» Articles » PMID: 33608766

IWATE Criteria Are Associated with Perioperative Outcomes in Robotic Hepatectomy: a Retrospective Review of 225 Resections

Abstract

Background: Robotic hepatectomy (RH) is increasingly utilized for minor and major liver resections. The IWATE criteria were developed to classify minimally invasive liver resections by difficulty. The objective of this study was to apply the IWATE criteria in RH and to describe perioperative and oncologic outcomes of RH over the last decade at our institution.

Methods: Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of patients who underwent RH between 2011 and 2019 were retrospectively collected. The difficulty level of each operation was assessed using the IWATE criteria, and outcomes were compared at each level. Univariate linear regression was performed to characterize the relationship between IWATE criteria and perioperative outcomes (OR time, EBL, and LOS), and a multivariable model was also developed to address potential confounding by patient characteristics (age, sex, BMI, prior abdominal surgery, ASA class, and simultaneous non-hepatectomy operation).

Results: Two hundred and twenty-five RH were performed. Median IWATE criteria for RH were 6 (IQR 5-9), with low, intermediate, advanced, and expert resections accounting for 23% (n = 51), 34% (n = 77), 32% (n = 72), and 11% (n = 25) of resections, respectively. The majority of resections were parenchymal-sparing approaches, including anatomic segmentectomies and non-anatomic partial resections. 30-day complication rate was 14%, conversion to open surgery occurred in 9 patients (4%), and there were no deaths within 30 days postoperatively. In the univariate linear regression analysis, IWATE criteria were positively associated with OR time, EBL, and LOS. In the multivariable model, IWATE criteria were independently associated with greater OR time, EBL, and LOS. Two-year overall survival for hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma was 94% and 50%, respectively.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the IWATE criteria are associated with surgical outcomes after RH. This series highlights the utility of RH for difficult hepatic resections, particularly parenchymal-sparing resections in the posterosuperior sector, extending the indication of minimally invasive hepatectomy in experienced hands and potentially offering select patients an alternative to open hepatectomy or other less definitive liver-directed treatment options.

Citing Articles

Complete transition from laparoscopic to robotic liver surgery achieves superior outcomes in difficult hepatectomies: a seven-year retrospective study.

Haugen C, Noriega M, Andy C, Waite C, Carpenter D, Halazun K Surg Endosc. 2025; 39(3):1600-1608.

PMID: 39762602 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11474-7.


A European expert consensus surgical technique description for robotic hepatectomy.

Pilz da Cunha G, Lips D, Ahmad J, Kvarnstrom N, Aldrighetti L, DHondt M Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2024; 13(6):991-1006.

PMID: 39669069 PMC: 11634417. DOI: 10.21037/hbsn-23-510.


The learning curve for robotic living donor right hepatectomy: Analysis of outcomes in 2 specialized centers.

Cheah Y, Yang H, Simon C, Akoad M, Connor A, Daskalaki D Liver Transpl. 2024; 31(2):190-200.

PMID: 39441028 PMC: 11732260. DOI: 10.1097/LVT.0000000000000480.


Experience-based transition to robotic surgery in an experienced program in minimally invasive hepatobiliary surgery.

Lopez-Lopez V, Sanchez-Esquer I, Kuemmerli C, Brusadin R, Lopez-Conesa A, Navarro A Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(12):7309-7318.

PMID: 39406973 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11309-5.


Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver malignancies (ROC'N'ROLL): a single-centre, randomised, controlled, single-blinded clinical trial.

Birgin E, Heibel M, Hetjens S, Rasbach E, Reissfelder C, Teoule P Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024; 43:100972.

PMID: 39210947 PMC: 11360176. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100972.


References
1.
Luberice K, Sucandy I, Modasi A, Castro M, Krill E, Ross S . Applying IWATE criteria to robotic hepatectomy: is there a "robotic effect"?. HPB (Oxford). 2020; 23(6):899-906. DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2020.10.008. View

2.
Moris D, Dimitroulis D, Vernadakis S, Papalampros A, Spartalis E, Petrou A . Parenchymal-sparing Hepatectomy as the New Doctrine in the Treatment of Liver-metastatic Colorectal Disease: Beyond Oncological Outcomes. Anticancer Res. 2016; 37(1):9-14. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.11283. View

3.
Ban D, Tanabe M, Ito H, Otsuka Y, Nitta H, Abe Y . A novel difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014; 21(10):745-53. DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.166. View

4.
Wakabayashi G . What has changed after the Morioka consensus conference 2014 on laparoscopic liver resection?. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2016; 5(4):281-9. PMC: 4960417. DOI: 10.21037/hbsn.2016.03.03. View

5.
Khan S, Beard R, Kingham P, Fong Y, Boerner T, Martinie J . Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes Following Robotic Liver Resections for Primary Hepatobiliary Malignancies: A Multicenter Study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25(9):2652-2660. PMC: 6133735. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6629-9. View