Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery in uterine pathology

Evaluation of a CT-Guided Robotic System for Precise Percutaneous Needle Insertion

PURPOSE

To assess overall targeting accuracy for CT-guided needle insertion using prototype robotic system for common target sites.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using CT guidance, metallic (2 × 1 mm) targets were embedded in retroperitoneum (n = 8), kidneys (n = 8), and liver (n = 14) of 8 Yorkshire pigs (55-65 kg). Bronchial bifurcations were targeted in the lung (n = 13). CT datasets were obtained for planning and controlled needle placement of commercially available 17- to 19-gauge needles (length 15-20 cm) using a small, patient-mounted, CT-guided robotic system with 5° of motion. Mean distance to target was 92.9 mm ± 19.7 (range, 64-146 mm). Planning included selection of target, skin entry point, and 4.6 ± 1.3 predetermined checkpoints (range, 2-9) where additional CT imaging was performed to permit stepwise correction of needle trajectory path as needed. Scanning and needle advancement were coordinated with breath motion using respiratory gating. Accuracy was assessed as distance from needle tip to predefined target.

RESULTS

Of 45 needle insertions performed, 2 were unsuccessful owing to technical issues. Accuracy of targeting was 1.2-1.4 mm ± 0.6 for kidney, retroperitoneum, and lung (P = .51), with 2.9 mm ± 1.9 accuracy for liver (P = .0003). This was achieved in 39 cases (91%) using a single insertion. Intraprocedural target movement was detected (3.5 mm ± 2.1 in retroperitoneum and 6.4 mm ± 3.9 in liver); the system compensated for 52.9% ± 30.3 of this movement. One pneumothorax was the only complication (8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Accurate needle insertion (< 3 mm error) can be achieved in common target sites when using a CT-guided robotic system. Stepwise checks with corrective angulation can potentially overcome issues of target movement during a procedure from organ deformity and other causes.

Bowel injury in robotic gynecologic surgery: risk factors and management options. A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

We sought to analyze the published literature on bowel injuries in patients undergoing gynecologic robotic surgery with the aim to determine its incidence, predisposing factors, and treatment options.

DATA SOURCES

Studies included in this analysis were identified by searching PubMed Central, OVID Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. References for all studies were also reviewed. Time frame for data analysis spanned from November 2001 through December 2014.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All English-language studies reporting the incidence of bowel injury or complications during robotic gynecologic surgery were included. Studies with data duplication, not in English, case reports, or studies that did not explicitly define bowel injury incidence were excluded.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

The Guidelines for Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies were used to complete the systematic review with the exception of scoring study quality and a single primary reviewer.

RESULTS

In all, 370 full-text articles were reviewed and 144 met the inclusion criteria. There were 84 bowel injuries recorded in 13,444 patients for an incidence of 1 in 160 (0.62%; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.76%). There were no significant differences in incidence of bowel injury by procedure type. The anatomic location of injury, etiology, and management were rarely reported. Of the bowel injuries, 87% were recognized intraoperatively and the majority (58%) managed via a minimally invasive approach. Of 13,444 patients, 3 (0.02%) (95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.07%) died in the immediate postoperative period and no deaths were a result of a bowel injury.

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence of bowel injury in robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery is 1 in 160. When the location of bowel injuries were specified, they most commonly occurred in the colon and rectum and most were managed via a minimally invasive approach.