Single-site robotic-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy in children and adolescents: a report of 20 cases

Clinical status and future prospects of single-incision robotic-assisted surgery: a review

Since the advent of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery, the prosperity of minimally invasive surgery has been thriving on the advancement of endoscopic techniques. Cosmetic superiority, recovery benefits, and noninferior surgical outcomes weigh single-incision laparoscopic surgery as a promising modality. Although there are surgical challenges posed by steep learning curve and technological difficulties, such as instruments collision, triangulation loss and limited retraction, the establishment of robotic surgical platform as a solution to all is inspiring. Furthermore, with enhanced instrument maneuverability and stability, robotic ergonomic innovations adopt the advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and surmount its recognized barriers by introducing a novel combination, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery. As was gradually diffused in general surgery and other specialties, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery manifests privileges in noninferior clinical outcomes an satisfactory cosmetic effect among strictly selected patients, and has the potential of a preferable surgical option for minimally invasive surgery.

Pediatric Single-Incision Robotic Cholecystectomy: A 6-Year Update from a Single Institution

Introduction: In children, gallbladder disease has become more common due to the rise in childhood obesity and subsequent shift in etiology. While the gold standard of surgical management remains a laparoscopic technique, there has been increasing interest in robotic-assisted techniques. The aim of this study is to report a 6-year update on the experience of treating gallbladder disease with robotic-assisted surgery at a single institution. Materials and Methods: A database was created to prospectively collect patient demographic and operative variables at the time of operation from October 2015 to May 2021. Descriptive analysis of select available variables was performed using median and interquartile ranges (IQRs) for all continuous variables. Results: In total, 102 single-incision robotic cholecystectomies and one single-port subtotal cholecystectomy were performed. From available data, 82 (79.6%) patients were female, median weight was 66.25 kg (IQR: 58.09-74.24 kg), and median age was 15 years (IQR: 15-18 years). Median procedure time was 84 minutes (IQR: 70.25-103.5 minutes) and median console time was 41 minutes (IQR: 30-59.5 minutes). The most frequent preoperative diagnosis was symptomatic cholelithiasis (79.6%). One (0.97%) operation was converted from a single-incision robotic approach to open. Conclusion: Single-incision robotic cholecystectomy is a safe and reliable technique for the treatment of gallbladder disease in the adolescent population.

Single-Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Versus Standard Multiport Approach for Gallbladder Disease in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Aim: To evaluate comparative outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and standard multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC) in the management of children with various hematological or biliary disorders. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review of literature studies with subsequent meta-analysis of outcomes was conducted in line with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement standards. Operative time, length of hospital stay, and postoperation complications were extracted. Results: Seven researches reporting a total number of 479 patients who underwent SILC (n = 235) or SLC (n = 244) were included. There was no difference between SILC and SLC groups in operative time (mean difference (MD) 15.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] [10.50-19.79], P = .07) and length of hospital stay (MD 0.83, 95% CI [-2.41 to 4.06], P = .62). Postoperation complications and the cost also seemed similar. Conclusions: SILC and SLC seem to have comparable effect and safety in children. Future high-quality randomized controlled trials with adequate sample sizes and long-term follow-up are required to provide stronger evidence in favor of the intervention.

Ensuring safety and feasibility for resection of pediatric benign ovarian tumors by single-port robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery using the da Vinci Xi system

Background

Single-port robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (S-RALS) is rarely applied in pediatric surgery. There is still no study on the application of S-RALS for resection of pediatric benign ovarian tumors. The current study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of S-RALS for resection of pediatric benign ovarian tumors using the da Vinci Xi system.

Methods

The clinical data of three patients who underwent S-RALS for resection of benign ovarian tumors in the Department of Pediatric Surgery, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from May 2020 to September 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The mean age of these children was 7.9 years (5.8–9.3 years). One was a case of bilateral ovarian tumors, and the other two were cases of right ovarian tumors.

Results

All three patients successfully underwent the resection of ovarian tumors through S-RALS without conversion to laparotomy. The average operation time was 180 min (118–231 min). The average amount of blood loss was 20 ml (10–35 ml). No drainage tube was placed. All postoperative pathological types of ovarian tumors were mature cystic teratomas in the three cases. All patients started a liquid diet 2 h after surgery. The average length of postoperative hospital stay was 4.7 days (3–7 days). No tumor recurred, no surgical site hernia occurred, and the wound healed very well with a cosmetic scar in the lower umbilical crease during the postoperative follow-up for 6–18 months.

Conclusion

S-RALS has the advantages of less surgical trauma, quick postoperative recovery, and a cosmetic scar in the lower umbilical crease. It is safe, effective, and feasible for pediatric benign ovarian tumors.

Robotic operations in urgent general surgery: a systematic review

Robotically assisted operations are the state of the art in laparoscopic general surgery. They are established predominantly for elective operations. Since laparoscopy is widely used in urgent general surgery, the significance of robotic assistance in urgent operations is of interest. Currently, there are few data on robotic-assisted operations in urgent surgery. The aim of this study was to collect and classify the existing studies. A two-stage, PRISMA-compliant literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted. We analyzed all articles on robotic surgery associated with urgent general surgery resp. acute surgical diseases of the abdomen. Gynecological and urological diseases so as vascular surgery, except mesenterial ischemia, were excluded. Studies and case reports/series published between 1980 and 2021 were eligible for inclusion. In addition to a descriptive synopsis, various outcome parameters were systematically recorded. Fifty-two studies of operations for acute appendicitis and cholecystitis, hernias and acute conditions of the gastrointestinal tract were included. The level of evidence is low. Surgical robots in the narrow sense and robotic camera mounts were used. All narrow-sense robots are nonautonomous systems; in 82%, the Da Vinci^® system was used. The most frequently published emergency operations were urgent cholecystectomies (30 studies, 703 patients) followed by incarcerated hernias (9 studies, 199 patients). Feasibility of robotic operations was demonstrated for all indications. Neither robotic-specific problems nor extensive complication rates were reported. Various urgent operations in general surgery can be performed robotically without increased risk. The available data do not allow a final evidence-based assessment.

Comparative analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Despite increased utilization of robotic-assisted surgery in the pediatric population during the past decade, reports of comparative analysis between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery are lacking. Our aim was to evaluate outcomes between pediatric robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

A single institution retrospective analysis of 299 patients undergoing either RC or LC, between January 2015 and December 2018 was performed. Demographic data as well as clinical characteristics and related outcomes were abstracted and compared using univariate analysis. Related hospital costs were estimated using a charge to cost methodology.

RESULTS

The median age of the cohort was 15.5 years (IQR 14.0-17.0); 76% females and 70% white, with 74% (n = 220) undergoing LC and 26% (n = 79) undergoing RC. The majority of RC were performed using single-site technique and RC proportion increased with time (10% in 2015 vs. 41% in 2018, p<0.001). The majority of RC were more commonly attributed to patients with nonacute indications for cholecystectomy compared to acute clinical indications (87% vs. 13%). Median operative time was 98 min vs. 79 min for RC and LC respectively (p<0.001). Median postoperative LOS was similar between groups (22 h). There were no significant differences in postoperative complication, in-hospital opioid utilization and 30-day readmissions. Average total hospital costs for RC were $15,519 compared to $11,197 for LC.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is feasible with similar outcomes compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, it is associated with longer operative times and higher costs. The single-site RC technique may provide a potential cosmetic benefit.

Laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for single-incision cholecystectomy: an updated systematic review

The role of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) is still unclear. We update the summarization of the feasibility and safety of SILC and SIRC. A comprehensive search of SILC and SIRC of English literature published on PubMed database between January 2015 and November 2020 was performed. A total of 70 articles were included: 41 covering SILC alone, 21 showing SIRC alone, 7 reporting both, and 1 study not specified. In total, 7828 cases were recorded (SILC/SIRC/not specified, 6234/1544/50); and the gender of 7423 cases was definitively reported: the female rate was 64.0% (SILC/SIRC/not specified, 62.1%/71.5%/74.0%). The weighted mean for body mass index (BMI), operative time, blood loss and post-operative hospital stay was 25.5 kg/m² (SILC/SIRC, 25.0/27.0 kg/m²), 73.8 min (SILC/SIRC, 68.2/88.8 min), 12.6 mL (SILC/SIRC, 12.1/14.8 mL) and 2.5 days (SILC/SIRC, 2.8/1.9 days), respectively. The pooled prevalence of an additional port, conversion to open surgery, post-operative complications, intraoperative biliary injury, and incisional hernia was 4.1% (SILC/SIRC, 4.7%/1.9%), 0.9% (SILC/SIRC, 0.7%/1.5%), 5.9% (SILC/SIRC, 6.2%/4.1%), 0.1% (SILC/SIRC, 0.2%/0.09%), and 2.1% (SILC/SIRC, 1.4%/4.8%), respectively. Compared with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy, SIRC has experienced more postoperative incisional hernias (risk difference = 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.07; P < 0.0001). By far, SILC and SIRC have not been considered a standard procedure. With the innovation of medical devices and gradual accumulation of surgical experience, feasibility and safety of performing SILC and SIRC will improve.

Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site compared with robotic multi-port sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse

BACKGROUND

Sacrocolpopexy is a commonly performed procedure for repair of apical compartment prolapse. A Y-shaped mesh is attached to the prolapsed cervix or vagina and suspended to the anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacrum. In addition to conventional laparoscopic and multi-port robotic routes, the robotic laparoendoscopic single-site approach has emerged as a viable, feasible, and widely applicable minimally invasive approach to sacrocolpopexy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare robotic laparoendoscopic single-site with multi-port robotic sacrocolpopexy for women with either utero-vaginal or vaginal apical prolapse.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this single-center randomized controlled trial, 70 women at Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitative stages 2-4 were assigned randomly to undergo sacrocolpopexy by robotic laparoendoscopic single-site or multi-port robotic approaches from August 2017 to November 2018. Of 35 women randomized to each group, 32 underwent sacrocolpopexy. Operating time was the primary outcome of the trial. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative bleeding, length of hospitalization, pain during the first postoperative 24 hours (according to a 0-10 visual analogue scale), need for analgesics, and intraoperative and postoperative adverse events. At 6 weeks and 6 months after surgery, patients underwent a physical examination according to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitative measurements, to assess the anatomical success of the surgery. The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual-12 questionnaires were administered prior to surgery and at 6-month follow-up. The Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire and the Activity Assessment Scale were administered at 6 weeks and 6 months after the surgery. Exclusion criteria included contraindication to general anesthesia, a history of prior sacrocolpopexy, suspicious adnexal masses, suspicious thickened endometrium, and morbid obesity (body mass index of 40 kg/m² or more).

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 58.4 years. More than half of the patients (54%) had stage III prolapse. Mean total operative times were 181.3 ± 32.6 and 157.5 ± 42 minutes for robotic laparoendoscopic single-site and multi-port robotic sacrocolpopexy, respectively; the difference was 23.8 minutes (95% confidence interval, 4.2-43.4, P = .018). The mean differences in duration between the procedures were as follows: 29.8 minutes, 95% confidence interval, 9.2-50.4, P = .005 for anesthesia time; 33.1 minutes, 95% confidence interval, 16.5-49.7, P < .0001 for console time; 8.6 minutes, 95% confidence interval, 1.1-16.3, P = .025 for supracervical hysterectomy time; 8.3 minutes, 95% confidence interval, 1.8-14.8, P = 0.03 for mesh suturing and fixation to the promontory; and 4.7 minutes, 95% confidence interval, 1.5-7.7, P = .004 for peritoneum suturing. Statistically significant differences were not observed between the groups in regard to estimated blood loss, intraoperative complications, and demand for analgesics during hospital stay. Quality-of-life parameters were similar. Patients' assessments of their scars were more favorable in the robotic laparoendoscopic single-site group.

CONCLUSION

For sacrocolpopexy, the operative time was longer for the robotic laparoendoscopic single-site than for the multi-port robotic approach. Both approaches are feasible, and short-term outcomes, quality-of-life parameters, and anatomic repair are comparable. Our results are generalizable only to the specific robotic platforms used in the study.

Robotic Single-Port Platform in General, Urologic, and Gynecologic Surgeries: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic platforms have recently acquired progressive importance in different surgical fields, such as urology, gynecology, and general surgery. Through the years, new surgical robots have become available as single-port robotic platform. The study is aimed to value the single-port robotic platform characteristics in different surgical specialties.

METHODS

The terms "LESS" OR "single port" OR "single site" AND "robot" OR "robotic" were systematically used to search the PubMed and Scopus databases. A total of 57 studies were considered eligible for the present review. The articles included were divided according to the surgical field in which the study was conducted: General surgery (29 articles), Gynecology (18 articles), Urology (10 articles).

RESULTS

Most part of the articles showed the feasibility of robotic single-port surgical procedures and described advantages in terms of cosmetic, hospital stay, and in some series even cost reduction. A meta-analysis was conducted, showing a significant increment of complications using RSP if compared with SLPS and a trend (P = 0.008) when RSP was compared with LESS. The comparison of different techniques in terms of conversion to laparotomy did not show any significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Robotic single port potentially furnishes an important surgical and post-operatory improvement; however, some limits still prolong the surgical time and complication rate.

Comparison of Intraoperative Outcomes between Single-incision Robotic Cholecystectomy and Multi-incision Robotic Cholecystectomy

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in the key surgical factors for single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) and multi-incision robotic cholecystectomy (MIRC).

Methods

A retrospective data review from August 2013 to April 2018 consisting of 104 SIRC and 105 MIRC cases was done considering factors including patient gender, age, operating time (skin incision to skin closure), robotic console time (docking to undocking), the preoperative diagnosis for surgery, any complications in surgery, length of stay (LOS), and estimated blood loss (EBL). Procedures with conversion away from original robotic cholecystectomy approach were excluded. Chi-square analysis (p-value: 0.05) was run between the two data sets.

Results

A total of 209 robotic cholecystectomy cases were reviewed since 2013. We found significantly less time with single-incision compared to multi-incision (single incision = 94.0 minutes, multi-incision = 99.9 minutes, p = 0.016) and EBL (single-incision = 11.52 mL, multi-incision = 17.17 mL, p = 0.004). There was no significant difference in age or robotic console time. The most common indication was symptomatic cholelithiasis overall, with equal cases of dyskinesia in single-incision approach, although there was no significant difference in indication between the two approaches. Intraoperatively, there was marginally significant use of irrigation in multi-incision (multi-incision 45 [42.9%], single-incision 31 [29.8%], p = 0.0499) and no difference in Firefly, perforation, or intraoperative cholangiogram use. LOS results showed significant decreased stay in SIRC cases (single-incision 84 outpatients [80.8%], multi-incision 75 [71.4%]; p = 0.0379).

Conclusions

SIRC and MIRC are both safe and feasible ways to remove the inflamed/dysfunctional gallbladder. SIRC is associated with less operative time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay.