Background: Robotic procedures are an integral part of modern liver surgery. However, the advantages of a robotic approach in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic approach are the subject of controversial debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic and laparoscopic liver resection with particular attention to the resection margin status in malignant cases. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Cochrane Library in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Only studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resections were considered for this meta-analysis. Furthermore, the rate of the positive resection margin or R0 rate in malignant cases had to be clearly identifiable. We used fixed or random effects models according to heterogeneity. Results: Fourteen studies with a total number of 1530 cases were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Malignancies were identified in 71.1% (n = 1088) of these cases. These included hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal liver metastases and other malignancies of the liver. Positive resection margins were noted in 24 cases (5.3%) in the robotic group and in 54 cases (8.6%) in the laparoscopic group (OR = 0.71; 95% CI (0.42–1.18); p = 0.18). Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group (MD = 6.92; 95% CI (2.93–10.91); p = 0.0007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robotic procedure (MD = 28.12; 95% CI (3.66–52.57); p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches regarding the intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, overall and severe complications and conversion rate. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the robotic and laparoscopic procedures regarding the resection margin status. Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group. However, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate the benefits of robotics in liver surgery.

Background: The implementation of robotics in liver surgery offers several advantages compared to conventional open and laparoscopic techniques. One major advantage is the enhanced degree of freedom at the tip of the robotic tools compared to laparoscopic instruments. This enables excellent vessel control during inflow and outflow dissection of the liver. Parenchymal transection remains the most challenging part during robotic liver resection because currently available robotic instruments for parenchymal transection have several limitations and there is no standardized technique as of yet. We established a new strategy and share our experience. Methods: We present a novel technique for the transection of liver parenchyma during robotic surgery, using three devices (3D) simultaneously: monopolar scissors and bipolar Maryland forceps of the robot and laparoscopic-guided waterjet. We collected the perioperative data of twenty-eight patients who underwent this procedure for minor and major liver resections between February 2019 and December 2020 from the Magdeburg Registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). Results: Twenty-eight patients underwent robotic-assisted 3D parenchyma dissection within the investigation period. Twelve cases of major and sixteen cases of minor hepatectomy for malignant and non-malignant cases were performed. Operative time for major liver resections (≥ 3 liver segments) was 381.7 (SD 80.6) min vs. 252.0 (70.4) min for minor resections (p < 0.01). Intraoperative measured blood loss was 495.8 (SD 508.8) ml for major and 256.3 (170.2) ml for minor liver resections (p = 0.090). The mean postoperative stay was 13.3 (SD 11.1) days for all cases. Liver surgery-related morbidity was 10.7%, no mortalities occurred. We achieved an R0 resection in all malignant cases. Conclusions: The 3D technique for parenchyma dissection in robotic liver surgery is a safe and feasible procedure. This novel method offers an advanced locally controlled preparation of intrahepatic vessels and bile ducts. The combination of precise extrahepatic vessel handling with the 3D technique of parenchyma dissection is a fundamental step forward to the standardization of robotic liver surgery for teaching purposing and the wider adoption of robotic hepatectomy into routine patient care.

Zusammenfassung: Der Paradigmenwechsel im Behandlungskonzept der akuten Appendizitis sorgt aktuell für intensive Diskussionen. Die Diagnosestellung und Differenzierung einer unkomplizierten von einer komplizierten Appendizitis sowie die Auswahl einer adäquaten Therapie sind herausfordernd, insbesondere seitdem konservative Therapiemodelle publiziert wurden. Die laparoskopische Appendektomie stellt weiterhin den Standard für die meisten Fälle dar. Leitlinien zur Behandlung einer akuten Appendizitis existieren in Deutschland nicht. Eine Expertengruppe hat daher nach 3 Treffen insgesamt 21 Empfehlungen zur Behandlung der akuten Appendizitis erarbeitet. Es wurden PICO(Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome)-Fragen definiert und die Empfehlungen im Rahmen eines Delphi-Votums finalisiert. Die Ergebnisse wurden vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen Literatur erarbeitet. Das Ziel dieser Initiative war es, eine grundlegende Entscheidungshilfe für die klinische Routine in der Behandlung der akuten Appendizitis zu etablieren.

Robotic vs. laparoscopic liver surgery: what are the advantages of the robot? Roland S. Croner, Andrew A. Gumbs, Aristotelis Perrakis, Mihailo Andric, Jessica Stockheim, Eric Lorenz, Joerg Arend, Mareike Franz, Mirhasan Rahimli

Background: Liver failure is a crucial predictor for relevant morbidity and mortality after hepatic surgery. Hence, a good patient selection is mandatory. We use the LiMAx test for patient selection for major or minor liver resections in robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery and share our experience here. Patients and methods: We identified patients in the Magdeburg registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS) who underwent robotic or laparoscopic minor or major liver surgery and received a LiMAx test for preoperative evaluation of the liver function. This cohort was divided in two groups: patients with normal (LiMAx normal) and decreased (LiMAx decreased) liver function measured by the LiMAx test. Results: Forty patients were selected from the MD-MILS regarding the selection criteria (LiMAx normal, n = 22 and LiMAx decreased, n = 18). Significantly more major liver resections were performed in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (13 vs. 2; p = 0.003). Hence, the mean operation time was significantly longer in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (356.6 vs. 228.1 min; p = 0.003) and the intraoperative blood transfusion significantly higher in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (8 vs. 1; p = 0.027). There was no significant difference between the LiMAx groups regarding the length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, liver surgery related morbidity or mortality, and resection margin status. Conclusion: The LiMAx test is a helpful and reliable tool to precisely determine the liver function capacity. It aids in accurate patient selection for major or minor liver resections in minimally invasive liver surgery, which consequently serves to improve patients’ safety. In this way, liver resections can be performed safely, even in patients with reduced liver function, without negatively affecting morbidity, mortality and the resection margin status, which is an important predictive oncological factor.

Background/Objectives: In patients diagnosed with uncomplicated acute appendicitis (UAA), the absence of calcified deposits or stones, called appendicoliths, often leads to consideration of non-operative treatment (NOT), despite the notable treatment failure rate associated with this approach. Previous research has indirectly estimated the prevalence of appendicoliths to range between 15% and 38% retrospectively by CT scan, intraoperative palpation, and pathology report, thereby potentially missing certain concrements. Our hypothesis proposes that this reported prevalence significantly underestimates the occurrence of appendicoliths, which could explain the high failure rate of 29% of patients with appendicitis observed with NOT. Methods: In our prospective study, conducted with a cohort of 56 adult patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis (AA), we employed intraoperative extracorporeal incisions of the vermiform appendix, in addition to standard diagnostic methods. Results: Our findings revealed 50% more appendicoliths by intraoperative incision (n = 36, p < 0.001) compared to preoperative imaging (n = 24). Appendicoliths were present in 71.4% (n = 40, p < 0.001) of AA patients. Conclusions: These results suggest that conventional diagnostic procedures plausibly underestimate the actual prevalence of appendicoliths, potentially elucidating the frequent treatment failures observed in NOT approaches applied to patients with UAA.