Robot-assisted Liver Resection Research Articles

Validation of the IWATE Criteria in Robotic-Assisted Liver Resections.

Background/Objectives: The IWATE criteria are well-established as a helpful tool to preoperatively estimate the difficulty and perioperative outcome of laparoscopic liver resections. We evaluated the relationship between the IWATE criteria and the perioperative outcomes in robotic-assisted liver resections (RARLs). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 58 patients who underwent robotic-assisted liver surgery at our center between July 2019 and April 2023. The operative difficulty of every patient was graded according to the IWATE criteria and compared to the perioperative outcome. Results: The median operation time was 236.5 min (range 37-671 min), and the median length of stay was 6 days (range 3-37 min). The majority had no complications (65.5%; n = 38), 18 (31.0%) patients suffered from mild complications (CD ≤ 3A) and 2 patients (3.4%) suffered from relevant complications (CD ≥ 3B). We observed no deaths within 30 postoperative days. The surgery time, postoperative ICU stay and perioperative blood transfusions increased significantly with a higher difficulty level (p = < 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.016). The length of stay, conversion to open surgery (n = 2) and complication rate were not significantly linked to the resulting IWATE group. Conclusions: The IWATE criteria can be implemented in robotic-assisted liver surgery and can be helpful in preoperatively estimating the difficulty of robotic liver resections. Whether there is a "robotic effect" in minimally invasive liver resections has to be further clarified. The IWATE criteria can help to develop curricula for robotic training.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Liver Resections for Colorectal Metastases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, and the liver is the most common localization of metastatic disease. The incidence of minimally invasive liver surgery is increasing, and robotic surgery (RLR) is believed to overcome some limitations of a laparoscopic approach (LRL). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of operative and short-term oncologic outcomes of the laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted liver resection for colorectal liver metastases. An online search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane databases was performed. Eight studies involving 3210 patients were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. In the LRL group, a higher conversion to open rate (12.4%) was observed compared to the RLR (6.7%; p = <0.001). 30-day mortality was 0.7% for the LRL group compared to 0.5% for the RLR group (p = 0.76). Mortality in longer periods among LLR and RLR amounted to 18.2% vs. 8.0% for 1-year mortality (p = 0.07), 34.1% vs. 26.7% for 2-year mortality (p = 0.13), and 52.3% vs. 48.3% for 3-year mortality (p = 0.46). The length of hospital stay was 5.6 ± 2.5 vs. 5.8 ± 2.1 days, respectively (p = 0.47). There were no significant differences between the incidence of individual complications in the LRL and RLR groups (p = 0.78). Laparoscopic or robotic approaches for colorectal liver metastases are comparable in terms of safety and effectiveness. There are significant advantages to robotic surgery, although there is still no long-term evidence concerning overall survival, and the number of patients operated on using RLR remains small.

Features of laparoscopic liver resection training after mastering of robot-assisted technology

Aim. To estimate the learning curve for laparoscopic liver resections performed by a surgeon experienced in robot-assisted liver resections using the CUSUM method. Materials and methods. The study involved a retrospective analysis of the results of laparoscopic liver resections for malignant and benign neoplasms performed from 2015 to December 2020 and robot-assisted liver resections from 2010 to 2020. The author evaluated the learning curve for laparoscopic liver resections of a surgeon who had mastered robot-assisted resections of high difficulty. Selecting the boundaries between training periods according to the obtained CUSUM graphs was determined by critical changes in the resection difficulty score (IWATE and IMM), duration of surgery, blood loss, and incidence of postoperative complications. Major perioperative events were compared between the laparoscopic and robot-assisted resection groups in each of the training periods. Results. 174 laparoscopic and 57 robot-assisted liver resections were performed. The duration of the first training period comprised 11 robot-assisted resections and 20 laparoscopic resections, the second period – 16 and 20, the third period – 30 and 134, accordingly. In the second period, the resection difficulty score increased significantly for both groups, while the amount of blood loss, the incidence of postoperative complications, and the duration of hospital treatment did not differ significantly. In the second training period, the duration of surgery was significantly longer in both groups. Conclusion. Studying the dynamics of surgical difficulty using the CUSUM method is considered to be a reliable, controlled way to estimate the learning curve for liver resection. Completing the learning curve for robot-assisted liver resections reduces the duration of the learning curve for laparoscopic resections compared to published data of other authors.

A novel image-guided laparoscopic liver resection with integrated fluorescent imaging and artificial intelligence: A preliminary study.

568 Background: Technology innovations improve surgical techniques. ICG fluorescence imaging is beneficial for real time navigation tool during surgery and enables accurate surgery. Recently, the prediction of anatomical structures by artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to support surgeons as navigation tool. We developed a visual-support AI system to perform the laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) using ICG fluorescence imaging and AI technology. Methods: Procedure: ICG fluorescence imaging was used for liver mapping and securing surgical margin. AI model development and evaluation: Over 430 images extracted from 13 videos of LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastasis was used to develop and evaluate the AI algorithm at Anaut Inc. The annotation was performed on video frames capturing a LLR performed by 2 surgeons for hepatic vein and Glisson sheath. The performance of AI on unlearned LH videos was evaluated quantitatively using Intersection-Over-Union (IOU) and Dice coefficients, and qualitatively on a five-point scale (from 1 to 5) by 10 hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgeons using 35 randomly extracted still images from the analyzed videos. Results: ICG fluorescence imaging could visualize the demarcation line and clarified the boundaries of the liver transected surface. The hepatic veins and Glisson sheath were appeared in the parenchymal transection plane during segmentectomy and securing surgical margin, and this AI system enabled to recognize and display these vascular structures through color-coding under bleeding and ICG fluorescent imaging without visual discrepancies. The AI model accurately recognized vascular structures of any size (IoU=0.33, Dice=0.44) in real-time (&lt;0.12 s) In the qualitative evaluation by surgeons, the mean sensitivity score was 4.10 ± 0.92 (range 3.61–4.76). Additionally, this AI system also recognized vascular structures during robot-assisted liver resection. Conclusions: This is the first study demonstrating that AI can precisely identify vascular structures during LLR. Novel image-guided LLR using ICG fluorescent imaging and artificial intelligence is expected to provide safer and more accurate LLR, thereby contributing to reduce complications and improve survival rates.

The Russian consensus on the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

The Russian consensus on the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma was prepared by the group of experts consisting of surgeons, interventional radiologists, radiation therapists and oncologists. The purposes of this consensus are clarification and consolidation of opinions of multidisciplinary team on the following issues of management of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: indications for surgical treatment, features of therapeutic tactics for mechanical jaundice, technical aspects of liver resection, prevention of post-resection liver failure, indications for liver resection using transplantation technologies, laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resection, perioperative systemic chemotherapy, local non-resection/non-radiotherapy methods of treatment, radiotherapy, follow-up and choice of treatment for recurrence.

Image guided robot-assisted liver resection using ICG fluorescence imaging and artificial intelligence

Image guided robot-assisted liver resection using ICG fluorescence imaging and artificial intelligence

Robot-assisted liver resections in locally advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Aim. To evaluate the immediate results of robot-assisted liver resections in locally advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Materials and methods. The research methodology involved the analysis of intraoperative and direct results of robotassisted liver resections from 2015 to June 2023.Results. Total of 89 patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma underwent surgery. Open liver resection was performed in 59 cases (66.3%), laparoscopic resection – in 22 cases (24.7%), robot-assisted resection – in 8 cases (8.9%). The share of massive liver resections accounted for 83%. The average duration of robot-assisted liver resection amounted to 545 (327–640) minutes, blood loss volume – 300 (100–750) ml, number of resected lymph nodes – 7 (5–11), resection margin width – 6 (5–14) mm. All patients underwent extensive resection with elements of vascular or biliary resection. Severe complications developed only in half of the patients. No deaths or liver failures were reported. The average duration of hospital stay after surgery amounted to 11 (6–15) days.Conclusion. Robot-assisted liver resections expand the indications for minimally invasive surgeries in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma due to patients with locally advanced forms. Satisfactory immediate results justify further accumulation and evaluation of the experience of such interventions.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for liver malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies.

How different surgical procedures, including the robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), can affect the prognosis of patients with liver malignancies is unclear. Thus, in this study, we compared the effects of RLR and LLR on the surgical and oncological outcomes in patients with liver malignancies through propensity score-matched cohort studies. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched using Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords from inception until May 31, 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. The mean difference with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used for analysis of continuous variables; the risk ratio with 95% CI was used for dichotomous variables; and the hazard ratio with 95% CI was used for survival-related variables. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Five high-quality cohort studies with 986 patients were included (370 and 616 cases for RLR and LLR, respectively). In terms of surgical outcomes, there were no significant differences in the operation time, conversion rate to open surgery, overall complication rate, major complication rate, and length of hospital stay between the RLR and LLR groups. In terms of oncological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival between the two groups. Surgical and oncological outcomes are comparable between RLR and LLR on patients with liver malignancies. Therefore, the benefits of applying RLR in patients with liver malignancies need to be further explored.

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection for cavernous hemangioma: a propensity score matching study

BackgroundMinimally invasive techniques have increasingly been adopted for liver resection. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for liver cavernous hemangioma and to evaluate the treatment feasibility and safety.MethodsA retrospective study of prospectively collected data was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent RALR (n = 43) and LLR (n = 244) for liver cavernous hemangioma between February 2015 and June 2021 at our institution. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared using propensity score matching.ResultsThe postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter (P = 0.016) in the RALR group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rates, conversion to open surgery or complication rates. There was no perioperative mortality. Multivariate analysis showed that hemangiomas located in posterosuperior liver segments and those in close proximity to major vascular structures were independent predictors of increased intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.013 and P = 0.001, respectively). For patients with hemangioma in close proximity to major vascular structures, there were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between the two groups, with the exception that intraoperative blood loss in the RALR group was significantly less than that in the LLR group (350 ml vs. 450 ml, P = 0.044).ConclusionsBoth RALR and LLR were safe and feasible for treating liver hemangioma in well-selected patients. For patients with liver hemangioma in close proximity to major vascular structures, RALR was better than conventional laparoscopic surgery in reducing intraoperative blood loss.

Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection.

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through international consensus conferences and the development of difficulty classifications. LLR has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for HCC. However, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, the elderly, HCC recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection must be considered for LLR for HCC. Some systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, and large cohort studies indicated that LLR is technically feasible for selected patients with HCC with these factors that led to less intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions and postoperative complication incidences, and shorter hospital stays than OLR. Furthermore, some reported LLR prevents postoperative loss of independence. No difference was reported in long-term outcomes among patients with HCC who underwent LLR and OLR; however, some recent reports indicated better long-term outcomes with LLR. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for HCC are not different from those of LLR. Additionally, RALR is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

Advances in the surgical treatment of liver cancer.

Liver resection is the standard curative treatment for liver cancer. Advances in surgical techniques over the last 30 years, including the preoperative assessment of the future liver remnant, have improved the safety of liver resection. In addition, advances in nonsurgical multidisciplinary treatment have increased the opportunities for tumor downstaging. Consequently, the indications for resection of more advanced liver cancer have expanded. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resections have also gradually become more widespread. These techniques should be performed in stages, depending on the difficulty of the procedure. Advances in preoperative simulation and intraoperative navigation technology may have also lowered the threshold for their performance and may have promoted their widespread use. New insights and experiences gained from laparoscopic surgery may be applicable in open surgery. Liver transplantation, which is usually indicated for patients with poor liver function, has also become safer with advances in perioperative management. The indications for liver transplantation in liver cancer are also expanding. Although the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has forced the postponement of liver resection and transplantation procedures, liver surgeons should appropriately tailor the surgical plan to the individual patient as part of multidisciplinary treatment. This review may provide an entry point for future clinical research by identifying currently unresolved issues regarding liver cancer, and particularly hepatocellular carcinoma.

The Role of ICG in Robot-Assisted Liver Resections.

Introduction: Robotic-assisted liver surgery (RALS) with its known limitations is gaining more importance. The fluorescent dye, indocyanine green (ICG), is a way to overcome some of these limitations. It accumulates in or around hepatic masses. The integrated near-infrared cameras help to visualize this accumulation. We aimed to compare the influence of ICG staining on the surgical and oncological outcomes in patients undergoing RALS. Material and Methods: Patients who underwent RALS between 2014 and 2021 at the Department of General Surgery at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, were included. In 2019, ICG-supported RALS was introduced. Results: Fifty-four patients were included, with twenty-eight patients (50.9%) receiving preoperative ICG. Hepatocellular carcinoma (32.1%) was the main entity resected, followed by the metastasis of colorectal cancers (17%) and focal nodular hyperplasia (15.1%). ICG staining worked for different tumor entities, but diffuse staining was noted in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, ICG-supported RALS lasted shorter (142.7 ± 61.8 min vs. 246.4 ± 98.6 min, p < 0.001), tumors resected in the ICG cohort were significantly smaller (27.1 ± 25.0 mm vs. 47.6 ± 35.2 mm, p = 0.021) and more R0 resections were achieved by ICG-supported RALS (96.3% vs. 80.8%, p = 0.075). Conclusions: ICG-supported RALS achieve surgically and oncologically safe results, while overcoming the limitations of RALS.

Robot-Assisted versus Open Liver Resection: A Matched Case-Control Study

Introduction: Robot-assisted liver surgery is increasingly performed worldwide. The advantages of robot-assisted surgery are improved view and increased precision in operative technique. Robot-assisted surgery may have obvious benefits for patients, though more evidence is needed on the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted surgery when compared to open surgery. At our institution, a robot-assisted liver surgery program was implemented after formal theoretical and practical training using the Da Vinci Surgical System® (RALS). Methods: We performed a matched case-control study of the first 50 consecutive patients who were operated with robot-assisted liver resection at our institution at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark from June 2019 to June 2021. Patients operated with robot-assisted surgery were matched to patients who underwent open liver resection with regard to age, ASA-score, type of liver surgery, and ttumor type using MedCalc® Statistical Software. Results: We will present outcomes of the first 50 consecutive cases who underwent robot-assisted liver surgery compared with a matched group of 50 patients who underwent open liver surgery. We will report mortality, complications (using the Clavien-Dindo classification), procedure time, blood loss, duration of hospital admission, and rate of re-admissions. Conclusion: Favourable results can be achieved with robot-assisted liver surgery already at the start of the program. Our study adds to the necessary evidence required to establish the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted liver surgery when compared to open liver surgery.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Liver Resections: Multicentric Propensity Score Based Analysis with Stratification According to Difficulty Scores

Introduction: Previous studies failed to identify convincing usefulness of robot-assisted liver resections (RALR) with respect to pure laparoscopic (LLR). We aimed to investigate the role of RALR and LLR according to different levels of difficulty.

Da Vinci Xi™ robot-assisted liver resection

ObjectiveTo summarize and think about the surgical process of Da Vinci Xi™ robot-assisted liver resection. MethodsTo summarize the clinical data, preoperative preparations, surgical procedures, and postoperative recovery of a patient who underwent Da Vinci Xi™ robot-assisted left hepatectomy in the third ward of the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University in 2021. Discussion to guide future clinical work. ResultsThe left hemihepatectomy was performed safely and effectively on patients with left intrahepatic bile duct stones with the assistance of Da Vinci Xi™ robot. ConclusionDa Vinci Xi™ robot's three-dimensional field of vision, stable and flexible manipulator operation and other advantages make it suitable for liver resection surgery.

Pure laparoscopic versus robotic liver resections: Multicentric propensity score-based analysis with stratification according to difficulty scores.

The benefits of pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resections (LLR and RALR) are known in comparison to open surgery. The aim of the present retrospective comparative study is to investigate the role of RALR and LLR according to different levels of difficulty. The institutional databases of six high-volume hepatobiliary centers were retrospectively reviewed. The study population was divided in two groups: LLR and RALR. The procedures were stratified for difficulty levels accordingly to three classifications. A propensity score matching was implemented to mitigate selection bias. Short-term outcomes were the object of comparison. Nine hundred and thirty-six LLR and 403 RALR were collected. RALR exhibited fewer cases of intraoperative blood loss, lower transfusion and conversion rates (especially for oncological radicality) than LLR in the setting of highly difficult operations, whereas LLR had lower postoperative morbidity and fewer low-grade complications. For intermediate and low-difficulty resections, the intraoperative advantages of RALR gradually decreased to nonsignificant results and LLR remained associated with lower postoperative morbidity. Robot-assisted liver resections do not show operative nor clinically significant benefits over LLR for low- and intermediate-difficulty resections. By reducing conversion rates, RALR can favour the operative feasibility of difficult resections possibly extending the indications of minimally invasive approaches for liver resection.

Pure Laparoscopic versus Robotic Liver Resections: Multicentric Propensity Score Based Analysis with Stratification According to Difficulty Scores

Background: The benefits of pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resections (LLR and RALR) are known in comparison to open surgery. Previous studies failed to identify convincing usefulness of RALR with respect to LLR. Aim of this retrospective comparative study is to investigate the role of RALR and LLR according to different levels of difficulty. Method: LLR and RALR of six high-volume hepatobiliary centers were retrospectively reviewed. The procedures were stratified for difficulty levels accordingly to three classifications (Ban/Wakabayashi, Kawaguchi/Gayet and Halls/Abu Hilal systems). A propensity score matching was implemented to mitigate selection bias. Results: 936 LLR and 403 RALR were collected. After the implementation of PS matching, 187 MILR were excluded and 1152 retained for comparison: 288 RALR and 864 LLR (matched with a 1:3 ratio). The attainment of adequate balance between the two groups was shown by the distribution of the standardized mean differences of all the covariates. RALR exhibited fewer intraoperative blood loss,lower transfusion and conversion rates (especially for oncological radicality) than LLR in the setting of highly difficult operation, whereasLLRhad lower postoperative morbidity and fewer low-grade complications. For intermediate and low difficulty resections, the intraoperative advantages of RALR gradually decreased to nonsignificant results and LLR remained associated with lower postoperative morbidity. Regarding operative time and length of hospitalization, no relevant differences were observed between the two groups. The results of the three scores showed concordance through all the levels of difficulty. Conclusion: RALR does not show operative nor clinically significant benefits over LLR for low and intermediate difficulty resections. By reducing conversion rates, RALR can favour the operative feasibility of difficult resections possibly extending the indications of minimally-invasive approaches for liver resection. Although the intraoperative advantages do not translate directly into a postoperative course more favorable than pure laparoscopy, it represents an advantage in terms of increased safety for difficult liver resections. Further studies are advocated to clarify whether greater technology and integrative evolutions will allow the robot to acquire superior potential and enhance even further the treatment effect of a complete minimally-invasive program.

Transitioning From Open to Robotic Liver Resection. Results of 46 Consecutive Procedures Including a Majority of Major Hepatectomies

Aims. Minimally invasive liver resection is a complex and challenging operation. Although authors have reported robotic liver resection shows improved safety and efficacy compared with open liver resection, robotic major liver resections for malignant liver lesions treatment remain inadequately evaluated. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the feasibility and safety of transitioning from open to robotic liver resection in a nonuniversity hospital. Patients and Methods. From December 2015 to March 2020, 46 patients underwent totally robotic-assisted liver resections out of 446 robotic procedures. Also, we retrospectively reviewed the last 27 open right hepatectomies (ORHs) and compared then with the first 25 anatomic robotic-assisted right hepatectomies (RRHs). Results. Mean operative time, mean blood lost, rate of complications, and mean hospital stay were associated with the complexity of the procedure. The comparison between ORH and RRH showed that intraoperative complications were less frequently observed during ORH whereas RRH showed a trend in favor of less blood loss. ORH had a trend toward smaller surgical margins and higher rate of R1 resections. Recurrence occurred in 31 (59%) patients and was more frequently observed after ORH. However, the mean follow-up was significantly shorter after RRH. Conclusion. Our study demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of transitioning from open to robotic liver resection (including major hepatectomies) in a nonuniversity setting. Higher costs remain an important drawback for robotic surgery.

A falciform ligament flap surface sealing technique for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted liver surgery

Whether sealing the hepatic resection surface after liver surgery decreases morbidity is still unclear. Nevertheless, various methods and materials are currently in use for this procedure. Here, we describe our experience with a simple technique using a mobilized falciform ligament flap in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). We retrospectively analyzed the charts from 46 patients who received minor MILS between 2011 and 2019 from the same surgical team in a university hospital setting in Germany. Twenty-four patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection, and 22 patients received robotic-assisted liver resection. Sixteen patients in the laparoscopic group and fourteen in the robotic group received a falciform ligament flap (FLF) to cover the resection surface after liver surgery. Our cohort was thus divided into two groups: laparoscopic and robotic patients with (MILS + FLF) and without an FLF (MILS−FLF). Twenty-eight patients (60.9%) in our cohort were male. The overall mean age was 56.8 years (SD 16.8). The mean operating time was 249 min in the MILS + FLF group vs. 235 min in the MILS−FLF group (p = 0.682). The mean blood loss was 301 ml in the MILS + FLF group vs. 318 ml in the MILS−FLF group (p = 0.859). Overall morbidity was 3.3% in the MILS + FLF group vs. 18.8% in the MILS−FLF group (p = 0.114). One patient in the MILS−FLF group (overall 2.2%), who underwent robotic liver surgery, developed bile leakage, but this did not occur in the MILS + FLF group. Covering the resection surface of the liver after minor minimally invasive liver resection with an FLF is a simple and cost-effective technique that does not prolong surgical time or negatively affect other perioperative parameters. In fact, it is a safe add-on step during MILS that may reduce postoperative morbidity. Further studies with larger cohorts will be needed to substantiate our proof of concept and results.

Robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal liver metastasis: A single-centre experience.

Background:Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the liver is increasingly widespread, its role in the treatment of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) remains uncertain. In this setting, the role of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has not been significantly evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to report our experience with RAS for treatment of CRLM.Material and Methods:Prospectively collected surgical and oncologic data on all of the robotic-assisted liver resections for CRLM performed at our centre were retrieved from the institutional database and retrospectively analysed. Intra-operative ultrasound (US) was obtained with a dedicated robotic probe using the TilePro™ function.Results:Twenty patients underwent robotic-assisted resection of CRLM between May 2012 and April 2018. Six patients (30%) had multiple synchronous CRLM resections (median = 2; range 2–4). The tumour size averaged 3.0 ± 1.8 cm. All of the lesions were removed using a parenchymal-sparing approach, with R0 resection margins. Mean hospital stay was 4.7 ± 1.8 days. The mean follow-up was 22.5 ± 19.5 months. During the study period, there were no local recurrences, while 9 patients (45%) developed new systemic metastasis. All patients are still alive as of September 2018 with 1- and 3-year disease-free survival of 89.5% and 35.8%, respectively.Conclusions:In our experience, RAS for CRLM surgical treatment was feasible and played a positive role even in patients with multiple metastases and previous or synchronous surgery. RAS seemed to be oncologically effective in this setting, as no patients experienced local relapse in the treated area.