Randomized controlled trials for robot-assisted vs laparoscopic liver surgery: a quest on timing and endpoints

Abstract

The introduction of robot-assisted surgery announced a new era in minimally invasive surgery. Possible advantages of robot-assisted surgery are 3D vision, enhancement of dexterity and improved ergonomics for the surgeon. Compared to laparoscopy, robot-assisted surgery also has some downsides: the availability of the console is often limited when shared with other disciplines and the technique is associated with higher costs. Therefore, hospitals and health care providers are demanding that the effectiveness of the robot should be studied to justify its use and to allocate this treatment to patients that benefit most. Studies comparing robot-assistance to laparoscopy are therefore warranted. In recent years, the popularity of robot-assisted hepatectomy (RH) increased but studies comparing outcomes to laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) remain scarce. A recent international multicenter propensity score matched study including over 10,000 patients showed less blood loss, a decrease in conversions and, improved postoperative outcomes after RH compared to LH.1Sijberden J.P. Hoogteijling T.J. Aghayan D. et al.Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection in various settings: an international multicenter propensity score matched study of 10.075 patients.Ann Surg. 2024; 280: 108-117Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar Until recently, randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing RH to LH were not available. Fortunately, the ROC’N’ROLL trial is published in this issue of the Lancet Regional Health—Europe.2Birgin E. Heibel M. Hetjens S. et al.Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver malignancies (ROC'N'ROLL): a single-centre, randomised, controlled, single-blinded clinical tria.Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2024; 43: 100972https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.100972Summary Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (1) Google Scholar Birgin and colleagues from Ulm University Medical Center in Germany performed a single-centre, patient-blinded, superiority trial comparing RH to LH for liver malignancies in 80 patients (41 RH and 39 LH). Primary outcome of the trial is mean quality of life (QOL) measured by the role functioning scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire which showed to be comparable after RH and LH (mean [SD], 74.3 [23.3] vs 79.6 [22.3]; p = 0.547). The comprehensive complication index and other perioperative outcomes were also comparable between groups. Birgin and colleagues conclude that RH is a safe alternative to LH. We applaud the efforts of the authors for performing this very first RCT comparing RH to LH. In general, RCTs comparing robot-assisted to laparoscopic surgery are scarce and therefore this trial is of great value. The study is performed in an experienced center and patients and outcome assessors were blinded, which increases the quality. Furthermore, QOL is an underreported outcome measure in surgical research and the use of this outcome is an important contribution. But what are the implications of the ROC’N’ROLL trial? It is interesting that the benefits of RH shown in the previously mentioned non-randomized study are not reflected in this RCT. Annual volume and learning curve are considered important factors that can influence surgical outcome.3Birkmeyer J.D. Siewers A.E. Finlayson E.V.A. et al.Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.N Eng J Med. 2002; 346: 1128-1137Crossref PubMed Scopus (4369) Google Scholar Surgeons participating in the ROC’N’ROLL trial had to perform at least 50 minimally invasive hepatectomies annually (LH or RH) and a minimum of 25 RH in total. Case-splitting was allowed when two primary surgeons performed distinct resections during the same session. During the 1.5 year time frame of the trial, 80 patients received RH or LH by 3 surgeons. These numbers suggest that during the trial the annual surgeon volume was below the required 50, which could have influenced the outcomes. This lower annual volume might be caused by the 1:1 randomization ratio which results in a halving of