Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

KRAS-related miR-143 expression is associated with lymph node involvement and correlates with outcome in pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients.

Introduction: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PC) is one of the most lethal malignancies; even after resection the patients' 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) is lower than 26%. The genetic mutational landscape of PC is dominated by activating KRAS mutations, that have been reported in approximately 90% of cases; however, beyond KRAS - direct mutations, several KRAS-targeting miRNAs appear to be downregulated, strengthening the already activated RAS signaling. In addition, the interplay between miRNAs and RAS includes poorly investigated downstream miRNAs. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of some of these candidate KRAS-related miRNAs. Patients and methods: Between 2015 and 2022, 44 patients with pathologically confirmed PC, who received surgery and were enrolled by the Clinical Oncology Unit, Careggi University Hospital, Florence (Italy). PC Total RNA was extracted from FFPE sections, retro-transcribed and the resulting cDNA was then used for qPCR analysis. A panel of KRAS-related miRNA (miR-155, miR-206 and miR-143) was analyzed. Results: In this observational study patients sex distribution was unequal with 34.1% being male and 65.9% female. The most frequent tumor localization was the head of the pancreas (65.9%) and the pathological stages were pT1-2 (45.5%), pT3 (54.5%), pN0 (22.7%), pN+ (77.3%). Adjuvant therapy was administered to 63.6% of patients; disease recurrence was observed in 69% of cases. Twenty-three patients, whose RNA was of adequate quality, were used in the mRNAs expression studies. When comparing the miRNA expression between PC and a pool of healthy tissues, miR-155 was overexpressed and miR-206 downregulated in PC, while miR-143 expression was unchanged. However, when categorized in low- and high- miR-143 expressing PC (according to the median value), high miR-143 was associated with nodal involvement (pN+) (p=0.029), who in turn was linked with shorter DFS (p=0.009) and overall survival (OS) (p=0.021) compared to pN0. A trend toward inferior DFS was observed for higher expression of miR-206 (p=0.095) and miR-143 (p=0.092). Finally, responders to a first-line treatment for advanced disease had miR-155 overexpressed (p=0.048). Conclusions: miRNAs are involved in PC tumorigenesis and metastatic spread. In light of miR-143 association with lymphatic spread and poor prognosis, a comprehensive analysis of miRNA interplay with KRAS deserves further investigation.

Prospective minimally invasive pancreatic resections from the IGOMIPS registry: a snapshot of daily practice in Italy on 1191 between 2019 and 2022.

This retrospective analysis of the prospective IGOMIPS registry reports on 1191 minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPR) performed in Italy between 2019 and 2022, including 668 distal pancreatectomies (DP) (55.7%), 435 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) (36.3%), 44 total pancreatectomies (3.7%), 36 tumor enucleations (3.0%), and 8 central pancreatectomies (0.7%). Spleen-preserving DP was performed in 109 patients (16.3%). Overall incidence of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) was 17.6% with a 90-day mortality of 1.9%. This registry analysis provided some important information. First, robotic assistance was preferred for all MIPR but DP with splenectomy. Second, robotic assistance reduced conversion to open surgery and blood loss in comparison to laparoscopy. Robotic PD was also associated with lower incidence of severe postoperative complications and a trend toward lower mortality. Fourth, the annual cut-off of ≥ 20 MIPR and ≥ 20 MIPD improved selected outcome measures. Fifth, most MIPR were performed by a single surgeon. Sixth, only two-thirds of the centers performed spleen-preserving DP. Seventh, DP with splenectomy was associated with higher conversion rate when compared to spleen-preserving DP. Eighth, the use of pancreatojejunostomy was the prevalent reconstruction in PD. Ninth, final histology was similar for MIPR performed at high- and low-volume centers, but neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used more frequently at high-volume centers. Finally, this registry analysis raises important concerns about the reliability of R1 assessment underscoring the importance of standardized pathology of pancreatic specimens. In conclusion, MIPR can be safely implemented on a national scale. Further analyses are required to understand nuances of implementation of MIPR in Italy.

Predicting Post-Hepatectomy Liver Failure in HCC Patients: A Review of Liver Function Assessment Based on Laboratory Tests Scores.

The assessment of liver function is crucial in predicting the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) in patients undergoing liver resection, especially in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) which is often associated with cirrhosis. There are currently no standardized criteria for predicting the risk of PHLF. Blood tests are often the first- and least invasive expensive method for assessing hepatic function. The Child-Pugh score (CP score) and the Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score are widely used tools for predicting PHLF, but they have some limitations. The CP score does not consider renal function, and the evaluation of ascites and encephalopathy is subjective. The MELD score can accurately predict outcomes in cirrhotic patients, but its predictive capabilities diminish in non-cirrhotic patients. The albumin-bilirubin score (ALBI) is based on serum bilirubin and albumin levels and allows the most accurate prediction of PHLF for HCC patients. However, this score does not consider liver cirrhosis or portal hypertension. To overcome this limitation, researchers suggest combining the ALBI score with platelet count, a surrogate marker of portal hypertension, into the platelet-albumin-bilirubin (PALBI) grade. Non-invasive markers of fibrosis, such as FIB-4 and APRI, are also available for predicting PHLF but they focus only on cirrhosis related aspects and are potentially incomplete in assessing the global liver function. To improve the predictive power of the PHLF of these models, it has been proposed to combine them into a new score, such as the ALBI-APRI score. In conclusion, blood test scores may be combined to achieve a better predictive value of PHLF. However, even if combined, they may not be sufficient to evaluate liver function and to predict PHLF; thus, the inclusion of dynamic and imaging tests such as liver volumetry and ICG r15 may be helpful to potentially improve the predictive capacity of these models.

Impact of microbiota-immunity axis in pancreatic cancer management.

The microbiota impact on human diseases is well-known, and a growing body of literature is providing evidence about the complex interplay between microbiota-immune system-human physiology/pathology, including cancers. Together with the defined risk factors (e.g., smoke habits, diet, diabetes, and obesity), the oral, gut, biliary, and intrapancreatic microbiota contribute to pancreatic cancer development through different pathways including the interaction with the immune system. Unfortunately, a great majority of the pancreatic cancer patients received a diagnosis in advanced stages not amenable to be radically treated and potentially cured. Given the poor pancreatic cancer prognosis, complete knowledge of these complicated relationships could help researchers better understand the disease pathogenesis and thus provide early potential non-invasive biomarkers, new therapeutic targets, and tools for risk stratification that might result in greater therapeutic possibilities and eventually in a better and longer patient survival.

Robotic pancreatic surgery: minimally invasive approach to challenging operations.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery is still associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to present the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatic surgery, including pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD), distal pancreatectomy (RDP) with or without splenectomy, enucleation (REN), and atypical resection (RAR), for benign, borderline, and malignant lesions at a high-volume center. METHODS: A single-center, prospective database was used to retrospectively analyze the early outcomes of robotic pancreatic procedures completed between 2014 and 2020. Out of 124 attempted operations, 3 patients received palliative robotic surgery (2.4%). Of the remaining 121, 14 (11.6%) were converted to open surgery. The robotic procedures included 107 patients: 56 underwent RAPD, 31 underwent RDP (28 with and 3 without splenectomy), 16 underwent REN, and 4 underwent RAR (2 central and 2 total pancreatectomies). RESULTS: The preoperative baseline characteristics and comorbidities were consistent with those of a Western population. The overall incidence of complications was 43.9%, with the more severe (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) occurring after RAPD (19.6%). We collected 7 (13.1%) postoperative pancreatic fistulae after RAPD, 5 (16.1%) after RADP, and 2 (12.5%) after REN. The two central pancreatectomies developed a biochemical leak without sequelae. Three patients (2.8%) died within 90 days after surgery. Early refeeding was achieved in those who did not experience severe complications, while the median hospital stay was 8 days. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 22, with non-R1 microscopic residual tumors found. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pancreatic surgery is a safe and oncologically adequate technique to manage benign and malignant diseases arising from the head, body, and tail of the pancreas.

Multiple hepatocellular carcinoma: Long-term outcomes following resection beyond actual guidelines. An Italian multicentric retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is frequently diagnosed as multinodular. This study aims to assess prognostic factors for survival and identify patients with multiple HCC who may benefit from surgery beyond the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification indications. METHODS: This retrospective study included all the consecutive patients from 4 Italian tertiary centers receiving liver resection for naive multiple HCC between 1990 and 2012 to have a potential follow-up of 5 years. RESULTS: Included patients were 144. Ninety-day morbidity and mortality rates were 38.3% and 8.3%, respectively. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 33.3% and 19.1%, respectively. Tumor size <3 cm, bilirubin, Child-Pugh A, BCLC-A stage, being within "up-to-7" criteria, and minor resections resulted in prognostic factors. The Child-Pugh score resulted in an independent prognostic factor. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery may be related to good outcomes in selected patients with multiple HCC.

Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection in Hepatocarcinoma: Surgical and Oncological Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive approaches are spreading in every field of surgery, including liver surgery. However, studies comparing robotic hepatectomy with the conventional open approach regarding oncologic outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma are limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed demographics characteristics, pathologic features, surgical, and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent robotic and conventional open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. RESULTS: No significant differences in demographics features, tumor size, tumor location, and type of liver resection were found. The morbidity rate was similar, 23% for the open group versus 17% of the robotic group (P=0.605). Perioperative data analysis showed a greater estimated blood loss in patients who underwent open resection, if compared with robotic group (P=0.003). R0 resection and disease-free resection margins showed no statistically significant differences. The 3-year disease-free survival of the robotic group was comparable with that of the open group (54% vs. 37%; P=0.592), as was the 3-year overall survival (87% vs. 78%; P=0.203). CONCLUSIONS: The surgical and the oncological outcomes seem to be comparable between minimally invasive and open hepatectomy. Robotic liver resections are effective, and do not compromise the oncological outcome, representing a reasonable alternative to the open approach.

Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: Is there any difference for frail patients?

BACKGROUND: Old age and frailty are predictors of early postoperative results after pancreatic surgery. We analysed the results of robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy in elderly and frail patients. METHODS: Data from the local robotic pancreatoduodenectomy database were reviewed and matched with those from open operations during the same period (2014-2020). Both old age and frailty were used to determine any correlation with postoperative outcomes. Elderly patients were defined as patients aged 70 years or more, while frailty was classified according to the validated modified Frailty Index. RESULTS: A total of 118 pancreatoduodenectomies were included in the analysis: 65 (55.1%) robotic and 53 (44.9%) open. More than 50% of patients were frail. Overall, 7.6% of patients experienced grade IV Clavien-Dindo complications, and 3.4% died within 90 days after surgery. Frail patients experienced a similar rate of severe complications after robotic vs. open operations (5.3 vs. 11.6; p = 0.439) but earlier refeeding (3 days vs. 4 days; p = 0.006) and earlier drain removal (6 days vs. 7 days; p = 0.046) when operated on by a robotic approach. The oncological outcomes, including limphnodes retrieval, residual disease, recurrences, and survival, were not influenced by the surgical approach. Non-elderly patients also showed more benefits with the robotic approach (lower complication index, earlier refeeding, and drain removal). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with risks of major complications that are comparable to those of open operation in frail patients. Some perioperative parameters (refeeding, drain removal) seem to favour robotics in frail patients and younger patients, although at the price of longer operating times.

Robotic vs open distal pancreatectomy: A multi-institutional matched comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic surgery is still a challenge even in high-volume centers. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) represents the greatest contributor to major morbidity and mortality, especially following pancreatic distal resection. In this study, we compared robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) to open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in terms of CR-POPF development and analyzed oncologic efficacy of RDP in the subgroup of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: We collected data from five high-volume centers for pancreatic surgery and performed a matched comparison analysis to compare short and long-term outcomes after ODP or RDP. Patients were matched with a 2:1 ratio according to age, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score, body mass index (BMI), final pathology, and TNM (Tumour, Node, Metastasis) staging system VIII ed. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-six patients who underwent 82 RDPs and 164 ODPs were included. No differences were found in the incidence of CR-POPF. In the PDAC group, median DFS and OS were 10.8 months and 14.8 months in the ODP group and 10.4 months and 15 months in the RDP group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic distal pancreatectomy is a safe surgical strategy for PDAC and incidence of CR-POPF is equivalent between RDP and ODP. RDP should be considered equivalent to ODP in terms of oncological efficacy when performed in high-volume and proficient centers.

Correction to: Single-centre comparison of robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched study.

In the Abstract, in the Methods section the sentence "Of the 121 included patients, 78 underwent RAPD and 43 underwent OPD." Should read: Of the 121 included patients, 77 underwent OPD and 44 underwent RAPD."

Single-centre comparison of robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic head and periampullary cancers is still associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy (RAPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) performed in a high-volume centre. METHODS: A single-centre, prospective database was used to retrospectively compare the early outcomes of RAPD procedures to standard OPD procedures completed between January 2014 and December 2018. Of the 121 included patients, 78 underwent RAPD and 43 underwent OPD. After propensity score matching (PSM), 35 RAPD patients were matched with 35 OPD patients with similar preoperative characteristics. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in most of the baseline demographics and perioperative outcomes in the two groups after PSM optimization with the exception of the operative time (530 min (RAPD) versus 335 min (OPD) post-match, p < 0.000). No differences were found between the two groups in terms of complications (including pancreatic leaks, 11.4% in both OPD and RAPD), perioperative mortality, reoperations or readmissions. Earlier refeeding was obtained in the RAPD group vs. the OPD group (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.002). Although the differences in the length of the hospital stay and blood transfusions were not statistically significant, both parameters showed a positive trend in favour of RAPD. The number of harvested lymph nodes was similar and oncologically adequate. CONCLUSIONS: RAPD is a safe and oncologically adequate technique to treat malignancies arising from the pancreatic head and periampullary region. Several perioperative parameters resulted in trends favouring RAPD over OPD, at the price of longer operating time. Data should be reinforced with a larger sample to guarantee statistical significance.

Surgical and oncological outcomes after ultrasound-guided robotic liver resections for malignant tumor. Analysis of a prospective database.

AIM: Robotic surgery is thought to have a role in widening the application of minimally invasive liver surgery. Nonetheless, data concerning surgical results for liver malignancies are presently still lacking. We aimed to evaluate the surgical and oncological outcomes of ultrasound guided robotic liver resections for hepatic malignancies. METHODS: All consecutive patients who received robotic resection of primary and secondary liver malignancies from September 2008 to January 2017 were analyzed. The same surgical team performed all procedures following the principle of parenchymal-sparing surgery. RESULTS: From a total of 51 patients, 13 patients (25%) underwent major and 38 (75%) minor hepatectomy. No mortality occurred. Two procedures were converted to open surgery. Five patients experienced major complications, with a reintervention rate of 6%. Median hospital stay was 5 days. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery is a safe and feasible procedure for liver resection even when dealing with malignancies. Our data show that robotic surgery can be considered a valid option to treat patients with liver malignancies in a minimally invasive manner, without compromise the oncological results.

Robotic distal pancreatectomy with selective closure of pancreatic duct: surgical outcomes.

Pancreatic fistula is the main post-operative complication of distal pancreatectomy associated with other further complications, such as intra-abdominal abscesses, wound infection, sepsis, electrolyte imbalance, malabsorption and hemorrhage. Surgeons have tried various techniques to close the stump of the remaining pancreas, but the controversy regarding the impact of stapler closure and suture closure of the pancreatic stump is far from resolved. In this study, we reported our technique and results of robotic assisted distal pancreatectomy with ultrasound identification and consequent selective closure of pancreatic duct. Twenty-one patients underwent consecutive robotic-assisted distal pancreatectomy were included in our study. We describe our technique and analyzed the operative and peri-operative data including mean operative time, intra-operative bleeding, blood transfusions necessity, conversion rate, mortality and morbidity rate, pancreatic fistula rate and grade, time of refeeding and canalization, length of hospital stay and readmission. Median operative time was 260 min. No conversion occurred. Estimated blood loss was 100 mL (range 50-200). No blood transfusions were performed. Mortality rate was 0%. One (5%) patient had a major complication, while 9 (43%) patients had minor complications (grade I). Three (14%) patients developed pancreatic fistula (grade B), while two (10%) patients had a biochemical leak. No late pancreatic fistula and re-operation occurred. The refeeding was started at second day (range 1^-6^) and the median canalization time was 4 days (range 2-7). The median hospital stay was 6 days (range 3-25) with a readmission rate of 0%. Robotic distal pancreatectomy can be considered safe and feasible. Our technique is easily reproducible, with good surgical results.

Robotic enucleations of pancreatic benign or low-grade malignant tumors: preliminary results and comparison with robotic demolitive resections.

BACKGROUND: The incidental detection of benign to low-grade malignant small pancreatic neoplasms increased in the last decades. The surgical management of these patients is still under debate. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic enucleations and to compare the outcomes with non-parenchymal sparing robotic resections. METHODS: The study included a total of 25 patients. Nine of them underwent a robotic enucleation (EN Group) and 16 patients received a robotic demolitive resection (DR Group). Perioperative and medium-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups except for presence of symptoms and tumor size, due to the inclusion criteria. Operative time was significantly shorter and postoperative results were better for EN group, including a significant shorter hospitalization (5 vs. 8 days, p = 0.027), reduced pancreatic leaks (22% vs. 50%, p = 0.287) and a better preservation of glandular function (100% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.066). Mortality rate was zero in both groups, with all patients free from disease at a median follow-up of 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: The risks of under/overtreatment remain still unavoidable for benign to low-grade malignant small pancreatic neoplasms. Simple enucleation should be performed whenever oncological appropriate, to achieve the best postoperative outcomes. The adoption of robotic technique might widen the indications for parenchymal sparing, minimally invasive surgery.

Ultrasound-Guided Robotic Enucleation of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) are relatively rare neoplasms with a low to mild malignant potential. They can be further divided into functioning and nonfunctioning, according to their secretive activity. Surgery is an optimal approach, but the classic open approach is challenging, with some patients having long hospitalization and potentially life-threatening complications. The robotic approach for PanNETs may represent an option to optimize their management. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively maintained databases from 2 high-volume Italian centers for pancreatic surgery. Demographics, pathological characteristics, perioperative outcome, and medium-term follow-up of patients who underwent robotic pancreatic enucleations were collected. RESULTS: Twelve patients with final diagnosis of PanNET were included. The mean age of the patients was 53.8 years (25-77). The median body mass index was 26 (24-29). Three lesions were functioning insulinomas, while the others were nonfunctioning tumors. No deaths occurred. Mild postoperative complications occurred, except for 1 grade B pancreatic fistula. The mean postoperative stay was 3.9 days (2-5). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that robotic enucleation is a feasible and safe approach for the treatment of PanNETs, with short hospital stay and low incidence of morbidity.

Current Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: From Demolitive Surgery to Observation.

Incidental diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) greatly increased in the last years. In particular, more frequent diagnosis of small PanNETs leads to many challenging clinical decisions. These tumors are mostly indolent, although a percentage (up to 39%) may reveal an aggressive behaviour despite the small size. Therefore, there is still no unanimity about the best management of tumor smaller than 2 cm. The risks of under/overtreatment should be carefully evaluated with the patient and balanced with the potential morbidities related to surgery. The importance of the Ki-67 index as a prognostic factor is still debated as well. Whenever technically feasible, parenchyma-sparing surgeries lead to the best chance of organ preservation. Lymphadenectomy seems to be another important prognostic issue and, according to recent findings, should be performed in noninsulinoma patients. In the case of enucleation of the lesion, a lymph nodal sampling should always be considered. The relatively recent introduction of minimally invasive techniques (robotic) is a valuable option to deal with these tumors. The current management of PanNETs is analysed throughout the many available published guidelines and evidences with the aim of helping clinicians in the difficult decision-making process.

Pringle maneuver in robotic liver surgery: preliminary study.

BACKGROUND: Liver resection may be complicated by unpredictable intraoperative bleeding. Pringle's maneuver was the first attempt to control bleeding, but the main problem is the duration of ischemia. Robotic surgery thanks to the magnified view, three-dimensional visualization associated and fine movement allow to perform good parenchymal dissection and identification of vascular structure. Aim of study is to evaluate blood loss and the need to perform Pringle maneuver in patients underwent robotic liver resection. METHODS: Thirty-three patients underwent robotic liver resections were analyzed, 16 (48%) male and 17 (52%) female, with median age of 64 years. Seven (21%) patients had benign lesions and twenty-six (79%) malignant tumor. RESULTS: Seventeen (52%) patients had anatomical resections, while sixteen (48%) patients had non anatomical resection. Operative time was 270 minutes. Estimated blood loss was 100 mL and Pringle maneuver was carried out on seven patients. Median hospital stay was 4 days. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that liver resections with robotic technique can be performed safely even without systematic Pringle maneuver.