To compare the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy (RALH) with laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in the treatment of liver tumors.

A comprehensive search of English-language literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to June 2024. Studies comparing RALH and LH for liver tumors were identified, and after qualitative evaluation, a meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 software.

After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 articles were included, including 29,969 patients, with 5673 in the RALH group and 24,296 in the LH group. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the LH group, surgery time was longer in the RALH group (MD = 55.33; 95% CI: 34.84-75.83; P < .001), the conversion to open surgery rate was higher (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.05; P < .001), the total cost was higher (MD = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.14-0.73; P = .004), and the tumor diameter was larger (MD = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.24-0.49; P < .001). Additionally, the R1 resection rate was higher in the RALH group (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.06; P < .001). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative transfusion rate, hepatic hilar occlusion rate, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, mortality rate, malignancy rate, or R0 resection rate (P > .05).

Based on current evidence, RALH is safe and effective, although it is associated with higher total costs, increased blood transfusion rates, and longer operative times. However, there were no significant differences between RALH and LH in terms of other outcome indicators, suggesting that both procedures offer similar surgical efficacy and safety. Further clinical randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.

The dissemination of robotic liver surgery is slow-paced and must face the obstacle of demonstrating advantages over open and laparoscopic (LLS) approaches. Our objective was to show the current position of robotic liver surgery (RLS) worldwide and to identify if improved short-term outcomes are observed, including secondary meta-analyses for type of resection, etiology, and cost analysis.

A PRISMA-based systematic review was performed to identify manuscripts comparing RLS vs open or LLS approaches. Quality analysis was performed using the Newcatle-Ottawa score. Statistical analysis was performed after heterogeneity test and fixed- or random-effect models were chosen accordingly.

After removing duplications, 2728 RLS cases were identified from the final set of 150 manuscripts. More than 75% of the cases have been performed on malignancies. Meta-analysis from the 38 comparative reports showed that RLS may offer improved short-term outcomes compared to open procedures in most of the variables screened. Compared to LLS, some advantages may be observed in favour of RLS for major resections in terms of operative time, hospital stay and rate of complications. Cost analyses showed an increased cost per procedure of around US$5000.

The advantages of RLS still need to be demonstrated although early results are promising. Advantages vs open approach are demonstrated. Compared to laparoscopic surgery, minor perioperative advantages may be observed for major resections although cost analyses are still unfavorable to the robotic approach.

Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections.

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model.

Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005).

Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

To compare the results of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with hepatic resection in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within the Milan criteria.

A nonrandomized comparative study was performed with 111 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic RFA (n = 31) or curative hepatic resection (n = 80) for HCC within Milan criteria.

Procedure related complications were less often and severe after RFA than resection (3.2% vs. 25%). There was no significant difference in hospital mortality (0% vs. 3.8%). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RFA group than in the resection group (mean, 3.8 vs. 6.8 days). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates for the RFA group and the resection group were 76%, 40%, 40% and 76%, 60%, 60%, respectively. Disease-free survival was significantly lower in the RFA group than in the resection group. The corresponding 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates for the RFA group and the resection group were 100%, 92%, 84%, and 92%, 75%, 71%, respectively. The overall survival for RFA and resection were not significantly different.

Our result showed comparable overall survival between RFA and surgery, although RFA was associated with a significantly higher tumor recurrence rate. RFA had the advantages over surgical resection in being less invasive and having lower morbidity.