Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery

Abu Hilal^*
*Correspondence: Abu Hilal, Department of Surgery, Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery Division, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey, Tel: +9254573944, Email:

Keywords

Liver • Robotic surgery • Minimally invasive

Introduction

Minimally invasive surgical systems have been persistently advancing because of mechanical turns of events, the need to dispose of human blunder, to work with the specialist in carrying out techniques that are testing both by the open and negligibly intrusive methodology, and the constant need to work on clinical results. The expanding and enlarging utilization of the negligibly obtrusive methodology has additionally prompted the quick reception of the mechanical methodology in significant stomach surgeries. The mechanical methodology has additionally been embraced in numerous different fields, for instance, bosom malignant growth and reproduction medical procedure [1]. Although the viability of mechanical medical procedure has been demonstrated for a few signs, its utilization is as yet restricted because of somewhat significant expenses, specialized troubles, and deficient solid proof of its convenience in testing methods, for example, liver resections.

By and by, experienced focuses have revealed a few advantages of negligibly obtrusive liver medical procedure (MILS) in chose patients. In this unique circumstance, less postoperative torment, less dying, a lower careful site disease rate and a more limited medical clinic stay are usually referenced benefits. Notwithstanding, whether mechanical liver medical procedure has merits over laparoscopic liver medical procedure is still a lot of a question of discussion [2].

Although automated liver medical procedure is presently broadly applied, no normalized, replicable and safe method has been depicted at this point, in spite of the rising writing on the subject. This is conceivably because of the particular specialized challenges in liver medical procedure and an absence of redone careful instruments, particularly for the parenchymal crosscut stage. The previously mentioned model has made a few specialists careful about the use of mechanical liver medical procedure. In any case, the primary mechanical liver resection was at that point revealed in 2006, and from there on, the utilization of automated liver medical procedure has expanded rather rapidly because of the procured insight in laparoscopy since the mid-1990s [3]. Meanwhile, a development of the signs for mechanical liver medical procedure has occurred, from wedge resections and segmentectomies in the underlying stage, to hemi liver resections, expanded hemi liver resections, posterosuperior segmentectomies, benefactor liver resections, and ALLPS in the current day.

In parallel with the authentic improvement of negligibly obtrusive medical procedure, the laparoscopic and automated approaches are currently habitually used to carry out significant stomach surgeries. By the by, the job of the mechanical methodology in liver medical procedure is as yet questionable, and a normalized, safe strategy has not been characterized at this point. This audit means to sum up the present accessible proof and prospects of automated liver medical procedure [4]. Negligibly obtrusive liver medical procedure has been widely connected with benefits, concerning less blood misfortune, and lower inconvenience rates, including liver-explicit intricacies, for example, clinically pertinent bile spillage and post hepatectomy liver disappointment, when contrasted with open liver medical procedure. Moreover, similar R0 resection rates to open liver medical procedure have been accounted for, hence, exhibiting the security and oncological effectiveness of the insignificantly obtrusive methodology.

In any case, whether mechanical liver medical procedure has merits over laparoscopic liver medical procedure is as yet a question of discussion [5]. In the on-going writing, mechanical liver medical procedure has primarily been related with non-sub-par results contrasted with laparoscopy, in spite of the fact that it is recommended that the automated methodology has a more limited expectation to learn and adapt, lower change rates, and less intraoperative blood misfortune. Mechanical careful frameworks offer a more practical picture with incorporated 3D frameworks. What's more, the better adroitness presented by automated careful frameworks can prompt improved intra and postoperative results. Later on, coordinated and further developed haptic input instruments, computerized reasoning, and the presentation of more liver-explicit dissectors will probably be carried out, further upgrading the robots' capacities [6].

Mechanical careful frameworks — which were created to diminish the mistakes brought about by absence of ability and human-related factors with the criticism they give during the execution of the characterized surgeries — have been utilized for almost 20 years and in liver medical procedure beginning around 2006. Because of mechanical careful frameworks, specialists can carry out procedures in physical areas that are hard to reach with customary open or laparoscopic careful frameworks in a more delicate, adaptable, and controlled way [7]. Besides, automated careful frameworks could forestall weakness related careful blunders with their ergonomic plan. The prior referenced benefits of automated a medical procedure and its satisfactory outcomes contrasted with other careful methodologies have permitted this strategy to become inescapable.

The absence of haptic criticism of the careful robot is a significant test of current frameworks, and this lack is just endured by the developing experience of specialists in mechanical medical procedure. Nonetheless, with the power criticism components that are to be coordinated into the current framework in later adaptations, expectations to learn and adapt will probably be abbreviated and difficulties connected with applied tissue strain that might be experienced during the learning stage ought to be forestalled [8].

The ongoing adaptation of the automated careful framework permits single port a medical procedure with articulating cameras and hand devices, empowering its application in major oncological surgeries, causing less postoperative torment, better superficial outcomes, and lower hernia rates. Single port liver medical procedure ought to restrict the stomach wall injury much more, particularly in the event of sores in the posterosuperior sections, which are fairly harder to reach with open and laparoscopic strategies and require bigger entry points. In that unique situation, left sidelong sectionectomies performed with a mechanical single port framework should be visible as a benchmark for the fate of automated liver medical procedure [9].

Minimally invasive liver surgery continues to evolve in parallel with developments in technology and surgical techniques. Robotic liver surgery has been shown to be safe, feasible, and can offer comparable merits over open liver surgery as laparoscopy. Additionally, robotic liver surgery seems to offer a small intraoperative benefit over laparoscopy in technically complex settings in terms of a small decrease in intraoperative blood loss and lower conversion rates. Although robotic surgical systems have a smoother and wider range of motion compared to conventional laparoscopy, due to the six-axis mobility of their arms and integrated 3D image systems, an important disadvantage is that the current systems do not provide feedback on tissue tension [10]. Another important disadvantage of this technique is the high costs in its current form, while it is predicted that these costs will decrease soon due to the presence of multiple suppliers and the presence of new robotic surgery systems in the market.

Conclusion

It is also foreseen that robotic surgery systems will enable abdominal surgery with navigation in the near future, with wider implementation of imaging modalities. Furthermore, the expectation is that artificial intelligence will increasingly be embraced. In parallel with the technological developments of robotic surgical systems and the implementation of integrated radiological imaging systems and artificial intelligence technologies, there is no doubt that the robots’ advantages in liver surgery, involving an organ with a very complex arterial, venous and biliary anatomy, will increase.

References

1. Chen, Kuo, Jin Zhang, Narasimha M. Beeraka and Mikhail Y. Sinelnikov, et al. “Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Breast Surgery: Recent Evidence with Comparative Clinical Outcomes.” J Clin Med 11 (2022): 1827.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Li, Jing-Jing, Zhi-Bo Zhang, Shi-Yun Xu and Cheng-Ren Zhang, et al. “Robotic versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision Surgery in Rectal Cancer: Analysis of Medium-Term Oncological Outcomes.” Surg Innov (2022): 15533506221100283.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Zhang, Xiu-Ping, Shuai Xu, Ming-Gen Hu and Zhi-Ming Zhao, et al. “Short- and long-term outcomes after robotic and open liver resection for elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score-matched study.” Surg Endosc (2022).

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Berardi, G., D. Aghayan, A. A. Fretland and H. Elberm, et al. “Multicentre analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection of the posterosuperior segments.” Br J Surg 106 (2019): 1512–1522.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Chandra, Venita, Deepika Nehra, Richard Parent and Russell Woo, et al. “A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices.” Surgery 147 (2010): 830–839.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Hammond, J. S., I. N. Guha, I. J. Beckingham and D. N. Lobo. “Prediction, prevention and management of postresection liver failure.” Br J Surg 98 (2011): 1188–1200.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

7. Gall, T. M. H., W. Alrawashdeh, N. Soomro and S. White, et al. “Shortening surgical training through robotics: Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus robotic surgical learning curves.” BJS Open 4 (2020): 1100–1108.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

8. Aloia, Thomas A., Bridget N. Fahy, Craig P. Fischer and Stephen L. Jones, et al. “Predicting poor outcome following hepatectomy: Analysis of 2313 hepatectomies in the NSQIP database.” HPB 11 (2009): 510–515.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

9. Nösser, Maximilian, Linda Feldbrügge and Johann Pratschke. “Minimally invasive liver surgery: The Charité experience.” Turk J Surg 37 (2021): 199–206.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

10. Hu, Minggen, Yanzhe Liu, Chenggang Li and Gang Wang, et al. “Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection in complex cases of left lateral sectionectomy.” Int J Surg 67 (2019): 54–60.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at