Robotic donor hepatectomy: a niche advancement or the way forward? A perspective from the world’s largest center

The application of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) in the field of living donor hepatectomy has been exceedingly slow, and its impact is limited to a handful of centers worldwide. Widespread adoption has been primarily hampered by the technical limitations of laparoscopy, namely rigid instrumentation, suboptimal optics, and a seemingly steep learning curve. These deficiencies are magnified in the donor hepatectomy operation wherein the parenchyma and vasculature must be handled atraumatically to produce a pristine allograft fit for implantation. Donor safety concerns and medicolegal ramifications are also cited as impediments to MILS in donor surgery. In 2013, our institution embraced a purely laparoscopic approach to living donor left lateral sectionectomy, and it quickly became our default technique. However, with donor hemi-hepatectomy, we gravitated to the robotic surgical system as our preferred modality. Herein, we describe our experience with minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, which we now universally offer to all living donors. Our extensive familiarity with robotic donor hepatectomy will provide the reader with an instructive perspective on the attributes and merits of the robotic approach. With appropriate collaboration and proctorship, we believe that the robotic platform will actualize a more rapid and widespread adoption than that experienced with the purely laparoscopic technique.

Three-Device (3D) Technique for Liver Parenchyma Dissection in Robotic Liver Surgery

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.

Does minimally invasive liver resection improve long-term survival compared to open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma has gained widespread interest as an alternative to conventional open liver surgery. However, long-term survival benefits of this approach seem unclear. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate long-term survival following minimally invasive liver surgery. Method: A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after minimally invasive liver surgery and open liver surgery until January 2020. The I2 test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year mortality, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year mortality. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study factors (region, design), annual center volume, patient factors (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, gender, age, body mass index, cirrhosis, tumor size, and number), and resection extent. Sensitivity analyses were performed on studies by study year, region, annual center volume, and resection type. Result: The review identified 50 relevant studies including 13,731 patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of which 4071 (25.8%) underwent minimally invasive liver surgery. Pooled analysis revealed similar all-cause (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.70–1.11, p = 0.3) and disease-specific (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.80–1.09, p = 0.4) 5-year mortality after minimally invasive liver surgery compared with open liver surgery. Sensitivity analysis of published studies from 2010 to 2019 demonstrated a significantly lower disease-specific 3-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.59–0.96, p = 0.022) and all-cause 5-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.50–0.81, p = 0.002). Meta-regression identified no confounding factors in all analyses. Conclusions: Improvement in minimally invasive liver surgery techniques over the past decade appears to demonstrate superior disease-specific mortality with minimally invasive liver surgery compared to open liver surgery. Therefore, minimally invasive liver surgery can be recommended as an alternative surgical approach for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Robotic Liver Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery has experienced a significant expansion in the last decades. Robotic surgery has evolved in parallel to traditional laparoscopic surgery offering additional technical advantages. Some specific aspect of Hepatobiliary Surgery led to a limited implementation of minimally invasive liver surgery in the early years of laparoscopic surgery whilst we are experiencing an exponential increase in the use of minimally invasive approaches to this type of intervention. In this chapter we describe the key aspect of robotic liver surgery with a meticulous description of the supporting evidence, its limitation and future perspectives.

IS CONSERVATIVE AND MINIMALLY INVASIVE LIVER SURGERY SAFE IN THE APPROACH TO HEPATOCARCINOMA? ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS IN OUR CENTER

INTRODUCTION We present the results of liver resection surgery for hepatocarcinoma (HCC), comparing morbidity, mortality, and survival data based on the type of surgical approach (open vs. laparoscopic) and the type of liver resection (anatomical vs. limited). MATERIAL AND METHODS Descriptive, prospective, and comparative study of 49 patients who underwent liver resection for HCC during the period 2013-2018 in our centre. RESULTS 16 laparoscopic resections were performed (32.7%) compared to 33 open surgeries (67.3%). Morbidity and mortality results according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (I 38 (77.6%); II 9 (18.4%), III 1 (2%), IV 1 (2%). Among the risk factors, the relationship between the preoperative Apri Index and the observed survival has been studied in our population, without observing statistically significant differences (p = 0.915). No statistically significant differences have been found between the laparoscopic versus the open approach (p = 0.78) or in anatomical surgery versus limited resections (p = 0.26) in terms of time to tumor recurrence. In our series, no significant differences in survival were found depending on the type of surgery (open vs laparoscopic, p = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS In our study, we have not been able to demonstrate the greater oncological safety of performing limited versus anatomic resections. The results of the laparoscopic approach are comparable, in terms of overall survival and time to recurrence, to the results of open surgery.