UKA with a handheld robotic device results in greater surgeon physiological stress than conventional instrumentation

Robotic platforms in gynaecological surgery: past, present, and future

Background

More than two decades ago, the advent of robotic laparoscopic surgery marked a significant milestone, featuring the introduction of the AESOP robotic endoscope control system and the ZEUS robotic surgery system. The latter, equipped with distinct arms for the laparoscope and surgical instruments, was designed to accommodate remote connections, enabling the practice of remote telesurgery as early as 2001. Subsequent technological progress has given rise to a range of options in today's market, encompassing multi-port and single-port systems, both rigid and flexible, across various price points, with further growth anticipated.

Objective

This article serves as an indispensable guide for gynaecological surgeons with an interest in embracing robotic surgery.

Materials and methods

Drawing insights from the experience of the Strasbourg training centre for minimally invasive surgery (IRCAD), this article offers a comprehensive overview of existing robotic platforms in the market, as well as those in development.

Results

Robotic surgical systems not only streamline established operative methods but also broaden the scope of procedures, including intra- and transluminal surgeries. As integral components of the digital surgery ecosystem, these robotic systems actively contribute to the increasing integration and adoption of advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence-based data analysis and support systems.

Conclusion

Robotic surgery is increasingly being adopted in clinical practice. With the growing number of systems available on the marketplace, the primary challenge lies in identifying the optimal platform for each specific procedure and patient. The seamless integration of robotic systems with artificial intelligence, image-guided surgery, and telesurgery presents undeniable advantages, enhancing the precision and effectiveness of surgical interventions.

What is new?

This article provides a guide to the robotic platforms available on the market and those in development for gynaecologists interested in robotic surgery.

Robotic Versus Conventional Unicompartmental Knee Surgery: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Robotic-assisted surgery is a computer-controlled technique that may improve the accuracy and outcomes of unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a partial knee replacement surgery. The purpose of a meta-analysis about robotic-assisted versus conventional surgery for unicompartmental TKA is to compare the effectiveness of these two methods based on the current evidence. Our meta-analysis can help inform clinical decisions and guidelines for surgeons and patients who are considering unicompartmental TKA as a treatment option. We searched four online databases for studies that compared the two methods until March 2023. We used RevMan software to combine the data from the studies. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome, which are statistical measures of the difference and the uncertainty between the two methods. We included 16 studies in our analysis. We found that robotic-assisted surgery had a better hip-knee-ankle angle, which is a measure of how well the knee is aligned, than conventional surgery (MD = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.16-1.56). We also found that robotic-assisted surgery had a better Oxford Knee score, which is a measure of how well the knee functions, than conventional surgery (MD = 3.03, 95% CI = 0.96-5.110). This study compared the results of conventional and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in 12 studies. We concluded that robotic-assisted surgery may have some benefits over conventional surgery in terms of alignment and function of the knee. However, we did not find any significant difference between the two methods in terms of other outcomes, such as pain, range of motion, health status, and joint awareness. Therefore, we suggest that more research is needed to confirm these results and evaluate the long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery.

Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Utilizing NAVIO, CORI Imageless Systems and Manual TKA Accurately Restore Femoral Rotational Alignment and Yield Satisfactory Clinical Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and objectives: The introduction of novel techniques in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aiming to enhance outcomes and satisfaction of the procedure is constantly ongoing. In order to evidence a priority of one, we have conducted a randomized controlled trial with the aim of comparing patient-reported functional outcomes, radiographic outcomes and intraoperative measures between imageless (NAVIO and CORI), robotic-assisted (ra)- TKA (ra-TKA) and manual TKA (mTKA) for primary knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Materials and Methods: A total of 215 patients with the diagnosis of KOA of the knee were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: NAVIO (76 patients) or CORI (71 patients) robotic-assisted TKA, or manual technique (68 patients) TKA. The primary outcome (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Study [KOOS]), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Range of motion (ROM), femoral component rotational alignment and the secondary outcomes (surgery time, blood loss, complications, and revision at 12 months after surgery) were compared between three groups. KOOS and VAS were collected at particular follow up visits from each patient individually and ROM in flexion and extension was assessed during the physical examination. Femoral component rotational alignment was measured on the CT scan performed postoperatively utilizing the Berger's method. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Both the ra-TKA groups and mTKA group displayed significant improvements in the majority of the functional outcome scores at 12 months. Despite having more prominent surgery time (NAVIO: mean +44.5 min in comparison to mTKA and CORI: mean +38.5 min in comparison to mTKA), both NAVIO and CORI tend to achieve highly accurate femoral component rotational alignment with mean radiographic scores in NAVIO vs. CORI vs. mTKA of 1.48° vs. 1.33° vs. 3.15° and lower blood loss (NAVIO: 1.74; CORI: 1.51; mTKA: 2.32. Furthermore, the investigation revealed the significant difference in femoral component rotational alignment between mTKA-NAVIO and mTKA-CORI and significantly different KOOS scores in NAVIO vs. CORI vs. mTKA of 87.05 vs. 85.59 vs. 81.76. Furthermore, the KOOS analysis showed between group significant statistical differences, but did not reach minimal clinically significant difference. There were no differences in postoperative ROM and VAS. There were no differences in complications between groups. Conclusions: To achieve a successful TKA, the precise tool and individualised objective is of great importance. The results suggest satisfactory results after both ra-TKA methods and mTKA. Ra-TKA and mTKA stand for a safe and reliable treatment method for OA. Patients reported excellent alleviation in functional outcomes and the radiological results revealed that the better precision does not necessarily lead to a better outcome. Therefore, ra-TKA does not imply strong enough advantages in comparison to the manual method, especially in terms of cost-efficiency and surgical time.