Robotic Central Hepatectomy for the Treatment of Gallbladder Carcinoma. Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Approach

Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is an uncommon but very aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis. Concerns for oncological inferiority related to the technical difficulties in performing laparoscopic portal lymphadenectomy discourage many surgeons to undertake this operation minimally invasively. With wide application of robotic technology to solve limitations of conventional laparoscopy, we describe our initial outcomes of robotic central hepatectomy and portal lymphadenectomy for gallbladder carcinoma in 15 consecutive patients. Data were presented as median (mean ± SD). Patients were 70 (73 ± 10.9) years old with BMI of 26 (26 ± 3.6) kg/m2. Tumor size was 3(4 ± 1.9) cm. Operative duration was 222 (237 ± 85.7) minutes and estimated blood loss was 200 (222 ± 135.4) mL. There were no intraoperative complications and complete resection (R0) was obtained in nearly all patients. Postoperative complications were seen in two patients (bile leak (n = 1) and respiratory failure (n = 1)). Length of stay was 3 (4 ± 4.0) days without 30-day mortality. Robotic approach is safe and effective for the treatment of GBC.

Evaluating the Cost for Robotic vs “Non-Robotic” Transhiatal Esophagectomy

Introduction This study was undertaken to analyze and compare the cost of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) to “non-robotic” THE (ie, “open” and laparoscopic). Methods With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 82 patients who underwent THE. We analyzed clinical outcomes and perioperative charges and costs associated with THE. To compare profitability, the robotic approach was analyzed against “non-robotic” approaches of THE using F-test, Mann-Whitney U test/Student’s t-test, and Fisher’s exact test. Statistical significance was reported as P ≤0.05. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Results 67 patients underwent the robotic approach, and 15 patients underwent “non-robotic” approach; 4 were “open” and 11 were laparoscopic. 79 patients had adenocarcinoma. Operative duration for robotic THE was 327 (331 ± 82.8) vs 213 (225 ± 62.0) minutes ( P = 0.0001) and estimated blood loss was 150 (184 ± 136.1) vs 300 (476 ± 708.7) mL ( P = 0.0001). Length of stay was 7 (11 ± 11.8) vs 8 (12 ± 10.6) days ( P = 0.76). 16 patients had post-operative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of three or more. Hospital charges for robotic THE were $197,405 ($259,936 ± 203,630.8) vs “non-robotic” THE $159,588 ($201,565 ± $185,763.5) ( P = 0.31). Cost of care for robotic THE was $34,822 ($48,844 ± $45,832.8) vs “non-robotic” THE was $23,939 ($39,386 ± $44,827.2) ( P = 0.47). Payment received for robotic THE was $14,365 ($30,003 ± $40,874.7) vs “non-robotic” THE was $28,080 ($41,087 ± $44,509.1) ( P = 0.41). 15% of robotic operations were profitable vs 13% of “non-robotic” operations. Conclusions Patients were predominantly older overweight men who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The robotic approach had increased operative time and minimal blood loss. More than a fourth of operations included concomitant procedures. Patients were discharged approximately one week after THE. Overall, the robotic approach has no apparent significant differences in charges, cost, or profitability.

Advanced Robotic Surgery: Liver, Pancreas, and Esophagus – The State of the Art?

<b><i>Background:</i></b> The trend in performing robotic-assisted operations in visceral surgery has been increasing in the last decade, also reaching the challenging field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery. Nevertheless, solid data about advantages and disadvantages of the robotic approach are still missing. The aim of this review is to analyze the benefit and impact of robotic surgery in the field of hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal surgery, focusing on the comparison with the conventional laparoscopic or open approach. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> The well-known advantages of laparoscopic surgery in comparison to the open approach are also valid for robotic surgery, with the addition of a 3D-view camera, wristed instrumentation, and an ergonomic console. On the other hand, the use of a robotic system leads to longer operating time and higher costs. Randomized controlled trials comparing the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one are still missing. <b><i>Key Message:</i></b> Recent meta-analyses show promising results of the usage of robotic systems in advanced surgical procedures, like hepatic, pancreatic, and esophageal resections. Further randomized studies are needed to validate the postulated benefit.