Robotic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a clinical review

Eric C.H. Lai, Daniel T.M. Chung, Oliver C.Y. Chan, Chung Ngai Tang

Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Chai Wan, Hong Kong, China.

Topic: Management of Huge and Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Robotic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a clinical review

Eric C.H. Lai, Daniel T.M. Chung, Oliver C.Y. Chan, Chung Ngai Tang

Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Chai Wan, Hong Kong, China.

Laparoscopy,hepatectomy,robotic surgery,hepatocellular carcinoma

The robotic surgical system was developed to overcome the disadvantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery. The use of robots in liver surgery was not well evaluated. This article aimed at reviewing robotic partial hepatectomy to conventional laparoscopic or open partial hepatectomy in terms of perioperative, oncologic, and healthcare costs for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Studies were identi fied by searching MEDLINE and PubMed databases for articles from January 2004 to June 2017 using the keywords "laparoscopic hepatectomy", "robotic surgery","robotic hepatectomy", and "hepatocellular carcinoma". Case reports were not included. The open conversion rate, overall morbidity rate, and mortality rate of robotic partial hepatectomy were reported as 0-14.3%, 0-27%, and 0-3%, respectively. Although little data regarding robotic approach for HCC have been reported, it appears to be better than open approach, particularly blood loss and hospital stay, and similar to conventional laparoscopic approach in terms of short term outcomes. The oncological outcomes were comparable to open or laparoscopic approach.Well-known advantages of the robotic system allow resection of tumor location over posterior and superior segments or major hepatectomy with more ease. The main disadvantage of robotic approach was its high cost. In conclusion, oncological data from homogenous series of HCC after robotic partial hepatectomy was needed. Robotic approach was safe to be an alternative option of minimally invasive hepatectomy for HCC. Its future implementation will depend on the advantages that it can provide over open or conventional laparoscopy approach.

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of minimally invasive surgery (MIS)has revolutionized surgical practice in the past 3 decades. MIS benefits patients in terms of better pain control, shorter hospital stay, earlier recovery,and better cosmesis [Table 1]. Traditionally, liver surgery is considered as one of the most challenging surgeries among the abdominal procedures. Its MIS development is also lag behind other gastrointestinal organs’ development. These advanced techniques also require highly experienced laparoscopic skills.Increasing understanding of liver anatomy and advancements in technology have facilitated the development of MIS approach of hepatectomy[1,2].Two international expert consensus conferences on laparoscopic partial hepatectomy were held in Louisville, KY, USA, in 2008 and in Morioka, Japan,in 2014, respectively[3,4]. The jury in the second consensus meeting concluded that minor laparoscopic hepatectomy should be a standard practice, and major laparoscopic hepatectomy is still in exploration phase.Continued cautious introduction of laparoscopic major hepatectomy was recommended. In a recent review,over 9,000 cases of laparoscopic hepatectomies were performed worldwide, and 65% of cases were performed for malignant pathologies[5].

Table 1: Potential advantages of MIS approach of hepatectomy

The recent introduction of robotic surgical systems has given a new face of MIS. It was developed to overcome the disadvantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery. Well-known advantages of the robotic system such as improved vision via three-dimensional view,magnification, tremor suppression, and the flexibility of the instruments have allowed precise operating techniques in a variety of procedures in general surgery. These features allow the surgeons to perform delicate tissue dissection and precise intra-corporeal suturing. The main drawback of robotic system is the associated cost.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common malignancy worldwide and the most common primary liver cancer. Over 80% of cases HCC grown in a cirrhotic liver[6,7]. In view of the benefit of MIS,minimally invasive approach for HCC treatment is increasing continuously adopted[8-11]. The postoperative course after MIS approach of partial hepatectomy may also be improved in patients with liver cirrhosis because the abdominal wall is preserved, kinetics of the diaphragm is improved, collateral venous drainage is better and there is less postoperative ascites.Systematic reviews or meta-analyses suggests that laparoscopic partial hepatectomy of HCC is safe and can provide improved patient outcomes when compared to the open approach[12-14]. Herein, we review the literature to compare robotic partial hepatectomy to conventional laparoscopic or open partial hepatectomy in terms of perioperative, oncologic, and healthcare costs for HCC.

Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and PubMed databases for articles from January 2004 to June 2017 using the keywords “laparoscopic hepatectomy”, “robotic surgery”, “robotic hepatectomy”,and “hepatocellular carcinoma”. Case reports were not included.

PERIOPERATIVE OUTCOMES

Robotic vs. open partial hepatectomy

Three nonrandomized comparative studies compared robotic and open partial hepatectomy[15-17].Patritiet al.[15]from Italy compared outcomes between robotic partial hepatectomy (n= 19) and open (n= 69)partial hepatectomy at 2 centers for lesions in the right posterior section between January 2007 and June 2012. Matched patients undergoing robotic and open partial hepatectomy showed no signi ficant differences in blood loss (376.3vs. 457.5 mL), intraoperative transfusion rate (31.6%vs. 15%), postoperative transfusion rate (10.5%vs. 7%), mean hospital stay(6.7vs. 7.9 days), overall complication rate (15.8%vs. 13%) and mortality rate (0%vs. 0%). According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, major (grades 2-4) complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups (5.3%vs. 1.4%). Robotic group had signi ficantly longer mean operative time (303vs.233 min) and inflow occlusion time (75vs. 29 min)compared with open group. In malignancies, tumorfree margin rates were similar in both groups (R1 resections, 10.5%vs. 9%). Kinghamet al.[16]from United States compared outcomes between robotic partial hepatectomy (n= 64) during 2010-2014 and open (n= 64) partial hepatectomy during 2004-2012. In the robotic group, 41% were segmental and 34% were wedge resections. There was a 6% open conversion rate. There was a signi ficant shorter median operating time (163vs. 210 min), lower median estimated blood loss (100vs. 300 mL), and shorter median hospital stay (4vs. 7 days) in robotic group. The complications rates (10.9%vs. 14.1%) and mortality rates (3%vs.1.6%) were similar in both groups. Eleven of the robotic operations were isolated resections of tumors in segments 2, 7, and 8. The resection margins of the malignant tumors were similar using both groups.Margins ＞ 10 mm were found in 16% of robotic group and 17% of open group. Daskalakiet al.[17]from United States compared robotic (n= 68) and open partial hepatectomies (n= 55) during 2009-2013. There was an 8.8% open conversion rate. Mean estimated blood loss was signi ficantly less in the robotic group (438vs.727.8 mL). Overall morbidity was significantly lower in the robotic group (22%vs. 40%). Clavien-Dindograde 3/4 complications were also signi ficantly lower(4.4%vs. 16.3%). The length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) was significantly shorter for patients who underwent a robotic procedure (2.1vs. 3.3 days).The mean operating time (293.4vs. 256 min), 30-day mortality (0%vs. 1.8%) and mean hospital stay (6.8vs.9.2 days) were similar in both groups. Robotic group had less overall morbidity, ICU, and hospital stay. This translates into decreased average costs for robotic surgery. The mean total cost, including readmissions,was $37,518 for robotic approach and $41,948 for open approach.

Table 2: Advantages and disadvantages of conventional laparoscopic and robotic approaches

Based on current limited nonrandomized comparative studies, robotic approach has better perioperative outcomes, particularly blood loss and hospital stay,than open approach.

Robotic vs. conventional laparoscopic partial hepatectomy

Traditionally, conventional laparoscopic partial hepatectomy can either be pure laparoscopic or handassisted laparoscopic approach. Techniques of handassisted laparoscopic approach has been attempted to bridge the gap between open and pure laparoscopic approach. The bene fits of hand-assisted laparoscopic approach in hepatectomy are: (1) facilitation in manual retraction, which may be the best atraumatic tool; (2)feasibility in assessing margins of resection with the use of tactile sensation; (3) safety in parenchymal dissection laparoscopically; and (4) possibility of immediate hemostasis and prevents air embolism in case the hepatic vein is severed. Obviously, pure laparoscopic procedure is superior to hand-assisted approach in terms of wound pain, and cosmetic outcome as hand-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy usually required a 6-8 cm incision for the placement of the hand-port. Another possible disadvantage of hand-assisted laparoscopic approach includes possible obstruction of the visual field by the surgeon’s hand during the operation. Based on the platform of the development and experiences of conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic surgical system was developed to overcome the disadvantages of conventional laparoscopic approach and handassisted laparoscopic approach. When robotic system compared to conventional laparoscopic approach, the pros and cons of each approach were shown in Table 2.Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial hepatectomy was increasingly studied in recent years. Up till now, no randomized trials are available for robotic hepatectomy. All data have been reported as case series or nonrandomized comparative studies. Most data were obtained from prospectively maintained databases. Tables 3 and 4 showed the results of nonrandomized comparative studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic partial hepatectomy in patients with minor hepatectomies[18-25]and in patients with minor and major hepatectomies[26-29]. Although the perioperative outcomes seemed to be similar in both groups, the benefit of robotic approach has been shown in several studies. The potential benefits included less open conversion rate, higher proportion of major hepatectomies and easier for resection of those tumours located over superior and posterior segments[22,26,28,30-33].

Based on current nonrandomized comparative studies,robot-assisted laparoscopic partial hepatectomy appears to be similar to conventional laparoscopic approach in terms of blood loss, morbidity, mortality rate and hospital stay. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy may have longer operation time.However, the de finition of operation time was variable.Some authors refer to a “total operation time” and specify an included “robot set-up and docking time”,whereas others refer to a “procedure time” with a separate “system time” (from positioning the robot over the patient to disconnection of the robot) and“dissection time” (surgeon’s active time at the console);others calculate the time from “induction of anesthesia to incision” or from “incision to extubation”. However,robotic approach is more expensive than laparoscopic approach.

Table 3: Nonrandomized comparative studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic minor hepatectomy

Table 4: Nonrandomized comparative studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic minor and major hepatectomy

ONCOLOGICAL OUTCOMES

At present, available survival data about robotic partial hepatectomy for HCC in the literature are limited still.Dif ficult learning curves, adequate resection margins,tumor seeding, metastases of the wounds, and the long-term outcome are the major concerns. No portsite recurrence was reported. However, specific survival data in homogenous group of pathology was very limited. The majority of the papers included deals with patients undergoing robotic partial hepatectomy for different diseases, whereas HCC represent a variable (often small) proportion of the total. Therefore,a meaningful analysis of survival data for HCC after robotic surgery was dif ficult still.

Robotic vs. open approach for HCC

In Chenet al.[33], a total of 183 patients underwent robotic partial hepatectomy and 275 patients underwent open partial hepatectomy by the same surgical team between January 2012 and October 2015. Eightyone newly diagnosed HCC cases in each group were compared under propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio. With robotic partial hepatectomy, the conversion rate was 1.6% and the complication rate was 4.4%.The two groups had a comparable percentage of major partial hepatectomy (41.9%vs. 39.5%) and liver cirrhosis (45.7%vs. 46.9%). Compared with the open group, the robotic group required longer operating times (343vs. 220 min), shorter hospital stay (7.5vs. 10.1 days), and lower dosages of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (350vs. 554 ng/kg). The 3-year disease-free survival of the robotic group was comparable with that of the open group (72.2%vs.58.0%), and also similar in the 3-year overall survival(92.6%vs. 93.7%).

Robotic vs. conventional laparoscopic approach for HCC

In 2013, the short-term survival outcome after robotic partial hepatectomies for 41 consecutive patients with HCC was reported by Laiet al.[20]. The mean operation time and blood loss was 229.4 min and 412.6 mL,respectively. The R0 resection rate was 93%. The hospital mortality and morbidity rates were 0% and 7.1%, respectively. The mean hospital stay was 6.2 days. The 2-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 94% and 74%, respectively. In the subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomies, when compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach, the robotic group had similar blood loss (mean, 373.4vs. 347.7 mL), morbidity rate (3%vs. 9%), mortality rate (0%vs. 0%), and R0 resection rate (90.9%vs. 90.9%).However, the robotic group had a signi ficantly longer operative time (202.7vs. 133.4 min). Recently, Lai and Tang[34]also compared the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic (n= 100) and conventional laparoscopic partial hepatectomy (n= 35) for HCC.Robotic group had a significant higher proportion of major hepatectomies (27%vs. 2.9%) and tumors located at or across posterosuperior segments (29%vs. 0%) than conventional laparoscopic group. For the perioperative outcomes, robotic group had a signi ficant longer mean operating time (207.4vs. 134.2 min).Both groups had similar blood loss (334.6vs. 336 mL).There was no difference in morbidity (14%vs. 20%)and mortality rate (0%vs. 0%). Concerning oncological outcomes, there was no difference between 2 groups in R0 resection rate (96%vs. 91.4%), 5-year overall survival (65%vs. 48%), and disease-free survival (42%vs. 38%). Recently, Magistriet al.[35]also reported the short-term outcomes of patients who had underwent robotic resections (n= 22) and laparoscopic (n= 24)resections for HCC. In the robotic group, there were 6 left lateral sectionectomies, 2 right hepatectomies, and 14 minor resections, including 9 segmentectomies and 5 wedge resections. In the laparoscopic group, there were 14 segmentectomies and 10 wedge resections,but no major hepatectomies. Operating time was signi ficantly longer in the robotic group (318vs. 211 min),whereas estimated blood loss was comparable between the two groups (400vs. 320 mL), with one case needed blood transfusion in each group. In the robotic group, Clavien-Dindo classes I and II complication was significantly less frequent than in the laparoscopic group (n= 13vs.n= 22). During analyzing speci fic complications, pleural effusion was significantly less frequent in the robotic group (n= 2vs.n= 10). Regarding major complications, there were no differences of incidence among the two cohorts(n= 2vs.n= 3). In both the groups, one case of R1 resection was observed. They also found that robotic surgery allowed the surgeon to safely deal with liver segments that are difficult to resect in laparoscopic approach, such as segments I-VII-VIII.

CONCLUSION

Although little data regarding robotic liver surgery have been reported, it appears to be superior to open approach, particularly blood loss and hospital stay, and similar to conventional laparoscopic approach in terms rate and hospital stay. However, robotic surgery is more expensive than conventional laparoscopic approach. It should be emphasized that considering robot-assisted laparoscopic partial hepatectomy requires 4 conditions:(1) appropriate selection of patients; (2) follow the principle of open liver surgery; (3) specific expertise and training, in both liver and laparoscopic surgery;and (4) familiarization with the robotic machine and pay precaution of its potential dangers, such as visceral injury by robotic arm, total loss of tactile feedback.For the oncological outcome for robotic resection of HCC, the data are very limited. Oncological data from homogenous series of HCC after robotic partial hepatectomy was needed. Its future implementation and clinical value will depend on the advantages that it can provide over conventional laparoscopy or open surgery.

DECLARATIONS

Authors’ contributions

Proposed the idea, structure, and content: E.C.H. Lai Literature search: E.C.H. Lai, D.T.M. Chung, O.C.Y.Chan

First draft: E.C.H. Lai

Revision and final proof read: D.T.M. Chung, O.C.Y.Chan, C.N. Tang

Financial support and sponsorship

None.

Conflicts of interest

There are no con flicts of interest.

Patient consent

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

Not applicable.

1. Lai EC, Tang CN, Yang GP, Li MK. Multimodality laparoscopic liver resection for hepatic malignancy--from conventional total laparoscopic approach to robot-assisted laparoscopic approach.Int J Surg2011;9:324-8.

2. Lai EC, Tang CN, Li MK. Conventional laparoscopic and robotassisted laparoscopic liver resection for benign and malignant pathologies: a cohort study.J Robot Surg2012;6:295-300.

3. Buell JF, Cherqui D, Geller DA, O’Rourke N, Iannitti D, Dagher I,Koffron AJ, Thomas M, Gayet B, Han HS, Wakabayashi G, Belli G,Kaneko H, Ker CG,Scatton O, Laurent A, Abdalla EK, Chaudhury P,Dutson E, Gamblin C, D’Angelica M, Nagorney D, Testa G, Labow D, Manas D, Poon RT, Nelson H, Martin R, Clary B, Pinson WC,Martinie J, Vauthey JN, Goldstein R, Roayaie S, Barlet D, Espat J,Abecassis M, Rees M, Fong Y, McMasters KM, Broelsch C, Busuttil R, Belghiti J, Strasberg S, Chari RS; World Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Surgery. The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008.Ann Surg2009;250:825-30.

4. Wakabayashi G, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Buell JF, Kaneko H, Han HS,Asbun H, O’Rourke N, Tanabe M, Koffron AJ, Tsung A, Soubrane O,Machado MA, Gayet B, Troisi RI, Pessaux P, Van Dam RM, Scatton O, Abu Hilal M, Belli G, Kwon CH, Edwin B, Choi GH, Aldrighetti LA, Cai X, Cleary S, Chen KH, Schön MR, Sugioka A, Tang CN,Herman P, Pekolj J, Chen XP, Dagher I, Jarnagin W, Yamamoto M,Strong R, Jagannath P, Lo CM, Clavien PA, Kokudo N, Barkun J,Strasberg SM. Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: a report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka.Ann Surg2015;261:619-29.

5. Ciria R, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Briceno J, Wakabayashi G.comparative short-term bene fits of laparoscopic liver resection: 9000 cases and climbing.Ann Surg2016;263:761-77.

6. Lai EC, Lau WY. The continuing challenge of hepatic cancer in Asia.Surgeon2005;3:210-5.

7. Lau WY, Lai EC. Hepatocellular carcinoma: current management and recent advances.Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int2008;7:237-57.

8. Lau WY, Lai EC. The current role of radiofrequency ablation in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review.Ann Surg2009;249:20-5.

9. Lai EC, Tang CN, Yang GP, Li MK. Minimally invasive surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: long-term outcome.World J Surg2009;33:2150-4.

10. Lai EC, Tang CN, Ha JP, Li MK. Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: ten-year experience in a single center.Arch Surg2009;144:143-7.

11. Lai EC, Tang CN. Radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma within the Milan criteria--a comparative study.Int J Surg2013;11:77-80.

12. Zhou YM, Shao WY, Zhao YF, Xu DH, Li B. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.Dig Dis Sci2011;56:1937-43.

13. Yin Z, Fan X, Ye H, Yin D, Wang J. Short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a global systematic review and meta-analysis.Ann Surg Oncol2013;20:1203-15.

14. Twaij A, Pucher PH, Sodergren MH, Gall T, Darzi A, Jiao LR.Laparoscopic vs open approach to resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with known cirrhosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.World J Gastroenterol2014;20:8274-81.

15. Patriti A, Cipriani F, Ratti F, Bartoli A, Ceccarelli G, Casciola L,Aldrighetti L. Robot-assisted versus open liver resection in the right posterior section.JSLS2014;18:e2014.00040.

16. Kingham TP, Leung U, Kuk D, Gönen M, D’Angelica MI, Allen PJ,DeMatteo RP, Laudone VP, Jarnagin WR, Fong Y. Robotic liver resection: a case-matched comparison.World J Surg2016;40:1422-8.

17. Daskalaki D, Gonzalez-Heredia R, Brown M, Bianco FM, Tzvetanov I, Davis M, Kim J, Benedetti E, Giulianotti PC. 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 A2017;27:375-82.

18. Berber E, Akyildiz HY, Aucejo F, Gunasekaran G, Chalikonda S,Fung J. Robotic versus laparoscopic resection of liver tumours.HPB(Oxford)2010;12:583-6.

19. Packiam V, Bartlett DL, Tohme S, Reddy S, Marsh JW, Geller DA, Tsung A. Minimally invasive liver resection: robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy.J Gastrointest Surg2012;16:2233-8.

20. Lai EC, Yang GP, Tang CN. Robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: short-term outcome.Am J Surg2013;205:697-702.

21. Tranchart H, Ceribelli C, Ferretti S, Dagher I, Patriti A. Traditional versus robot-assisted full laparoscopic liver resection: a matched-pair comparative study.World J Surg2014;38:2904-9.

22. Yu YD, Kim KH, Jung DH, Namkoong JM, Yoon SY, Jung SW,Lee SK, Lee SG. Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a comparative study from a single center.Langenbecks Arch Surg2014;399:1039-45.

23. Kim JK, Park JS, Han DH, Choi GH, Kim KS, Choi JS, Yoon DS.Robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy of liver.Surg Endosc2016;30:4756-64.

24. Montalti R, Scuderi V, Patriti A, Vivarelli M, Troisi RI. Robotic versus laparoscopic resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver: a propensity score-matched comparison.Surg Endosc2016;30:1004-13.

25. Salloum C, Lim C, Lahat E, Gavara CG, Levesque E, Compagnon P, Azoulay D. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy: analysis of surgical outcomes and costs by a propensity score matched cohort study.World J Surg2017;41:516-24.

26. Tsung A, Geller DA, Sukato DC, Sabbaghian S, Tohme S, Steel J, Marsh W, Reddy SK, Bartlett DL. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison.Ann Surg2014;259:549-55.

27. Spampinato MG, Coratti A, Bianco L, Caniglia F, Laurenzi A, Puleo F, Ettorre GM, Boggi U. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted major hepatectomies: an Italian multi-institutional comparative study.Surg Endosc2014;28:2973-9.

28. Wu YM, Hu RH, Lai HS, Lee PH. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive liver resection.Asian J Surg2014;37:53-7.

29. Lee KF, Cheung YS, Chong CC, Wong J, Fong AK, Lai PB.Laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy: experience from a single centre.ANZ J Surg2016;86:122-6.

30. Lai EC, Tang CN. Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial caudate lobe resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic liver.Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech2014;24:e88-91.

31. Lai EC, Tang CN, Li MK. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hemihepatectomy: technique and surgical outcomes.Int J Surg2012;10:11-5.

32. Casciola L, Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A, Ceribelli C, Spaziani A.Robot-assisted parenchymal-sparing liver surgery including lesions located in the posterosuperior segments.Surg Endosc2011;25:3815-24.

33. Chen PD, Wu CY, Hu RH, Chou WH, Lai HS, Liang JT, Lee PH, Wu YM. robotic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a matched comparison.Ann Surg Oncol2017;24:1021-8.

34. Lai EC, Tang CN. Long-term survival analysis of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma:a comparative study.Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech2016;26:162-6.

35. Magistri P, Tarantino G, Guidetti C, Assirati G, Olivieri T, Ballarin R, Coratti A, Di Benedetto F. Laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma: the first 46 consecutive cases.J Surg Res2017;217:92-9.

Dr. Eric C.H. Lai, Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, 3 Lok Man Road, Chai Wan, Hong Kong,China. E-mail: elaichun@gmail.com

How to cite this article:Lai ECH, Chung DTM, Chan OCY, Tang CN. Robotic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a clinical review.Hepatoma Res2017;3:278-83.

Laiet al.Hepatoma Res2017;3:278-83

10.20517/2394-5079.2017.37

21 Aug 2017 First Decision: 20 Sep 2017 Revised: 4 Oct 2017 Accepted: 26 Oct 2017 Published: 27 Nov 2017

This is an open access article licensed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.