
==== Front
Cureus
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus
2168-8184
Cureus Palo Alto (CA)

10.7759/cureus.67262
Internal Medicine
Medical Education
Medical Simulation
A Comprehensive Review on Comparative Analysis of Operative Efficiency and Postoperative Recovery in Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy
Muacevic Alexander
Adler John R
Khan Mohammed Azeem 1
Mahakalkar Chandrashekhar 1
Kshirsagar Shivani 1
Dhole Simran 1
Dixit Sparsh 1
1 General Surgery, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND
Mohammed Azeem Khan mdazeemk@yahoo.co.in
20 8 2024
8 2024
16 8 e672626 8 2024
19 8 2024
Copyright © 2024, Khan et al.
2024
Khan et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
This article is available from https://www.cureus.com/articles/286690-a-comprehensive-review-on-comparative-analysis-of-operative-efficiency-and-postoperative-recovery-in-robotic-versus-laparoscopic-hepatectomy
Minimally invasive liver surgery, particularly hepatectomy, has evolved significantly with the advent of laparoscopic and robotic techniques. These approaches offer potential benefits over traditional open surgery, including reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, faster recovery, and improved cosmetic outcomes. This comprehensive review aims to compare the operative efficiency and postoperative recovery outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy. It seeks to provide an in-depth analysis of the advantages and limitations of each technique, assess their cost-effectiveness, and explore emerging trends and future directions in minimally invasive liver surgery. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy. The review includes an analysis of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion rates, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, complication rates, oncological outcomes, and overall cost. Additionally, advancements in technology and future research directions were explored to provide a comprehensive overview of the current landscape and future potential of these surgical techniques. Both robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy have demonstrated comparable outcomes in terms of oncological safety and effectiveness. However, robotic hepatectomy offers advantages in terms of precision and dexterity, particularly in complex cases, due to its advanced visualization and instrumentation. Laparoscopic hepatectomy, while associated with shorter operative times and lower costs, is limited by technical challenges, especially in major liver resections. The review also highlights the increasing adoption of robotic systems, despite their higher costs and the need for specialized training. Robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy are both viable options for minimally invasive liver surgery, each with distinct advantages and limitations. The choice between the two should be based on patient-specific factors, the complexity of the procedure, and the surgeon's expertise. Ongoing advancements in technology, including the integration of artificial intelligence and augmented reality, are expected to further refine these techniques, enhancing their efficacy and accessibility. Future research should focus on large-scale, multicenter trials to provide more definitive comparisons and guide clinical decision-making.

comparative analysis
postoperative recovery
operative efficiency
minimally invasive liver surgery
laparoscopic hepatectomy
robotic hepatectomy
==== Body
pmcIntroduction and background

Liver surgery, particularly hepatectomy, plays a crucial role in the management of various liver diseases, including primary and metastatic liver tumors, benign liver lesions, and certain non-neoplastic conditions [1]. Traditionally, open surgery has been the standard approach for liver resections; however, advancements in surgical technology and techniques have led to the emergence of minimally invasive options. These include laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy, both of which offer potential benefits over open surgery, such as reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, faster recovery times, and improved cosmetic outcomes [2]. Minimally invasive techniques in liver surgery have gained significant attention due to their ability to minimize the physiological impact of surgery while maintaining oncological safety and efficacy. The adoption of these techniques has been driven by the desire to enhance patient outcomes and improve the overall surgical experience. As a result, laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy have become increasingly popular, offering patients less invasive alternatives to traditional open liver surgery [3].

Laparoscopic hepatectomy, the first minimally invasive approach to be widely adopted in liver surgery, involves the use of small incisions and specialized instruments to perform the procedure. It has been associated with reduced blood loss, fewer complications, and a quicker return to normal activities compared to open surgery. However, the complexity of liver anatomy and the technical challenges associated with laparoscopic surgery can limit its application, particularly for major liver resections [4]. Robotic hepatectomy, an advanced minimally invasive technique, has emerged as a promising alternative to laparoscopic surgery. The robotic platform offers several advantages, including enhanced dexterity, precision, and visualization through a 3D high-definition camera. These features can potentially overcome some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, allowing for more complex resections with greater ease. Despite these benefits, the adoption of robotic hepatectomy has been slower due to factors such as high costs, limited availability of robotic systems, and the need for specialized training [5].

The primary objective of this comprehensive review is to compare the operative efficiency and postoperative recovery outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy. By analyzing current literature and clinical data, this review aims to provide a detailed examination of both techniques, highlighting their respective advantages, limitations, and areas for improvement. Additionally, the review seeks to explore the cost-effectiveness of these minimally invasive approaches and discuss emerging trends and future directions in the field of liver surgery. Through this analysis, the review intends to offer valuable insights for surgeons, healthcare providers, and patients, aiding in the decision-making process for selecting the most appropriate surgical approach for liver resections.

Review

Overview of hepatectomy techniques

Laparoscopic Hepatectomy

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) was first successfully performed in 1991, marking the beginning of its development in the early 1990s [6]. Over the years, the technique has evolved significantly, driven by advancements in surgical instruments and methodologies. Initially, laparoscopic procedures were limited to simple resections, but as surgeons gained experience and confidence, the technique expanded to include more complex procedures, such as major hepatectomies. This progression has made LH a viable option for a broader range of patients with liver lesions [7]. The indications for laparoscopic hepatectomy include benign liver lesions, such as hemangiomas and focal nodular hyperplasia, as well as malignant tumors, particularly small hepatocellular carcinomas, and metastatic liver diseases [8]. Additionally, LH is often considered for patients who have undergone previous abdominal surgeries, as a laparoscopic approach can minimize additional trauma. However, contraindications include large tumors (typically over 5 cm), severe liver dysfunction (such as cirrhosis or portal hypertension), and anatomical challenges that may complicate laparoscopic access or visibility [9]. The surgical technique for laparoscopic hepatectomy involves several key steps. First, the patient is positioned in a supine or lateral decubitus position. Trocar placement follows, providing access to the camera and surgical instruments. Laparoscopic dissection is then performed using specialized instruments designed to minimize blood loss [10]. Finally, the specimen is extracted, often through a larger port or a mini-laparotomy. The equipment used in LH includes laparoscopic graspers, scissors, energy devices (such as harmonic scalpels), and a high-definition camera system to enhance visualization during the procedure [11].

Robotic Hepatectomy

Robotic hepatectomy (RH) has gained significant traction since the introduction of robotic surgical systems in the early 2000s [12]. The adoption of this technique has been driven by the benefits of robotic technology, including enhanced dexterity, three-dimensional visualization, and ergonomic advantages for surgeons. As robotic systems have become more widespread, their use in liver surgery has expanded, enabling complex resections that were previously difficult to achieve with traditional laparoscopic techniques [13]. The indications for robotic hepatectomy closely mirror those for laparoscopic approaches, including malignant liver tumors, particularly in challenging anatomical locations, and benign lesions where minimally invasive techniques are preferred. However, specific contraindications for RH include large or locally advanced tumors that may necessitate extensive resection, severe comorbidities that could complicate anesthesia or recovery, and limited access due to prior surgeries or anatomical anomalies [14]. The surgical technique for robotic hepatectomy involves several key steps. The patient is positioned, similarly to laparoscopic procedures, often with the aid of a robotic cart. Following trocar placement, the robotic arms are docked to the patient. Surgical dissection is then performed using robotic instruments with enhanced motion and precision. The specimen is typically removed through an enlarged port or mini-laparotomy. The essential equipment for RH includes the robotic surgical system (e.g., da Vinci Surgical System), which features robotic arms, a console for the surgeon, and a high-definition 3D camera to provide detailed visualization throughout the procedure [15].

Comparative analysis of operative efficiency

A comparative analysis of operative efficiency between robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy highlights several key factors affecting surgical outcomes. One of the most significant differences is operative time [16]. Robotic hepatectomy generally involves a longer average operative time compared to laparoscopic procedures. For example, median operative times for robotic surgeries are approximately 285 minutes, while laparoscopic surgeries average around 147 minutes [5]. This disparity can be attributed to factors such as the complexity of the procedure, setup time for the robotic system, and the surgeon's familiarity with the robotic platform. Additionally, variations in defining operative time across studies - particularly regarding setup and docking times - can complicate direct comparisons [17]. Another critical area of comparison is blood loss and transfusion requirements. Robotic hepatectomy is often associated with lower estimated blood loss compared to laparoscopic techniques [18]. Studies have shown a median blood loss of 100 mL for robotic procedures, whereas laparoscopic surgeries report approximately 300 mL. The reduced blood loss in robotic procedures is likely due to robotic systems' superior visualization and precision. Consequently, the need for blood transfusions tends to be lower in robotic cases, though exact rates can vary based on the complexity of the surgical cases and the surgeon’s experience [19]. Conversion rates to open surgery are also an important metric for assessing operative efficiency. Robotic hepatectomy generally shows lower conversion rates compared to laparoscopic techniques. Some studies report no conversions in robotic cases, while laparoscopic procedures have conversion rates as high as 23% [20]. This trend suggests that robotic techniques may provide a more stable approach in complex cases, potentially reducing the need for conversion to open surgery. Conversion often occurs due to complications or unexpected findings during the procedure. Factors such as liver anatomy complexity, tumor size, and the surgeon's expertise with the technique significantly influence these rates. Robotic systems' enhanced visualization and maneuverability may help address some of these challenges [21]. Lastly, the surgeon's learning curve and expertise are crucial to robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy outcomes. Research indicates that as surgeons gain experience with robotic systems, operative times generally decrease, and complication rates may improve. Proficiency in robotic surgery requires specific training and familiarity with the robotic platform, and it is beneficial for surgeons to be also skilled in laparoscopic techniques, as many skills are transferable. Institutions often emphasize the importance of structured training programs to improve surgical outcomes in robotic hepatectomy [22].

Comparative analysis of postoperative recovery

RH and LH exhibit similar outcomes regarding postoperative pain levels and analgesic requirements. There is no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between RH and LH (mean difference = 0.10 days, 95% CI: -0.38 to 0.58, p = 0.69), and morbidity rates, which are likely related to postoperative pain, are comparable between the two techniques [23]. Multimodal analgesia regimens, which include opioids, non-opioids, and non-pharmacologic methods, are recommended for managing postoperative pain, with specific components tailored to individual patients and procedures [24]. The duration of hospitalization is similar for both RH and LH, with no significant difference in the length of stay. Factors influencing discharge timing typically include effective pain management, return of bowel function, ability to tolerate oral intake, and mobility independence [25]. Postoperative complications and their management were also comparable between RH and LH, with similar morbidity rates. Inadequate pain control can increase the risk of complications such as pneumonia by impairing deep breathing and coughing, emphasizing the importance of prompt recognition and treatment of complications for optimal recovery [26]. Both techniques show comparable timelines for functional recovery and quality of life. Patients experiencing poorly controlled pain may be less inclined to mobilize, potentially delaying functional recovery and rehabilitation. Multimodal analgesia, incorporating non-pharmacologic therapies like exercise, relaxation techniques, and cognitive-behavioral therapy, can support enhanced recovery [27]. Given the similar pain levels, hospital stay durations, and complication rates, patient-reported outcomes and quality of life measures are likely similar between RH and LH. In summary, robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy offer comparable outcomes regarding postoperative pain, hospital stay length, complication rates, and functional recovery, providing similar postoperative experiences for patients undergoing liver resection [2].

Oncological outcomes

When comparing RH and LH, studies indicate that both techniques achieve comparable rates of R0 (complete) resection margins, reflecting the oncological safety of each approach. Systematic reviews have found no significant differences in R1 (incomplete) resection rates between RH and LH, suggesting that both methods effectively ensure complete tumor removal [28]. Additionally, long-term survival outcomes, including overall and disease-free survival, appear similar for patients undergoing RH or LH. Research indicates comparable recurrence rates for hepatocellular carcinoma between the two techniques, reinforcing that the surgical approach does not negatively impact oncological outcomes [29]. The adequacy of lymph node dissection during hepatectomy is crucial for accurate staging and prognosis in liver malignancies. While both RH and LH can achieve adequate lymph node retrieval, specific data directly comparing these techniques is somewhat limited. Most studies have concentrated on the completeness of tumor resection rather than lymph node outcomes [30]. However, it is well-established that thorough lymphadenectomy contributes positively to staging accuracy and may improve long-term outcomes. Although the specific advantages of robotic versus laparoscopic techniques regarding lymph node dissection are not yet fully clarified, it is generally accepted that effective lymph node retrieval is essential for optimal patient management [31].

Cost-effectiveness analysis

When assessing the cost-effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy, it is crucial to consider both direct and indirect costs and the broader economic implications for the healthcare system and patients. This analysis provides a comprehensive overview of these factors [32]. Direct costs associated with surgical procedures include various elements, such as surgical fees and consumables. Robotic hepatectomy generally incurs higher initial costs due to the expense of robotic systems, which can range from $1.5 million to $2.5 million, with annual maintenance costs potentially exceeding $100,000 [32]. In contrast, laparoscopic procedures typically involve lower direct costs, primarily due to the less expensive standard laparoscopic instruments and equipment. The overall cost for laparoscopic setups is estimated to be 30% to 50% lower than that of robotic systems. Furthermore, robotic procedures often require specialized single-use instruments, adding between $1,500 and $3,000 per procedure, while laparoscopic procedures usually use reusable instruments, reducing costs over time [33]. Indirect costs are also a significant factor in the cost comparison. The length of hospital stay following surgery is crucial in determining overall costs. Robotic hepatectomy may result in shorter hospital stays due to potentially lower complication rates, which can help offset some of the higher initial costs [21]. Studies indicate that patients undergoing robotic surgery may experience a reduction in hospital stay by one to two days compared to those undergoing laparoscopic procedures. Additionally, shorter recovery times can lead to decreased indirect costs related to lost productivity for both patients and caregivers [34]. Postoperative care needs, including follow-up visits and potential readmissions, should also be considered. If robotic surgery results in fewer complications, the long-term indirect costs may be lower, enhancing its cost-effectiveness [35]. The economic implications of robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy extend beyond individual procedures, impacting the healthcare system as a whole. The higher upfront costs of robotic systems can strain hospital budgets, particularly in resource-limited settings [36]. However, if robotic surgery leads to fewer complications and shorter recovery times, the overall burden on the healthcare system may be mitigated. Some studies suggest that the long-term savings associated with robotic surgery - due to reduced readmission rates and complications - can offset the higher initial costs, leading to more efficient healthcare resource allocation [36]. For patients, the financial implications of these surgical options can vary significantly based on insurance coverage. Robotic surgeries may entail higher out-of-pocket costs due to elevated deductibles and copayments associated with advanced surgical techniques. This financial burden can be particularly challenging for patients, potentially leading to disparities in access to robotic surgery based on socioeconomic status. While the initial costs of robotic surgery may be higher, improved postoperative recovery and reduced complications can enhance the quality of life outcomes, potentially justifying the increased expenses from a patient-centered perspective [37].

Emerging trends and future directions

Robotic and laparoscopic surgical systems are experiencing significant technological advancements aimed at enhancing precision, efficiency, and patient outcomes. Innovations such as the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) are transforming surgical practices by enabling real-time analysis of the extensive visual data generated during procedures. This capability can assist surgeons in making informed decisions during surgery, potentially improving outcomes [38]. Additionally, augmented reality (AR) is emerging as a powerful tool for enhancing visualization of intraoperative anatomy, allowing surgeons to navigate complex structures with greater accuracy. Moreover, the miniaturization of robotic platforms is reducing the surgical footprint, making these systems more versatile and easier to integrate into various surgical environments. Flexible robotics and haptic feedback technologies are also being developed to enhance dexterity and provide tactile sensations, further improving the surgeon's ability to perform intricate maneuvers. Collectively, these technological innovations have the potential to narrow the gap between robotic and laparoscopic approaches in terms of operative efficiency and postoperative recovery [39]. As robotic and laparoscopic techniques continue to evolve, there is an increasing emphasis on personalized surgery and careful patient selection for each approach. Establishing clear criteria for choosing robotic and laparoscopic methods is essential for optimizing surgical outcomes [40]. Factors to consider include tumor size and location, the extent of liver resection required, and the presence of patient comorbidities or risk factors. Additionally, the surgeon's experience and preferences play a crucial role in determining the most appropriate surgical technique. By customizing the surgical approach based on these individual patient factors, surgeons can enhance the likelihood of successful outcomes and minimize complications, ultimately improving patient satisfaction [40]. Despite the growing body of evidence supporting robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy, several knowledge gaps warrant further investigation. Future research should focus on conducting large, randomized controlled trials to directly compare the two techniques, validating the existing findings and clarifying their relative advantages. Evaluating long-term oncologic outcomes and survival rates for patients undergoing liver resection for malignancy is critical to understanding the broader implications of each approach [5]. Additionally, assessing the cost-effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic techniques, including both surgical and postoperative costs, will be vital for informed healthcare decision-making. Finally, investigating the impact of surgeon learning curves on outcomes for each technique can provide valuable insights into how experience influences surgical success. Addressing these areas through well-designed clinical studies will help guide the future adoption and implementation of robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy in routine surgical practice, ultimately benefiting patients and healthcare systems alike [41]. Emerging trends and future directions in robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Emerging trends and future directions in robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy

Image Credit: Dr Mohammed Azeem Khan

Conclusions

In conclusion, the comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy reveals distinct advantages and limitations for each technique, highlighting the nuanced decision-making required in selecting the most appropriate surgical approach. While laparoscopic hepatectomy has established itself as a minimally invasive option with a solid track record of safety and efficacy, robotic hepatectomy offers enhanced precision and dexterity, particularly for complex liver resections. Both techniques demonstrate comparable outcomes in terms of operative efficiency and postoperative recovery, although the choice between them may depend on factors such as surgeon expertise, patient-specific considerations, and the availability of technology. The cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery remains a topic of ongoing debate, with high initial expenses balanced against potential long-term benefits. As technological advancements continue to evolve, including the integration of artificial intelligence and improved imaging modalities, the future of minimally invasive liver surgery promises further refinement and expansion of these techniques. Ultimately, a personalized approach, considering both the surgeon's skill set and the patient's needs, will remain essential in optimizing surgical outcomes and enhancing the overall patient experience.

I want to express my deep appreciation for the integral role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) like Grammarly, Paperpal, and ChatGPT in completing this research paper. The ChatGPT language model (OpenAI, San Francisco, California) was employed to assist in the formulation of key arguments, structuring the content, and refining the language of our manuscript. It provided valuable insights and suggestions throughout the writing process, enhancing the overall coherence and clarity of the article. It was also utilized to assist in editing and rephrasing the work to ensure coherence and clarity in conveying the findings.

Disclosures

Author Contributions

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following:

Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work.

Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work.

Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Concept and design:  Mohammed Azeem Khan, Chandrashekhar Mahakalkar, Shivani Kshirsagar, Sparsh Dixit, Simran Dhole

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data:  Mohammed Azeem Khan, Chandrashekhar Mahakalkar, Shivani Kshirsagar, Sparsh Dixit, Simran Dhole

Drafting of the manuscript:  Mohammed Azeem Khan, Chandrashekhar Mahakalkar, Shivani Kshirsagar, Sparsh Dixit, Simran Dhole

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content:  Mohammed Azeem Khan, Chandrashekhar Mahakalkar, Shivani Kshirsagar, Sparsh Dixit, Simran Dhole

Supervision:  Mohammed Azeem Khan, Chandrashekhar Mahakalkar, Shivani Kshirsagar, Sparsh Dixit, Simran Dhole
==== Refs
References

1 Liver resection and surgical strategies for management of primary liver cancer Cancer Control Orcutt ST Anaya DA 1073274817744621 25 2018 29327594
2 Comparison of safety and effectiveness between robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Int J Surg Mao B Zhu S Li D Xiao J Wang B Yan Y 4333 4346 109 2023 37720925
3 What is the role of minimally invasive liver surgery in treating patients with hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis? Cancers (Basel) Vitale A Angelico R Sensi B 966 16 2024 38473327
4 Minimizing blood loss and transfusion rate in laparoscopic liver surgery: a review Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Serednicki WA Hołówko W Major P Małczak P Pędziwiatr M 213 223 18 2023 37680740
5 Robotic versus laparoscopic major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: short-term outcomes from a single institution BMC Surg Liu L Wang Y Wu T Lin J Deng L Jiang J An T 432 22 2022 36528768
6 Current status of laparoscopic hepatectomy for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic literature review Medicine (Baltimore) Hendi M Lv J Cai XJ 0 100 2021
7 Laparoscopic liver mobilization: tricks of the trade to avoid complications Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Ikoma N Itano O Oshima G Kitagawa Y 0 3 25 2015
8 Indications for liver surgery in benign tumours Eur Surg Fodor M Primavesi F Braunwarth E 125 131 50 2018 29875801
9 Laparoscopic versus open left hemihepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis Transl Cancer Res Yi Y Weng J Zhou C Liu G Ren N 5484 5492 9 2020 35117913
10 Techniques for laparoscopic liver parenchymal transection Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr Yoh T Cauchy F Soubrane O 572 581 8 2019 31929984
11 The harmonic scalpel J Obstet Gynaecol India Dutta DK Dutta I 209 210 66 2016 27298535
12 Early experience of pure robotic right hepatectomy for liver donors in a small-volume center JSLS Jang EJ Kim KW Kang SH 63 26 2022
13 What is the current role and what are the prospects of the robotic approach in liver surgery? Cancers (Basel) Bozkurt E Sijberden JP Hilal MA 4268 14 2022 36077803
14 Minimally invasive liver resection: robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy J Gastrointest Surg Packiam V Bartlett DL Tohme S Reddy S Marsh JW Geller DA Tsung A 2233 2238 16 2012 23054901
15 Robotic liver surgery: technical aspects and review of the literature Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr Giulianotti PC Bianco FM Daskalaki D Gonzalez-Ciccarelli LF Kim J Benedetti E 311 321 5 2016 27500143
16 Laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Clin Med Aboudou T Li M Zhang Z 5831 11 2022 36233697
17 Barriers and enablers to the effective implementation of robotic assisted surgery PLoS One Lawrie L Gillies K Duncan E Davies L Beard D Campbell MK 0 17 2022
18 Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis PLoS One Zhang L Yuan Q Xu Y Wang W 0 15 2020
19 Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review Obstet Gynecol Int Weinberg L Rao S Escobar PF 852061 2011 2011 22190948
20 A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Eur J Surg Oncol Gavriilidis P Roberts KJ Aldrighetti L Sutcliffe RP 1214 1224 46 2020 32312592
21 Evaluation of the economic impact of the robotic approach in major and postero-superior segment liver resections: a multicenter retrospective analysis Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr Ingallinella S Ardito F Ratti F 241 257 13 2024 38617496
22 Laparoscopic and robot-assisted hepatic surgery: an historical review J Clin Med Shimizu A Ito M Lefor AK 3254 11 2022 35743324
23 Laparoscopic vs open right hepatectomy: a value-based analysis J Am Coll Surg Medbery RL Chadid TS Sweeney JF 929 939 218 2014 24680574
24 Management of postoperative pain: a clinical practice guideline from the American Pain Society, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Committee on Regional Anesthesia, Executive Committee, and Administrative Council J Pain Chou R Gordon DB de Leon-Casasola OA 131 157 17 2016 26827847
25 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Enhanced Recovery After Colon and Rectal Surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons Dis Colon Rectum Irani JL Hedrick TL Miller TE 15 40 66 2023 36515513
26 Evidence-based practice interventions for reducing postoperative pulmonary complications: a narrative review Open Respir Med J Dhillon G Buddhavarapu VS Grewal H Munjal R Verma RK Surani S Kashyap R 0 17 2023
27 Fenske JN, Berland DW, Chandran S, et al. Pain Management. Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Fenske JN Berland DW Chandran S Ann Arbor (MI) Michigan Medicine University of Michigan https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34310088/
28 Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver malignancies (ROC’N’ROLL): a single-centre, randomised, controlled, single-blinded clinical trial Lancet Reg Health - Eur Birgin E Heibel M Hetjens S Rasbach E Reissfelder C Téoule P Rahbari NN 1 12 43 2024
29 Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: patterns, detection, staging and treatment J Hepatocell Carcinoma Papaconstantinou D Tsilimigras DI Pawlik TM 947 957 9 2022 36090786
30 The role of lymphadenectomy for liver tumors: further considerations on the appropriateness of treatment strategy Ann Surg Ercolani G Grazi GL Ravaioli M 202 209 239 2004 14745328
31 Uncovering the impact of lymphadenectomy in advanced gastric cancer: a comprehensive review Life (Basel) Dinescu VC Gheorman V Georgescu EF 1769 13 2023 37629625
32 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 A Daskalaki D Gonzalez-Heredia R Brown M 375 382 27 2017 28186429
33 Robot-like dexterity without computers and motors: a review of hand-held laparoscopic instruments with wrist-like tip articulation Expert Rev Med Devices Anderson PL Lathrop RA Webster RJ II 661 672 13 2016 26808896
34 Comparative safety of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy JAMA Surg Kalata S Thumma JR Norton EC Dimick JB Sheetz KH 1303 1310 158 2023 37728932
35 Clinical outcomes and cost of robotic ventral hernia repair: systematic review BJS Open Ye L Childers CP de Virgilio M 0 5 2021
36 Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting Langenbecks Arch Surg Knitter S Feldbrügge L Nevermann N 214 408 2023 37247050
37 Assessment of out-of-pocket costs for robotic cancer surgery in US adults JAMA Netw Open Nabi J Friedlander DF Chen X 0 3 2020
38 Artificial intelligence in surgery: the future is now Eur Surg Res Guni A Varma P Zhang J Fehervari M Ashrafian H 22 39 65 2024
39 The role of augmented reality in the advancement of minimally invasive surgery procedures: a scoping review Bioengineering (Basel) Brockmeyer P Wiechens B Schliephake H 501 10 2023 37106688
40 Advancements in robotic surgery: a comprehensive overview of current utilizations and upcoming frontiers Cureus Reddy K Gharde P Tayade H Patil M Reddy LS Surya D 0 15 2023
41 Cost-effectiveness of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for different surgical procedures: protocol for a prospective, multicentric study (ROBOCOSTES) Front Surg Ielpo B Podda M Burdio F 866041 9 2022 36227017
