With increasing trends for the adoption of robotic surgery, many centers are considering changing their practices from open or laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted rectal resection with those of open and laparoscopic surgery. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until October 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing robotic surgery with open or laparoscopic rectal resection were included. Fifteen RCTs and 11 prospective studies involving 6922 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that robotic surgery has lower blood loss, less surgical site infection, shorter hospital stays, and higher negative resection margins than open resection. Robotic surgery also has lower conversion rates, lower blood loss, lower rates of reoperation, and higher negative circumferential margins than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery had longer operation times and higher costs than open and laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences in other complications, mortality, and survival between robotic surgery and the open or laparoscopic approach. However, heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high in some analyses. The robotic approach can be the method of choice for centers planning to change from open to minimally invasive rectal surgery. The higher costs of robotic surgery should be considered as a substitute for laparoscopic surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022381468).

Background: ALPPS popularity is increasing among surgeons worldwide and its indications are expanding to cure patients with primarily unresectable liver tumors. Few reports recommended limitations or even contraindications of ALPPS in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (phCC). Here, we discuss the results of ALPPS in patients with phCC in a systematic review as well as a pooled data analysis. Methods: MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for relevant literature up to December 2023. All studies reporting ALPPS in the management of phCC were included. A single-arm meta-analysis of proportions was carried out to estimate the overall rate of outcomes. Results: After obtaining 207 articles from the primary search, data of 18 studies containing 112 phCC patients were included in our systematic review. Rates of major morbidity and mortality were calculated to be 43% and 22%, respectively. The meta-analysis revealed a PHLF rate of 23%. One-year disease-free survival was 65% and one-year overall survival was 69%. Conclusions: ALPPS provides a good chance of cure for patients with phCC in comparison to alternative treatment options, but at the expense of debatable morbidity and mortality. With refinement of the surgical technique and better perioperative patient management, the results of ALPPS in patients with phCC were improved.

Background: Liver transplantation is the only promising treatment for end-stage liver disease and patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. However, too many organs are rejected for transplantation. Methods: We analyzed the factors involved in organ allocation in our transplant center and reviewed all livers that were declined for transplantation. Reasons for declining organs for transplantation were categorized as major extended donor criteria (maEDC), size mismatch and vascular problems, medical reasons and risk of disease transmission, and other reasons. The fate of the declined organs was analyzed. Results: 1086 declined organs were offered 1200 times. A total of 31% of the livers were declined because of maEDC, 35.5% because of size mismatch and vascular problems, 15.8% because of medical reasons and risk of disease transmission, and 20.7% because of other reasons. A total of 40% of the declined organs were allocated and transplanted. A total of 50% of the organs were completely discarded, and significantly more of these grafts had maEDC than grafts that were eventually allocated (37.5% vs. 17.7%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Most organs were declined because of poor organ quality. Donor-recipient matching at time of allocation and organ preservation must be improved by allocating maEDC grafts using individualized algorithms that avoid high-risk donor-recipient combinations and unnecessary organ declination.