Objective: To determine the nationwide implementation and surgical outcome of minor and major robotic liver surgery (RLS) and assess the first phase of implementation of RLS during the learning curve. Background: RLS may be a valuable alternative to laparoscopic liver surgery. Nationwide population-based studies with data on implementation and outcome of RLS are lacking. Methods: Multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients who underwent RLS for all indications in 9 Dutch centers (August 2014–March 2021). Data on all liver resections were obtained from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit (DHBA) including data from all 27 centers for liver surgery in the Netherlands. Outcomes were stratified for minor, technically major, and anatomically major RLS. Learning curve effect was assessed using cumulative sum analysis for blood loss. Results: Of 9437 liver resections, 400 were RLS (4.2%) procedures including 207 minor (52.2%), 141 technically major (35.3%), and 52 anatomically major (13%). The nationwide use of RLS increased from 0.2% in 2014 to 11.9% in 2020. The proportion of RLS among all minimally invasive liver resections increased from 2% to 28%. Median blood loss was 150 mL (interquartile range 50–350 mL] and the conversion rate 6.3% (n=25). The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 7.0% (n=27), median length of hospital stay 4 days (interquartile range 2–5) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 0.8% (n=3). The R0 resection rate was 83.2% (n=263). Cumulative sum analysis for blood loss found a learning curve of at least 33 major RLS procedures. Conclusions: The nationwide use of RLS in the Netherlands has increased rapidly with currently one-tenth of all liver resections and one-fourth of all minimally invasive liver resections being performed robotically. Although surgical outcomes of RLS in selected patient seem favorable, future prospective studies should determine its added value.

Objective: To assess the learning curve of pancreaticojejunostomy during robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) and to predict the risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) by using the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS), taking the fistula risk into account. Background: RPD is a challenging procedure that requires extensive training and confirmation of adequate surgical performance. Video grading, modified for RPD, of the pancreatic anastomosis could assess the learning curve of RPD and predict the risk of POPF. Methods: Post hoc assessment of patients prospectively included in 4 Dutch centers in a nationwide LAELAPS-3 training program for RPD. Video grading of the pancreaticojejunostomy was performed by 2 graders using OSATS (attainable score: 12–60). The main outcomes were the combined OSATS of the 2 graders and POPF (grade B/C). Cumulative sum analyzed a turning point in the learning curve for surgical skill. Logistic regression determined the cutoff for OSATS. Patients were categorized for POPF risk (ie, low, intermediate, and high) based on the updated alternative fistula risk scores. Results: Videos from 153 pancreatic anastomoses were included. Median OSATS score was 48 (interquartile range: 41–52) points and with a turning point at 33 procedures. POPF occurred in 39 patients (25.5%). An OSATS score below 49, present in 77 patients (50.3%), was associated with an increased risk of POPF (odds ratio: 4.01, P=0.004). The POPF rate was 43.6% with OSATS < 49 versus 15.8% with OSATS ≥49. The updated alternative fistula risk scores category “soft pancreatic texture” was the second strongest prognostic factor of POPF (odds ratio: 3.37, P=0.040). Median cumulative surgical experience was 17 years (interquartile range: 8–21). Conclusions: Video grading of the pancreatic anastomosis in RPD using OSATS identified a learning curve and a reduced risk of POPF in case of better surgical performance. Video grading may provide a valid method to surgical training, quality control, and improvement.

Background: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. Patients and methods: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. Results: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% (P<0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P<0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P<0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P=0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P=0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m², previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. Conclusion: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.

For patients presenting with hepatocellular carcinoma within the Milan criteria, either liver resection or liver transplantation can be performed. However, to what extent either of these treatment options is superior in terms of long-term survival is unknown. Obviously, the comparison of these treatments is complicated by several selection processes. In this article, we comprehensively review the current literature with a focus on factors accounting for selection bias. Thus far, studies that did not perform an intention-to-treat analysis conclude that liver transplantation is superior to liver resection for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. In contrast, studies performing an intention-to-treat analysis state that survival is comparable between both modalities. Furthermore, all studies demonstrate that disease-free survival is longer after liver transplantation compared to liver resection. With respect to the latter, implications of recurrences for survival are rarely discussed. Heterogeneous treatment effects and logical inconsistencies indicate that studies with a higher level of evidence are needed to determine if liver transplantation offers a survival benefit over liver resection. However, randomised controlled trials, as the golden standard, are believed to be infeasible. Therefore, we suggest an alternative research design from the causal inference literature. The rationale for a regression discontinuity design that exploits the natural experiment created by the widely adopted Milan criteria will be discussed. In this type of study, the analysis is focused on liver transplantation patients just within the Milan criteria and liver resection patients just outside, hereby ensuring equal distribution of confounders.

Liver transplantation is the most successful treatment for limited-stage HCC. The waiting time for liver transplantation (LT) can be a critical factor affecting the oncological prognosis and outcome of patients with HCC. Efficient strategies to optimize waiting time are essential to maximize the benefits of LT and to reduce the harm of delay in transplantation. The ever-increasing demand for donor livers emphasizes the need to improve the organization of the waiting list for transplantation and to optimize organ availability for patients with and without HCC. Current progress in innovations to expand the donor pool includes the implementation of living donor LT and the use of grafts from extended donors. By expanding selection criteria, an increased number of patients are eligible for transplantation, which necessitates criteria to prevent futile transplantations. Thus, the selection criteria for LT have evolved to include not only tumor characteristics but biomarkers as well. Enhancing our understanding of HCC tumor biology through the analysis of subtypes and molecular genetics holds significant promise in advancing the personalized approach for patients. In this review, the effect of waiting time duration on outcome in patients with HCC enlisted for LT is discussed.

Background: Postoperative pancreatic fistula is the main driver of morbidity and mortality after pancreatoduodenectomy. In high-risk patients, the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula approaches 50%, whereas it is below 5% in patients with pancreatic cancer who receive neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy on the pancreatic neck transection margin in high-risk patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula. Methods: In this prospective multicentre open-label single-arm trial (progressing from a safety run-in phase to a phase II design), patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for neoplasms other than pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma received a single preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy dose of 12 Gy. Primary endpoints included safety (less than or equal to 15% grade 3–5 toxicity), feasibility (a significant change in pancreatic texture measured using a durometer), and efficacy (a 15% reduction in the grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula rate compared with patients from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit who were eligible but not included in this study). Secondary endpoints assessed tissue fibrosis (collagen density). Results: Overall, 38 patients were included, of whom 33 (87%) completed the study protocol and were included in the per-protocol analysis. The safety cut-off was met, with 3% grade 3–5 toxicity. Pancreatic tissue treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy showed increased firmness using a durometer (median of 47 (interquartile range 36–57) versus 37 (interquartile range 30–41) Shore OO units; P < 0.001) and a higher collagen density (median of 6.1% (interquartile range 4.4%–9.5%) versus 4.6% (interquartile range 2.5%–7.4%); P = 0.003). The grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula rate with stereotactic body radiotherapy was 57.6% (95% c.i. 41% to 74%), compared with 34% (95% c.i. 27% to 42%) in audit controls (P = 0.011). Conclusion: Preoperative stereotactic body radiotherapy is safe in high-risk patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy and increases parenchymal firmness and fibrosis, but fails to show evidence of efficacy.