UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.

UNASSIGNED: Minimally invasive liver surgery is evolving worldwide, and robot-assisted liver surgery (RLS) can deliver obvious benefits for patients. However, so far no large case series have documented the learning curve for RLS.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a retrospective study for robotic liver surgery (RLS) from June 2019 to June 2022 where 100 patients underwent RLS by the same surgical team. Patients\' variables, short-term follow-up, and the learning curve were analyzed. A review of the literature describing the learning curve in RLS was also conducted.
UNASSIGNED: Mean patient age was 63.1 years. The median operating time was 246 min and median estimated blood loss was 100 mL. Thirty-two patients underwent subsegmentectomy, 18 monosegmentectomies, 25 bisegmentectomies, and 25 major hepatectomies. One patient (1.0%) required conversion to open surgery. Five patients (5%) experienced postoperative major complications, and no mortalities occurred. Median length of hospital stay was 3 days. R0 resection was achieved in 93.4% of the malignant cases. The learning curve consisted of three stages; there were no significant differences in operative time, transfusion rate, or complication rate among the three groups. Postoperative complications were similar in each group despite an increase in surgical difficulty scores. The learning effect was highlighted by significantly shorter hospital stays in cohorts I, II, and III, respectively. The included systematic review suggested that the learning curve for RLS is similar to, or shorter, than that of laparoscopic liver surgery.
UNASSIGNED: In our experience, RLS has achieved good clinical results, albeit in the short term. Standardization of training leads to increasing proficiency in RLS with reduced blood loss and low complication rates even in more advanced liver resections. Our study suggests that a minimum of 30 low-to-moderate difficulty robotic procedures should be performed before proceeding to more difficult resections.

Although interest in expanding the application of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is high the world over, most of the extensive experience in MILR has been reported from Far East Asia and Europe and its adoption in North America is limited. The aim of this study was to review the experience of MILR in a single North American institute over a 15-year period, highlighting both the obstacles encountered and strategies adopted to overcome the stagnation in its uptake.
This study included 500 MILR cases between 2006 and 2020. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, surgical technique, and perioperative outcomes are summarized. The major hepatectomy rate and conversion rate were assessed according to case numbers (first 100, 101-300, and 301-500 cases) to assess chronological trends.
Of 500, 402 MILRs were done by pure laparoscopic (80.4%), 67 were hand assisted (13.4%), and 31 were robotic (6.2%). The majority (64%) of cases were performed for malignancy (n = 320; 100 Hepatocellular carcinoma, 153 Colorectal metastases, 27 Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and others, 40, 64%). A total of 71 cases were converted to open (14.2%). The annual case number gradually increased over the first few years; however, case numbers stayed around 30 between 2009 and 2017. In this period, despite accumulating MILR experience, open conversion rates increased despite no change in major hepatectomy rate. After this period of long-term stagnation, we introduced crucial changes in team composition and laparoscopic instrumentation. Our MILR case number and major hepatectomy rate thereafter increased significantly without increasing conversion or complication rates.
Our recovery from long-term stagnation by instituting key changes as detailed in this study could be used as a guidepost for programs that are contemplating transitioning their MILR program from minor to advanced resections. Establishing a formal MILR training model through proper mentorship/proctorship and building a dedicated MILR team would be imperative to this strategy.

The implementation of the laparoscopic and robotic approaches for major hepatectomy (LMH and RMH) was slower than that for minor hepatectomy, but has significantly increased over the past years. The role or advantages of RMH remains controversial, and we aimed to compare the peri-/postoperative outcomes of LMH versus RMH.
A systematic literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases according to the PRISMA guidelines (end-of-search date: March 16th, 2020). Only comparative studies (LMH vs. RMH) reporting on outcomes of interest were included. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model when substantial heterogeneity was encountered; otherwise, the fixed-effects model was implemented. Quality of evidence assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
Seven retrospective cohort studies comparing LMH (n = 300) versus RMH (n = 225) were identified. No significant difference was observed between LMH and RMH regarding overall complications [odds ratio (OR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-2.23; p = 0.13], severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) [risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.05; p = 0.72], and overall mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.03; p = 0.73). The two approaches were also equivalent regarding conversion to open hepatectomy (RD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.08; p = 0.15), margin-positive resection (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.51-3.52; p = 0.55), and transfusion rate (RD - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.16 to 0.11; p = 0.67). No significant difference was observed for LMH versus RMH regarding blood loss [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27, 95% CI - 0.24 to 0.77; p = 0.30), operative time (SMD - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.51 to 0.34; p = 0.70), and length of stay (SMD 0.13, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.84; p = 0.72).
LMH and RMH have equivalent peri-/postoperative outcomes when performed in select patients and high-volume centers.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. This review attempts to clarify the role of robotic surgery for HCC in terms of oncologic outcomes.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed according to the PRISMA statement including papers comparing open, robotic, and laparoscopic approach for liver surgery. If more than one study was reported by the same institute, only the most recent or the highest quality study was included.
RESULTS: The literature search yielded 302 articles; titles and abstracts were reviewed for inclusion. Ten papers were finally included in this review for a total of 307 patients who underwent robotic resection for HCC.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic liver resection for HCC is effective in terms of oncological results as compared with open and laparoscopic approach when performed in experienced centers and is accurate in terms of R0 rates and disease-free surgical margin.

The aim of this study was to compare radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with minimally invasive liver surgery (MIS) in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma (SHCC) and to assess short-term and long-term clinical outcomes.
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of science, and CBM were systematically searched for articles from inception to July 2018, comparing RFA and MIS in SHCC treatment. We evaluated overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), local recurrence, and complication rates, as well as hospitalization duration and operation times.
Six retrospective studies were analyzed, including a total of 597 patients, 313 treated with RFA and 284 treated with MIS. OS rates were significantly higher in patients treated with MIS at 3 years, when compared to RFA (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84). The 3-year DFS MIS rates were also superior to RFA (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.98). In contrast, when compared to MIS, RFA demonstrated a significantly higher rate of local intrahepatic recurrences, (OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.47 to 3.42), and a lower incidence of postoperative complications (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.53), as well as shorter operation times (OR - 145.31, 95% CI - 200.24 to - 90.38) and hospitalization duration (OR - 4.02,95% CI - 4.94 to - 3.10).
We found that MIS led to higher OS, DFS, and lower local recurrences in SHCC patients. Meanwhile, RFA treatments led to significantly lower complication rates, shorter operation times, and hospitalization duration. Considering long-term outcomes, MIS was found to be superior to RFA. However, RFA may be an alternative treatment for patients presenting a single SHCC nodule (≤ 3 cm), given its minimally invasive nature and its comparable long-term efficacy with MIS. Nevertheless, our findings should be explained with caution due to the low level of evidence obtained.