The case volume of MIH performed increased rapidly at our institution over time. Although the indications of MIH expanded to include higher risk patients and more complex hepatectomies, there was a decrease in open conversion rate and no change in other perioperative outcomes.

Background: Concerns have been raised about the safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) during the early learning phase. In this study, we present our initial experience with MIS for periampullary tumours. Methods: Retrospective review of the first 30 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic (LS)/robotic surgery (RS) for periampullary tumours between 2014 and 2017. Results: Twenty-seven patients underwent PD, including three total pancreatectomies (TPs) and three underwent palliative bypasses. Twenty underwent LS, of which 18 were hybrid PDs, including two TPs and two bypasses. Ten patients underwent RS, of which nine were PDs, including one TP and one bypass. Five of 10 RSs were totally MIS procedures. There were four PDs with venous resection, of which three were by RS. There were four (13.3%) open conversions all in the LS cohort. There were five (16.7%) major (>grade 2) morbidities, including three pancreatic fistulas (two grade B and one grade C). There was no 30-day and one (3.3%) 90-day mortality. Comparison between RS and LS demonstrated that RS had a higher likelihood of being completed via totally MIS (five (50%) versus 0, P = 0.002), tended to have a shorter post-operative stay (eight (range 6-36) versus 14.5 (range 6-62) days, P = 0.058) but tended to be associated with a longer operation time (670 (range 500-930) versus 577 (range 235-715) min, P = 0.056). Conclusion: Our initial experience demonstrated that both LS and RS can be safely adopted for the treatment of periampullary tumours. The learning curve for RS seemed to be shorter than LS as we could transition more quickly from hybrid PDs to totally MIS safely. © 2019 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons ANZ J Surg 89 (2019) E137-E141 ANZJSurg.com E138 Goh et al.

BackgroundThe role of minimally invasive major hepatectomy (MIMH) remains controversial and questions remain about its safety and reproducibility outside expert centres. This study examines the changing trends, safety and outcomes associated with the adoption of MIMH based on a contemporary single institution experience.MethodsThis study is a review of 120 consecutive patients who underwent MIMH between 2011 and 2018. To determine the evolution of MIMH, the study population was stratified into four equal groups of patients. Both conventional major hepatectomies (CMHs) (≥3 segments) and technical major hepatectomies (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) were included.ResultsThere were 70 CMHs and 50 technical major hepatectomies. Seven MIMHs were laparoscopic‐assisted and 113 (94.2%) were totally laparoscopic/robotic. There were 10 (8.3%) open conversions. Comparison across the four groups demonstrated that with increasing experience, there was a significant trend in a higher proportion of higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score patients, increasing frequency of CMH performed, increasing frequency of multifocal tumours resected, decreasing use of laparoscopic‐assisted approach and decrease in blood loss.ConclusionMIMH can be adopted safely today with a low open conversion rate. Over time with increasing experience, we performed MIMH with increasing frequency in higher risk patients and in patients with multifocal tumours but with a decrease in median estimated blood loss.

LLR can be safely adopted today especially for lesions in the anterolateral segments. LLR for lesions in the difficult posterosuperior segments and major hepatectomies especially in cirrhosis should only be attempted by surgeons who have acquired a minimum experience with 20 LLR.