Minimally invasive liver resections: a changing landscape and the rise of the robot

Minimally invasive liver resections: a changing landscape and the rise of the robot

Rachel E. Beard1, Allan Tsung2

1Department of Surgery, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA; 2Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Correspondence to: Allan Tsung, MD. Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3471 Fifth Ave, Suite 300, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. Email:

Provenance: This is an invited article commissioned by the Editorial Board Member Joseph F. Buell (Department of Surgery, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA; Department of Surgery, New Orleans Children’s Hospital, LSU Medical Systems, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA).

Comment on: Smith A, Konstantinidis IT, Fong Y, et al. A multi-institutional analysis of minimally invasive liver resections. Laparosc Surg 2018;2:35.

Received: 06 October 2018; Accepted: 09 October 2018; Published: 17 October 2018.

doi: 10.21037/ls.2018.10.04

Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly employed for liver resections for both oncologic and non-oncologic indications, and the safety and non-inferiority of both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted techniques as compared to the gold standard of open surgery is increasingly well-established (1-9). The variation in adoption of minimally invasive approaches amongst hepatobiliary surgeons, and overall preferences for laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted methods, warrant further consideration. Robotic-assisted surgery, as compared to a laparoscopic approach, offers distinct advantages including better visibility with a three-dimensional camera system, articulating instruments that mimic the motion of the human wrist and allow for easier suturing and fine dissection, and elimination of surgeon tremor. Disadvantages of a robotic approach include, arguably, greater expense, the loss of tactile feedback, and the removal of the surgeon from the patient bedside (10). From 2010 to 2016 there were 19 major series (including at least nine patients) which described 631 robotic liver resections (1,2,11-27).

In their paper “A multi-institutional analysis of minimally invasive liver resection”, Smith et al. examine the changing practice patterns of liver resections from 2000 to 2016 at three high-volume institutions in the United States, in particular the operative volumes and techniques of three senior hepatobiliary surgeons. In total they describe 1,323 liver resections consisting of 746 open procedures (56.4%), 530 laparoscopic procedures (40.1%) and 47 robotic-assisted procedures (3.6%). The paper illustrates the trend of liver resections over their 17-year study period in Figure 1. It is interesting to note that though there were certainly more minimally invasive liver resections performed in 2016 as compared to 2000 (40.5% vs. 0.5%, P<0.001), the proportion of laparoscopic liver resections peaked at >60% in 2006 and subsequently decreased to around 20% in 2015, while open liver resections increased from around 30% to more than 60% over the same time period. As the paper also states, the first robotic-assisted resection was performed in 2009 and subsequently increased though 2016, when this technique comprised 25.5% of all reported liver resections. Though this may explain in part the decline in laparoscopic resection rates, it does not seem to wholly explain the trend, especially in light of the significant increase in open resections.

Recent papers have focused on comparing outcomes following laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted liver resection, with mixed results (2,12-14,16,17,19,21,23-27). Some studies have shown longer operative times, an increased need for the Pringle maneuver and higher blood loss with robotic-assisted surgery. Other outcomes have largely been shown to be equivalent, and some studies failed to show difference in these parameters as well. More studies, including propensity matched reviews and randomized trials, are needed. When the differences in outcomes or lack, therefore, between the two techniques are better clarified, hepatobiliary surgeons may have more objective data to assist in their decision making in preferring one technique to the other.

This study also demonstrates that minimally invasive liver resections offer significant clinical benefits, including decreased intraoperative blood loss, decreased operative times, decreased hospital length-of-stays, and decreased major morbidity in particular lower rates of postoperative infections. Similar findings have been demonstrated in other studies, however it is worth noting that in this study population there were a significantly higher proportion of major resections in the open cohort as compared to the minimally invasive cohort (47.5% vs. 29.6%, P<0.0001) (1,28,29). Additionally, the rates of oncologic resections in the open group were nearly double that of the minimally invasive group (86.3% vs. 49.9%, P<0.0001). Both of these factors likely influenced, at least to some extent, the differences observed in perioperative and postoperative outcomes.

In conclusion, we congratulate the authors on an interesting overview of how the utilization of minimally invasive techniques for liver resections have evolved over a 17-year period at three leading, high-volume hepatobiliary institutions in the United States. Further potential areas of exploration include randomization between the two techniques, more detailed cost comparisons, and an increased emphasis on long-term and oncologic outcomes in addition to the increasingly well-described short-term, perioperative results.




Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. Kingham TP, Leung U, Kuk D, et al. Robotic Liver Resection: A Case-Matched Comparison. World J Surg 2016;40:1422-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Croner RS, Perrakis A, Hohenberger W, et al. Robotic liver surgery for minor hepatic resections: a comparison with laparoscopic and open standard procedures. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2016;401:707-14. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Wei M, He Y, Wang J, et al. Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy with or without synchronous colectomy for colorectal liver metastasis: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Kazaryan AM, Marangos IP, Rosok BI, et al. Laparoscopic resection of colorectal liver metastases: surgical and long-term oncologic outcome. Ann Surg 2010;252:1005-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Cannon RM, Scoggins CR, Callender GG, et al. Laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. Surgery 2012;152:567-73; discussion 573-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Doughtie CA, Egger ME, Cannon RM, et al. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a safe and effective approach for resecting large colorectal liver metastases. Am Surg 2013;79:566-71. [PubMed]
  7. Nguyen KT, Laurent A, Dagher I, et al. Minimally invasive liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional, international report of safety, feasibility, and early outcomes. Ann Surg 2009;250:842-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Abu Hilal M, Di Fabio F, Abu Salameh M, et al. Oncological efficiency analysis of laparoscopic liver resection for primary and metastatic cancer: a single-center UK experience. Arch Surg 2012;147:42-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Castaing D, Vibert E, Ricca L, et al. Oncologic results of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases in two specialized centers. Ann Surg 2009;250:849-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Ocuin LM, Tsung A. Robotic liver resection for malignancy: Current status, oncologic outcomes, comparison to laparoscopy, and future applications. J Surg Oncol 2015;112:295-301. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, et al. Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 2003;138:777-84. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Lee KF, Cheung YS, Chong CC, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy: experience from a single centre. ANZ J Surg 2016;86:122-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. Tsung A, Geller DA, Sukato DC, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison. Ann Surg 2014;259:549-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Wu YM, Hu RH, Lai HS, et al. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive liver resection. Asian J Surg 2014;37:53-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN. Robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: short-term outcome. Am J Surg 2013;205:697-702. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Troisi RI, Patriti A, Montalti R, et al. Robot assistance in liver surgery: a real advantage over a fully laparoscopic approach? Results of a comparative bi-institutional analysis. Int J Med Robot 2013;9:160-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Montalti R, Scuderi V, Patriti A, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver: a propensity score-matched comparison. Surg Endosc 2016;30:1004-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Choi GH, Choi SH, Kim SH, et al. Robotic liver resection: technique and results of 30 consecutive procedures. Surg Endosc 2012;26:2247-58. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Tranchart H, Ceribelli C, Ferretti S, et al. Traditional versus robot-assisted full laparoscopic liver resection: a matched-pair comparative study. World J Surg 2014;38:2904-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Chan OC, Tang CN, Lai EC, et al. Robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a cohort study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2011;18:471-80. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. Spampinato MG, Coratti A, Bianco L, et al. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted major hepatectomies: an Italian multi-institutional comparative study. Surg Endosc 2014;28:2973-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  22. Casciola L, Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, et al. Robot-assisted parenchymal-sparing liver surgery including lesions located in the posterosuperior segments. Surg Endosc 2011;25:3815-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  23. Ji WB, Wang HG, Zhao ZM, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy in China: initial experience. Ann Surg 2011;253:342-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  24. Yu YD, Kim KH, Jung DH, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a comparative study from a single center. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2014;399:1039-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  25. Packiam V, Bartlett DL, Tohme S, et al. Minimally invasive liver resection: robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2012;16:2233-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  26. Berber E, Akyildiz HY, Aucejo F, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic resection of liver tumours. HPB (Oxford) 2010;12:583-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  27. Kim JK, Park JS, Han DH, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy of liver. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4756-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  28. Slakey DP, Simms E, Drew B, et al. Complications of liver resection: laparoscopic versus open procedures. JSLS 2013;17:46-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  29. Xiao L, Xiang LJ, Li JW, et al. Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in posterosuperior segments. Surg Endosc 2015;29:2994-3001. [Crossref] [PubMed]
doi: 10.21037/ls.2018.10.04
Cite this article as: Beard RE, Tsung A. Minimally invasive liver resections: a changing landscape and the rise of the robot. Laparosc Surg 2018;2:48.