p = 0.20). No difference was seen in long-term survival outcomes. While there were no differences in costs, robotic hepatectomy was associated with lower reimbursement [$20,432 (39,191 ± 41,467.81) vs $33,190 (67,860 ± 87,707.81); p = 0.04] and lower contribution margin [$−11,229 (3902 ± 42,572.43) vs $8768 (34,690 ± 89,759.56); p = 0.03]. Compared to open approach, robotic hepatectomy robotic offers lower rates of postoperative complications, shorter LOS and similar costs, while not compromising long-term oncological outcomes. Robotic hepatectomy may eventually become the preferred approach in minimally invasive treatment of liver tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Background: With the increasing demand for repeat hepatectomy, preventing perihepatic adhesion formation following initial hepatectomy is crucial. Adhesion-preventative barriers, like the new spray-type AdSprayTM (Terumo Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), have been proposed to reduce adhesion risk. However, data on their safety in minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) remain scarce. This is the first prospective study to evaluate the safety and feasibility of AdSprayTM in MIH. (2) Methods: A total of 124 patients who underwent MIH with AdSprayTM and 20 controls were analyzed. Subgroup analysis according to the AdSpray™ application area was conducted. Major complications were assessed using the Clavien–Dindo classification. Moreover, intraperitoneal pressure during AdSpray™ application was monitored in 20 cases. (3) Results: Major complications occurred in 6.4% of the patients, which was comparable to that in open hepatectomy. Intraperitoneal pressure remained stable below 12 mmHg during AdSpray™ application without any complications. No significant difference in complication rates was observed among subgroups. However, a potential increase in intra-abdominal abscess formation was suspected with AdSpray™ application to the resected liver surfaces. (4) Conclusions: AdSpray™ can be safely used in MIH; however, further research is needed to confirm the appropriacy of using AdSpray™, particularly over resected liver surfaces. Overall, AdSpray™ is a promising tool for enhancing the safety of MIH.

Background: Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) occur in roughly half of patients with colorectal cancer. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become an increasingly acceptable and utilized technique for resection in these patients, but there is a lack of specific guidelines on the use of MIS hepatectomy in this setting. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the decision between MIS and open techniques for the resection of CRLM. Methods: Systematic review was conducted for two key questions (KQ) regarding the use of MIS versus open surgery for the resection of isolated liver metastases from colon and rectal cancer. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Additionally, the panel developed recommendations for future research. Results: The panel addressed two KQs, which pertained to staged or simultaneous resection of resectable colon or rectal metastases. The panel made conditional recommendations for the use of MIS hepatectomy for both staged and simultaneous resection when deemed safe, feasible, and oncologically effective by the surgeon based on the individual patient characteristics. These recommendations were based on low and very low certainty of evidence. Conclusions: These evidence-based recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of CRLM and highlight the importance of individual considerations of each case. Pursuing the identified research needs may help further refine the evidence and improve future versions of guidelines for the use of MIS techniques in the treatment of CRLM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) have demonstrated advantages in improved post-operative recovery, widespread adoption is hampered by inherent technical difficulties. Our study attempts to analyze the role of anthropometric measures in MILR-related outcomes. Methods: Between 2012 and 2020, 676 consecutive patients underwent MILR at the Singapore General Hospital of which 565 met study criteria and were included. Patients were stratified based on Body Mass Index (BMI) as well as Standardized Liver Volumes (SLV). Associations between BMI and SLV to selected peri-operative outcomes were analyzed using restricted cubic splines. Results: A BMI of ≥ 29 was associated with increase in blood loss [Mean difference (MD) 69 mls, 95% CI 2 to 137] as well as operative conversions [Relative Risk (RR) 1.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.62] among patients undergoing MILR while a SLV of 1600 cc or higher was associated with an increase in blood loss (MD 30 mls, 95% CI 10 to 49). In addition, a BMI of ≤ 20 was associated with an increased risk of major complications (RR 2.25, 95% 1.16 to 4.35). The magnitude of differences observed in these findings increased with each unit change in BMI and SLV. Conclusion: Both BMI and SLV were useful anthropometric measures in predicting peri-operative outcomes in MILR and may be considered for incorporation in future difficulty scoring systems for MILR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With the rapid development of minimally invasive techniques and instruments, more and more patients begin to accept minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has obvious advantages in terms of surgical incision, but there is still no strong evidence of its longterm survival effect. Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to compare long-term survival outcomes between MIH and Open hepatectomy (OH) in hepatocellular carcinoma based on high-quality case-control studies. Methods: The study on the comparison of MIH (including RH or LH) and OH in the treatment of HCC from the date of establishment to June 1, 2022 was searched through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The main results were long-term overall and disease-free survival and short-term postoperative effect; All studies were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, and meta-analysis of random effect models was adopted. Results: 43 articles included 6673 patients. In these studies, the data from 44 studies need to be extracted and pooled in the meta-analysis. Our results showed that compared with OH group, OS (HR 1.17; 95%CI 1.02, 1.35; P=0.02) and DFS (HR 1.15; 95%CI 1.05, 1.26; P=0.002) in MIH group were slightly lower than those in OH group. The operation time (Z=2.14, P=0.03, MD8.01, 95% CI: 2.60-13.42) was longer than OH group. In terms of length of hospital stay (Z=10.76, p<0.00001, MD -4.0, 95% CI: -4.72 to -3.27), intraoperative blood loss (Z=5.33, P<0.00001, MD -108.33, 95% CI: -148.15 to -68.50), blood transfusion rate (Z=5.06, p<0.00001, OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76, I² = 0%), postoperative complications (Z=9.24, p<0.00001, OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.55, I2 = 21%), major morbidity (Z=6.11, p<0.00001, OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.59,I² = 0%), R0 resection (Z=2.34, P=0.02, OR=1.46, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.0, I² = 0%) and mortality(Z=2.71,P=0.007, OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85), the MIH group was significantly better than the OH group. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of major hepatectomy Z=0.47, P=0.64, OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, I² = 0%), anatomical resection (Z=0.48, P=0.63, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.67 to 1.27), satellite nodules (Z=0.54, P=0.59, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.23, I² = 0%), microvascular invasion (Z=1.15, P=0.25, OR=1.11, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.34, I² = 0%) and recurrence (Z=0.71, p=0.48, OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12, I² = 19%). Conclusion: This study is the first to compare the clinical efficacy of MIH and OH in the treatment of HCC based on a high-quality propensity score matching study. The results show that in terms of long-term survival outcomes (OS and DFS), although the gap between MIH and OH is not obvious, OH was better than MIH on the whole. However, in terms of short-term postoperative outcomes (post-operation outcomes), MIH was slightly better than OH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The majority of evidence with regards to minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) favors its application in minor hepatectomies. We conducted a propensity score–matched (PSM) analysis to determine its feasibility and safety in major hepatectomies (MIMH) for liver malignancies. Methods: Retrospective review of 130 patients who underwent MIMH and 490 patients who underwent open major hepatectomy (OMH) for malignant pathologies was performed. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Perioperative outcomes were then compared. Major hepatectomies included traditional major (>3 segments) and technical major hepatectomies (right anterior and right posterior sectionectomies). Results: Both cohorts were well-matched for baseline characteristics after PSM. Of 130 MIMH cases, there were 12 conversions to open. Comparison of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a significant association of MIMH with longer operation time and more frequent application of Pringle's maneuver (PM), but decreased postoperative stay. These results were consistent on a subgroup analysis that only included patients undergoing traditional major hepatectomies. A second subgroup analysis restricted to cirrhotic patients demonstrated that while perioperative outcomes were equivalent, MIMH was similarly associated with a longer operative time. Subset analyses of resections performed after 2015 demonstrated that MIMH was additionally associated with a lower postoperative morbidity compared to OMH. Conclusion: Comparison of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes between MIMH and OMH for malignancies demonstrated that MIMH is feasible and safe. It is associated with a shorter hospital stay at the expense of a longer operation time compared to OMH. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) has been increasingly adopted over the past decade, and its application has been expanded to the management of extrapancreatic biliary malignancies (EPBMs). We aimed to evaluate the peri- and post-operative outcome of patients undergoing MILR for suspected EPMB. Methods: Forty-four consecutive patients who underwent MILR with a curative intent for EPBM at Singapore General Hospital between 2011 and 2018 were identified from a prospectively maintained surgical database. Clinical and operative data were analysed and compared to provide information and make comparisons on peri- and post-operative outcomes. Results: A total of 26, 5 and 13 patients underwent MILR for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) and gallbladder carcinoma (GBCA), respectively. Six major hepatectomies were performed, of which one was laparoscopic assisted and another was robot assisted. Ten patients underwent posterosuperior segmentectomies. There was one open conversion. The mean operative time was 266.5 min, and the mean blood loss was 379 ml. The mean length of hospital stay was 4.7 days with no incidences of 30- and 90-day mortality. The rate of recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 75% (at least 12-month follow-up). There was a significantly higher rate of robot-assisted procedures in patients undergoing MILR for GBCA/PHC as compared to ICC (P = 0.034). Patients undergoing posterosuperior segmentectomies required longer operative time (P = 0.018) with an increased need for (P = 0.001) and duration of (P = 0.025) Pringles manoeuvre. There were no differences in operative time, blood loss, morbidity, mortality or RFS between the above groups. Conclusion: Minimally invasive surgery can be adopted safely with a low open conversion rate for EPBMs.

Introduction: The presence of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) has traditionally been considered to add difficulty to and increase risk of complications of laparoscopic procedures. This study aims to analyse the impact of non-liver-related PAS on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs). Materials and methods: After exclusion of patients with concomitant major surgical procedures as well as previous liver resections, 515 consecutive patients undergoing MILR in Singapore General Hospital from 2006 to 2019 were analysed, consisting of 161 MILR in patients with previous abdominal surgery (WPAS) and 354 MILR in patients without previous abdominal surgery (WOPAS). Propensity score-matched (PSM) comparison was performed between WPAS and WOPAS groups. In addition, subgroup analysis was made comparing previous upper or lower abdominal surgery and open versus minimally invasive approach of PAS. Outcomes measured include those associated with operative difficulty such as open conversion rates, operative time, blood loss, as well as morbidity and mortality rates. Results: MILR outcomes in patients WPAS are not inferior to those WOPAS. Overall open conversion rate was 8.2%, higher in patients WOPAS compared to patients WPAS (11.9% versus 3.5%, p = 0.015). Operating time (p = 0.942), blood loss (p = 0.063), intraoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.750), length of hospital stay (p = 0.206), morbidity (p = 0.217) and 30- and 90-day mortality (p = 1 & p = 0.367) were comparable between the two groups and subgroup analysis. Conclusion: Outcomes of MILR in patients with previous non-liver-related abdominal surgery are not inferior to patients without previous abdominal surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic hepatectomy (RH) has been increasingly adopted for the treatment of liver malignancies despite lacking evidence from randomised trials. We aimed to determine the effect of RH compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) on quality of life in patients undergoing minimally invasive hepatectomy for liver malignancies., Methods: This single-blinded, randomised trial was conducted at a tertiary care academic centre (DRKS00027531). Patients with resectable liver malignancies were assessed for eligibility and randomly assigned to either RH or LH with stratification by type of malignancy and difficulty of resection. Patients were blinded to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the mean quality of life within 90 days after surgery, measured with the role functioning scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included operating time, morbidity, blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative recovery, and resection margin status., Findings: Between February 21, 2022, and Sep 18, 2023, 80 patients (RH: n = 41, LH: n = 39) were included and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Role functioning scores did not differ between RH and LH (mean [SD], 74.3 [23.3] versus 79.6 [22.3]; mean difference -5.3, 95% CI -15.6 to 5.1, p = 0.547). The comprehensive complication index was not significantly different between the study groups (8.9 [23.1] versus 15.5 [23.9], p = 0.137). There were no differences in other perioperative outcomes., Interpretation: RH yielded similar outcomes in quality of life and can be considered a safe alternative to LH., Funding: None., Competing Interests: None to be declared., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Introduction: The impact of liver cirrhosis on the difficulty of minimal invasive liver resection (MILR) remains controversial and current difficulty scoring systems do not take in to account the presence of cirrhosis as a significant factor in determining the difficulty of MILR. We hypothesized that the difficulty of MILR is affected by the presence of cirrhosis. Hence, we performed a 1:1 matched-controlled study comparing the outcomes between patients undergoing MILR with and without cirrhosis including the Iwate system and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) system in the matching process. Methods: Between 2006 and 2019, 598 consecutive patients underwent MILR of which 536 met the study inclusion criteria. There were 148 patients with cirrhosis and 388 non-cirrhotics. One-to-one coarsened exact matching identified approximately exact matches between 100 cirrhotic patients and 100 non-cirrhotic patients. Results: Comparison between MILR patients with cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis in the entire cohort demonstrated that patients with cirrhosis were associated with a significantly increased open conversion rate, transfusion rate, need for Pringles maneuver, postoperative, stay, postoperative morbidity and postoperative 90-day mortality. After 1:1 coarsened exact matching, MILR with cirrhosis were significantly associated with an increased open conversion rate (15% vs 6%, p = 0.03), operation time (261 vs 238 min, p < 0.001), blood loss (607 vs 314 mls, p = 0.002), transfusion rate (22% vs 9%, p = 0.001), need for application of Pringles maneuver (51% vs 34%, p = 0.010), postoperative stay (6 vs 4.5 days, p = 0.004) and postoperative morbidity (26% vs 13%, p = 0.029). Conclusion: The presence of liver cirrhosis affected both the intraoperative technical difficulty and postoperative outcomes of MILR and hence should be considered an important parameter to be included in future difficulty scoring systems for MILR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Robotic surgery is now within the standard of care for many operations, including hepatectomy. Robotic liver surgery has advantages over laparoscopic and open surgical techniques, but these must be weighed against certain limitations when selecting an approach. Methods: Advantages and limitations of robotic liver surgery are discussed here based on a literature survey. Results: Advantages include improved surgeon ergonomics, better access to posterior and superior liver segments, excellent visualization, and ease of using indocyanine green. There may also be a shorter learning curve for use, and there are possibilities for technological assistance with surgery in the future. Limitations are related to those known for minimally invasive surgery in general, but also include time for docking and cost. Considerations are reviewed in detail to facilitate decision making when considering a robotic approach for liver surgery. Conclusion: The robotic platform is not appropriate for all liver operations at this time. Benefits of robotic surgery are most clearly realized when approaching lesions in the posterior and superior segments, and when a large incision would be required to remove a small amount of liver parenchyma were the operation to be performed in an open fashion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We sought to investigate whether minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) was superior to open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of achieving textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS) after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Methods: Patients who underwent resection of HCC between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international database. TOLS was defined by the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 events, R1 resection margin, posthepatectomy liver failure, bile leakage, major complications, in-hospital mortality, and readmission., Results: A total of 1039 patients who underwent HCC resection were included in the analysis. Although most patients underwent OH (n = 724 [69.7%]), 30.3% (n = 315) underwent MIH. Patients who underwent MIH had a lower tumor burden score (3.6 [IQR, 2.6-5.2] for MIH vs 6.1 [IQR, 3.9-10.1] for OH) and were more likely to undergo minor hepatectomy (84.1% [MIH] vs 53.6% [OH]) than patients who had an OH (both P < .001). After propensity score matching to control for baseline differences between the 2 cohorts, the incidence of TOLS was comparable among patients who had undergone MIH (56.6%) versus OH (64.8%) (P = .06). However, MIH was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (6.0 days [IQR, 4.0-8.0] for MIH vs 9.0 days [IQR, 6.0-12.0] for OH). Among patients who had MIH, the odds ratio of achieving TOLS remained stable up to a tumor burden score of 4; after which the chance of TOLS with MIH markedly decreased., Conclusion: Patients with HCC who underwent resection with MIH versus OH had a comparable likelihood of TOLS, although MIH was associated with a short length of stay., (Copyright © 2024 Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The development of robotic system may help to relieve the difficulties encountered during laparoscopic hepatectomy. A difficulty scoring system (DSS) was developed to assess the difficulty of various laparoscopic liver resection procedures. The aim of this study is to explore if the DSS is applicable in robotic hepatectomy and to compare the outcomes of robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy among different difficulty levels.Methods: Clinical data from all consecutive patients who underwent robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, were prospectively collected and reviewed. The difficulty level of operations was graded using the DSS. Perioperative outcomes of robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy were compared at each difficulty level.Results: A total of 107 and 94 patients underwent robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy during the study period, respectively. Among them, 16 and 2 patients were operated for recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, respectively, and were excluded because no mark for tumour location can be assigned. For robotic hepatectomy, a higher DSS was significantly correlated with higher minor complication rate (p = 0.001), more intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.002), longer operation time (p < 0.001) and longer post-operative hospital stay (p < 0.001). The mean DSS scores of robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy were 4.5 and 3.6, respectively. (p = 0.004). For cases with low (DSS 1-3) and intermediate (DSS 4-6) difficulty level, there was no significant difference in operative blood loss, operation time and overall complications rate. Only 2 cases (2.2%) with high difficulty level were operated with laparoscopic approach while 20% of patients operated with robotic approach had DSS > 6.Conclusions: DSS significantly correlated with surgical outcomes in patient who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Perioperative outcomes following robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy were similar in cases with low and intermediate difficulty. However, robotic system allowed minimally invasive approach in cases with higher difficulty level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The role of minimally invasive major hepatectomy (MIMH) remains controversial and questions remain about its safety and reproducibility outside expert centres. This study examines the changing trends, safety and outcomes associated with the adoption of MIMH based on a contemporary single institution experience. Methods: This study is a review of 120 consecutive patients who underwent MIMH between 2011 and 2018. To determine the evolution of MIMH, the study population was stratified into four equal groups of patients. Both conventional major hepatectomies (CMHs) (≥3 segments) and technical major hepatectomies (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) were included. Results: There were 70 CMHs and 50 technical major hepatectomies. Seven MIMHs were laparoscopic‐assisted and 113 (94.2%) were totally laparoscopic/robotic. There were 10 (8.3%) open conversions. Comparison across the four groups demonstrated that with increasing experience, there was a significant trend in a higher proportion of higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score patients, increasing frequency of CMH performed, increasing frequency of multifocal tumours resected, decreasing use of laparoscopic‐assisted approach and decrease in blood loss. Conclusion: MIMH can be adopted safely today with a low open conversion rate. Over time with increasing experience, we performed MIMH with increasing frequency in higher risk patients and in patients with multifocal tumours but with a decrease in median estimated blood loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite advantages of minimally invasive surgery, many hepatobiliary surgeons are hesitant to offer this approach for major hepatic resection due to concerns of difficulty in liver manipulation, bleeding control, and suboptimal oncologic outcomes. The robotic surgical system has revolutionized the way traditional laparoscopic liver resection is undertaken. Limitations of traditional laparoscopy are being resolved by robotic technology. We aimed to describe aspects of minimally invasive liver surgery and our standardized technical approach. We discussed technical aspects of performing robotic total right hepatic lobectomy and described our standardized institutional method. A 79-year-old man with an 11-cm biopsy-proven hepatocellular carcinoma was taken to the operating room for a robotic total right hepatic lobectomy. Past medical and surgical history was consistent with hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Robotic extrahepatic Glissonean pedicle approach was used to gain inflow vascular control. Right hepatic artery and portal vein were individually dissected and isolated prior to division. An intraoperative robotic ultrasound was utilized to guide liver parenchymal transection, securing negative margins. Robotic vessel sealing device was used as the main energy device during the parenchymal transection. Right hepatic vein was transected intrahepatically using a linear stapler. Operative time was 200 min without intraoperative complications. Estimated blood loss was 100 ml. Postsurgical recovery was uneventful and he was discharged home on postoperative day 4. Minimally invasive robotic total right hepatic lobectomy is feasible with excellent perioperative outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: 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. Methods: A retrospective review of 43 consecutive patients who underwent RH at two institutions in the Singapore Health Services Group. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several studies published mainly from pioneers and early adopters have documented the evolution of minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH). However, questions remain if these reported experiences are applicable and reproducible today. This study examines the changing trends, safety, and outcomes associated with the adoption of MIH based on a contemporary single-institution experience.Methods: This is a retrospective review of 400 consecutive patients who underwent MIH between 2006 and 2017 of which 360 cases (90%) were performed since 2012. To determine the evolution of MIH, the study population was stratified into four equal groups of 100 patients. Analyses were also performed of predictive factors and outcomes of open conversion.Results: Four hundred patients underwent MIH of which 379 (94.8%) were totally laparoscopic/robotic. Eighty-eight (22.0%) patients underwent major hepatectomy and 160 (40.0%) had resection of tumors located in the posterosuperior segments. There were 38 (9.5%) open conversions. Comparison across the four groups demonstrated that patients were older, had higher ASA score, and had increased frequency of previous abdominal surgery and repeat liver resections. There was also an increase in the proportion of patients who underwent totally laparoscopic/robotic surgery, major liver resection, resection of ≥ 3 segments, and multiple resections. Comparison of outcomes demonstrated that there was a significant decrease in open conversion rate, longer operation time, and increased use of Pringles maneuver. The presence of cirrhosis and institution experience (1st 100 cases) were independent predictors of open conversion. Patients who required open conversion had significantly increased operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, morbidity, and mortality.Conclusion: The case volume of MIH performed increased rapidly at our institution over time. Although the indications of MIH expanded to include higher risk patients and more complex hepatectomies, there was a decrease in open conversion rate and no change in other perioperative outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In this study, we report our initial experience with robotic hepatectomy. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy at Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, from February 2013 to February 2015 were enrolled in this study. The difficulty level of operations was graded using a novel scoring system for laparoscopic hepatectomies. Results: During the two-year period, five consecutive robotic hepatectomies were performed (one left lateral sectionectomy, one non-anatomical segment II/III resection, one anatomical segment V resection with cholecystectomy, one extended right posterior sectionectomy and one non-anatomical segment V/VI resection). Two hepatectomies were performed for suspected hepatocellular carcinoma, two for solitary liver metastases and one for a large symptomatic haemangioma. The median age of the patients was 53 (range 38-66) years and the median tumour size was 2.5 (range 2.1-7.3) cm. The median total operation time was 340 (range 155-825) minutes and the median volume of blood loss was 300 (range 50-1,200) mL. There were no open conversions and no mortalities or major morbidities (> Clavien-Dindo Grade II). The difficulty level of the operations was graded as low in one case (Score 2), intermediate in three cases (Score 5, 6 and 6) and high in one case (Score 10). There was one minor morbidity, where the patient experienced Grade A bile leakage, which resolved spontaneously. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 5 (range 4-7) days. Conclusion: Our initial experience confirmed the feasibility and safety of robotic hepatectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Both laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy have been adopted in our centre for selected patients with benign or malignant liver diseases. This article reports the perioperative outcomes of these two approaches and tries to determine any difference between them. Methods A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed for all patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy ( LH) and robotic hepatectomy ( RH) in our institute. The perioperative results were reported and compared. In order to standardise the type of liver resection performed, a subgroup analysis was made for laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy ( LS) and robotic left lateral sectionectomy ( RS). Results Sixty-six LH and 70 RH were performed between November 2003 and January 2015. The two groups were comparable in demographic data and disease characteristics except more patient with recurrent pyogenic cholangitis ( RPC) occurred in RH group. More major hepatectomies were performed in RH (20.0% versus 3.0%, P = 0.002). There was no mortality. No difference was noted in morbidity ( LH 4.5%, RH 11.4%), conversion rate ( LH 12.1%, RH 5.7%), median blood loss (both 100 mL) and median length of post-operative hospital stay (both 5 days) but operative time was longer in RH (251.5 min versus 215 min, P = 0.008). There were 29 LS and 38 RS, no difference was noted in all perioperative outcomes between the two groups. Conclusion Both laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy are safe and their perioperative outcomes are comparable and favourable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) has been increasingly adopted over the past decade, and its application has been expanded to the management of extrapancreatic biliary malignancies (EPBMs). We aimed to evaluate the peri- and post-operative outcome of patients undergoing MILR for suspected EPMB., Methods: Forty-four consecutive patients who underwent MILR with a curative intent for EPBM at Singapore General Hospital between 2011 and 2018 were identified from a prospectively maintained surgical database. Clinical and operative data were analysed and compared to provide information and make comparisons on peri- and post-operative outcomes., Results: A total of 26, 5 and 13 patients underwent MILR for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) and gallbladder carcinoma (GBCA), respectively. Six major hepatectomies were performed, of which one was laparoscopic assisted and another was robot assisted. Ten patients underwent posterosuperior segmentectomies. There was one open conversion. The mean operative time was 266.5 min, and the mean blood loss was 379 ml. The mean length of hospital stay was 4.7 days with no incidences of 30- and 90-day mortality. The rate of recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 75% (at least 12-month follow-up). There was a significantly higher rate of robot-assisted procedures in patients undergoing MILR for GBCA/PHC as compared to ICC (P = 0.034). Patients undergoing posterosuperior segmentectomies required longer operative time (P = 0.018) with an increased need for (P = 0.001) and duration of (P = 0.025) Pringles manoeuvre. There were no differences in operative time, blood loss, morbidity, mortality or RFS between the above groups., Conclusion: Minimally invasive surgery can be adopted safely with a low open conversion rate for EPBMs., Competing Interests: None

Background: Minimally invasive approaches for major hepatectomy have been marred by significant rates of conversion and associated morbidity. This study aimed to determine risk factors for conversion as well as postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing minimally invasive right-sided hepatectomy (MIRH)., Methods: Data for patients undergoing MIRH between 2008 and 2017 at Emory University were reviewed. Risk factors for conversion were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Outcomes of conversion patients were compared with those who underwent successful MIRH or elective open surgery., Results: Unplanned conversion occurred in 7 (6.25%) of 112 patients undergoing MIRH. Primary reason for conversion was difficult dissection secondary to inflammation and severe adhesions. No preoperative clinical factor was identified that predicted conversions. Converted cases had higher EBL and pRBC transfusion compared to non-converted cases however morbidity was similar to those undergoing primary open surgery., Conclusion: Difficult dissection and adhesions remained the only clinically applicable parameter leading to unplanned conversions. While these did offset benefits of a successful minimally invasive approach, it did not increase risk of postoperative complications compared with planned open surgery., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In this study, we report our initial experience with robotic hepatectomy., Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy at Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, from February 2013 to February 2015 were enrolled in this study. The difficulty level of operations was graded using a novel scoring system for laparoscopic hepatectomies., Results: During the two-year period, five consecutive robotic hepatectomies were performed (one left lateral sectionectomy, one non-anatomical segment II/III resection, one anatomical segment V resection with cholecystectomy, one extended right posterior sectionectomy and one non-anatomical segment V/VI resection). Two hepatectomies were performed for suspected hepatocellular carcinoma, two for solitary liver metastases and one for a large symptomatic haemangioma. The median age of the patients was 53 (range 38-66) years and the median tumour size was 2.5 (range 2.1-7.3) cm. The median total operation time was 340 (range 155-825) minutes and the median volume of blood loss was 300 (range 50-1,200) mL. There were no open conversions and no mortalities or major morbidities (> Clavien-Dindo Grade II). The difficulty level of the operations was graded as low in one case (Score 2), intermediate in three cases (Score 5, 6 and 6) and high in one case (Score 10). There was one minor morbidity, where the patient experienced Grade A bile leakage, which resolved spontaneously. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 5 (range 4-7) days., Conclusion: Our initial experience confirmed the feasibility and safety of robotic hepatectomy., (Copyright © Singapore Medical Association.)