No abstract

Objective: To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH). Background: Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups Results: A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.

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.

Background Tumor size (TS) represents a critical parameter in the risk assessment of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). Moreover, TS has been rarely related to the extent of liver resection. The aim of this study was to study the relationship between tumor size and difficulty of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L‐LLS). Methods The impact of TS cutoffs was investigated by stratifying tumor size at each 10 mm‐interval. The optimal cutoffs were chosen taking into consideration the number of endpoints which show a statistically significant split around the cut‐points of interest and the magnitude of relative risk after correction for multiple risk factors. Results A total of 1910 L‐LLS were included. Overall, open conversion and intraoperative blood transfusion were 3.1 and 3.3%, respectively. The major morbidity rate was 2.7% and 90‐days mortality 0.6%. Three optimal TS cutoffs were identified: 40‐, 70‐, and 100‐mm. All the selected cutoffs showed a significant discriminative power for the prediction of open conversion, operative time, blood transfusion and need of Pringle maneuver. Moreover, 70‐ and 100‐mm cutoffs were both discriminative for estimated blood loss and major complications. A stepwise increase in rates of open conversion rate (Z = 3.90, P < .001), operative time (Z = 3.84, P < .001), blood loss (Z = 6.50, P < .001), intraoperative blood transfusion rate (Z = 5.15, P < .001), Pringle maneuver use (Z = 6.48, P < .001), major morbidity(Z = 2.17, P = .030) and 30‐days readmission (Z = 1.99, P = .047) was registered as the size increased. Conclusion L‐LLS for tumors of increasing size was associated with poorer intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes suggesting increasing difficulty of the procedure. We determined three optimal TS cutoffs (40‐, 70‐ and 100‐mm) to accurately stratify surgical difficulty after L‐LLS.