Project description:In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) the safety of the live donor (LD) is of paramount importance. Despite all efforts, the morbidity rates approach 25%-40% with conventional open donor hepatectomy (DH) operations. However, most of these complications are related to the operative wound and despite increased self- esteem and satisfaction in various quality of life analyses on LD, the most common grievance is that of the scar. Performing safe and precise DH through a conventional laparoscopic approach is a formidable task with a precipitous learning curve for the whole team. Due to the ramifications the donor operation carries for the donor, the recipient, the transplant team and for the LDLT program in general, the development and acceptance of minimally invasive DH (MIDH) has been slow. The robotic surgical system overcomes the reduced visualization, restricted range of motion and physiological tremor associated with laparoscopic surgery and allows for a comparatively easier transition from technical feasibility to reproducibility. However, many questions especially with regards to standardization of surgical technique, comparison of outcomes, understanding of the learning curve, etc. remain unanswered. The aim of this review is to provide insights into the evolution of MIDH and highlight the current status of robotic DH, appreciating the existing challenges and its future role.
Project description:The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: -0.7 95%CI -1.0, -0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: -0.8 95%CI -1.4, -0.3), Clavien-Dindo complications I-II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: -0.6 95%CI -1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: -0.4 95%CI -0.8, -0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: -0.5 95%CI -0.9, -0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: -6.4 95%CI -11.3, -1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.
Project description:Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is one of the most complex challenges for hepatobiliary surgeons. Poor results and high incidence of morbidity after Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) for pCCA discouraged this indication. It has been proposed that minimally invasive approach for ALPPS first stage, as well as combination of surgical liver partition and radiologic portal vein embolization (PVE), may improve outcomes reducing interstage morbidity. We report a case of right trisectionectomy with enbloc caudatectomy ALPPS scheduled for pCCA with robotic approach at stage-1, the full video is provided as supplementary material. Due to intraoperative presence of portal vein tumor infiltration during hilar dissection (no evidence in the pre-operative work-up), a radiologic right PVE was performed after stage-1 instead of portal vein ligation, followed by portal vein resection and biductal hepatico-jejunostomy at stage-2 with open approach. The patient was a 74-year-old female diagnosed with 3-cm mass-forming pCCA. The total clean liver volume was 1231 cc, with future liver remnant (FLR) volume of 25.1% (segments II and III). She was discharged in the interstage interval on postoperative day (POD) 4; CT scan on POD 12 showed that FLR increased up to 33% (369 cc) (Fig. 1). ALPPS was completed on POD 17, the postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged in good general condition on POD 19 after stage-2. Besides the already demonstrated advantages in terms of reduced interstage morbidity, robotic ALPPS represents a promising strategy to expand surgical indication in patients with pCCA. The combination of liver partition and PVE may increase the opportunities to perform radical resections in selected patients with pCCA and portal vein infiltration.
Project description:ImportanceLaparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH).ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH.Design, setting, and participantsIn this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included.InterventionsRobotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH.Main outcomes and measuresData on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed.ResultsOf 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P = .01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.0 [5.0-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.11 [7.52] days vs median [IQR], 7.0 [5.75-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.94 [8.99] days; P = .048). On subset analysis of cases performed between 2015 and 2020 after a center's learning curve (50 cases), robotic RH/ERH was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 6.0 [5.0-9.0] days vs 7.0 [6.0-9.75] days; P = .04) with a similar conversion rate (12 of 220 [7.6%] vs 17 of 220 [10.8%]; P = .46).Conclusion and relevanceRobotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with laparoscopic RH/ERH. The difference in open conversion rate was associated with a significant decrease for laparoscopic but not robotic RH/ERH after a center had mounted the learning curve. Use of robotic platform may help to overcome the initial challenges of minimally invasive RH/ERH.
Project description:Open surgery is the standard of care for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). With the aim of oncologic radicality, it requires a complex major hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction. The postoperative course is consequently often complicated, with severe morbidity and mortality rates of up to 27.5-54% and 18%, respectively. Robotic liver surgery is emerging as a safe, minimally-invasive technique with huge potential for pCCA management. After the first case described by Giulianotti in 2010, here we present the first western series of robot-assisted liver resections with biliary reconstruction for pCCA with the aim to preliminarily assess the feasibility and repeatability of the procedure. At our high-volume teaching hospital center dedicated to HPB surgery, 128 pCCA patients have been surgically treated in the last 15 years whereas more than 800 laparoscopic liver resections have been performed. Since the Da Vinci Xi Robotic platform was introduced in late 2018, 6 major robotic liver resections with biliary reconstruction have been performed, 4 of which were for pCCA. All 4 cases involved a left hepatectomy with caudate lobectomy. The median operating time was 840 min, with a median blood loss of 700 ml. One case was converted to open surgery during the reconstruction due to a short mesentery preventing the hepatico-jejunostomy. None of the patients experienced major complications, while minor complications occurred in 3 out of 4 cases. One biliary leak was managed conservatively. The median postoperative stay was 9 days. Negative biliary margins were achieved in 3 of the 4 cases. An included video clip shows the most relevant technical details. This preliminary series demonstrates that robot-assisted liver resection for pCCA is feasible. We speculate that the da Vinci platform has a relevant potential in pCCA surgery with particular reference to the multi-duct biliary reconstruction. Further studies are needed to better clarify the role of this high-cost technology in the minimally-invasive treatment of pCCA.
Project description:BackgroundRobotic living donor hepatectomy offers potential advantages but has been limited to high-volume centers, primarily in Asia and the Middle East. We report our experience establishing a robotic living donor right hepatectomy program in a U.S. center with low LDLT volume and no prior laparoscopic donor hepatectomy experience and analyze early outcomes.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed 37 living donor right hepatectomies (13 robotic [including one open conversion], 24 open) performed between June 2022 and February 2024.ResultsThe robotic group had longer operative times (median [range], 451 [374-568] minutes vs 368 [276-421] minutes; P < 0.001) but less blood loss (median [range], 200 [50-700] mL vs 900 [300-2500] mL; P < 0.001). One case required unplanned open conversion due to gas embolism. Two hematomas/bleeding (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIB) occurred in the robotic group, but no biliary complications. Comprehensive Complication Index, liver function tests, and hospital stays were similar between the two groups, with no 90-day graft failure/mortality.ConclusionWith extensive surgical experience in both open donor hepatectomy and robotic surgery, along with meticulous preparation as a team, U.S. centers with lower LDLT volume and no laparoscopic experience can safely implement robotic living donor right hepatectomy, achieving comparable short-term outcomes to the open approach. Further research on long-term outcomes and donor quality of life is necessary.