Uptake and outcomes of robotic gynaecological surgery in England (2006-2018): an account of Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES)

The importance of non-technical skills in robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in gynaecology has undergone exponential growth in recent decades, with utility in treating both benign and malignant gynaecological conditions. The technological complexities and amended theatre dynamics that RAS demands mean that effective non-technical skills (NTS) are vitally important to overcome these unique challenges. However, NTS have been neglected in RAS-training programmes with focus placed instead on the exclusive acquisition of technical skills (TS). NTS include teamwork, communication, leadership, situational awareness, decision-making and stress management. Communication is the most frequently cited NTS impacted during RAS, as the physical limitations imposed by the robotic hardware make communication exchange difficult. The full immersion that RAS enables can contribute to situational awareness deficits. However, RAS can complement communication and teamwork when multidisciplinary (MDT) surgeries (such as complex endometriosis excisions) are undertaken; dual-console capabilities facilitate the involvement of specialties such as general surgery and urology. The development of NTS in RAS cannot be achieved with in-situ experience alone, and current training is poorly standardised. RAS-training programmes and curricula for gynaecology do exist, however the integration of NTS remain limited. Simulation is a viable tool to facilitate enhanced-NTS integration, yet cost implications form a barrier to its wider implementation. However, given that RAS will continue to occupy a greater proportion of the gynaecological caseload, integration of NTS within gynaecological RAS training curricula is necessary. Patients undergoing gynaecological RAS would benefit from the improved safety standards and enhanced surgical outcomes that would result.

Regional variations and deprivation are linked to poorer access to laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery: a national study in England

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic and now robotic colorectal surgery has rapidly increased in prevalence; however, little is known about how uptake varies by region and sociodemographics. The aim of this study was to quantify the uptake of minimally invasive colorectal surgery (MIS) over time and variations by region, sociodemographics and ethnicity.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of routinely collected healthcare data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics) for all adults having elective colorectal resectional surgery in England from 1 January 2006 to 31 March 2020. Sociodemographics between modalities were compared and the association between sociodemographic factors, region and year on MIS was compared in multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 93,735 patients were included: 52,098 open, 40,622 laparoscopic and 1015 robotic cases. Laparoscopic surgery surpassed open in 2015 but has plateaued; robotic surgery has rapidly increased since 2017, representing 3.2% of cases in 2019. Absolute differences up to 20% in MIS exist between regions, OR 1.77 (95% CI 1.68-1.86) in South Central and OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.72-0.79) in the North West compared to the largest region (West Midlands). MIS was less common in the most compared to least deprived (14.6% of MIS in the most deprived, 24.8% in the least, OR 0.85 95% CI 0.81-0.89), with a greater difference in robotic surgery (13.4% vs 30.5% respectively). Female gender, younger age, less comorbidity, Asian or 'Other/Mixed' ethnicity and cancer indication were all associated with increased MIS.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS has increased over time, with significant regional and socioeconomic variations. With rapid increases in robotic surgery, national strategies for procurement, implementation, equitable distribution and training must be created to avoid worsening health inequalities.

Investigation of the Effect of Puncture Order and Position on the Difficulty of Lower and Middle Abdominal Port Placement

Objectives

Port placements at the mid-abdomen (mainstay of robotic surgery [Rob]) appear to be difficult compared to that at lower abdomen (mainstay of conventional laparoscopy [Con-Lap]). We hypothesized that the reason for this may be the difference in port puncture places.

Materials and Methods

We examined how the differences between the place and puncture order of ports affected Con-Lap cases with ports mainly placed in the lower abdomen and Rob cases with ports mainly placed in the middle abdomen. The trocar time was measured from the time when the puncture position and skin incision were determined and initiated, respectively, to the time when the port was punctured and fixed and used as the indicator of difficulty.

Results

In the Con-Lap group analysis, the trocar time of the left lower port was longer (right lower: 77 s, middle lower: 117.5 s, and left lower: 138 s, P < 0.0001). In the Rob group analysis, the trocar time of the left most port was significantly longer (right-most: 89.0 s, right-middle: 92.5 s, left-middle: 121.0 s, and left-most: 197.0 s; P < 0.0001). In addition, the total trocar time was significantly longer in the first puncture at the right-middle port in the Rob group (right-most first: 8.4 min, right-middle first: 12.4 min, and left-middle first: 8.5 min, P = 0.0063).

Conclusion

In the mid-abdomen port placement, mainstay of Rob cases, the puncture order, and port site have a significant impact on the difficulty of the procedure. It is preferable to avoid initially puncturing the right-middle port in case of the Rob.

Is there a need for a technical certification system for gynecological robotic surgery? Questionnaire survey of members of the Japan Society of Gynecologic and Obstetric Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Therapy

The Japan Society of Gynecologic and Obstetric Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Therapy (JSGOE) introduced a system for the certification of laparoscopic surgeons in 2002 and a system for the certification of facilities in 2014. We examined the opinions of the members of the Japan Society of Gynecologic and Obstetric Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Therapy (JSGOE) regarding the necessity of a certification training system and a technical certification system for robotic surgery skills in Japan. Members of the JSGOE were surveyed with two questionnaires. Overall, 870 and 519 participants responded to the first and second questionnaires, respectively. Half of the respondents indicated that both systems were necessary. The breakdown by age and qualifications showed that this was especially true for the younger generation and respondents with more experience with robotic surgery. Overall, 40% of the respondents judged that a certification system for robotic surgery alone (with or without certification in laparoscopic surgery but with a requirement of experience in laparoscopic surgery) would be necessary. The opinions of the JSGOE members on making a certification system for robotic surgery were split into two clear-cut camps. Thus, we must further seek the extent of public demand for using a public survey so that a final decision can be made on whether to establish this system.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic approach of Bai-Jiang-style vagus nerve-preserving splenectomy and azygoportal disconnection

Robotic surgery has been widely accepted in many kinds of surgical procedures. Little is known about clinical effects of robotic-assisted splenectomy and azygoportal disconnection (RSD) for gastroesophageal variceal bleeding and secondary hypersplenism owing to cirrhotic portal hypertension. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether RSD is feasible and safe for patients with cirrhotic portal hypertension and whether RSD is superior to laparoscopic splenectomy and azygoportal disconnection (LSD). We retrospectively investigated the clinical effects of 50 patients with cirrhosis who underwent vagus nerve-preserving RSD (n = 20) and LSD (n = 30) between September 2020 and October 2021. We compared patients' demographic, intraoperative, and perioperative variables. RSD and LSD were successful in all patients. Operative time did not differ significantly between the RSD group and LSD group (151.15 ± 21.78 min vs. 144.50 ± 24.30 min, P > 0.05), but intraoperative blood loss were significantly reduced in the RSD group (61.00 ± 34.93 mL vs. 105.00 ± 68.77 mL, P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found regarding intraoperative allogeneic transfusion rate, visual analog scale pain score on the postoperative first day, time to first oral intake, initial passage of flatus, initial off-bed activity, postoperative hospital stay, and overall perioperative complication rate (all P > 0.05). In conclusion, RSD is not only a technically feasible and safe procedure but it was associated with less blood loss than LSD for cirrhotic portal hypertension with gastroesophageal variceal bleeding and secondary hypersplenism. Registered at researchregistery.com: trial registration number is researchregistry7244, date of registration October 10, 2021, registered retrospectively.