Search Log In
Download PDF
Review  |  Open Access  |  11 Oct 2020

Robotic vs. laparoscopic major hepatectomy

Views: 852 |  Downloads: 643 |  Cited:   0
Ioannis A. Ziogas1
, ... 
David A. Geller2
Mini-invasive Surg 2020;4:69.
10.20517/2574-1225.2020.63 |  © The Author(s) 2020.
Author Information
Article Notes
Cite This Article

Abstract

The introduction of laparoscopic technology and surgical robots in hepatobiliary surgery in the 1990s and 2000s, respectively, has dramatically revolutionized the field. Even though laparoscopic and robotic major hepatectomy was slower to adopt compared to minimally-invasive minor hepatectomy, the number of major hepatectomies performed with both approaches worldwide has significantly increased and is still rising. Despite the few comparative studies between laparoscopic and robotic major hepatectomy, most studies are focused on describing the procedures or reporting the outcomes of each method, either separately, or mixed with minor hepatectomies. Based on the available data, the direct comparison between the two techniques has shown that when robotic major hepatectomy is performed by experienced hepatobiliary surgeons in high-volume centers, it can lead to similar operating times, estimated blood loss, hospital length of stay, complication and mortality rates compared to its laparoscopic counterpart. The likelihood of achieving a margin-negative resection in cancer patients, as well as long-term disease-free and overall-survival are comparable between the groups. However, broader adoption of the robotic approach might be a hurdle in low-volume centers due to the high fixed capital and annual maintenance cost of the surgical robot.

Keywords

Hepatectomy, liver resection, major hepatectomy, laparoscopic, robotic, minimally-invasive
Download PDF 0 30

Introduction

The introduction of minimally-invasive technology in the approach of liver disorders in the early 1990s has since revolutionized the field of liver surgery[1-5]. Laparoscopic liver surgery does not only include pure laparoscopy, but also hand-assisted laparoscopic, as well as hybrid approaches, where the initial part of the procedure (i.e., liver mobilization, early dissection) is done laparoscopically, while later a small incision is made to complete the transection of the liver parenchyma[6,7]. The liver is classified in individual territories according to the segmentation of the vessels and bile ducts, introduced by Couinaud in the 1950s[8,9], and the Brisbane 2000 nomenclature is utilized to define minor and major hepatectomy in the field of liver surgery[10,11]. Minor hepatectomy is defined as the resection of two or fewer Couinaud segments, while major hepatectomy is the removal of three or more Couinaud segments[11]. The first series on laparoscopic liver resections consisted mostly of minor liver resections[3,4,12,13]. The first laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) was performed in 1997[14]. The higher risk for uncontrolled hemorrhage and the requirement of advanced technical expertise, particularly related to major vessel dissection, have slowed the broader adoption of minimally-invasive approaches for major hepatectomy[15].

The technological advances of our era have also led to the broader implementation of robotics in several fields of surgery, including liver surgery. The ability to obtain three-dimensional and magnified intraoperative vision, the significant decrease in hand tremor, as well as the benefit for the surgeon of operating under more relaxed and comfortable circumstances, have led to a considerable growth in robotic surgery, which can overcome the rigid instrumentation and the limited two-dimensional vision associated with laparoscopic surgery[16,17]. These characteristics, along with the advent of wristed instruments, can lead to improved dexterity and higher precision in surgical dissection; this is of particular benefit to liver resection, as hilar dissection, curved transection of the liver parenchyma and the resection of lesions in the posterosuperior segments can be more feasible with the use of a robot[18]. The first large series of robotic liver resection was reported in 2002[19], and although most current experience is based on minor resections, several studies have reported robotic major hepatectomy (RMH). This review aims to summarize the current state of evidence about the outcomes after LMH vs. RMH. We acknowledge that there is still a very important role for open hepatectomy in cases of multiple bilobar liver tumors or large tumors near critical vascular structures. However, we will focus on the differences between LMH and RMH, as a full review of open major hepatectomy is beyond the scope of this review.

International consensus and learning curves

Before engaging in a head-to-head comparison between LMH and RMH, it is worth mentioning two points that may favor the former approach. First, LMH has been performed for many more years than its robotic counterpart; second, irrespective of the procedural, hospitalization, and total economic cost, the cost of purchasing a robot for a hospital is considerable and has been a major limiting factor to the broader adoption of robotic liver surgery. These two points are of paramount importance, as data suggest that outcomes improve as experience with a surgical approach grows[20]. It is also worth mentioning that during the second international consensus on laparoscopic liver surgery (Morioka 2014), the jury concluded that laparoscopic minor hepatectomy had at that point already become standard practice, while LMH was still considered to be an innovative procedure still under exploration[11]. According to the 2018 international consensus statement on robotic hepatectomy, RMH was deemed to be as safe and feasible as both LMH and open major hepatectomy[21].

For the purpose of this review, we performed a non-systematic search of the PubMed bibliographic database using combinations of the following terms: “laparoscopic”, “robotic”, “minimally invasive”, “hepatectomy”, “major hepatectomy”, “liver resection”, and “major liver resection” (last search March 2020). We included comparative or non-comparative studies reporting on the number of LMH and RMH cases. Tables 1, 2, and 3 present the previously published cases of RMH and LMH[6,7,12-14,20,22-109], and it is apparent that the experience with LMH is greater than that of the robotic approach.

Table 1

Previously published reports on robotic major hepatectomy

AuthorCountry/regionStudy periodTotal number of robotic casesRobotic major hepatectomy
Total majorLeft hepatectomyRight hepatectomy
Giulianotti et al.[72] 2011  Italy & USAMar 2002-Mar 2009                  70        27            5            20
Ji et al.[83] 2011  ChinaApr 2009-Jul 2009                  13        9            6            2
Tsung et al.[20] 2014  USANov 2007-Dec 2011                  57        21            n/a            n/a
Spampinato et al.[94] 2014  ItalyJan 2009-Dec 2012                  25        25            7            16
Yu et al.[105] 2014  South KoreaMay 2010-Oct 2011                  13        3            3            0
Wu et al.[22] 2014  TaiwanJan 2012-Dec 2012                  52        14            0            0
Felli et al.[23] 2015  ItalyApr 2013-May 2014                  20        2            2            0
Lee et al.[24] 2016  ChinaSep 2010-Jan 2015                  70        14            10            4
Kingham et al.[25] 2016  USA2010-2014                  64        6            4            2
Lai et al.[26] 2016  ChinaMay 2009-Feb 2015                  100        27            6            20
Lee et al.[27] 2016  ChinaSep 2010-Apr 2015                  15        5            3            2
Sham et al.[28] 2016  USAMay 2011-Dec 2014                  71        17            n/a            n/a
Chen et al.[29] 2016  TaiwanMay 2013-Aug 2015                  13        13            0            13
Chen et al.[30,31] 2017  TaiwanJan 2012-Oct 2015                  183        92            32            41
Quijano et al.[32] 2017  SpainOct 2010-Apr 2016                  21        5            2            1
Magistri et al.[33] 2017  ItalyJan 2012-May 2016                  22        2            0            2
Efanov et al.[34] 2017  RussiaMay 2010-Jun 2016                  40        2            2            0
Daskalaki et al.[35] 2017  USAJan 2009-Dec 2013                  68        29            2            21
Choi et al.[36] 2017  South KoreaDec 2008-May 2016                  70        54            27            12
Khan et al.[37] 2018  International2006-2016                  61        16            8            8
Goja et al.[38] 2019  IndiaFeb 2015-Jan 2016                  21        6            3            3
Lim et al.[39] 2019*  France2011-2017                  61(55)        9(4)            n/a            n/a
Marino et al.[40] 2019  ItalyApr 2016-Mar 2017                  14        14            0            14
Marino et al.[41] 2019  ItalyApr 2015-May 2017                  35        35            35            0
Fruscione et al.[42] 2019  USA2011-2016                  57        57            20            20
Gravetz et al.[43] 2019  USA2013-2017                  33        8            n/a            n/a
Magistri et al.[44] 2019  ItalyJul 2014-Sep 2017                  60        3            1            2
Lee et al.[45] 2019  South KoreaJun 2016-Apr 2018                  13        8            8            0
Mejia et al.[46] 2020  USAAug 2013-Sep 2018                  43        8            4            4
Sucandy et al.[47] 2020  USA2013-2018                  80        24            14            6
Beard et al.[48] 2020*  InternationalJan 2008-Oct 2016                  115        17            6            9

*Numbers in parentheses represent the number of cases after propensity score-matching. n/a: not available

Table 2

Previously published reports on laparoscopic major hepatectomy

AuthorCountry/regionStudy periodTotal number of laparoscopic casesLaparoscopic major hepatectomy
Total majorLeft hepatectomyRight hepatectomy
Huscher et al.[14] 1997  Italy1993-Dec 1995                      20      14            6            5
Gigot et al.[49] 2002  EuropeFeb 1994-Dec 2000                      37      2            n/a            n/a
O’Rourke et al.[6] 2004  AustraliaNov 1999-Sep 2002                      12      12            0            12
Dulucq et al.[50] 2005  FranceJan 1995-Jan 2004                      32      11            4            6
Vibert et al.[51] 2006  FranceJan 1995-Dec 2004                      89      38            3            27
Topal et al.[52] 2007  Belgiumn/a                      2      2            0            2
Gayet et al.[53] 2007  Francen/a                      41      41            0            37
Koffron et al.[12] 2007  USAJul 2001-Nov 2006                      300      119            47            64
Dagher et al.[54] 2007  FranceFeb 1999-Jan 2006                      70      19            5            12
Gumbs et al.[55] 2008  Francen/a                      3      3            0            0
Gumbs et al.[56] 2008  Francen/a                      5      5            0            0
Cho et al.[57] 2008  South KoreaJan 2004-Dec 2007                      128      47            23            13
Buell et al.[13] 2008  USAJan 2001-Apr 2008                      253      69            24            33
Topal et al.[58] 2008  BelgiumOct 2002-Jun 2007                      109      21            4            14
Dagher et al.[59] 2008  FranceSince Feb 1999                      20      20            0            20
Wakabayashi et al.[60] 2009  JapanJul 1995-Apr 2008                      176      39            10            12
Castaing et al.[61] 2009  FranceJan 1997-May 2007                      60      26            0            22
Nguyen et al.[62] 2009  USA & EuropeFeb 2000-Sep 2008                      109      49            10            31
Vigano et al.[63] 2009  FranceJan 1996-Aug 2008                      174      35            n/a            23
Bryant et al.[64] 2009  FranceMay 1996-Dec 2007                      166      31            11            19
Yoon et al.[65] 2009  South KoreaOct 1998-Jun 2007                      46      21            21            0
Cho et al.[66] 2009  South KoreaMay 2003-Apr 2007                      40      12            0            5
Baker et al.[67] 2009  USAJan 2006-May 2008                      33      33            0            33
Dagher et al.[68] 2009  International1997-2008                      210      210            74            136
Cai et al.[69] 2009  China2005-2007                      19      19            19            0
Dagher et al.[70] 2009  FranceFeb 2002-Aug 2007                      22      22            0            22
Yoon et al.[71] 2010  South KoreaSep 2003-Nov 2008                      69      21            2            6
Nitta et al.[7] 2010  JapanNov 2002-Dec 2008                      42      42            16            14
Dagher et al.[73] 2010  Europe1998-2008                      163      16            4            10
Martin et al.[74] 2010  USAJan 2000-Jun 2009                      90      90            50            40
Ji et al.[83] 2011  ChinaApr 2009-Jul 2009                      20      4            3            1
Shafaee et al.[75] 2011  USA & Europe1997-2009                      68      22            1            12
Cho et al.[76] 2011  JapanAug 2005-Feb 2010                      27      20            5            10
Abu Hilal et al.[77] 2011  UK2006-2009                      36      36            0            36
Bhojani et al.[78] 2012  CanadaJun 2006-May 2010                      57      19            5            8
Topal et al.[79] 2012  BelgiumOct 2002-Dec 2008                      20      20            4            13
Cannon et al.[80] 2012  USA2004-2010                      35      19            4            14
Gumbs et al.[81] 2012  USANov 2008-Oct 2010                      53      25            8            13
Abu Hilal et al.[82] 2013  UKMar 2006-Nov 2011                      84      38            0            38
Tsung et al.[20] 2014*  USANov 2007-Dec 2011                      114      42            n/a            n/a
Spampinato et al.[94] 2014  ItalyJan 2009-Dec 2012                      25      25            8            15
Yu et al.[105] 2014  South KoreaJul 2007-Oct 2011                      17      11            11            0
Wu et al.[22] 2014  TaiwanJan 2012-Dec 2012                      69      4            0            0
Medbery et al.[84] 2014  USAMay 2008-Mar 2012                      48      48            0            48
Zhang et al.[85] 2014  ChinaJuly 2011-Mar 2013                      25      25            0            25
Ahn et al.[86] 2014  South KoreaJan 2005-Feb 2013                      51      2            2            0
Benkabbou et al.[87] 2015  MoroccoJun 2010-Feb 2013                      13      2            1            1
Xiao et al.[88] 2015  ChinaJan 2010-Dec 2012                      41      4            0            0
Takahara et al.[89] 2015*  Japan2000-2010                      436(387)      46(42)            n/a            n/a
Allard et al.[90] 2015  FranceJan 2006-Dec 2013                      176      80            14            63
Beppu et al.[91] 2015*  JapanJan 2005-Dec 2010                      210(171)      12(10)            n/a            n/a
de’Angelis et al.[92] 2015  FranceJan 2000-Dec 2013                      52      18            2            15
van der Poel et al.[93] 2016  UKAug 2003-Mar 2015                      159      159            54            105
Lee et al.[24] 2016  ChinaNov 2003-Jan 2015                      66      2            2            0
Lai et al.[26] 2016  ChinaOct 1998-Feb 2015                      35      1            0            1
Takahara et al.[95] 2016  JapanJan 2011-Dec 2013                      929      929            238            234
Cipriani et al.[96] 2016  UKAug 2004-Apr 2015                      133      65            8            43
Ratti et al.[97] 2016  Italy2008-2014                      25      6            4            2
Tranchart et al.[98] 2016  International1997-2013                      89      7            3            4
Untereiner et al.[99] 2016  FranceJan 2012-Jan 2015                      18      2            2            0
Komatsu et al.[100] 2016  FranceJan 2006-May 2014                      38      38            10            28
Martinez-Cecilia et al.[101] 2017*  EuropeJan 2005-Dec 2012                      287(225)      49(47)            n/a            n/a
Sotiropoulos et al.[102] 2017  GreeceJan 2012-Jan 2017                      42      1            1            0
Peng et al.[103] 2017  ChinaJan 2013-Oct 2016                      36      15            15            0
Chen et al.[104] 2017  ChinaApr 2015-Sep 2016                      225      126            26            43
Efanov et al.[34] 2017  RussiaMay 2010-Jun 2016                      91      11            2            9
Lim et al.[39] 2019*  France2011-2017                      111(55)      15(8)            n/a            n/a
Marino et al.[40] 2019  ItalyApr 2016-Mar 2017                      20      20            0            20
Fruscione et al.[42] 2019  USA2011-2016                      116      116            22            46
Jang et al.[106] 2019  South KoreaJan 2014-Jul 2017                      37      17            9            8
Cipriani et al.[107] 2019  ItalyJan 2005-Nov 2017                      145      145            59            86
Chen et al.[108] 2019  TaiwanDec 2010-Dec 2016                      436      90            31            52
Lee et al.[45] 2019  South KoreaJun 2016-Apr 2018                      10      3            3            0
Mejia et al.[46] 2020  USAJun 2005-Sep 2018                      171      46            13            33
Cipriani et al.[109] 2020  EuropeJan 2007-Feb 2016                      597(545)      597(545)            215(172)            382(351)
Beard et al.[48] 2020*  InternationalJul 2002-Oct 2017                      514(115)      53(21)            17 (n/a)            33 (n/a)

*Numbers in parentheses represent the number of cases after propensity score-matching. n/a: not available

Table 3

Previously published reports on the comparison of laparoscopic and robotic liver resection along with the number of major hepatectomy cases in each group

AuthorTotal laparoscopicLaparoscopic major hepatectomyTotal roboticRobotic major hepatectomy
Ji et al.[83] 2011        20                      4      13                    9
Tsung et al.[20] 2014        114                      42      57                    21
Spampinato et al.[94] 2014        25                      25      25                    25
Yu et al.[105] 2014        17                      11      13                    3
Wu et al.[22] 2014        69                      4      52                    14
Lee et al.[24] 2016        66                      2      70                    14
Lai et al.[26] 2016        35                      1      100                    27
Efanov et al.[34] 2017        91                      11      40                    2
Lim et al.[39] 2019*        111(55)                      15(8)      61(55)                    9(4)
Marino et al.[40] 2019        20                      20      14                    14
Fruscione et al.[42] 2019        116                      116      57                    57
Lee et al.[45] 2019        10                      3      13                    8
Mejia et al.[46] 2020        171                      46      43                    8
Beard et al.[48] 2020*        514(115)                      53(21)      115                    18

*Numbers in parentheses represent the number of cases after propensity score-matching

Determining the learning curve for each approach is also of major significance. The learning curve is “the improvement in performance over time or the change in the ability to complete a task until failure is decreased to a constant acceptable rate”[110]. Data suggest that the learning curve for LMH is around 45-60 cases[93,111-113]. van der Poel et al.[93] reported that 55 is the “golden” number for LMH; however, all surgical operations were performed by two experienced hepatobiliary surgeons with at least three years of additional experience on minor laparoscopic hepatectomy. For RMH, Chen et al.[30] described an initial phase of 15 patients followed by an intermediate phase of 25 patients. The accumulated experience of the first 15 cases (defined as the “initial learning curve”), mostly comprised of right and left hemihepatectomies, was followed by more complex cases, such as trisectionectomy and 8-5-4 trisegmentectomy, in the next 25 cases (“phase of increased competency”). Their last 52-case “matured phase” was associated with an overall improvement in outcomes. However, the authors did not mention who their “learning curve” refers to, as “all procedures were performed by the same operative team”, but they do not specify their prior experience with minor robotic resections or even with LMH. Tsung et al.[20] reported that the outcomes of their robotic cases between 2010-2011 were superior to those of the robotic cases between 2007-2010, but the authors pooled together both minor and major resections for this comparison.

Operating time

A systematic review and pooled analysis of outcomes on robotic liver resections showed that the mean operating time for RMH (≥ 4 segments) was 405 ± 100 min[18], while another more recent systematic review reported similar pooled mean operating rime for RMH (≥ 3 segments) of 403.4 ± 107.5 min[114]. A systematic literature review on LMH[115] showed that mean operating time in all individuals studies was lower than the pooled operating times reported in the RMH systematic reviews[18,114]. Additionally, in a systematic review comparing LMH to open major hepatectomy, the pooled mean operating time in the LMH arm was 285 ± 105.6 min[116]. Similarly, in a large multicenter study from Europe, Cipriani et al.[109] reported a median operating time of 300 min (IQR 205-380) for LMH, and more specifically 300 min (IQR 240-402) for right hepatectomy and 270 min (IQR 160-290) for left hepatectomy. Tsung et al.[20] compared RMH vs. LMH, and showed that both overall operating room time (452 min vs. 348.5 min) and operating time (330 min vs. 280.5 min) were significantly longer in the RMH group. Spampinato et al.[94] also showed that operating time was longer in RMH (430, IQR 240-725 min) when compared to LMH (360, IQR 180-600 min), while all procedures were performed by surgeons experienced in minimally-invasive liver surgery. Notably, a more recent study showed no difference in median operating time between RMH (194, range 152-255 min) and LMH (204, 149-280 min), and all of the operations were again performed by experienced minimally-invasive hepatobiliary surgeons[42]. A Korean group recently published the initial experience of a single surgeon with robotic liver surgery and showed that there was no difference in operating time between robotic and laparoscopic left hepatectomy (248.6 ± 37.5 min vs. 226.7 ± 26.6 min)[45]. Another recent study comparing robotic vs. laparoscopic right hepatectomy demonstrated that operating time was significantly shorter in the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic one (425 ± 139 min vs. 565.18 ± 183.73 min), and all procedures were performed by the same young surgeon[40]. That may serve as an indicator that as experience with RMH grows, operating time seems to decrease and to be equivalent to, or even shorter than, that of LMH. However, a major confounding factor is surgeon’s surgical expertise and prior experience with minimally-invasive major hepatectomy; thus, future studies comparing operating time, as well as other parameters, between RMH and LMH should always mention primary surgeon’s prior experience and should make sure that the two comparison groups are equivalent regarding this parameter.

Estimated blood loss

The pooled estimated blood loss (EBL) in RMH based on two systematic reviews was 543.4 ± 371 mL[114] and 380 ± 505 mL[18], respectively. The pooled mean EBL for the LMH arm in a systematic review comparing LMH to open major hepatectomy was 450.6 ± 563.2[116], which is comparable to the pooled rates reported in the RMH systematic reviews[18,114]. However, major deviations were found between the individual RMH or LMH studies themselves included in each systematic review. Cipriani et al.[109] reported a median EBL of 350 mL (IQR 125-1350) for LMH, and more specifically 400 mL (IQR 200-800) for right hepatectomy and 300 mL (IQR 50-260) for left hepatectomy. Studies directly comparing EBL between RMH and LMH showed that EBL in RMH was lower than that in LMH, while the difference was not statistically significant in any of the individual studies[20,40,42,94].

Length of stay

Two prior systematic reviews on RMH reported a pooled mean hospital length of stay (LOS) of 10.5 ± 4.8[114] and 11 ± 6 days[18], respectively. The mean LOS of most individual studies included in a systematic review on LMH[115] was shorter than that of the two RMH systematic reviews. Another systematic review showed that the pooled mean LOS for LMH was 10 ± 8.7 days[116]. Cipriani et al.[109] reported a median LOS of 6 days (IQR 4-10) for LMH, and more specifically 7 days (IQR 4-13) for right hepatectomy, and 5 days (IQR 4-10) for left hepatectomy. Studies reporting on the direct comparison of RMH vs. LMH did not demonstrate any statistically significant difference between the two arms[20,40,42,94].

Complications, survival and oncologic outcomes

When comparing RMH and LMH, Tsung et al.[20] reported that no difference was observed between the two groups with a complication rate of 24% (n = 5/21) vs. 32% (n = 13/42), respectively, while only one patient in the RMH group experienced a major complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) (4.8% vs. 0%, respectively). The 90-day mortality rate was 0% in both groups[20]. Similar complication rates were documented by Spampinato et al.[94] RMH: 20% (n = 5/25) vs. LMH: 36% (n = 9/25), with 4% (n = 1/25) and 12% (n = 3/25) of the patients experiencing a major complication (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3), respectively. However, one patient in the LMH group died[94]. Marino et al.[40] also failed to show a difference in morbidity with 21.4% (n = 3/14) of the patients in the RMH arm vs. 15% (n = 3/20) in the LMH group experiencing any complications, while no major complications occurred. Ninety-day mortality was 0% in both groups[40]. The largest and most recent comparative study between RMH and LMH was performed by Fruscione et al.[42] and also did not show a significant difference in complications between the two groups. Specifically, the complication rate for RMH was 28.1% (n = 16/57) and for LMH 35.3% (n = 41/116), with 7% (n = 4/57) and 9.5% (n = 11/116) being classified as major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3). No death was reported in either of the comparison arms[42]. Additionally, when RMH and LMH were performed for liver malignancies, none of the four studies showed a difference in surgical margin status between the two approaches (positive margins: 0%-8.3% vs. 7%-15%, respectively), and long-term outcomes were comparable when reported[20,40,42,94].

Economic cost

Mejia et al.[46] reported that the adjusted room and board charges were significantly lower in the LMH vs. the RMH group, with no other difference between the two groups regarding economic cost. Of note, when comparing the cost of LMH vs. RMH, the fixed capital cost ($1,000,000-$2,600,000 for a robotic system with a 10-year longevity period)[117-120] and annual maintenance cost ($90,000-$175,000)[120] for a hospital to purchase and maintain a surgical robot, should also be taken into consideration. The addition of this cost can be burdensome, particularly for low-volume liver surgery centers, and this remains a significant driving factor for the slow spread of RMH and robotic liver surgery in general. It should also be noted that access to the robot in the operating room can be a challenge due to competition with other surgical service lines.

Conclusion

The introduction of laparoscopy and robotic surgical systems in liver surgery has significantly changed the current state of practice. Although both approaches have been more widely tested for minor liver resections, the number of LMHs and RMHs performed worldwide has significantly increased over recent years, and is still on the rise. Although there is a considerable deviation in outcomes after RMH, especially during early experience, when RMH is performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume liver centers, it can be associated with equivalent operating time, EBL, LOS, morbidity and mortality, and comparable oncologic outcomes in terms of achieving a margin-negative resection and long-term overall survival. The fixed capital and annual maintenance costs for the robotic surgical system may pose a significant obstacle in the broader adoption of RMH, particularly in low-volume centers.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

Study concept, data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation, drafting, critical revision, final approval of the manuscript: Ziogas IA, Tohme S, Geller DA

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Financial support and sponsorship

None.

Conflicts of interest

All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2020.

REFERENCES

1. Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA. World review of laparoscopic liver resection-2,804 patients. Ann Surg 2009;250:831-41.

2. Ciria R, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Briceno J, Wakabayashi G. Comparative short-term benefits of laparoscopic liver resection: 9000 cases and climbing. Ann Surg 2016;263:761-77.

3. Reich H, McGlynn F, DeCaprio J, Budin R. Laparoscopic excision of benign liver lesions. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:956-8.

4. Gagner M, Rheault M, Dubuc J. Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy for liver tumor. Surg Endosc 1992;6:99.

5. Ziogas IA, Tsoulfas G. Advances and challenges in laparoscopic surgery in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastrointest Surg 2017;9:233-45.

6. O’Rourke N, Fielding G. Laparoscopic right hepatectomy: surgical technique. J Gastrointest Surg 2004;8:213-6.

7. Nitta H, Sasaki A, Fujita T, Itabashi H, Hoshikawa K, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted major liver resections employing a hanging technique: the original procedure. Ann Surg 2010;251:450-3.

8. Couinaud C. Lobes et segments hepatiques. Notes sur l’architecture anatomique et chirurgicale du foie. Press Med 1954;62:709-12. (in French)

9. Couinaud C. Le foie: études anatomiques et chirurgicales. Paris: Masson; 1957. (in French)

10. Strasberg S, Belghiti J, Clavien PA, Gadzijev E, Garden JO, et al. The Brisbane 2000 terminology of liver anatomy and resections. HPB 2000;2:333-9.

11. Wakabayashi G, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Buell JF, Kaneko H, et al. Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: a report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka. Ann Surg 2015;261:619-29.

12. Koffron AJ, Auffenberg G, Kung R, Abecassis M. Evaluation of 300 minimally invasive liver resections at a single institution: Less is more. Ann Surg 2007;246:385-92.

13. Buell JF, Thomas MT, Rudich S, Marvin M, Nagubandi R, et al. Experience with more than 500 minimally invasive hepatic procedures. Ann Surg 2008;248:475-85.

14. Huscher CG, Lirici MM, Chiodini S, Recher A. Current position of advanced laparoscopic surgery of the liver. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1997;42:219-25.

15. Nguyen KT, Geller DA. Laparoscopic liver resection-current update. Surg Clin North Am 2010;90:749-60.

16. Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, Rubino F, Mutter D, et al. Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature 2001;413:379-80.

17. Hanna T, Imber C. Robotics in HPB surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2018;100:31-7.

18. Nota CL, Rinkes IHB, Molenaar IQ, van Santvoort HC, Fong Y, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review and pooled analysis of minor and major hepatectomies. HPB (Oxford) 2016;18:113-20.

19. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, Sbrana F, Cecconi S, et al. Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 2003;138:777-84.

20. Tsung A, Geller DA, Sukato DC, Sabbaghian S, Tohme S, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison. Ann Surg 2014;259:549-55.

21. Liu R, Wakabayashi G, Kim HJ, Choi GH, Yiengpruksawan A, et al. International consensus statement on robotic hepatectomy surgery in 2018. World J Gastroenterol 2019;25:1432.

22. Wu YM, Hu RH, Lai HS, Lee PH. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive liver resection. Asian J Surg 2014;37:53-7.

23. Felli E, Santoro R, Colasanti M, Vennarecci G, Lepiane P, et al. Robotic liver surgery: preliminary experience in a tertiary hepato-biliary unit. Updates Surg 2015;67:27-32.

24. Lee KF, Cheung YS, Chong CC, Wong J, Fong AK, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy: experience from a single centre. ANZ J Surg 2016;86:122-6.

25. Kingham TP, Leung U, Kuk D, Gönen M, D’Angelica MI, et al. Robotic liver resection: a case-matched comparison. World J Surg 2016;40:1422-8.

26. Lai EC, Tang CN. Long-term survival analysis of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a comparative study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2016;26:162-6.

27. Lee KF, Fong AK, Chong CC, Cheung SY, Wong J, et al. Robotic liver resection for primary hepatolithiasis: is it beneficial? World J Surg 2016;40:2490-6.

28. Sham JG, Richards MK, Seo YD, Pillarisetty VG, Yeung RS, et al. Efficacy and cost of robotic hepatectomy: is the robot cost-prohibitive? J Robot Surg 2016;10:307-13.

29. Chen PD, Wu CY, Hu RH, Ho CM, Lee PH, et al. Robotic liver donor right hepatectomy: a pure, minimally invasive approach. Liver Transpl 2016;22:1509-18.

30. Chen PD, Wu CY, Hu RH, Chen CN, Yuan RH, et al. Robotic major hepatectomy: is there a learning curve? Surgery 2017;161:642-9.

31. Chen PD, Wu CY, Hu RH, Chou WH, Lai HS, et al. Robotic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a matched comparison. Ann Surg Oncol 2017;24:1021-8.

32. Quijano Y, Vicente E, Ielpo B, Duran H, Diaz E, et al. Hepatobilio-pancreatic robotic surgery: Initial experience from a single center institute. J Robot Surg 2017;11:355-65.

33. Magistri P, Tarantino G, Guidetti C, Assirati G, Olivieri T, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma: the first 46 consecutive cases. J Surg Res 2017;217:92-9.

34. Efanov M, Alikhanov R, Tsvirkun V, Kazakov I, Melekhina O, et al. Comparative analysis of learning curve in complex robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection. HPB 2017;19:818-24.

35. Daskalaki D, Gonzalez-Heredia R, Brown M, Bianco FM, Tzvetanov I, et al. Financial impact of the robotic approach in liver surgery: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs between the robotic and open technique in a single institution. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2017;27:375-82.

36. Choi GH, Chong JU, Han DH, Choi JS, Lee WJ. Robotic hepatectomy: the Korean experience and perspective. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2017;6:230-8.

37. Khan S, Beard RE, Kingham PT, Fong Y, Boerner T, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes following robotic liver resections for primary hepatobiliary malignancies: a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol 2018;25:2652-60.

38. Goja S, Yadav SK, Chaudhary RJ, Singh MK, Soin AS. Transition from open to robotic assisted liver resection: a retrospective comparative study. Is experience of laparoscopic liver resections needed? Laparosc Endosc Robot Surg 2019;2:94-8.

39. Lim C, Salloum C, Tudisco A, Ricci C, Osseis M, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes after robotic and laparoscopic liver resection for malignancies: a propensity score-matched study. World J Surg 2019;43:1594-603.

40. Marino MV, Shabat G, Guarrasi D, Gulotta G, Komorowski AL. Comparative study of the initial experience in performing robotic and laparoscopic right hepatectomy with technical description of the robotic technique. Dig Surg 2019;36:241-50.

41. Marino MV, Gulotta G, Komorowski AL. Fully robotic left hepatectomy for malignant tumor: technique and initial results. Updates Surg 2019;71:129-35.

42. Fruscione M, Pickens R, Baker EH, Cochran A, Khan A, et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic major liver resection: analysis of outcomes from a single center. HPB 2019;21:906-11.

43. Gravetz A, Sucandy I, Wilfong C, Patel N, Spence J, et al. Single-institution early experience and learning curve with robotic liver resections. Am Surg 2019;85:115-9.

44. Magistri P, Guerrini GP, Ballarin R, Assirati G, Tarantino G, et al. Improving outcomes defending patient safety: the learning journey in robotic liver resections. Biomed Res Int 2019;2019:1835085.

45. Lee SJ, Lee JH, Lee YJ, Kim SC, Hwang DW, et al. The feasibility of robotic left-side hepatectomy with comparison of laparoscopic and open approach: consecutive series of single surgeon. Int J Med Robot 2019;15:e1982.

46. Mejia A, Cheng SS, Vivian E, Shah J, Oduor H, et al. Minimally invasive liver resection in the era of robotics: analysis of 214 cases. Surg Endosc 2020;34:339-48.

47. Sucandy I, Schlosser S, Bourdeau T, Spence J, Attili A, et al. Robotic hepatectomy for benign and malignant liver tumors. J Robot Surg 2020;14:75-80.

48. Beard RE, Khan S, Troisi RI, Montalti R, Vanlander A, et al. Long-term and oncologic outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicenter, propensity score matching analysis. World J Surg 2020;44:887-95.

49. Gigot JF, Glineur D, Santiago Azagra J, Goergen M, Ceuterick M, et al; Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Section of the Royal Belgian Society of Surgery and the Belgian Group for Endoscopic Surgery. Laparoscopic liver resection for malignant liver tumors: preliminary results of a multicenter European study. Ann Surg 2002;236:90-7.

50. Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Stabilini C, Berticelli J, Mahajna A. Laparoscopic liver resections: a single center experience. Surg Endosc 2005;19:886-91.

51. Vibert E, Perniceni T, Levard H, Denet C, Shahri NK, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection. Br J Surg 2006;93:67-72.

52. Topal B, Aerts R, Penninckx F. Laparoscopic intrahepatic Glissonian approach for right hepatectomy is safe, simple, and reproducible. Surg Endosc 2007;21:2111.

53. Gayet B, Cavaliere D, Vibert E, Perniceni T, Levard H, et al. Totally laparoscopic right hepatectomy. Am J Surg 2007;194:685-9.

54. Dagher I, Proske JM, Carloni A, Richa H, Tranchart H, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection: results for 70 patients. Surg Endosc 2007;21:619-24.

55. Gumbs AA, Bar-Zakai B, Gayet B. Totally laparoscopic extended left hepatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:1152.

56. Gumbs AA, Gayet B. Multimedia article. Totally laparoscopic extended right hepatectomy. Surg Endosc 2008;22:2076-7.

57. Cho JY, Han HS, Yoon YS, Shin SH. Experiences of laparoscopic liver resection including lesions in the posterosuperior segments of the liver. Surg Endosc 2008;22:2344-9.

58. Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, Vandeweyer H, Penninckx F. Laparoscopic versus open liver resection of hepatic neoplasms: comparative analysis of short-term results. Surg Endosc 2008;22:2208-13.

59. Dagher I, Caillard C, Proske JM, Carloni A, Lainas P, et al. Laparoscopic right hepatectomy: original technique and results. J Am Coll Surg 2008;206:756-60.

60. Wakabayashi G, Nitta H, Takahara T, Shimazu M, Kitajima M, et al. Standardization of basic skills for laparoscopic liver surgery towards laparoscopic donor hepatectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2009;16:439-44.

61. Castaing D, Vibert E, Ricca L, Azoulay D, Adam R, et al. Oncologic results of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases in two specialized centers. Ann Surg 2009;250:849-55.

62. Nguyen KT, Laurent A, Dagher I, Geller DA, Steel J, 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.

63. Vigano L, Laurent A, Tayar C, Tomatis M, Ponti A, et al. The learning curve in laparoscopic liver resection: improved feasibility and reproducibility. Ann Surg 2009;250:772-80.

64. Bryant R, Laurent A, Tayar C, Cherqui D. Laparoscopic liver resection-understanding its role in current practice: the Henri Mondor Hospital experience. Ann Surg 2009;250:103-11.

65. Yoon YS, Han HS, Shin SH, Cho JY, Min SK, et al. Laparoscopic treatment for intrahepatic duct stones in the era of laparoscopy: laparoscopic intrahepatic duct exploration and laparoscopic hepatectomy. Ann Surg 2009;249:286-91.

66. Cho JY, Han HS, Yoon YS, Shin SH. Outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for lesions located in the right side of the liver. Arch Surg 2009;144:25-9.

67. Baker TB, Jay CL, Ladner DP, Preczewski LB, Clark L, et al. Laparoscopy-assisted and open living donor right hepatectomy: a comparative study of outcomes. Surgery 2009;146:817-23. discussion 823-5

68. Dagher I, O’Rourke N, Geller DA, Cherqui D, Belli G, et al. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy: an evolution in standard of care. Ann Surg 2009;250:856-60.

69. Cai XJ, Wang YF, Liang YL, Yu H, Liang X. Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy: a safety and feasibility study of 19 cases. Surg Endosc 2009;23:2556-62.

70. Dagher I, Di Giuro G, Dubrez J, Lainas P, Smadja C, et al. Laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy: a comparative study. Am J Surg 2009;198:173-7.

71. Yoon YS, Han HS, Cho JY, Ahn KS. Total laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma located in all segments of the liver. Surg Endosc 2010;24:1630-7.

72. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Sbrana F, Addeo P, Bianco FM, et al. Robotic liver surgery: results for 70 resections. Surgery 2011;149:29-39.

73. Dagher I, Belli G, Fantini C, Laurent A, Tayar C, et al. Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a European experience. J Am Coll Surg 2010;211:16-23.

74. Martin RC, Scoggins CR, McMasters KM. Laparoscopic hepatic lobectomy: advantages of a minimally invasive approach. J Am Coll Surg 2010;210:627-34. 634-6

75. Shafaee Z, Kazaryan AM, Marvin MR, Cannon R, Buell JF, et al. Is laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy feasible? A tri-institutional analysis. J Am Coll Surg 2011;212:171-9.

76. Cho A, Yamamoto H, Kainuma O, Souda H, Ikeda A, et al. Safe and feasible extrahepatic Glissonean access in laparoscopic anatomical liver resection. Surg Endosc 2011;25:1333-6.

77. Abu Hilal M, Di Fabio F, Teng MJ, Lykoudis P, Primrose JN, et al. Single-centre comparative study of laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2011;15:818-23.

78. Bhojani FD, Fox A, Pitzul K, Gallinger S, Wei A, et al. Clinical and economic comparison of laparoscopic to open liver resections using a 2-to-1 matched pair analysis: an institutional experience. J Am Coll Surg 2012;214:184-95.

79. Topal H, Tiek J, Aerts R, Topal B. Outcome of laparoscopic major liver resection for colorectal metastases. Surg Endosc 2012;26:2451-5.

80. Cannon RM, Scoggins CR, Callender GG, McMasters KM, Martin RC 2nd. Laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. Surgery 2012;152:567-73. discussion 573-4

81. Gumbs AA, Tsai T, Hoffman JP. Initial experience with laparoscopic hepatic resection at a comprehensive cancer center. Surg Endosc 2012;26:480-7.

82. Abu Hilal M, Di Fabio F, Syed S, Wiltshire R, Dimovska E, et al. Assessment of the financial implications for laparoscopic liver surgery: a single-centre UK cost analysis for minor and major hepatectomy. Surg Endosc 2013;27:2542-50.

83. Ji WB, Wang HG, Zhao ZM, Duan WD, Lu F, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy in China: initial experience. Ann Surg 2011;253:342-8.

84. Medbery RL, Chadid TS, Sweeney JF, Knechtle SJ, Kooby DA, et al. Laparoscopic vs open right hepatectomy: a value-based analysis. J Am Coll Surg 2014;218:929-39.

85. Zhang X, Yang J, Yan L, Li B, Wen T, et al. Comparison of laparoscopy-assisted and open donor right hepatectomy: a prospective case-matched study from china. J Gastrointest Surg 2014;18:744-50.

86. Ahn KS, Kang KJ, Kim YH, Kim TS, Lim TJ. A propensity score-matched case-control comparative study of laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2014;24:872-7.

87. Benkabbou A, Souadka A, Serji B, Hachim H, El Malki HO, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection: initial experience in a North-African single center. Tunis Med 2015;93:523-6.

88. Xiao L, Xiang LJ, Li JW, Chen J, Fan YD, et al. Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in posterosuperior segments. Surg Endosc 2015;29:2994-3001.

89. Takahara T, Wakabayashi G, Beppu T, Aihara A, Hasegawa K, et al. Long-term and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with propensity score matching: a multi-institutional Japanese study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2015;22:721-7.

90. Allard MA, Cunha AS, Gayet B, Adam R, Goere D, et al. Early and long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic resection for colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score-based analysis. Ann Surg 2015;262:794-802.

91. Beppu T, Wakabayashi G, Hasegawa K, Gotohda N, Mizuguchi T, et al. Long-term and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases with propensity score matching: a multi-institutional Japanese study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2015;22:711-20.

92. de’Angelis N, Eshkenazy R, Brunetti F, Valente R, Costa M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases: a single-center study with propensity score analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2015;25:12-20.

93. van der Poel MJ, Besselink MG, Cipriani F, Armstrong T, Takhar AS, et al. Outcome and learning curve in 159 consecutive patients undergoing total laparoscopic hemihepatectomy. JAMA Surg 2016;151:923-8.

94. Spampinato MG, Coratti A, Bianco L, Caniglia F, Laurenzi A, et al. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted major hepatectomies: an Italian multi-institutional comparative study. Surg Endosc 2014;28:2973-9.

95. Takahara T, Wakabayashi G, Konno H, Gotoh M, Yamaue H, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic major hepatectomy with propensity score matched open cases from the national clinical database in Japan. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2016;23:721-34.

96. Cipriani F, Rawashdeh M, Stanton L, Armstrong T, Takhar A, et al. Propensity score-based analysis of outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal metastases. Br J Surg 2016;103:1504-12.

97. Ratti F, Catena M, Di Palo S, Staudacher C, Aldrighetti L. Impact of totally laparoscopic combined management of colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases on severity of complications: a propensity-score-based analysis. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4934-45.

98. Tranchart H, Fuks D, Vigano L, Ferretti S, Paye F, et al. Laparoscopic simultaneous resection of colorectal primary tumor and liver metastases: a propensity score matching analysis. Surg Endosc 2016;30:1853-62.

99. Untereiner X, Cagniet A, Memeo R, Tzedakis S, Piardi T, et al. Laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for colorectal cancer liver metastases: comparative study with propensity score matching. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2016;5:290-9.

100. Komatsu S, Brustia R, Goumard C, Perdigao F, Soubrane O, et al. Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a matched pair analysis. Surg Endosc 2016;30:1965-74.

101. Martinez-Cecilia D, Cipriani F, Shelat V, Ratti F, Tranchart H, et al. Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal metastases in elderly and octogenarian patients: a multicenter propensity score based analysis of short- and long-term outcomes. Ann Surg 2017;265:1192-200.

102. Sotiropoulos GC, Machairas N, Kostakis ID, Stamopoulos P, Charalampoudis P, et al. Early experience in starting a laparoscopic liver resection program in greece. JSLS 2017;21:e2016.

103. Peng L, Xiao J, Liu Z, Zhu J, Wan R, et al. Laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy for the treatment of hepatolithiasis: a comparative study with open approach. Int J Surg 2017;40:117-23.

104. Chen J, Li H, Liu F, Li B, Wei Y. Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma for various resection extent. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e6460.

105. Yu YD, Kim KH, Jung DH, Namkoong JM, Yoon SY, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a comparative study from a single center. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2014;399:1039-45.

106. Jang EJ, Kim KW. Early experience of laparoscopic liver resection: a single institution experience with 37 consecutive cases. Ann hepato-biliary-pancreatic Surg 2019;23:115-2.

107. Cipriani F, Ratti F, Cardella A, Catena M, Paganelli M, et al. Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: analysis of clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness in a high-volume center. J Gastrointest Surg 2019;23:2163-73.

108. Chen TH, Yang HR, Jeng LB, Hsu SC, Hsu CH, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection: experience of 436 cases in one center. J Gastrointest Surg 2019;23:1949-56.

109. Cipriani F, Alzoubi M, Fuks D, Ratti F, Kawai T, et al. Pure laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy: a critical assessment and realistic expectations - a propensity score-based analysis of right and left hemihepatectomies from nine European tertiary referral centers. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2020;27:3-15.

110. Nomi T, Fuks D, Kawaguchi Y, Mal F, Nakajima Y, et al. Learning curve for laparoscopic major hepatectomy. Br J Surg 2015;102:796-804.

111. Cheek SM, Geller DA. The learning curve in laparoscopic major hepatectomy: what is the magic number? JAMA Surg 2016;151:929.

112. Brown KM, Geller DA. What is the learning curve for laparoscopic major hepatectomy? J Gastrointest Surg 2016;20:1065-71.

113. Halls MC, Alseidi A, Berardi G, Cipriani F, Van der Poel M, et al. A comparison of the learning curves of laparoscopic liver surgeons in differing stages of the IDEAL paradigm of surgical innovation: standing on the shoulders of pioneers. Ann Surg 2019;269:221-8.

114. Tsilimigras DI, Moris D, Vagios S, Merath K, Pawlik TM. Safety and oncologic outcomes of robotic liver resections: a systematic review. J Surg Oncol 2018;117:1517-30.

115. Lin NC, Nitta H, Wakabayashi G. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy: a systematic literature review and comparison of 3 techniques. Ann Surg 2013;257:205-13.

116. Kasai M, Cipriani F, Gayet B, Aldrighetti L, Ratti F, et al. Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Surgery 2018;163:985-95.

117. Packiam V, Bartlett DL, Tohme S, Reddy S, Marsh JW, et al. Minimally invasive liver resection: robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 2012;16:2233-8.

118. Winter JM, Talamini MA, Stanfield CL, Chang DC, Hundt JD, et al. Thirty robotic adrenalectomies: a single institution’s experience. Surg Endosc 2006;20:119-24.

119. Barbash GI, Glied SA. New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 2010;363:701-4.

120. Ho C, Tsakonas E, Tran K, Cimon K, Severn M, et al. Robot-assisted surgery compared with open surgery and laparoscopic surgery: clinical effectiveness and economic analyses [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2011. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24175355/. [Last accessed on 11 Oct 2020]

Cite This Article

Export citation file: BibTeX | RIS

OAE Style

Ziogas IA, Tohme S, Geller DA. Robotic vs. laparoscopic major hepatectomy. Mini-invasive Surg 2020;4:69. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2020.63

AMA Style

Ziogas IA, Tohme S, Geller DA. Robotic vs. laparoscopic major hepatectomy. Mini-invasive Surgery. 2020; 4: 69. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2020.63

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ziogas, Ioannis A., Samer Tohme, David A. Geller. 2020. "Robotic vs. laparoscopic major hepatectomy" Mini-invasive Surgery. 4: 69. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2020.63

ACS Style

Ziogas, IA.; Tohme S.; Geller DA. Robotic vs. laparoscopic major hepatectomy. Mini-invasive. Surg. 2020, 4, 69. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2020.63

About This Article

Special Issue

This article belongs to the Special Issue HPB Robotic Surgery
© The Author(s) 2020. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Data & Comments

Data

Views
852
Downloads
643
Citations
0
Comments
0
30

Comments

Comments must be written in English. Spam, offensive content, impersonation, and private information will not be permitted. If any comment is reported and identified as inappropriate content by OAE staff, the comment will be removed without notice. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact us at support@oaepublish.com.

0
Download PDF
Download XML 8 downloads
Cite This Article 12 clicks
Export Citation 24 clicks
Like This Article 30 likes
Share This Article
Scan the QR code for reading!
See Updates
Contents
Figures
Related
Mini-invasive Surgery
ISSN 2574-1225 (Online)
Navigation
Follow Us
Navigation

Portico

All published articles are preserved here permanently:

https://www.portico.org/publishers/oae/

Portico

All published articles are preserved here permanently:

https://www.portico.org/publishers/oae/
partners@oaepublish.com Company Contact Us
Discover Content
Follow OAE
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
YouTube
BiLiBiLi
WeChat
© 2016-2024 OAE Publishing Inc., except certain content provided by third parties