Hagendoorn, Jeroen

ABSTRACT Background Implementation of remote robotic‐assisted surgery (rRAS) has the potential to significantly improve access to high‐quality surgical care for patients worldwide. Advances in robotic systems and telecommunications now enable highly reliable, low latency, and cybersecure connectivity. These technological developments, together with the broader adoption of telemedicine, have driven an increasing interest in the implementation of rRAS. Methods The Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) convened a conference to develop international clinical recommendations for rRAS using the Danish Model of Consensus. The society identified five key issue categories and invited a panel of experts to address specific questions for each. Panel members and a jury of 10 unbiased, non‐expert in rRAS professionals participated in a day‐long conference on November 19, 2025 (Los Angeles, USA). During the conference, participants presented, discussed, and reached consensus on specific guidelines relevant to each category. Immediately after the conference, the jury reviewed and approved the recommended guidelines. Results Multiple recommendations were approved for each of the following categories: Operating Models, Roles and Responsibilities (2 recommendations), Clinical Pathway (2 recommendations), Emergency Management (8 recommendations), Technical Considerations (5 recommendations), and Medico‐legal and Ethical Considerations (4 recommendations). Conclusions There was consensus that with recent advances in telecommunication and robotic technologies, rRAS can be offered safely and effectively if the identified safeguards are realized. Adoption of rRAS is expected to continue advancing rapidly.

Objective: This study aims at establishing benchmark values for best achievable outcomes following open major anatomic hepatectomy for liver tumors of all dignities. Background: Outcomes after open major hepatectomies vary widely lacking reference values for comparisons among centers, indications, types of resections, and minimally invasive procedures. Methods: A standard benchmark methodology was used covering consecutive patients, who underwent open major anatomic hepatectomy from 44 high-volume liver centers from 5 continents over a 5-year period (2016–2020). Benchmark cases were low-risk non-cirrhotic patients without significant comorbidities treated in high-volume centers (≥30 major liver resections/year). Benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median values of all centers. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year in each patient. Results: Of 8044 patients, 2908 (36%) qualified as benchmark (low-risk) cases. Benchmark cutoffs for all indications include R0 resection ≥78%; liver failure (grade B/C) ≤10%; bile leak (grade B/C) ≤18%; complications ≥grade 3 and CCI ® ≤46% and ≤9 at 3 months, respectively. Benchmark values differed significantly between malignant and benign conditions so that reference values must be adjusted accordingly. Extended right hepatectomy (H1, 4-8 or H4-8) disclosed a higher cutoff for liver failure, while extended left (H1-5,8 or H2-5,8) were associated with higher cutoffs for bile leaks, but had superior oncologic outcomes, when compared to formal left hepatectomy (H1-4 or H2-4). The minimal follow-up for a conclusive outcome evaluation following open anatomic major resection must be 3 months. Conclusion: These new benchmark cutoffs for open major hepatectomy provide a powerful tool to convincingly evaluate other approaches including parenchymal-sparing procedures, laparoscopic/robotic approaches, and alternative treatments, such as ablation therapy, irradiation, or novel chemotherapy regimens.