Background: The current evidence is inconclusive on whether robotic or laparoscopic surgery is the optimal platform for minimally invasive surgery. Existing comparisons techniques focus on short-term outcomes only, while potentially being confounded by a lack of standardisation in robotic procedures. There is a pertinent need for an up-to-date comparison between minimally invasive surgical techniques. We aimed to systematically review randomised controlled trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques in major surgery. Methods: Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to 13th September 2022. Included studies were randomised controlled trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques in abdominal and pelvic surgery. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Short-term, health-related quality of life, and long-term, outcomes were analysed. Results: Forty-five studies, across thirteen procedures, involving 7364 patients were included. All of the studies reported non-significant differences in mortality between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. In majority of studies, there was no significant difference in complication rate (n = 31/35, 85.6%), length of postoperative stay (n = 27/32, 84.4%), and conversion rate (n = 15/18, 83.3%). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter operative time (n = 16/31, 51.6%) and lower total cost (n = 11/13, 84.6%). Twenty three studies reported on quality of life outcomes; majority (n = 14/23, 60.9%) found no significant differences. Conclusion: There were no significant differences between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery with regards to mortality and morbidity outcomes in the majority of studies. Robotic surgery was frequently associated with longer operative times and higher overall cost. Selected studies found potential benefits in post-operative recovery time, and patient-reported outcomes; however, these were not consistent across procedures and trials, with most studies being underpowered to detect differences in secondary outcomes. Future research should focus on assessing quality of life, and long-term outcomes to further elucidate where the robotic platform could lead to patient benefits, as the technology evolves.

To avoid liver insufficiency following major hepatic resection, portal vein embolisation (PVE) is used to induce liver hypertrophy pre-operatively. Associating liver partition with portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy assisted with radiofrequency (RALPPS) was introduced as an alternative method. A randomized controlled trial comparing PVE with RALPPS for the pre-operative manipulation of liver volume in patients with a future liver remnant volume (FLRV) ≤25% (or ≤35% if receiving preoperative chemotherapy) was conducted. The primary endpoint was increase in size of the FLRV. The secondary endpoints were length of time taken for the volume gain, morbidity, operation length and post-operative liver function. Between July 2015 and October 2017, 57 patients were randomised to RALPPS (n = 29) and PVE (n = 28). The mean percentage of increase in the FLRV was 80.7 ± 13.7% after a median 20 days following RALPPS compared to 18.4 ± 9.8% after 35 days (p < 0.001) following PVE. Twenty-four patients after RALPPS and 21 after PVE underwent stage-2 operation. Final resection was achieved in 92.3% and 66.6% patients in RALPPS and PVE, respectively (p = 0.007). There was no difference in morbidity, and one 30-day mortality after RALPPS (p = 0.991) was reported. RALPPS is more effective than PVE in increasing FLRV and the number of patients for surgical resection.

The uptake of robotic surgery is rapidly increasing worldwide across surgical specialties. However, there is currently a much higher use of robotic surgery in the United States of America (USA) compared to the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. Reduced exposure to robotic surgery in training may lead to longer learning curves and worse patient outcomes. We aimed to identify whether any difference exists in exposure to robotic surgery during general surgical training between trainees in the USA, UK and Ireland. Over a 15-week period from September 2021, a survey was distributed through the professional networks of the research team. Participants were USA, UK or Irish trainees who were part of a formal general surgical training curriculum. 116 survey responses were received. US trainees (n = 34) had all had robotic simulator experience, compared to only 37.93% of UK (n = 58) and 75.00% of Irish (n = 24) trainees (p <  0.00001). 91.18% of US trainees had performed 15 or more cases as the console surgeon, compared to only 3.44% of UK and 16.67% of Irish trainees (p <  0.00001). Fifty UK trainees (86.21%) and 22 Irish trainees (91.67%) compared to 12 US trainees (35.29%) do not think they have had adequate robotics training (p <  0.00001). Surgical trainees in the USA have had significantly more exposure to training in robotic surgery than their UK and Irish counterparts.

Technical limitations of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), in comparison to robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP), may translate to high conversion rates and morbidity. LDP and RDP procedures performed between December 2008 and January 2023 in our tertiary referral hepatobiliary and pancreatic centres were analysed and compared with regard to short-term outcomes. A total of 62 consecutive LDP cases and 61 RDP cases were performed. There was more conversion to open surgeries in the laparoscopic group compared with the robotic group (21.0% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.001). The LDP group also had a higher rate of postoperative complications (43.5% vs. 23.0%, p = 0.005). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of major complication or pancreatic fistular after operations (p = 0.20 and p = 0.71, respectively). For planned spleen-preserving operations, the RDP group had a shorter mean operative time (147 min vs. 194 min, p = 0.015) and a reduced total length of hospital stay compared with the LDP group (4 days vs. 7 days, p = 0.0002). The failure rate for spleen preservation was 0% in RDP and 20% (n = 5/25) in the LDP group (p = 0.009). RDP offered a better method for splenic preservation with Kimura’s technique compared with LDP to avoid the risk of splenic infarction and gastric varices related to ligation and division of splenic pedicles. RDP should be the standard operation for the resection of pancreatic tumours at the body and tail of the pancreas without involving the celiac axis or common hepatic artery.