Marcos V. Perini
Renato M. Lupinacci
Suk Kyun Hong- 1Department of Surgery at Austin Health, The University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia
- 2Hôpital Ambroise-Paré AP-HP, Université Paris Saclay, Boulogne-Billancourt, France
- 3College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
Editorial on the Research Topic
Laparoscopic and Robotic Liver Surgery
Throughout the last two decades, several papers have confirmed the feasibility of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) and shown the advantages of MILS over open liver resection, especially regarding hospital stay and postoperative morbidity (1–4). However, the widespread use of MILS is not the reality yet, ranging from 10% in some countries (5) to up to 30% in others, depending on expertise, availability, and surgical volume (6). A recent survey has shown that, even in highly specialized European centers, MILS comprised about one third of all liver resections (2). These numbers are expected to increase further in the near future, once MILS have been incorporated as part of the general training program, especially in the HPB fellowship program.
Nowadays, most of MILS are performed laparoscopically, although the use of robotic liver surgery seems to be increasing even in challenging scenarios as shown by Golriz et al. and Solomonov et al. The robotic platform, apart from its ergonomic aspects, seems to facilitate the transition from open to MILS as has been demonstrated for other intra-abdominal procedures rather than liver resections. In addition, some complex interventions may be rendered easier using robotics, such as extended hepatectomies or resection in postero-superior segments.
Although MILS has a clear place in the most straight-forward liver resections (left lateral sectionectomy, lesions located in the antero-lateral liver, minor liver resection, and lesions not in close contact with major vascular structures), its use presents a major challenge when vascular resection and reconstruction are needed. Few authors have described portal vein resection/reconstruction however, the hepatic vein management by laparoscopy is still an area to be explored and tamed. The robotic approach, by overcoming the limitations of laparoscopy (unstable camera platform, two-dimensional vision, and ergonomically poor) is able to offer increased degrees of freedom, and a more precise range of movements (increased dexterity), which could be used during vascular reconstructions in liver surgery.
Higher costs, longer operative time, and robotic-CUSA unavailability are major drawbacks of the robotic when compared to the laparoscopic approach but the development of additional instruments for parenchymal transection might help to further increase the adoption of robotic MILS by most of the HPB high volume centers.
In high specialized HPB centers as shown by Hong et al., living related right donor hepatectomy has safely been done laparoscopically as a standard approach with better results in terms of blood loss, postoperative complications, and hospital stay in the expenses of a steep learning curve (7). On the other hand, robotic right donor hepatectomy (RRDH) surgery appears to circumvent the learning curve issue since the numbers of cases needed to achieve expertise are less than the ones needed for the laparoscopic counterpart. These same high-volume centers with expertise in the laparoscopic approach are also using the robotic platform to perform such a complex surgery, and have shown that although RRDH and laparoscopic right donor hepatectomy have the same complications rates and same advantages over the open approach, RRDH appears to have a less steep learning curve on the expenses of a cumbersome set up and the need of two senior surgeons (one in the console and the other one close to the patient).
Moreover, advances of technology (3D cameras, real time fluoroscopic guidance with indocyanine green as shown by He et al.) in the laparoscopic field have made subtle but important changes in the way surgeons were used to address liver surgery. Lastly, the comparable results in terms of blood loss and complication rates between MILS and open surgery and the benefits that the minimally invasive approach has over the open approach (in terms of wound complications, pain management, and hospital stay) has pushed surgeons to offer MILS as a standard of care in specific conditions (left lateral sectionectomy, small liver resections in antero-lateral segments). However, the near future of robotic surgery will probably force the HPB high volume specialized center to offer even more complex surgeries (left lateral donor hepatectomy, right donor hepatectomy), either by performing pure explant hepatectomies or by also offering the associated hybrid/robotic graft implantation in liver transplantation (8).
Robotic liver surgery, although in its youth, has arrived and is taking off. The fine balance between laparoscopic and robotic liver resection is yet to be defined in the years to come in HPB oncology and also in liver transplantation surgery.
Author Contributions
MVP, RML, and SKH: writing and editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Robles-Campos R, Lopez-Lopez V, Brusadin R, Lopez-Conesa A, Gil-Vazquez PJ, Navarro-Barrios A, et al. Open versus minimally invasive liver surgery for colorectal liver metastases (LapOpHuva): a prospective randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc. (2019) 33:3926–36. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06679-0
2. Zwart MJW, Görgec B, Arabiyat A, Nota CLM, van der Poel M, Fichtinger RS, et al. Pan-European survey on the implementation of robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive liver surgery. HPB. (2021) 2021:S1365-182X(21)01583-5. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.08.939
3. Fretland AA, Dagenbrog VJ, Bjørnelv GMW, Kazaryan AM, Kristiansen R, Fagerland MW, et al. Laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases: the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. (2018) 267:199–207. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002353
4. Abu Hilal M, Aldrighetti L, Dagher I, Edwin B, Troisi RI, Alikhanov R, et al. The southampton consensus guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery: from indication to implementation. Ann Surg. (2018) 268:11–8. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002524
5. Fonseca GM, Jeismann VB, Kruger JAP, Coelho FF, Montagnini AL, Herman P. Liver resection in Brazil: a national survey. Arq Bras Cir Dig. (2018) 31:e1355. doi: 10.1590/0102-672020180001e1355
6. Kawaguchi Y, Hasegawa K, Wakabayashi G, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Buell JF, et al. Survey results on daily practice in open and laparoscopic liver resections from 27 centers participating in the second International Consensus Conference. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. (2016) 23:283–8. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.340
7. Gao Y, Wu W, Liu C, Liu T, Xiao H. Comparison of laparoscopic and open living donor hepatectomy: a meta-analysis. Medicine. (2021) 100:e26708. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026708
Keywords: laparoscopic liver surgery, robotic liver surgery, liver transplantation, cirrhosis, minimally invasive surgery (MIS), robotic 3D inspection system, HPB fellowship, hepatopancreatobiliary
Citation: Perini MV, Lupinacci RM and Hong SK (2022) Editorial: Laparoscopic and Robotic Liver Surgery. Front. Surg. 9:854582. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.854582
Received: 14 January 2022; Accepted: 17 January 2022;
Published: 23 February 2022.
Edited and reviewed by: Ferdinand Köckerling, Vivantes Hospital, Germany
Copyright © 2022 Perini, Lupinacci and Hong. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Marcos V. Perini, marcos.perini@unimelb.edu.au