Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection in various settings: an international multicenter propensity score matched study of 10.075 patients

Objective: the aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings.Summary background data: clear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined.Methods: in this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥grade 2, postoperative bile leak ≥grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+.Results: among the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After PSM, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs. 71.8%, P&lt;0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs. 50.4%, P=0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs. 47.1%, P&lt;0.001), blood loss (100 vs. 200 milliliters, P&lt;0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs. 7.9%, P=0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P&lt;0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs. 25.7%, P&lt;0.001) and R0 resection margins (89.8% vs. 86%, P=0.015), but longer operative times (190 vs. 210 min, P=0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared to LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n=431 per group, 75.9% vs. 71.2%, P=0.184) and major resections (n=321 per group, 72.9% vs. 67.5%, P=0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance.Conclusions: while both producing excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.</p

Propensity Score-Matching Analysis Comparing Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Limited Liver Resections of the Posterosuperior Segments: An International Multi-Center Study

Objective: 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 existing literature. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 5,446 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, tumour features and perioperative characteristics were collected and analysed. 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). Post-operative outcomes in terms of readmission, morbidity and mortality were similar between RLLR and LLLR in both the overall PSM cohort and cirrhosis patient subset. Conclusion: 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 to LLLR

Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on short-term outcomes after simple and complex minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: A propensity-score matched and coarsened exact matched study

Background: In the last three decades, minimally invasive liver resection has been replacing conventional open approach in liver surgery. More recently, developments in neoadjuvant chemotherapy have led to increased multidisciplinary management of colorectal liver metastases with both medical and surgical treatment modalities. However, the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the surgical outcomes of minimally invasive liver resections remains poorly understood. Methods: A multicenter, international, database of 4998 minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases was used to compare surgical outcomes in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with surgery alone. To correct for baseline imbalance, propensity score matching, coarsened exact matching and inverse probability treatment weighting were performed. Results: 2546 patients met the inclusion criteria. After propensity score matching there were 759 patients in both groups and 383 patients in both groups after coarsened exact matching. Baseline characteristics were equal after both matching strategies. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with statistically significant worse surgical outcomes of minimally invasive minor hepatectomy. Conclusion: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy had no statistically significant impact on short-term surgical outcomes after simple and complex minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases