Journal of Robotic Surgery最新文献

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of robot distal gastrectomy (RDG) versus laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) for gastric cancer. Studies included only those that utilized propensity score matching (PSM). A systematic literature search was conducted in several major global databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, up to June 2024. Articles were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Baseline data and primary and secondary outcome measures (e.g., operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph-node yield dissection, length of hospital stay, and time to first flatus) were extracted. The quality of PSM studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I, and data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.1 software. A total of 12 propensity score-matched studies involving 3688 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Robot-assisted surgery resulted in a longer operative time (WMD 30.64 min, 95% CI 15.63 - 45.66; p < 0.0001), less estimated blood loss (WMD 29.54 mL, 95% CI - 47.14 - 11.94; p = 0.001), more lymph-node yield (WMD 5.14, 95% CI 2.39 - 7.88; p = 0.0002), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD - 0.36, 95% CI - 0.60 - 0.12; p = 0.004) compared with laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences between the two surgical methods in terms of time to first flatus, overall complications, and major complications. Robot distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer reduces intraoperative blood loss, increases lymph-node yield, and shortens hospital stay compared with laparoscopic surgery, despite a longer operative time. There are no significant differences in time to first flatus and complication rates between the two groups.

The number of available hospital beds is decreasing in many countries. Reducing the length of hospital stay (LOS) and increasing bed turnover could improve patient flow. We evaluated whether robot-assisted surgery (RAS) had a beneficial impact on the LOS in a French hospital trust with a long-established robotic program (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, AP-HP). We extracted data from "Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information" to determine the median LOS for adults in our trust after RAS versus laparoscopy and open surgery in 2021-2022 for eight target procedures, and compared data nationally and at similar academic centres (same database). We also calculated the number of hospitalisation days 'saved' using RAS. Overall, 9326 target procedures were performed at AP-HP: 3864 (41.4%) RAS, 2978 (31.9%) laparoscopies, and 2484 (26.6%) open surgeries. The median LOS for RAS was lower than laparoscopy and open surgery for all procedures, apart from hysterectomy and colectomy (equivalent to laparoscopy). Results for urological procedures at AP-HP reflected national values. The equivalent of 5390 hospitalisation days was saved in 2021-2022 using RAS instead of open surgery or laparoscopy at AP-HP; of these, 86% represented hospitalisation days saved using RAS in urological procedures. Using RAS instead of open surgery or laparoscopy (particularly in urological procedures) reduced the median LOS and may save thousands of hospitalisation days every year. This should help to increase patient turnover and facilitate patient flow.

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted (RA) percutaneous hollow screw fixation with traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for the treatment of calcaneal fractures through a systematic review and meta-analysis. An extensive search was conducted in the following databases-PubMed, CNKI, Embase, and the Cochrane Library-to gather research on patients with calcaneal fractures published up to July 2024. This search focuses on studies comparing the effectiveness of robot-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation versus ORIF. We will include studies published in both English and Chinese. Our screening process adhered strictly to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, emphasizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The ROBINS-I tool was utilized to evaluate the risk of bias in non-randomized studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4.1. The final analysis incorporated six retrospective cohort studies comprising 247 patients-122 treated with robotic-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation and 125 with conventional open reduction and internal fixation. The findings indicated that patients undergoing robotic-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation experienced advantages over those receiving conventional treatment in terms of reduced hospital stay, lower estimated blood loss, and higher AOFAS scores at both 3 and 6 months. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two methods concerning operative time, fracture healing duration, or the frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopies. Robotic-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation is a safe and viable treatment approach for patients with calcaneal fractures. When compared to ORIF methods, this robotic-assisted technique demonstrated significant benefits, including reduced hospital stay, lower estimated blood loss, and improved AOFAS scores at both 3 and 6 months.

We present the trial-and-error process of standardizing robot-assisted radical nephroureterectomy (RANU) at a high-volume center in Japan. Our urology team performed 53 RANU cases using the Da Vinci Xi system, undergoing five major evolutionary stages. We performed RANU via transperitoneal approach in all cases and lymph-node dissection in selected cases. During the evolution, we adopted a lithotomy position and significantly modified port placement to facilitate lower ureter management. However, we ultimately arrived at a method that minimizes port and patient repositioning during lower ureter processing. By strategically placing ProGrasp™ forceps in the most caudal port, we effectively retracted the bladder and grasped the opened bladder wall during lower ureter manipulation. This approach also allowed us to perform pelvic, para-aortic, and renal portal lymph-node dissection without major changes in patient positioning or port placement. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that some variations in positioning and techniques may be necessary depending on specific case requirements.

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic adrenalectomy in individuals with obesity. We performed an extensive review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for research on adrenalectomy in individuals with obesity up to August 2024. Only studies comparing robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopic surgery were included. Only articles written in English were included. We utilized established criteria for inclusion and exclusion, concentrating on randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. The ROBINS-I instrument was employed to assess the bias risk in non-randomized control studies. Review Manager 5.4.1 was utilized to conduct the meta-analysis. The final analysis incorporated four retrospective cohort studies with a total of 492 individuals with obesity (261 receiving RA and 231 undergoing LA). The results showed that RA was linked to a shorter duration of hospitalization and less estimated blood loss in comparison to LA. Nonetheless, there were no notable distinctions between the two surgical methods in terms of OT, laparotomy conversion rates, overall postoperative complications, or death rates after surgery. In conclusion, RA is a reliable and safe choice for individuals with obesity. It offers notable advantages over LA in terms of LOHS and EBL.

Although robot-assisted surgical procedures using the da Vinci robotic system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) have been performed in more than 13 million procedures worldwide over the last two decades, the vascular surgical community has yet to fully embrace this approach (Intuitive Surgical Investor Presentation Q3 (2023) https://investor.intuitivesurgical.com/static-files/dd0f7e46-db67-4f10-90d9-d826df00554e . Accessed February 22, 2024). In the meantime, endovascular procedures revolutionized vascular care, serving as a minimally invasive alternative to traditional open surgery. In the pursuit of a percutaneous approach, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and fewer perioperative complications, the long-term durability of open surgical vascular reconstruction has been compromised (in Lancet 365:2179-2186, 2005; Patel in Lancet 388:2366-2374, 2016; Wanhainen in Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 57:8-93, 2019). The underlying question is whether the robotic-assisted laparoscopic vascular surgical approaches could deliver the robustness and longevity of open vascular surgical reconstruction, but with a minimally invasive delivery system. In the meantime, other surgical specialties have embraced robot-assisted laparoscopic technology and mastered the essential vascular skillsets along with minimally invasive robotic surgery. For example, surgical procedures such as renal transplantation, lung transplantation, and portal vein reconstruction are routinely being performed with robotic assistance that includes major vascular anastomoses (Emerson in J Heart Lung Transplant 43:158-161, 2024; Fei in J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech 9, 2023; Tzvetanov in Transplantation 106:479-488, 2022; Slagter in Int J Surg 99, 2022). Handling and dissection of major vascular structures come with the inherent risk of vascular injury, perhaps the most feared complication during such robotic procedures, possibly requiring emergent vascular surgical consultation. In this review article, we describe the impact of a minimally invasive, robotic approach covering the following topics: a brief history of robotic surgery, components and benefits of the robotic system as compared to laparoscopy, current literature on "vascular" applications of the robotic system, evolving training pathways and future perspectives.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative and short-term results of the Robot of Stereotactic Assistance (ROSA) compared to traditional approaches in individuals with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). We will perform a comprehensive computerized search of PubMed, CNKI, Embase, and Google Scholar to identify relevant literature on ROSA vs. conventional therapy for intracerebral hemorrhage, covering publications from the inception of each database until July 2024. This study will include both English and Chinese language studies. Literature screening will adhere strictly to inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The ROBINS-I tool is utilized for evaluating bias risk in non-RCTs. Analysis of the data from the studies included will be conducted with Review Manager 5.4.1. The final analysis included 7 retrospective cohort studies and 1 randomized controlled study, involving a total of 844 patients. Among these, 433 patients underwent ROSA, while 411 received conventional treatment (conservative treatment, conventional craniotomy, or stereotactic frame-assisted surgery). Compared to conventional therapy, patients treated with ROSA showed improvements in operative time, postoperative rebleeding, postoperative extubation time, and intracranial infection. Nonetheless, there was no notable contrast in mortality or central hyperthermia outcomes between the two treatments. ROSA is a safe and viable option for treating patients with cerebral hemorrhage, showing significant advantages in terms of surgery duration, postoperative rebleeding, time to remove the breathing tube, and intracranial infection compared to conservative treatment, traditional craniotomy, or stereotactic surgery.

On-clamp partial nephrectomy for the surgical treatment of renal masses poses the risk of ischemia and greater post-operative renal function loss. Conversely, the off-clamp technique might enhance renal function preservation by avoiding any ischemia time. Nevertheless, the debate persists regarding the efficacy of the on- versus off-clamp partial nephrectomy in achieving better surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes. We retrospectively assessed the data from patients undergoing Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (RAPN) from 2016 and 2023 in a tertiary robotic center. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to account for selection bias in treatment allocation. The main objective of the study was assessing the achievement rates of a modified trifecta within the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis (MLRA) was employed to assess the predictors of trifecta achievement. 532 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 74.1% vs. 25.9% underwent on- and off-clamp, respectively. Balancing the two groups for the main predictors of on-clamp surgery, there were no significant differences between on- and off-clamp in terms of estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, intra- and post-operative complications, positive surgical margins, and post-operative mean reduction of eGFR. Finally, no differences were found in the rate of "trifecta" achievement between on-clamp and off-clamp RAPN (24.6% vs. 21%, p = 0.82). At MLRA, off-clamp technique was not a predictor of trifecta achievement compared to the on-clamp technique (off-clamp vs. on-clamp, aOR 1.24, 95% CIs [0.65-2.36], p = 0.58). Our study revealed that clamping technique does not imply clinically relevant differences in reaching trifecta outcomes.

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision is the main surgical approach for treating rectal cancer, but there is still no clear consensus on the issue of low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery during the procedure. Robotic surgery has been shown to have certain advantages over laparoscopic surgery in multiple studies, but further research is needed to better understand the outcomes of robotic surgery in the context of low ligation procedures. In this study, we included 1590 patients with mid-low rectal cancer. Among them, 942 patients underwent low ligation surgery (LL), divided into 138 in the robotic group and 804 in the laparoscopic group. The high ligation surgery (HL) group consisted of 648 patients. The results of LL vs HL showed that the LL group had faster bowel movement recovery (P = 0.003), lower anastomotic leak rate (P = 0.032), and lower International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 6 months postoperatively (P < 0.001). The results of Rob-LL vs Lap-LL showed that the Rob-LL group had longer operative time (P < 0.001), less blood loss (P = 0.001), more lymph nodes retrieved (P = 0.045), and lower Wexner score at 2 weeks postoperatively (P = 0.029). The concept of low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery is a promising surgical approach that can accelerate the patient's functional recovery. When combined with robotic technology, it may offer more benefits than laparoscopic techniques.

The widespread acceptance of robotic surgery is extending to oral procedures. The demand for minimally invasive techniques is driving research into the cosmetic and oncologic benefits of robotic neck surgery. This study used propensity score matching to analyze the clinical course and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted neck dissections for oncologic efficacy and surgical safety. Between May 2020 and April 2024, 200 OSCC patients underwent surgery and 42 were excluded. The cohort included 158 patients, 128 of whom underwent unilateral neck dissection and 30 of whom underwent bilateral neck dissection. Robotic-assisted neck dissection (RAND) was performed in 36 patients while conventional transcervical neck dissection (CTND) was performed in 122 patients. Data analysis included several factors, including lymph node retrieval and perioperative outcomes, with 1:1 propensity score matching to ensure fairness. Each of the 39 neck specimens with 36 patients was selected. The CTND group was 8 years older overall than the RAND group, but otherwise similar in terms of primary site and clinical stage. The RAND group had a 55-min longer operative time and 140 cc more hemovac drainage than the CTND group, but the hospital stay and intensive care unit duration were the same, and the number of lymph nodes retrieved was the same. Survival rates also showed no difference across all stages. This shows that RAND is in no way inferior to CTND in terms of perioperative or oncologic outcomes, and demonstrates the safety of robot-assisted surgery, even in patients who require flaps or in patients with advanced stages.