BACKGROUND:Conversion to open surgery forfeits any potential benefits of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), however, it remains uncertain whether the conversion itself introduces additional risk. The impact may differ depending on urgency (emergency or elective) and surgical approach (robotic or laparoscopic liver resection). This study aimed to evaluate outcomes of emergency and elective conversions in robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). PATIENTS AND METHODS:Data from 34 international centers of patients undergoing converted MILS procedures (stratified for conversion urgency) were retrospectively compared with patients who underwent elective open liver surgery using propensity score matching. Additionally, RLR and LLR conversions were compared. Conversion risk factors were identified using multivariable logistic regression in RLR and LLR separately. RESULTS:Among 10,548 MILS procedures (n = 1626 RLR and n = 8922 LLR), 719 (6.8%) were converted. Both emergency (n = 226) and elective (n = 472) conversions were associated with longer operative time and more Pringle use compared with open surgery. Emergency conversions additionally showed higher blood loss, transfusion rates, severe morbidity, and even mortality. Matched analysis of 40 pairs of RLR and LLR conversions identified no significant differences in perioperative outcomes, although mortality following RLR conversion was remarkably high (7.7%). RLR conversion risk factors were bilobar disease and anatomically major resection; whereas LLR risk factors included cirrhosis, history of previous liver surgery, tumor size, technically complex, and anatomically major resection. CONCLUSIONS:Emergency conversions in MILS are associated with worse outcomes, whereas elective conversions appear safe, highlighting the importance of timely, controlled conversion. Further investigation into the safety of robotic conversions is warranted.

BACKGROUND:Robotic platform usage for distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy has grown exponentially in recent years. This study aims to identify the impact of readmission following robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy and to analyze the financial implications of these readmissions.METHODS:We prospectively followed 137 patients after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy. Readmission was defined as rehospitalization within 30 days post-discharge. Total cost incorporated initial and readmission hospital costs, when applicable. Outcomes were analyzed using chi-square/Fisher's exact test and Student's t test. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).RESULTS:Of 137 patients, 20 (14%) were readmitted. Readmitted patients were 67 (66 ± 10.3) years old and had a BMI of 30 (30 ± 7.0) kg/m2; 9 (45%) had previous abdominal operations. Non-readmitted patients were 67 (62 ± 14.7) years old and had a BMI of 28 (28 ± 5.7) kg/m2; 37 (32%) had previous abdominal operations (P = NS, for all). Readmitted patients vs non-readmitted patients had operative durations of 327 (363 ± 179.1) vs 251 (293 ± 176.4) minutes (P = .10), estimated blood loss (EBL) of 90 (159 ± 214.6) vs 100 (244 ± 559.4) mL (P = .50), and tumor diameter of 3 (4 ± 2.0) vs 3 (4 ± 2.9) cm (P = 1.00). Initial length of stay (LOS) for readmitted patients vs patients who were not readmitted was 5 (5 ± 2.7) vs 4 (5 ± 3.0) days (P = 1.00); total hospital cost of those readmitted, including both admissions, was $29,095 (32,324 ± 20,227.38) vs $24,663 (25,075 ± 10,786.45) (P = .018) for those not readmitted.DISCUSSION:Despite a similar perioperative course, readmissions were associated with increased costs. We propose thorough consideration before readmission and increased patient education initiatives will reduce readmissions after robotic distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy.

Background: Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2 ) therapy is an alternative method against the deleterious effects of ischemic/reperfusion (I/R) injury and its inflammatory response. This study assessed the effect of preoperative HBO2 on patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Study design: Patients were randomized via a computer-generated algorithm. Patients in the HBO2 cohort received two sessions of HBO2 the evening before and the morning of surgery. Measurements of inflammatory mediators and self-assessed pain scales were determined pre-and postoperatively. In addition, perioperative variables and long-term survival were collected and analyzed. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Results: 33 patients were included; 17 received preoperative HBO2 , and 16 did not. There were no intraoperative or postoperative statistical differences between patients with or without preoperative HBO2 . Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), IL-6, and IL-10 increased slightly before returning to normal, while TGF-alpha decreased before increasing. However, there were no differences with or without HBO2 . At postoperative day 30, the pain level measured with VAS score (Visual Analog Score) was lower after HBO2 (1 ± 1.3 vs. 3 ± 3.0, p=0.05). Eleven (76%) patients in the HBO2 cohort and 12 (75%) patients in the non-HBO2 had malignant pathology. The percentage of positive lymph nodes in the HBO2 was 7% compared to 14% in the non-HBO2 (p<0.001). Overall survival was inferior after HBO2 compared to the non-HBO2 (p=0.03). Conclusion: Preoperative HBO2 did not affect perioperative outcomes or significantly change the inflammatory mediators for patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Long-term survival was inferior after preoperative HBO2 . Further randomized controlled studies are required to assess the full impact of this treatment on patients’ prognosis.

BACKGROUND:Difficulty scoring system (DSS) has been established for laparoscopic hepatectomy and serves as useful tools to predict difficulty and guide preoperative planning. Despite increased adoption of robotics and its unique technical characteristics compared with laparoscopy, no DSS currently exists for robotic hepatectomy. We aimed to introduce a new DSS for robotic hepatectomy. METHODS:A total of 328 patients undergoing a robotic hepatectomy were identified. After removing the first 24 major and 30 minor hepatectomies using cumulative-sum analysis, 274 patients were included in this study. Relevant clinical variables underwent linear regression using operative time and/or estimated blood loss (EBL) as markers for operative difficulty. Score distribution was analyzed to develop a difficulty-level grouping system. RESULTS:Of the 274 patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; tumor location, size, and type; the extent of parenchymal resection; the need for portal lymphadenectomy; and the need for biliary resection with hepaticojejunostomy were significantly associated with operative time and/or EBL. They were used to develop the difficulty scores from 1 to 49. Grouping system results were group 1 (less demanding/beginner), 1 to 8 (n = 39); group 2 (intermediate), 9 to 24 (n = 208); group 3 (more demanding/advanced), 25 to 32 (n = 17); and group 4 (most demanding/expert), 33 to 49 (n = 10). When stratified by group, age, previous abdominal operation, Child-Pugh score, operative duration, EBL, major resection, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and length of stay were significantly different among the groups. CONCLUSION:In addition to established variables in laparoscopic systems, new factors such as the need for portal lymphadenectomy and biliary resection specific to the robotic approach have been identified in this new robotic DSS. Internal and external validations are the next steps in maturing this robotic DSS.

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings. Summary Background Data: Clear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined. Methods: In this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥grade 2, postoperative bile leak ≥grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+. Results: Among the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After PSM, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs. 71.8%, P<0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs. 50.4%, P=0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs. 47.1%, P<0.001), blood loss (100 vs. 200 milliliters, P<0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs. 7.9%, P=0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P<0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs. 25.7%, P<0.001) and R0 resection margins (89.8% vs. 86%, P=0.015), but longer operative times (190 vs. 210 min, P=0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared to LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n=431 per group, 75.9% vs. 71.2%, P=0.184) and major resections (n=321 per group, 72.9% vs. 67.5%, P=0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: While both producing excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.

Background: Despite increased adoption of the robotic platform for complex hepatobiliary resections for malignant disease, little is known about long-term survival outcomes. This is the first study to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, and short- and long-term survival rates after a robotic hepatectomy for five major malignant disease processes. Methods: A prospectively collected database of patients who underwent a robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease was reviewed. Pathologies included colorectal liver metastases (CLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), Klatskin tumor, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and gallbladder cancer (GC). Data are presented as median (mean +/- standard deviation) for illustrative purposes. Results: Of the 210 consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy for malignant disease, 75 (35 %) had CLM, 69 (33 %) had HCC, 27 (13 %) had Klatskin tumor, 20 (10 %) had IHCC, and 19 (9 %) had GC. Patients were 66 (65 +/- 12.4) years old with a BMI of 29 (29 +/- 6.5) kg/m2. R0 resection was achieved in 91 %, and 65 % underwent a major hepatectomy. Postoperative major complication rate was 6 %, length of stay was four (5 +/- 4.3) days, and 30-day readmission rate was 17 %. Survival at 1, 3, and 5-years were 93 %/75 %/72 % for CLM, 84 %/71 %/64 % for HCC, 73 %/55 %/55 % for Klatskin tumor, 80 %/69 %/69 % for IHCC, 79 %/65 %/65 % for GC. Conclusion: This study suggests a favorable 5-year overall survival benefit with use of the robotic platform in hepatic resection for colorectal metastases, hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, Klatskin tumor, and gallbladder cancer. The robotic platform facilitates fine dissection in complex hepatobiliary operations, with a high rate of R0 resections and excellent perioperative clinical outcomes.

Objective: To compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings. Background: Clear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined. Methods: In this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: (1) minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or (2) posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and (3) major resections (>= 3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents >= grade 2, postoperative bile leak >= grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+. Results: Among the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After propensity score matching, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs 71.8%, P < 0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs 50.4%, P = 0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs 47.1%, P < 0.001), blood loss (100 vs 200 milliliters, P < 0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs 7.9%, P = 0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P < 0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs 25.7%, P < 0.001), and microscopically irradical resection margins (10.1% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.015), and shorter operative times (190 vs 210 minutes, P = 0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared with LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n = 431 per group, 75.9% vs 71.2%, P = 0.184) and major resections (n = 321 per group, 72.9% vs 67.5%, P = 0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: While both produce excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.

Approximately 50% of patients with colon and rectal cancer develop synchronous or metachronous liver metastasis. Treatment approach for this disease has undergone significant revolutionary changes from supportive care only (1970s) to palliative systemic chemotherapy only (1980-1990s) and now aggressive surgical resection in combination with modern systemic chemotherapy (2000s). Bilateral hepatic metastasis once considered an unresectable disease is now uniformly treated with hepatic resection with a goal of complete tumor clearance. At the beginning of the liver surgery era marked by Couinaud description of intrahepatic segmental anatomy, extensive resection of liver parenchyma to remove multifocal tumors was commonly practiced by liver surgeons. While regenerative capacity of the remaining liver parenchyma is robust and reliable in most patients, the incidence of fatal posthepatectomy liver failure is not insignificant after extensive liver resection. Recognition of this potential major complication prompted another revolutionary change in operative technique during liver surgery. Parenchymal sparing liver surgery incorporating tumor thermal ablation using radiofrequency or microwave technology becomes the preferred technique. As minimally invasive technique emerges in liver surgery, parenchymal sparing principle continues to be held as the gold standard. Despite the commonly discussed advantages of laparoscopic or robotic parenchymal sparing liver surgery in the literature, a detailed description of this modern technique is nonexistent. In this video article, we describe our technique of robotic anatomical left hepatectomy and caudate lobe resection with contralateral tumor ablation for bilobar colorectal liver metastases. A 76-year-old man presented with stage 4 bilobar colorectal liver metastases after prior left colectomy followed by 6 months of systemic chemotherapy treatment. Preoperative computed tomography scan showed multiple foci of metastatic disease including lesions in segment 7, 4, 3, and 1 (caudate lobe). Preoperative upper endoscopy and colonoscopy were unremarkable. The robotic hepatectomy was undertaken using the da Vinci Xi® model (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, California, USA). The robotic system was docked over the patient’s right shoulder. A standard arterial and central venous catheter were placed. The patient was laid supine on the operating table with 15° reverse Trendelenburg and 5° left-sided tilt. A bedside surgeon stood to the patient right utilizing laparoscopic instruments to provide dynamic exposure, suctioning, clipping, or stapling as appropriate and ultimately extracted the specimen at the end of the operation. After a negative diagnostic laparoscopy, the operation first began with adhesiolysis and left hemiliver mobilization. The left coronary and triangular ligament were divided using a robotic hook cautery and bipolar forceps toward the origin of the left hepatic vein as it enters the inferior vena cava (IVC). Significant adhesions were encountered in the area of hepatocaval confluence due to the presence of tumor. The gastrohepatic ligament was then opened in a stellate fashion exposing the caudate lobe. A robotic ultrasound device was used to mark the line for liver transection securing at least 1 cm margin around the tumor. The Tilepro feature of the robotic system is helpful in integrating ultrasonographic and videoscopic images to the console. Portal dissection began by lifting the liver anteriorly using a nontraumatic bowel grasper mounted on the robotic arm #4. The robotic platform facilitated a technically more straightforward isolation of the left hepatic artery and portal vein, supplying the left lobe of the liver. The

Backgrounds and Objectives Up to 50% of patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) present with liver metastases (CLM) throughout their course. Complete resection of both sites provides the only chance for cure. Either a staged or simultaneous resection is feasible. The latter avoids delays in adjuvant systemic chemotherapy but may increase technical complexity and perioperative complications. We aim to evaluate our initial outcomes of simultaneous CRC and CLM resections with a focus on the robotic technique. Method With institutional review board approval, we followed 26 consecutive patients who underwent simultaneous/concomitant liver and colorectal resection. Major liver resection is defined as resection of ≥3 contiguous Couinaud segments. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Results Patients were 64 (63 ± 14.0) years old. Body mass index was 29 (29 ± 5.7) kg/m 2 . 54% of patients had prior abdominal operation(s). A majority of patients were >ASA class III (73%), underwent major liver resection (62%) with robotic approach (77%). In the robotic cohort, there were no unplanned conversions to open. Estimated blood loss was 150 (210 ± 181.8) ml. Total operative duration was 446 (463 ± 93.6) minutes. Negative margins (R0) were obtained in all patients. Postoperative complication of Clavien-Dindo≥3 occurred in three patients, including one requiring reoperation with end ileostomy for anastomotic leak. Length of stay was 5 (6 ± 3.5) days. Three patients were readmitted within 30 days after discharge, none for reoperation. There was no 90-day mortality. Conclusion Our cohort of concomitant CRC and CLM resection demonstrates safety and efficacy via both the open and robotic approach.

BACKGROUND:The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) classification system is one of several widely accepted difficulty scoring systems for laparoscopic liver resections. Nothing is yet known about the applicability of this system for robotic liver resections.METHODS:We conducted a retrospective review of 359 patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies between 2016 and 2022. Resections were classified into low, intermediate, and high difficulty level. Data were analyzed utilizing ANOVA of repeated measures, 3 x 2 contingency tables, and area under the receiving operating characteristic (AUROC) curves. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).RESULTS:Of the 359 patients, 117 were classified as low-difficulty level, 92 as intermediate, and 150 as high. The IMM system correlates well with tumor size (p = 0.002). The IMM system was a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes including operative duration (p<0.001) and estimated blood loss (EBL) (p<0.001). The IMM system also showed a strong calibration for predicting an open conversion (AUC=0.705) and intraoperative complications (AUC=0.79). In contrast, the IMM system was a poor predictor of postoperative complications, mortality, and readmission.CONCLUSION:The IMM system provides a strong correlation with intraoperative, but not postoperative outcomes. A dedicated difficulty scoring system should be developed for robotic hepatectomy.

The majority of retroperitoneal mass excision is performed via conventional "open" laparotomy due to concerns of technical difficulty and adequate oncological margins in cases of a malignant sarcoma. A very few cases of minimally invasive resection by laparoscopy had been reported in the literature. Despite the rapid adoption of robotic technology in general surgery and surgical oncology, the robotic technique has not been applied for this pathology. We discussed a complete resection of a large perinephric tumor using a robotic platform. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report the robotic technique of retroperitoneal tumor excision, highlighting the application and usefulness of intraurethral indocyanine green (ICG) injection.

Ross, Sharona B MD, FACS; Jacoby, Harel MD; Sucandy, Iswanto MD; LaRocque, Breann BS; Syblis, Cameron; Crespo, Kaitlyn BS; Rosemurgy, Alexander S II MD, FACS Author Information

BACKGROUND:The robotic approach has vast applications in surgery; however, the utility of robotic gastrectomy has yet to be clearly defined. This study aimed to compare outcomes following robotic gastrectomy at our institution to the national patient-specific predicted outcomes data provided by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP).METHODS:We prospectively studied 73 patients who underwent robotic gastrectomy under our care. ACS NSQIP outcomes after gastrectomy and predicted outcomes for our patients were compared with our actual outcomes utilizing students t test and chi-square analysis, where applicable. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).RESULTS:Patients were 65 (66 ± 10.7) years old with a BMI of 26 (28 ± 6.5) kg/m2. 35 patients had gastric adenocarcinomas and 22 had gastrointestinal stromal tumors Operative duration was 245 (250 ± 114.7) minutes, estimated blood loss was 50 (83 ± 91.6) mL, and there were no conversions to 'open'. 1% of patients experienced superficial surgical site infections compared to the NSQIP predicted rate of 10% (P < .05). Length of stay (LOS) was 5 (6 ± 4.2) days vs NSQIP's predicted LOS of 8 (8 ± 3.2) days (P < .05). Three patients died during their postoperative hospital course (4%), due to multi-system organ failure and cardiac arrest. 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year estimated survival for patients with gastric adenocarcinoma was 76%, 63%, and 63%, respectively.DISCUSSION:Robotic gastrectomy yields salutary patient outcomes and optimal survival for varying gastric diseases, particularly gastric adenocarcinoma. Our patients experienced shorter hospital stays and reduced complications relative to patients in NSQIP and predicted outcome for our patients. Gastrectomy undertaken robotically is the future of gastric resection.

Background Identification of resections with high risk of intraoperative complications is critical in guiding case selection for minimally invasive liver surgery. Several Japanese and European difficulty scoring systems have been proposed for laparoscopic liver surgery. However, the applicability of these systems for robotic liver resections has not been fully investigated. This study considers the Southampton system and examines its validity when applied to robotic hepatectomies. Methods We undertook a retrospective review of 372 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomies for various indications between 2013 and 2022. Of these patients, 63 operations were classified as low risk, 91 as moderate risk, 198 as high risk and 20 as extremely high risk based on Southampton criteria. Patient outcomes were compared by utilizing an ANOVA of repeated measures. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD) Results The Southampton difficulty scoring system was a strong predictor of intraoperative variables including tumor size, operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), and incidence of major vs minor resection (all P < .0001). In contrast, the Southampton system was a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes including 30-day mortality (P = .15), length of stay (P = .13), and readmissions within 30 days (P = .38). Conclusion The Southampton difficulty scoring system is a valid system for classifying robotic liver resections and is a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes. However, the system was found to be a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes. This finding may suggest the need for proposal of a new difficulty scoring system for robotic hepatectomies.