S4171 Potential Complications With Robotic-Assisted Hepatectomy and Liver Transplant

Layla Darwiche,Taha Ashraf,Syed-Mohammed Jafri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001046052.48411.dc

2024-10-26

The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:We present the first completed robotic assisted hepatectomy leading to living donor right lobe liver transplant with complex vascular construction at our institution.

gastroenterology & hepatology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Robotic donor hepatectomy: A major breakthrough in living donor liver transplantation

Dieter Broering,Mark L Sturdevant,Ahmed Zidan,Mark L. Sturdevant

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.16889

IF: 9.369

2021-12-06

American Journal of Transplantation

Abstract:Living donation in many countries is the main resource of organs. Healthy, volunteering individuals deserve the highest safety standards possible in addition to the least invasive technique to procure the organs. Since the introduction of living donor liver transplantation, many efforts have been made to minimize the surgical trauma inherent to living donor surgery. The journey started with a large Mercedes incision and evolved to reverse L-shaped and small upper midline incisions before the introduction of minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques originated. The technical difficulties of the laparoscopic approach due to suboptimal instrumentation, challenging ergonomics, and the long learning curve limited the application of the fully laparoscopic approach to a few centers. The recent introduction of the robotic platform with its superb optical system and advanced instruments allows for the first time, a genuine emulation of open donor surgery in a closed abdomen, thus allowing all liver donors to benefit from minimally invasive surgery (better cosmesis, less pain and morbidity, and better quality of life) without compromising donor safety. This attribute in combination with the ubiquitous presence of the robot in major transplant centers may well lead to the desired endpoint of this technology, namely, the widespread dissemination of minimally invasive donor surgery.

surgery,transplantation
Outcomes of Fully Robotic Recipient Living Donor Liver Transplant in Relation to the Open Approach

Dieter C Broering,Yasser Elsheikh,Massimo Malago,Yasir Alnemary,Saleh Alabbad,Markus U Boehnert,Dimitri A Raptis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000005109

2024-06-14

Transplantation

Abstract:Background: Over the past 20 y, robotic surgery has entered nearly all surgical disciplines, aiming to improve patient outcomes. Liver transplantation has evolved with these advancements, and fully robotic liver transplants represent the latest innovation in this field. This study reports on the world's first series of fully robotic recipient liver transplants from robotic living donors, comparing them with matched cases from the standard open transplant approach. Methods: A case-control study was conducted at our center from August to December 2023. Patient selection criteria for robotic recipient liver transplantation included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease score of ≤25, specific anatomical characteristics, and logistics. A propensity score analysis with a 1:4 matching ratio was used. Results: The study analyzed 10 fully robotic living donor and robotic recipient liver transplant pairs with a median donor age of 29 y and a recipient age of 61 y. The main indication for transplantation was nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (6/10). There was 1 robotic to open conversion, and the median operation time was 10 h, with a median hospital stay of 13 d, shorter than the 18 d in the open group. Three recipients experienced a complication, and there was no mortality. Conclusions: The first-ever series of fully robotic living donor recipient liver transplants showed encouraging initial results with a markedly reduced hospital stay. The ultimate goal is to refine the technique to offer robotic liver transplants to the majority of recipients, overcoming the current selection criteria. Further research and a planned randomized controlled trial will aim to confirm these results.
Institutional First 100 Case Experience and Outcomes of Robotic Hepatectomy for Liver Tumors

Iswanto Sucandy,Andres Giovannetti,Sharona Ross,Alexander Rosemurgy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000313482008600328

2020-03-01

The American Surgeon

Abstract:The nascent robotic approach for hepatic resections is gaining momentum in the United States because it offers solutions to the known limitations of laparoscopic approach. Herein, we report our initial experience and short-term outcomes of the first 100 robotic hepatectomies. With Institutional Review Board approval, all patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy were prospectively followed up. Patient demographics, operative outcomes, complications, and 30-day readmissions were collected and analyzed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). One hundred consecutive patients underwent robotic hepatectomy. Patients were aged 62 (63 ± 13.6) years, 66 per cent were women, and BMI was 29 (29 ± 6.4) kg/m 2 . In all, 76 per cent of the hepatectomies were undertaken for malignancy [metastatic colorectal cancer (28%), hepatocellular carcinoma (21%), and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (15%)], and 20 per cent for benign lesions; 66 per cent of patients underwent nonanatomical partial hepatectomies, 17 per cent right hepatectomies, 16 per cent left hepatectomies, and 1 per cent trisegmentectomy. Operative time was 233 (268 ± 109.3) minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 123 (269 ± 322.1) mL. Conversion to “open” approach was necessary in one patient. The length of stay was 3 (5 ± 4.6) days. There were no intraoperative complications. Twelve patients experienced postoperative complications. Six patients required readmission to the hospital within 30 days of discharge. Robotic hepatectomy is safe and feasible with favorable short-term outcomes. The robotic system enhances application of minimally invasive surgery for complex hepatobiliary operations.
Single-Institution Early Experience and Learning Curve with Robotic Liver Resections

Aviad Gravetz,Iswanto Sucandy,Chandler Wilfong,Nirrita Patel,Janelle Spence,Sharona Ross,Alexander Rosemurgy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000313481908500143

2019-01-01

The American Surgeon

Abstract:Robotic liver resection is being introduced with its potential to overcome limitations of conventional laparoscopy. This study was undertaken to document early experience and learning curve of robotic liver resection in our institution. All patients undergoing liver resection between 2013 and 2017 were prospectively followed. Patients were divided into three consecutive tertiles (cohort I–III). Thirty-three patients underwent robotic liver resection within the study period. Twenty-four per cent of patients underwent formal right or left hemihepatectomy, 21 per cent underwent sectionectomy, 6 per cent underwent central hepatectomy, and the remainder underwent non-anatomical liver resection. Formal hemihepatectomy and right posterosuperior segment resection were undertaken in two patients in cohort I, four patients in cohort II, and four patients in cohort III. Two cases were converted to “open” operation. Operative time was 172 (194.5 ± 65.1) minutes in cohort I, 222 (247.8 ± 109.8) minutes in cohort II, and 280 (302.5 ± 84.9) minutes in cohort III, reflecting increasing degree of technical complexity. Estimated blood loss decreased significantly throughout the cohorts, being 400 mL, 200 mL, and 100 mL in cohorts I to III, respectively. Major intraoperative complications were not seen. Three patients experienced postoperative complications, resulting in a single mortality. Length of hospital stay was three days, with two patients being readmitted within 30 days. Robotic technique for liver resection is feasible and safe. It offers good short-term clinical outcomes, including for patients who require major liver resection. As the proficiency developed, a notable improvement in technically ability to undertake more complex resections with decreasing blood loss and minimal morbidity was seen.
Robotic donor hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation

Dieter C Broering,Enrico Prosperi,Dimitri A Raptis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-024-01932-1

2024-09-18

Abstract:Robotic donor hepatectomy introduces a new era in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), combining advancements in minimally invasive surgery with superior precision and ergonomics. The beginning of LDLT in 1989 aimed to address the scarcity of deceased donor livers, a situation intensified by the technical and ethical challenges associated with this procedure. The integration of robotic systems since 2010s has broadened the scope and impact of liver transplantation, enhancing outcomes significantly for both donors and recipients. This review discusses the significant advancements in robotic surgery, the ongoing challenges such as cost and training needs, and the future toward global standardization and the integration of artificial intelligence. As this technology continues to evolve, it holds the potential to become the new global standard, ensuring safer procedures and enhanced outcomes for patients worldwide.
Robotic hepatectomy for benign and malignant liver tumors

Iswanto Sucandy,Sydni Schlosser,Timothy Bourdeau,Janelle Spence,Abdelrahman Attili,Sharona Ross,Alexander Rosemurgy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00935-0

2019-02-23

Journal of Robotic Surgery

Abstract:Abstract Minimally invasive hepatectomy for benign and malignant liver lesions has gained popularity in the past decade due to improved perioperative outcomes when compared to conventional ‘open’ technique. We aim to investigate our initial experience of robotic hepatectomy undertaken in our hepatobiliary program. All patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy between 2013 and 2018 were prospectively followed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). A total of 80 patients underwent robotic hepatectomy within the study period. 60% of the patients were women, age of 63 (62.4 ± 14.1), body mass index of 28 (29.6 ± 9.4), ASA class of 2.5 (2.5 ± 0.6), and MELD score of 7 (8.2 ± 2.8). Size of resected lesion was 3.9 (4.6 ± 3) cm. Indications for resection were metastatic lesions (30%), hepatocellular carcinoma (28%), cholangiocarcinoma (7%), gallbladder cancer (5%), neuroendocrine tumors (4%), and benign lesions (26%). Formal hepatectomy (right or left) was performed in 30% of the patients. Operative time was 233 (267.2 ± 109.6) minutes, and estimated blood loss was 150 (265.7 ± 319.9) ml. Length of hospital stay was 3 (5.0 ± 4.6) days. One patient was converted to ‘open’ approach. 10 patients experienced postoperative complications. Readmissions within 30 days of hospital discharge were seen in eight patients. Our data support that robotic hepatectomy is safe and feasible, with favorable short-term outcomes and low conversion rate. Robotic technology extends the application of minimally invasive techniques in the field of hepatobiliary surgery.
Robotic liver resection: technique and results of 30 consecutive procedures

Gi Hong Choi,Sung Hoon Choi,Sung Hoon Kim,Ho Kyoung Hwang,Chang Moo Kang,Jin Sub Choi,Woo Jung Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2168-9

2012-02-04

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:BackgroundRobotic surgery can enhance a surgeon’s laparoscopic skills through a magnified three-dimensional view and instruments with seven degrees of freedom compared to conventional laparoscopy.MethodsThis study reviewed a single surgeon’s experience of robotic liver resections in 30 consecutive patients, focusing on major hepatectomy. Clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative and short-term outcomes were analyzed.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 52.4 years and 14 were male. There were 21 malignant tumors and 9 benign lesions. There were 6 right hepatectomies, 14 left hepatectomies, 4 left lateral sectionectomies, 2 segmentectomies, and 4 wedge resections. The average operating time for the right and left hepatectomies was 724 min (range 648–812) and 518 min (range 315–763), respectively. The average estimated blood loss in the right and left hepatectomies was 629 ml (range 100–1500) and 328 ml (range 150–900), respectively. Four patients (14.8%) received perioperative transfusion. There were two conversions to open surgery (one right hepatectomy and one left hepatectomy). The overall complication rate was 43.3% (grade I, 5; grade II, 2; grade III, 6; grade IV, 0) and 40% in 20 patients who underwent major hepatectomy. Among the six (20.0%) grade III complications, a liver resection–related complication (bile leakage) occurred in two patients. The mean length of hospital stay was 11.7 days (range 5–46). There was no recurrence in the 13 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma during the median follow-up of 11 months (range 5–29).ConclusionsFrom our experience, robotic liver resection seems to be a feasible and safe procedure, even for major hepatectomy. Robotic surgery can be considered a new advanced option for minimally invasive liver surgery.
Robotic Versus Open Right Lobe Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Propensity Score–Matched Analysis

Dieter C. Broering,Yasser Elsheikh,Yasir Alnemary,Ahmed Zidan,Ahmed Elsarawy,Yahia Saleh,Saleh Alabbad,Mark Sturdevant,Yao‐Ming Wu,Roberto I. Troisi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.25820

2020-10-07

Liver Transplantation

Abstract:<p>Robotic right lobe donor hepatectomy (RRLDH) is rarely performed, and data concerning its safety and efficacy are lacking. Here we compare our series of RRLDHs with a similar cohort undergoing open right lobe donor hepatectomy (ORLDH) with a propensity score–matched (PSM) analysis. Among 263 consecutive adult patients undergoing right lobe living donor hepatectomy from January 2015 until July 2019, 35 RRLDHs were matched to 70 ORLDHs. A 1:2 PSM analysis was performed to make the groups comparable for donor gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) and recipient gender, age, BMI, Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, and indication for transplant. Operative time was longer in RRLDHs compared to ORLDHs (504 ± 73.5 vs. 331 ± 65.1 minutes; <i>P </i> < 0.001) but significantly decreased with the number of cases (<i>P </i> < 0.001). No conversions occurred. The warm ischemia time was longer and blood loss significantly less in RRLDHs (<i>P </i> = 0.001 and 0.003, respectively). Overall donor complications were similar: 2 (5.7%) in RRLDHs versus 12 (17.1%) in ORLDHs (<i>P </i> = 0.13). Biliary leak occurred in 1 (3%) robotic case and 2 (3%) cases with the conventional approach. Donors undergoing robotic surgery required less patient‐controlled analgesia (PCA) and had a shorter hospital stay compared to the open surgery group (<i>P </i> = 0.001 and <i>P </i> < 0.001, respectively). No significant differences in graft anatomical data and recipient outcomes were recorded. <i>Conclusion: </i> RRLDH is feasible, safe, and reproducible, with significantly decreased blood loss and a shorter hospital stay compared to the open procedure. The first 35 robotic cases showed a substantial reduction in operative time, reflecting a rapid shortening of the learning curve.</p>

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery,transplantation
Current status and future perspectives of robotic liver surgery

Akihiko Soyama,Takashi Hamada,Tomohiko Adachi,Susumu Eguchi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hepr.14058

2024-05-29

Hepatology Research

Abstract:Robotic liver resection has been reported in case series since the early 2000s. The surgical robot is capable of precise operation using articulated forceps with seven degrees of freedom. The robot also eliminates tremors and provides a good surgical field with highly detailed 3D high‐definition images. The clinical results demonstrating their usefulness have been increasing year by year. Initially, a shorter hospital stay was observed in comparison with open hepatectomy. Recent reports have also shown lower conversion and complication rates in comparison with laparoscopic hepatectomy. The clamp and crush method with bipolar forceps, sealing devices, ultrasonic shears, and the combined procedure of Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator and robotic forceps as hybrid procedures have been reported as effective methods of parenchymal transection in robotic surgery. Theoretically, the advantages of the robotic platform allow for more complex liver resection around hilar structures and major blood vessels, as well as for vascular reconstruction or biliary reconstruction. The application of robotic liver surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma, living donor hepatectomy, and living donor liver transplantation has been reported. Robotic liver surgery is becoming more popular for certain indications; however, it is important to further evaluate its long‐term surgical and oncological outcomes and costs in comparison with conventional laparoscopic and open liver surgery, based on accumulated experience.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Initial experience with a robotic hepatectomy program at a high-volume laparoscopic center: single-center experience and surgical tips

Boram Lee,YoungRok Choi,Jai Young Cho,Yoo-Seok Yoon,Ho-Seong Han

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-21-202

Abstract:Background: Despite the development of laparoscopic surgery, there are still inherent limitations associated with conventional laparoscopic instruments such as restrictions in movement and an inability for articulation. Robotic surgery may help to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to present our initial experience with robotic hepatectomy (RH) and discuss the steps required to develop an RH program at a high-volume laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) center. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data for 14 consecutive patients who underwent RH between 2017 and 2018. Clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared with those reported in previous studies. The operation time of each procedure was analyzed to assess RH proficiency based on experience. Results: Of the 14 patients, 12 patients (85.7%) underwent robotic major hepatectomy. Median patient age was 54.5 years, while median body mass index (BMI) was 25.2 kg/m2. The median operation time was 360 (range: 145-544) min. The median estimated blood loss (EBL) was 300 (range: 50-1,400) mL. Conversion to open surgery was not required in any case. The median length of hospital stay was 5 (range: 4-14) days. Major complications occurred in 2 patients (14.2%), although both recovered without sequelae. The time required for hilar dissection, docking, and parenchymal transection gradually decreased after the first two cases of RH. Conclusions: From our initial experience, RH might be considered as a feasible procedure in the liver resection, even in major hepatectomy. In addition, surgeons with sufficient experience in LH could rapidly adapt for RH. However, we have to make a system for education and monitoring of this innovative surgery for the patients' safety.
The current and future role of robotic surgery in liver surgery and transplantation

Michele Finotti,Francesco D'Amico,Giuliano Testa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-5691.22.09629-0

Abstract:Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is gaining interest in all surgical fields, especially in the hepatobiliary and liver transplant branch with excellent outcomes. However, its application especially in the living donation, is at the beginning and still controversial, with few published studies. A literature review was performed using the following keywords reviewing the current role of robotic donor hepatectomy in the literature and to evaluate the possible future implication in the transplant field: minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic liver surgery, robotic liver surgery, robotic living donation, laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, robotic donor hepatectomy. 3-D imaging with high definition and stable view, a more rapid learning curve than the laparoscopic one and the lack of hand tremors and the freedom of movements are all important advantages claimed in favor of robotic surgery. Furthermore, most of the studies showed, compared to open surgery, less postoperative pain, less intraoperative blood loss, and a shorter period before returning to normal activity to the detriment of longer operation time. The excellent outcome can be explained thanks to the three-dimensional and magnification view that allows for better evaluation compared to the laparoscopic approach to the right plane of transection, vascular and biliary anatomy, and thanks to the precision of the movements a better bleeding control. Robotic approach, especially in living donor hepatectomy, is considered safe and feasible, even if its superiority compared to the open and laparoscopic approaches needs further evaluation.
Full Robotic Whole Graft Liver Transplantation

Hugo Pinto-Marques,Mafalda Sobra,Paolo Magistri,Sílvia Gomes da Silva,Gian Piero Guerrini,Raquel Mega,Cristiano Guidetti,João Santos Coelho,Stefano Di Sandro,Fabrizio Di Benedetto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000006420

IF: 13.787

2024-07-02

Annals of Surgery

Abstract:Objective: To report the first European series of full robotic whole liver transplantation (RLT) with technical details and future perspectives. Summary Background data: Few cases of liver transplantation with a minimally invasive approach using partial grafts have been reported so far, and no cases of robotic whole liver transplantation have been reported in the scientific literature. Methods: The adopted technique was full robotic liver hepatectomy, followed by robotic implantation after graft introduction through a small midline incision. Patients presenting with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) in liver cirrhosis with a small caudate lobe, low degree of portal hypertension, no porto-mesenteric thrombosis, as well as low MELD patients have been considered ideal candidates. Results: Six patients underwent RLT between February and March 2024 at Lisbon and Modena University Liver Transplant Centers. Warm ischemia time during RLT ranged between 55 and 90 min, with a total surgery duration between 440 and 710 min. The median total operative time was 595 (±111,3) minutes. Only one recipient had prolonged hyperbilirubinemia, which was safely treated. The median in-hospital stay was 7.5 days, (±4.8 days). Conclusions: RLT is a promising technique to further reduce the impact of liver transplantation thanks to smaller incision, gentle tissue manipulation, high magnification and precision for vascular and biliary anastomosis, and reduced postoperative pain. This is the first step toward the demonstration of the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery in liver transplantation, although further selection and technical refinements are needed to improve reproducibility.

surgery
Early experiences in robotic single‐site plus one port platform for complex hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery

Jae Uk Chong,Ju Yeon Lee,Jin Hong Lim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2602

2023-12-16

Abstract:Abstract Background Minimal invasive surgery in hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HBP) surgery has been accepted worldwide in recent years. However, applications of single‐site laparoscopic surgery in complex HBP surgery have been limited due to difficulty in manoeuvring instruments and the limited range of motion resulting from clashing instruments. Methods To overcome the limitations, we have used the Da Vinci single‐site surgical platform with one additional port in a Da Vinci Xi system to perform donor right hepatectomy, pancreaticoduodenectomy, and combined resection of the common bile duct and spleen vessels preserving distal pancreatectomy. Results In selected patients, using a robotic single‐site plus one port system allowed the successful completion of complex HBP surgery. Discussion Complex HBP surgery can be performed safely in a stable environment using the robotic single‐site plus one port system. Further exploration of a robotic single‐site plus one port in complex HBP surgery is necessary.

surgery
A narrative review of the current and future role of robotic surgery in liver surgery and transplantation

Michele Finotti,Francesco D'Amico,David Mulligan,Giuliano Testa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/hbsn-21-115

2023-02-28

Abstract:Background: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is the technique of choice in selected patients for the treatment of liver tumors. The robotic approach is considered today the natural evolution of MIS. The application of the robotic technique in liver transplantation (LT) has been recently evaluated, especially in the living donation. The aim of this paper is to review the current role of the MIS and robotic donor hepatectomy in the literature and to evaluate the possible future implication in the transplant field. Methods: We conducted a narrative review using PubMed and Google Scholar for reports published so far, using the following keywords: minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic liver surgery, robotic liver surgery, robotic living donation, laparoscopic donor hepatectomy and robotic donor hepatectomy. Results: Several advantages have been claimed in favor of robotic surgery: three-dimensional (3-D) imaging with stable and high-definition view; a more rapid learning curve than the laparoscopic one; the lack of hand tremors and the freedom of movements. Compared to open surgery, the benefits showed in the studies evaluating the robotic approach in the living donation are: less postoperative pain, the shorter period before returning to normal activity despite sustaining longer operation time. Furthermore, the 3-D and magnification view makes the technique excellent in distinguishing the right plane of transection, vascular and biliary anatomy, associated with high precision of the movements and a better bleeding control (essential for donor safety) and lower rate of vascular injury. Conclusions: The current literature does not fully support the superiority of the robotic approach versus laparoscopic or open method in living donor hepatectomy. Robotic donor hepatectomy performed by teams with high expertise and in properly selected living donors is safe and feasible. However, further data are necessary to evaluate properly the role of robotic surgery in the field of living donation.
Robotic Major Hepatectomy: An Institutional Experience and Clinical Outcomes

Iswanto Sucandy,Kenneth Luberice,Trenton Lippert,Miguel Castro,Emily Krill,Sharona Ross,Alexander Rosemurgy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08845-4

IF: 4.339

2020-07-13

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Abstract:IntroductionMost of the literature has only reported outcomes on robotic minor non-anatomical hepatectomy. This study was undertaken to analyze and examine the safety, feasibly, and perioperative outcomes of robotic major hepatectomy at our institution.MethodsAll patients undergoing robotic major hepatectomy were prospectively followed. Major hepatectomy was defined as a resection of 3 or more segments. Data are expressed as median (mean ± SD).ResultsA total of 170 consecutive patients underwent robotic hepatectomies, of which 100 were major resections involving at least 3 segments. The 100 patients were of median 62 (61 ± 13.0) years, and 46% were women. Median BMI was 29 (29 ± 5.9) kg/m2 and median ASA class was 3 (3 ± 0.5). Thirty percent of robotic major hepatectomies were for hepatocellular carcinoma, 28% were for metastatic adenocarcinoma, 9% were for cholangiocarcinoma, and 5% were for metastatic neuroendocrine tumor. Prep time (in the room until incision) was a median 58 min (62 ± 18.4), extraction time (incision until specimen extraction) was 124 min (146 ± 99.5), console time was 198 min (210 ± 123.9), closure time (extraction until dressing placement) was 109 min (131 ± 93.8), operative duration was 246 min (269 ± 123.2), and time under anesthesia was 330 min (353 ± 109.6). Estimated blood loss was 175 ml (249 ± 275.9) and length of stay was 4 days (5 ± 4.3). Seven patients experienced postoperative complications. Thirteen patients were readmitted within 30 days, and one patient died within 30 days.ConclusionApplication of the robotic platform to major hepatectomy is safe and feasible. Our early experience shows that this minimally invasive approach results in excellent short-term outcomes.

oncology,surgery
Safety and feasibility of robotic major hepatectomy for novice surgeons in robotic liver surgery: A prospective multicenter pilot study

Sung Hoon Choi,Dai Hoon Han,Jin Ho Lee,YoungRok Choi,Jae Hoon Lee,Gi Hong Choi,Jin Ho lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2020.07.003

IF: 2.388

2020-12-01

Surgical Oncology

Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Background</h3><p>Robotic liver resection has not yet been widely implemented. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic major liver resection by performing a prospective multicenter study.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Methods</h3><p>From July 2017 to December 2018, five surgeons from five tertiary hospitals who were novices in robotic liver resection but experienced in open and laparoscopic liver resection performed 46 cases of robotic major anatomical liver resections. Perioperative clinical data and surgical data, including detailed procedure times were prospectively collected. All operations were performed according to a protocol for unify surgical techniques and instruments.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>Twenty-two cases of left hemihepatectomy, one case of extended left hemihepatectomy, 14 cases of right hemihepatectomy, two cases of right anterior sectionectomy, six cases of right posterior sectionectomy, and one case of central bisectionectomy were performed. The most common indications were hepatocellular carcinoma (21 cases) followed by intrahepatic duct stones (10 cases), intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma (7 cases), liver metastases (3 cases), intraductal papillary neoplasms (2 cases), sarcoma (1 case), mucinous cystic neoplasm (1 case), and hemangioma (1 case). Surgical resection margins for all tumor cases were negative. The mean operation time was 378.58 ± 124.31 (190–696) minutes and the estimated intraoperative blood loss was 276.67 ± 397.41 mL (range, 10–2600 mL). Overall complications developed in 16 cases (34.8%). There were three cases of severe surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo classification of III or more). Only one of 46 cases was converted to conventional open left hemihepatectomy because of bleeding. The mean hospital stay was 7.3 ± 2.5 (4–18) days.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusions</h3><p>The results of this study indicate that robotic anatomic major liver resection can be safely performed by robotic beginners who are advanced open and laparoscopic liver surgeons.</p>
Outcomes of Adult Right Graft Living Donor Liver Transplantation Utilizing the Robotic Platform Integrated Real-time Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Cholangiography Compared to the Open Approach

Dimitri A Raptis,Yogesh K Vashist,Rugved Kulkarni,Saleh Alabbad,Yasser Elsheikh,Yasir Alnemary,Massimo Malagò,Dieter C Broering

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006477

2024-08-07

Abstract:Objective: This study aimed to assess short-term biliary outcomes in adult living donor liver transplants using right grafts, comparing robotic surgery with real-time indocyanine green fluorescence cholangiography (ICG-CA) for optimal hilar plate transection, against the conventional open approach. Summary background data: Determining the optimal transection plane through the hilar plate is crucial in donor hepatectomies, impacting outcomes significantly. Patients and methods: From 2011 to 2023, a total of 839 right graft living donor hepatectomies were performed, with 414 (49%) performed via the open approach and 425 (51%) utilizing the robotic platform. Results: The MRCP predictions correlated moderately with the actual count of graft ducts (r=0.57,P<0.001) Out of all 839 right donor hepatectomies, 321 (44%) were single duct grafts, of which 193/425 (49%) were retrieved with the robotic while 128/414 (38%) were with the open approach (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.16-2.14),P=0.003). Overall, 50 (6%) of the donors developed a biliary complication during hospital stay, of whom 38 (9%) were grafts retrieved with the open, while 13 (3%) with the robotic approach (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.61,P<0.001). Similarly, 63 (15%) of the adult recipients developed a biliary complication of any severity when grafts were retrieved with the open approach compared to 35 (8%) with the robotic approach (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.79),P=0.002). Conclusion: The robotic platform with integrated real-time ICG-CA during right donor hepatectomy offers improved safety for the donor by accurately addressing the right hilar corridor, resulting in fewer graft ducts, and fewer complications of the donor and recipient when compared to the standard open approach.
Laparoscopic donor and recipient hepatectomy followed by robot‐assisted liver graft implantation in living donor liver transplantation

Kwang-Woong Lee,YoungRok Choi,Suk Kyun Hong,Sola Lee,Su Young Hong,Sanggyun Suh,Eui Soo Han,Nam-Joon Yi,Kyung-Suk Suh,Kwang‐Woong Lee,Su young Hong,Nam‐Joon Yi,Kyung‐Suk Suh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.16943

IF: 9.369

2022-01-11

American Journal of Transplantation

Abstract:Minimally invasive surgery has been introduced for liver transplantations. Although laparoscopic or robot-assisted living donor hepatectomy is being used, minimally invasive surgery is rarely performed in recipients during liver transplantation. A 63-year-old patient (body mass index: 21.9 kg/m<sup>2</sup> ) with primary biliary cirrhosis underwent total laparoscopic explant hepatectomy, followed by robot-assisted liver engraftment using advanced technological innovations. The total operation time for the recipient was 12 h 20 min, including laparoscopic explant hepatectomy (140 min) and robot-assisted engraftment (220 min). Achieving hepatic and portal vein anastomoses consumed 35 and 28 min, respectively. The hepatic artery anastomosis and bile duct reconstruction took 83 and 66 min, respectively. The estimated blood loss was 3600 ml. The warm and cold ischemic times were 87 and 220 min, respectively. The patient received 10 units each of red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma during the surgery and recovered from early allograft dysfunction after liver transplantation. This case study suggests that laparoscopic explant hepatectomy followed by robot-assisted engraftment is feasible in selected recipients only. We obtained informed consent for this innovative procedure from the patient and from her living donor.

surgery,transplantation
Robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a cohort study

Oliver C. Y. Chan,Chung Ngai Tang,Eric C. H. Lai,George P. C. Yang,Michael K. W. Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-011-0389-2

2011-04-13

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has emerged as one of the most promising surgical advances since its launch at the turn of the millennium. Despite its worldwide acceptance in many different surgical specialties, the use of robotic assistance in the field of hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HBP) surgery remains relatively unexplored. This article aims to evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of robotic HBP surgery in a single surgical center.METHODS: Between May 2009 and December 2010, all patients admitted to our unit for robotic HBP surgery were evaluated. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database on clinical outcomes was performed.RESULTS: There were 55 robotic HBP operations performed during the study period. There were 27 robotic liver resections (left lateral sectionectomies n = 17, left hepatectomy n = 1, other segmentectomies n = 2 and wedge resections n = 7), 12 robotic pancreatic procedures (Whipple's operations n = 8, spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomies n = 2, double bypass n = 1 and cystojejunostomy n = 1) and 16 biliary procedures (biliary enteric bypass n = 9, bile duct exploration and related procedures n = 7). The median postoperative hospital stays for robotic liver resections, biliary procedures and pancreatic operations were 5.5 days (range 3-11 days), 6 days (range 4-11 days) and 12 days (range 6-21 days), respectively. Morbidities for liver resection, biliary procedures and pancreatic operations were 7.4, 18 and 33%, respectively. There was no mortality in our series.CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is feasible and can be safely performed in patients with complicated HBP pathologies. Further evaluation with clinical trials is required to validate its real benefits.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery

S4171 Potential Complications With Robotic-Assisted Hepatectomy and Liver Transplant

Robotic donor hepatectomy: A major breakthrough in living donor liver transplantation

Outcomes of Fully Robotic Recipient Living Donor Liver Transplant in Relation to the Open Approach

Institutional First 100 Case Experience and Outcomes of Robotic Hepatectomy for Liver Tumors

Single-Institution Early Experience and Learning Curve with Robotic Liver Resections

Robotic donor hepatectomy for living donor liver transplantation

Robotic hepatectomy for benign and malignant liver tumors

Robotic liver resection: technique and results of 30 consecutive procedures

Robotic Versus Open Right Lobe Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: A Propensity Score–Matched Analysis

Current status and future perspectives of robotic liver surgery

Initial experience with a robotic hepatectomy program at a high-volume laparoscopic center: single-center experience and surgical tips

The current and future role of robotic surgery in liver surgery and transplantation

Full Robotic Whole Graft Liver Transplantation

Early experiences in robotic single‐site plus one port platform for complex hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery

A narrative review of the current and future role of robotic surgery in liver surgery and transplantation

Robotic Major Hepatectomy: An Institutional Experience and Clinical Outcomes

Safety and feasibility of robotic major hepatectomy for novice surgeons in robotic liver surgery: A prospective multicenter pilot study

Outcomes of Adult Right Graft Living Donor Liver Transplantation Utilizing the Robotic Platform Integrated Real-time Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Cholangiography Compared to the Open Approach

Laparoscopic donor and recipient hepatectomy followed by robot‐assisted liver graft implantation in living donor liver transplantation

Robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a cohort study