Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Anatomic Liver Resection: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes—A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

ABSTRACT Aim Minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (AR) is technically demanding, and the efficacy of robotic surgery in AR remains unestablished. This systematic review aims through a meta‐analysis to compare surgical outcomes between robotic (RAR) and conventional laparoscopic (LAR) AR. Methods A systematic literature search of relevant studies published between 2001 and 2024 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library was carried out, and 15 studies were selected. Meta‐analysis was performed to compare perioperative outcomes between RAR and LAR. Results A total of 4171 patients comprising 2042 RAR and 2129 LAR patients who underwent major hepatectomy or liver parenchyma‐sparing AR (PSAR) were included. All included studies were retrospective comparative studies, including eight using propensity score‐matched analysis. Meta‐analysis demonstrated that as primary outcomes, the 30‐day and 90‐day mortalities and postoperative overall morbidity were comparable between RAR and LAR, while RAR had significantly less morbidity≥Clavien‐Dindo grade II and a lower rate of open conversion. As secondary outcomes, compared to LAR, RAR showed significantly less blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stay, while RAR had a higher rate of postoperative 30‐day readmission. Operative time, blood transfusion, Pringle maneuver, R0 resection, and reoperation were comparable. Subgroup meta‐analyses showed a lower rate of blood transfusion in robotic PSAR and a lower rate of open conversion in RAR in the right cranial regions. Conclusion This large‐scale meta‐analysis of minimally invasive AR suggests that RAR can confer comparable or partly better perioperative outcomes as compared to LAR, indicating potential advantages of the robotic approach to AR.