Laparoscopic liver surgery is a safe and effective approach to the management of surgical liver disease in the hands of trained surgeons with experience in hepatobiliary and laparoscopic surgery. National and international societies, as well as governing boards, should become involved in the goal of establishing training standards and credentialing, to ensure consistent standards and clinical outcomes.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate the first evidence-based guidelines on minimally invasive pancreas resection (MIPR) before and during the International Evidence-based Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Pancreas Resection (IG-MIPR) meeting in Miami (March 2019). Summary Background Data: MIPR has seen rapid development in the past decade. Promising outcomes have been reported by early adopters from high-volume centers. Subsequently, multicenter series as well as randomized controlled trials were reported; however, guidelines for clinical practice were lacking. Methods: The Scottisch Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used, incorporating these 4 items: systematic reviews using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to answer clinical questions, whenever possible in PICO style, the GRADE approach for assessment of the quality of evidence, the Delphi method for establishing consensus on the developed recommendations, and the AGREE-II instrument for the assessment of guideline quality and external validation. The current guidelines are cosponsored by the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery, Pancreas Club, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery, the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. Results: After screening 16,069 titles, 694 studies were reviewed, and 291 were included. The final 28 recommendations covered 6 topics; laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, central pancreatectomy, pancreatoduodenectomy, as well as patient selection, training, learning curve, and minimal annual center volume required to obtain optimal outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: The IG-MIPR using SIGN methodology give guidance to surgeons, hospital administrators, patients, and medical societies on the use and outcome of MIPR as well as the approach to be taken regarding this challenging type of surgery.

In this large data set, patients with 3 cm or more tumors showed a propensity for early recurrence, regardless of histology. Higher rates of local recurrence were noted in HCC patients, which may reflect underlying liver disease. There were no significant differences in morbidity or survival based on the surgical approach; however, local recurrence rates were highest for percutaneously ablated tumors.

Background To assess long‐term oncologic outcomes of robotic‐assisted liver resection (RLR) for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases as compared to a propensity‐matched cohort of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). Although safety and short‐term outcomes of RLR have been described and previously compared to LLR, long‐term and oncologic data are lacking. Methods A retrospective study was performed of all patients who underwent RLR and LLR for CRC metastases at six high‐volume centers in the USA and Europe between 2002 and 2017. Propensity matching was used to match baseline characteristics between the two groups. Data were analyzed with a focus on postoperative and oncologic outcomes, as well as long‐term recurrence and survival. Results RLR was performed in 115 patients, and 514 patients underwent LLR. Following propensity matching 115 patients in each cohort were compared. Perioperative outcomes including mortality, morbidity, reoperation, readmission, intensive care requirement, length‐of‐stay and margin status were not statistically different. Both prematching and postmatching analyses demonstrated similar overall survival (OS) and disease‐free survival (DFS) between RLR and LLR at 5 years (61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.87, and 38 vs. 31% DFS, p = 0.25, prematching; 61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.78, and 38 vs. 44% DFS, p = 0.62, postmatching). Conclusions Propensity score matching with a large, multicenter database demonstrates that RLR for colorectal metastases is feasible and safe, with perioperative and long‐term oncologic outcomes and survival that are largely comparable to LLR.