Robotic (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) provide similar short-term outcomes, but data focused on recurrence and survival are still lacking. We hypothesized non-inferior oncologic results of RLR compared to LLR for HCC of stage BCLC 0-A.

RLRs and LLRs on patients with HCC of stage BCLC 0-A and preserved liver function (Child A or B if cirrhosis) were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate selection bias. The primary endpoints were recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were incidence, pattern, and treatment of recurrences.

After 1:1 PSM, two groups (RLR = 68; LLR = 68) of patients with similar characteristics, liver function and HCC features were obtained: median age 71-years, males 73.5%, underlying cirrhosis 91.2% (Child A, 96.8%, MELD ≤ 9, 96.0%), portal hypertension 22.1%, single-HCC 90.4%. Two- and 5-year RFS were 78.0 vs 59.0% and 54.0 vs 53.0% (p = 0.107), while OS was 97.0 vs 90.0% and 87.0 vs 90.0% (p = 0.951) for RLR vs LLR, respectively. Incidence of HCC recurrence was similar (35.3 vs 39.7%; p = 0.723). Recurrences developed mostly within the liver (29.4 vs 30.9%; p = 1.000) and within 2 years after hepatectomy (19.1 vs 32.4%, p = 0.116) in RLR vs LLRs. Curative-intent treatment of recurrences did not differ (liver transplantation 19.6%, redo-resection 15.7%, locoregional treatments 52.9%) except for a tendency toward more redo-resections for recurrences after RLR.

Oncologic outcomes of RLR were not inferior to those of LLR in selected HCC patients of stage BCLC 0-A with underlying cirrhosis. Both techniques guaranteed similar salvageability in case of HCC recurrence.

The management of de novo kidney tumors (DKTs) after liver transplantation (LT) is challenging due to previous transplant surgery and calcineurin inhibitors (CNI)-related nephrotoxicity. Minimally invasive renal-sparing strategies like robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) are favored, but a transperitoneal approach may be limited by the previous transplant surgery and the location of the DKT; in such cases, CT-guided cryoablation may be an alternative option. In this retrospective cohort study, we aimed to compare RPN and cryoablation for the treatment of DKT in LT recipients. The primary endpoints were the efficacy (R0 resection in RPN, absence of the tumor at first follow-up for cryoablation) and the safety of the procedures (postoperative morbidity and increase in creatine level). The periprocedural costs and the oncologic efficacy (recurrence and overall survival) were the secondary endpoints. Twelve LT recipients (91.7% males, mean age 65 years) underwent RPN (n = 6) or cryoablation (n = 6) for DKT; the median interval between LT and diagnosis of DKT was 142.5 vs. 117.5 months, respectively. Efficacy was obtained in all patients after RPN and cryoablation. Postoperative morbidity was 16.7% in each group, and the postoperative increase in creatinine values was similar. Hospital stay was shorter following cryoablation vs. RPN (3.1 vs. 6.7 days; p = 0.03). The mean procedural costs were higher for RPN. There was no mortality and none of the patients had signs of recurrence after a median follow-up of 40.5 months. Both RPN and CT-guided cryoablation were safe and effective for the treatment of selected patients with DKT after LT. When applicable, cryoablation may be cost-effective and provide faster recovery.

This study's aim was to show the feasibility and safety of robotic liver resection (RLR) even without extensive experience in major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

A single center, retrospective analysis was performed for consecutive liver resections for solid liver tumors from 2014 to 2022.

The analysis included 226 liver resections, comprising 127 (56.2%) open surgeries, 28 (12.4%) LLR, and 71 (31.4%) RLR. The rate of RLR increased and that of LLR decreased over time. In a comparison between propensity score matching-selected open liver resection and RLR (41:41), RLR had significantly less blood loss (384 ± 413 vs 649 ± 646 mL, P = .030) and shorter hospital stay (4.4 ± 3.0 vs 6.4 ± 3.7 days, P = .010), as well as comparable operative time (289 ± 123 vs 290 ± 132 mins, P = .954). A comparison between LLR and RLR showed comparable perioperative outcomes, even with more surgeries with higher difficulty score included in RLR (5.2 ± 2.7 vs 4.3 ± 2.5, P = .147). The analysis of the learning curve in RLR demonstrated that blood loss, conversion rate, and complication rate consistently improved over time, with the case number required to achieve the learning curve appearing to be 60 cases.

The findings suggest that RLR is a feasible, safe, and acceptable platform for liver resection, and that the safe implementation and dissemination of RLR can be achieved without solid experience of LLR.

In the setting of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), training in robotic liver resections (RLR) usually follows previous experience in laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). The aim of our study was to assess the learning curve of RLR in case of concomitant training with LLR. We analyzed consecutive RLRs and LLRs by a surgeon trained simultaneously in both techniques (Surg1); while a second surgeon trained only in LLRs was used as control (Surg2). A regression model was used to adjust for confounders and a Cumulative Sum (CUSUM) analysis was carried out to assess the learning phases according to operative time and difficulty of the procedures (IWATE score). Two-hundred-forty-five procedures were identified (RobSurg1, n = 75, LapSurg1, n = 102, LapSurg2, n = 68). Mean IWATE was 4.0, 4.3 and 5.8 (p < 0.001) in each group. The CUSUM analysis of the adjusted operative times estimated the learning phase in 40 cases (RobSurg1), 40 cases (LapSurg1), 48 cases (LapSurg2); for IWATE score it was 38 cases (RobSurg1), 33 cases (LapSurg1), 38 cases (LapSurg2) respectively. Our preliminary experience showed a similar learning curve of 40 cases for low and intermediate difficulty RLR and LLR. Concomitant training in both techniques was safe and may be a practical option for starting a MILS program.

The advantages of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) are still debated. This study compares the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) liver resections in propensity score matched cohorts.

Data regarding minimally invasive liver resections in two liver surgery units were retrospectively reviewed. A propensity score matched analysis (1:1 ratio) identified two groups of patients with similar characteristics. Intra- and post-operative outcomes were then compared. The difficulty of MILS was based on the IWATE criteria.

Two hundred sixty-nine patients underwent MILS between January 2014 and December 2021 (LLR = 192; RLR = 77). Propensity score matching identified 148 cases (LLR = 74; RLR = 74) consisting of compensated cirrhotic patients (100%) underwent non-anatomic resection of IWATE 1-2 class (90.5%) for a solitary tumor < 5 cm in diameter (93.2%). In such patients, RLRs had shorter operative time (227 vs. 250 min, p = 0.002), shorter Pringle's cumulative time (12 vs. 28 min, p < 0.0001), and less blood loss (137 vs. 209 cc, p = 0.006) vs. LLRs. Conversion rate was nihil (both groups). In RLRs compared to LLRs, R0 rate (93 vs. 96%, p > 0.71) and major morbidity (4.1 vs. 5.4%, p > 0.999) were similar, without post-operative mortality. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (6.2 vs. 6.6, p = 0.0001).

This study supports the non-inferiority of RLR over LLR. In compensated cirrhotic patients underwent resection of low-to-intermediate difficulty for a solitary nodule < 5 cm, RLR was faster, with less blood loss despite the shorter hilar clamping, and required shorter hospitalization compared to LLR.

This study aimed to evaluate the oncological adequacy of lymphadenectomy (LND) for biliary tumors and surgical outcomes of resections performed using robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches and to compare the techniques within a weighted propensity score analysis.

The need to perform formal LND is considered a limit for the applicability of minimally invasive liver surgery.

Overall, 25 robotic resections with LND (2021-2022) from a single-center constituted the study group (Rob group), matched by inverse probability treatment weighting with 97 laparoscopic (Lap group) and 113 open (Open group) procedures to address the primary endpoint. A "per-period" analysis was performed comparing the characteristics and outcomes of the Rob group with the first 25 consecutive laparoscopic liver resections with associated LND (LapInit group).

Minimally invasive techniques performed equally well regarding the number of harvested nodes, blood transfusions, functional recovery, length of stay, and major morbidity and provided a short-term benefit to patients when compared with the open technique. A better performance of the robotic approach over laparoscopic approach (and both approaches over the open technique) was recorded for patients achieving LND with retrieval of >6 nodes. The open approach reduced both the operative time and time for LND, and robotic surgery performed better than laparoscopic surgery.

Minimally invasive techniques are excellent tools for the management of LND in patients with biliary tumors, showing feasibility, and oncological adequacy. Robotics could contribute to the large-scale diffusion of these procedures with a high profile of complexity.

The robotic liver resection (RLR) has been increasingly applied in recent years and its benefits shown in some aspects owing to the technical advancement of robotic surgical system, however, controversies still exist. Based on the foundation of the previous consensus statement, this new consensus document aimed to update clinical recommendations and provide guidance to improve the outcomes of RLR clinical practice. The guideline steering group and guideline expert group were formed by 29 international experts of liver surgery and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Relevant literature was reviewed and analyzed by the evidence evaluation group. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, the Guidance Principles of Development and Amendment of the Guidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in China 2022, a total of 14 recommendations were generated. Among them were 8 recommendations formulated by the GRADE method, and the remaining 6 recommendations were formulated based on literature review and experts' opinion due to insufficient EBM results. This international experts consensus guideline offered guidance for the safe and effective clinical practice and the research direction of RLR in future.

Current expectations are that surgeons should be technically proficient in minimally invasive low anterior resection (LAR)-both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery. However, methods to effectively train surgeons for both approaches are under-explored. We aimed to compare two different training programs for minimally invasive LAR, focusing on the learning curve and perioperative outcomes of two trainee surgeons.

We reviewed 272 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic LAR by surgeons A and B, who were novices in conducting minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Surgeon A was trained by first operating on 80 cases by laparoscopy and then 56 cases by robotic-assisted surgery. Surgeon B was trained by simultaneously performing 80 cases by laparoscopy and 56 by robotic-assisted surgery. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) method was used to evaluate the learning curves of operative time and surgical failure.

For laparoscopic surgery, the CUSUM plots showed a longer learning process for surgeon A than surgeon B (47 vs. 32 cases) for operative time, but a similar trend in surgical failure (23 vs. 19 cases). For robotic surgery, the plots of the two surgeons showed similar trends for both operative times (23 vs. 25 cases) and surgical failure (17 vs. 19 cases). Therefore, the learning curves of surgeons A and B were respectively divided into two phases at the 47th and 32nd cases for laparoscopic surgery and at the 23rd and 25th cases for robotic surgery. The clinicopathological outcomes of the two surgeons were similar in each phase of the learning curve for each surgery.

For surgeons with rich experience in open colorectal resections, simultaneous training for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted LAR of rectal cancer is safe, effective, and associated with accelerated learning curves.

Hepatic surgery is a rapidly expanding component of abdominal surgery and is performed for a wide range of indications. The introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 1987 was a major change in abdominal surgery. Laparoscopic surgery was widely and rapidly adopted throughout the world for cholecystectomy initially and then applied to a variety of other procedures. Laparoscopic surgery became regularly applied to hepatic surgery, including segmental and major resections as well as organ donation. Many operations progressed from open surgery to laparoscopy to robot-assisted surgery, including colon resection, pancreatectomy, splenectomy thyroidectomy, adrenalectomy, prostatectomy, gastrectomy, and others. It is difficult to prove a data-based benefit using robot-assisted surgery, although laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery of the liver are not inferior regarding major outcomes. When laparoscopic surgery initially became popular, many had concerns about its use to treat malignancies. Robot-assisted surgery is being used to treat a variety of benign and malignant conditions, and studies have shown no deterioration in outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery for the treatment of malignancies has become accepted and is now being used at more centers. The outcomes after robot-assisted surgery depend on its use at specialized centers, the surgeon's personal experience backed up by extensive training and maintenance of international registries. Robot-assisted hepatic surgery has been shown to be associated with slightly less intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital lengths of stay compared to open surgery. Oncologic outcomes have been maintained, and some studies show higher rates of R0 resections. Patients who need surgery for liver lesions should identify a surgeon they trust and should not be concerned with the specific operative approach used. The growth of robot-assisted surgery of the liver has occurred in a stepwise approach which is very different from the frenzy that was seen with the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This approach allowed the identification of areas for improvement, many of which are at the nexus of engineering and medicine. Further improvements in robot-assisted surgery depend on the combined efforts of engineers and surgeons.

While most centers around the globe still consider open hepatic resection as the standard, innovative centers step in light of future developments of the robotic platform forward and introduce a robotic liver program while skipping the laparoscopic approach for its technological flaws. This applies also for our Department of Surgery and Transplantation at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark. We herewith present as-to our best knowledge-the first center in Scandinavia our experience with the initial 50 robotic liver resections.