Background: s/Aims: To evaluate the impact of unplanned conversion to open surgery on resection margin status and postoperative complications in patients undergoing minimally-invasive resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Methods: This study performed a proportion meta-analysis and meta-regression using random-effects modelling in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies with at least 15 patients that reported conversion to open surgery in individuals receiving minimally-invasive CRLM resection were included. The association of unplanned conversion with postoperative outcomes was analyzed. Results: Eighty-six studies encompassing 18,138 patients were analyzed. The overall conversion rate was 5.8% (95% CI 5%–6.6%).Conversion was associated with improved R0 resection rates (coefficient: 2.167, p < 0.001) but was also linked to increased postoperative mortality (coefficient: 7.585, p = 0.001) and morbidity (coefficient: 1.737, p = 0.003); there was no significant impact on 5-year overall survival (coefficient: 0.700, p = 0.989) or 5-year disease-free survival (coefficient: –72.900, p = 0.157). Specifically, conversion due to oncological concern was associated with higher rates of R0 resection (coefficient: 0.638, p = 0.005); conversion resulting from iatrogenic injuries was associated with lower R0 resection rates (coefficient: –1.478, p < 0.001); conversion for technical difficulties was associated with lower postoperative morbidity (coefficient: –0.380, p = 0.006). Conclusions Unplanned conversion to open may carry prognostic and oncological implications for minimally-invasive resection of CRLM. Although conversion due to bleeding and iatrogenic injury is routinely considered, conversion prompted by technical difficulties or oncological concerns should not be considered failure, as it may be associated with improved patient outcomes.

To examine the feasibility and safety of robotic radical resection (RRR) for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA). A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis with meta-regression was conducted, including studies reporting outcomes of RRR in patients with HCCA. Six studies comprising 295 patients were included. In highly selected patients (body mass index [BMI] < 25 kg/m” ; tumor size < 3 cm), RRR of HCCA proved safe and feasible (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications: 14.8% [95% confidence interval 8.7%–20.8%]; 30-day mortality:1.9% [0%–4.2%]; conversion to open surgery: 1.9% [0%–4.2%]; intraoperative blood loss: 210 mL [119–301 mL]; operative time: 481 minutes [339–623 minutes]; R0 resection rate: 82.2% [75.0%–89.4%]; retrieved lymph nodes: 12 [9–16]). Younger age (p = 0.008), higher BMI (p = 0.009), larger tumors (p = 0.048), and performing liver resections (p = 0.017) increased blood loss. American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥ III (p < 0.001) and Bismuth IV disease (p < 0.001) increased operative times. Preoperative biliary drainage (p = 0.027) enhanced R0 resection rates. RRR led to less bleeding (mean difference [MD]: –184 mL, p = 0.0005), longer operative times (MD:162 minutes, p = 0.001), and improved R0 resection rates (odds ratio: 3.29, p = 0.006) compared with the open approach. Subject to selection bias and type 2 error, RRR for HCCA might be safe and feasible in highly selected patients (favorable BMI and tumor size). The findings should not be taken as definitive conclusions but may be used for hypothesis generation in subsequent trials.

To examine the feasibility and safety of robotic radical resection (RRR) for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA). A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis with meta-regression was conducted, including studies reporting outcomes of RRR in patients with HCCA. Six studies comprising 295 patients were included. In highly selected patients (body mass index [BMI] < 25 kg/m” ; tumor size < 3 cm), RRR of HCCA proved safe and feasible (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications: 14.8% [95% confidence interval 8.7%–20.8%]; 30-day mortality:1.9% [0%–4.2%]; conversion to open surgery: 1.9% [0%–4.2%]; intraoperative blood loss: 210 mL [119–301 mL]; operative time: 481 minutes [339–623 minutes]; R0 resection rate: 82.2% [75.0%–89.4%]; retrieved lymph nodes: 12 [9–16]). Younger age (p = 0.008), higher BMI (p = 0.009), larger tumors (p = 0.048), and performing liver resections (p = 0.017) increased blood loss. American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥ III (p < 0.001) and Bismuth IV disease (p < 0.001) increased operative times. Preoperative biliary drainage (p = 0.027) enhanced R0 resection rates. RRR led to less bleeding (mean difference [MD]: –184 mL, p = 0.0005), longer operative times (MD:162 minutes, p = 0.001), and improved R0 resection rates (odds ratio: 3.29, p = 0.006) compared with the open approach. Subject to selection bias and type 2 error, RRR for HCCA might be safe and feasible in highly selected patients (favorable BMI and tumor size). The findings should not be taken as definitive conclusions but may be used for hypothesis generation in subsequent trials.

To examine the feasibility and safety of robotic radical resection (RRR) for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA). A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis with meta-regression was conducted, including studies reporting outcomes of RRR in patients with HCCA. Six studies comprising 295 patients were included. In highly selected patients (body mass index [BMI] < 25 kg/m” ; tumor size < 3 cm), RRR of HCCA proved safe and feasible (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications: 14.8% [95% confidence interval 8.7%–20.8%]; 30-day mortality:1.9% [0%–4.2%]; conversion to open surgery: 1.9% [0%–4.2%]; intraoperative blood loss: 210 mL [119–301 mL]; operative time: 481 minutes [339–623 minutes]; R0 resection rate: 82.2% [75.0%–89.4%]; retrieved lymph nodes: 12 [9–16]). Younger age (p = 0.008), higher BMI (p = 0.009), larger tumors (p = 0.048), and performing liver resections (p = 0.017) increased blood loss. American Society of Anesthesiologists status ≥ III (p < 0.001) and Bismuth IV disease (p < 0.001) increased operative times. Preoperative biliary drainage (p = 0.027) enhanced R0 resection rates. RRR led to less bleeding (mean difference [MD]: –184 mL, p = 0.0005), longer operative times (MD:162 minutes, p = 0.001), and improved R0 resection rates (odds ratio: 3.29, p = 0.006) compared with the open approach. Subject to selection bias and type 2 error, RRR for HCCA might be safe and feasible in highly selected patients (favorable BMI and tumor size). The findings should not be taken as definitive conclusions but may be used for hypothesis generation in subsequent trials.

To compare the outcomes of low central venous pressure (CVP) to standard CVP during laparoscopic liver resection. The study design was a systematic review following the PRISMA statement standards. The available literature was searched to identify all studies comparing low CVP with standard CVP in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. The outcomes included intraoperative blood loss (primary outcome), need for blood transfusion, mean arterial pressure, operative time, Pringle time, and total complications. Random-effects modelling was applied for analyses. Type I and type II errors were assessed by trial sequential analysis (TSA). A total of 8 studies including 682 patients were included (low CVP group, 342; standard CVP group, 340). Low CVP reduced intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (mean difference [MD], –193.49 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], –339.86 to –47.12; p = 0.01).However, low CVP did not have any effect on blood transfusion requirement (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.28–1.03; p = 0.06), mean arterial pressure (MD, –1.55 mm Hg; 95% CI, –3.85–0.75; p = 0.19), Pringle time (MD, –0.99 minutes; 95% CI, –5.82–3.84; p = 0.69), operative time (MD, –16.38 minutes; 95% CI, –36.68–3.39; p = 0.11), or total complications (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.97–3.80; p = 0.06). TSA suggested that the meta-analysis for the primary outcome was not subject to type I or II errors. Low CVP may reduce intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (moderate certainty); however, this may not translate into shorter operative time, shorter Pringle time, or less need for blood transfusion. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes will provide more robust evidence.