Risk factors for robotic gynecologic procedures requiring conversion to other surgical procedures

Surgery Advances in Gynecologic Tumors: The Evolution and Outcomes of Robotic Surgery for Gynecologic Cancers in a Tertiary Center

The integration of innovation into routine clinical practice is faced with many challenges. In 2007, we received the mandate to evaluate how the introduction of a robotic program in gynecologic oncology affected patient-centered care by studying its impact on clinical outcomes and hospital resource utilization. Here we summarize the history and experience of developing a robotic surgery program for gynecologic cancers over 16 years. Analysis of the data indicates that robotic surgery improved perioperative patient clinical parameters, decreased blood loss, complications, and hospital stay, maintained the oncologic outcome, and is cost-effective, resulting in it becoming the dominant surgical approach in gynecologic oncology in a tertiary cancer care institution.

The effect of bedside assistant technical performance on outcomes in robotic surgery

Technical performance in surgery has been associated with patient outcomes. Robotic surgery is unique in that both a console surgeon and bedside surgeon are required. A systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines identified all pertinent literature regarding skill level of the bedside assistant with regards to patient outcomes in robotic surgery. 10 studies met inclusion criteria. In all studies, the skill level of the assistant was based on experience, either by post-graduate year of the resident or number of cases previously performed by the assistant. Five studies reported significant, shorter operative times with increasing experience of the bedside assistant. No study reported a significant difference in postoperative outcomes. The existing literature fails to show improved patient outcomes with more experienced bedside assistants in robotic surgery. Metrics should be developed to measure actual technical performance of the bedside assistant rather than using arbitrary assessments of experience in future studies.

Volume-outcome relationship in intra-abdominal robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review

As robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) expands to smaller centres, platforms are shared between specialities. Healthcare providers must consider case volume and mix required to maintain quality and cost-effectiveness. This can be informed, in-part, by the volume-outcome relationship. We perform a systematic review to describe the volume-outcome relationship in intra-abdominal robotic-assisted surgery to report on suggested minimum volumes standards. A literature search of Medline, NICE Evidence Search, Health Technology Assessment Database and Cochrane Library using the terms: "robot*", "surgery", "volume" and "outcome" was performed. The included procedures were gynecological: hysterectomy, urological: partial and radical nephrectomy, cystectomy, prostatectomy, and general surgical: colectomy, esophagectomy. Hospital and surgeon volume measures and all reported outcomes were analysed. 41 studies, including 983,149 procedures, met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the retrieved data was synthesised in a narrative review. Significant volume-outcome relationships were described in relation to key outcome measures, including operative time, complications, positive margins, lymph node yield and cost. Annual surgeon and hospital volume thresholds were described. We concluded that in centres with an annual volume of fewer than 10 cases of a given procedure, having multiple surgeons performing these procedures led to worse outcomes and, therefore, opportunities should be sought to perform other complimentary robotic procedures or undertake joint cases.

The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdominal adhesions are a risk factor for conversion to open surgery. An advantage of robotic surgery is the lower rate of unplanned conversions. A systematic review was conducted using the terms “laparoscopic” and “robotic”. Inclusion criteria were: comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery; reporting data on conversion to open surgery for each group due to adhesions and studies including at least five patients in each group. The main outcomes were the conversion rates due to adhesions and surgeons’ expertise (novice vs. expert). The meta-analysis included 70 studies from different surgical specialities with 14,329 procedures (6472 robotic and 7857 laparoscopic). The robotic approach was associated with a reduced risk of conversion (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12–2.10, p = 0.007). The analysis of the procedures performed by “expert surgeons” showed a statistically significant difference in favour of robotic surgery (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03–2.12, p = 0.03). A reduced conversion rate due to adhesions with the robotic approach was observed in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.20–5.72, p = 0.02). The robotic approach could be a valid option in patients with abdominal adhesions, especially in the subgroup of those undergoing colorectal cancer resection performed by expert surgeons.

Robotic Prostatectomy and Prostate Cancer-Related Medicaid Spending: Evidence from New York State

BACKGROUND

Robotic prostatectomy is a costly new technology, but the costs may be offset by changes in treatment patterns. The net effect of this technology on Medicaid spending has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the association of the local availability of robotic surgical technology with choice of initial treatment for prostate cancer and total prostate cancer-related treatment costs.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used New York State Medicaid data to examine the experience of 9564 Medicaid beneficiaries 40-64 years old who received a prostate biopsy between 2008 and 2017 and were diagnosed with prostate cancer. The local availability of robotic surgical technology was measured as distance from zip code centroids of patient's residence to the nearest hospital with a robot and the annual number of robotic prostatectomies performed in the Hospital Referral Region.

MAIN MEASURES

Multivariate linear models were used to relate regional access to robots to the choice of initial therapy and prostate cancer treatment costs during the year after diagnosis.

KEY RESULTS

The mean age of the sample of 9564 men was 58 years; 30% of the sample were White, 26% were Black, and 22% were Hispanic. Doubling the distance to the nearest hospital with a robot was associated with a reduction in robotic surgery rates of 3.7 percentage points and an increase in the rate of use of radiation therapy of 5.2 percentage points. Increasing the annual number of robotic surgeries performed in a region by 10 was associated with a decrease in the probability of undergoing radiation therapy of 0.6 percentage point and a $434 reduction in total prostate cancer-related costs per Medicaid patient.

CONCLUSIONS

A full accounting of the costs of a new technology will depend on when it is used and the payment rate for its use relative to payment rates for substitutes.

Applying Artificial Intelligence to Gynecologic Oncology: A Review

Importance

Artificial intelligence (AI) will play an increasing role in health care. In gynecologic oncology, it can advance tailored screening, precision surgery, and personalized targeted therapies.

Objective

The aim of this study was to review the role of AI in gynecologic oncology.

Evidence Acquisition

Artificial intelligence publications in gynecologic oncology were identified by searching "gynecologic oncology AND artificial intelligence" in the PubMed database. A review of the literature was performed on the history of AI, its fundamentals, and current applications as related to diagnosis and treatment of cervical, uterine, and ovarian cancers.

Results

A PubMed literature search since the year 2000 showed a significant increase in oncology publications related to AI and oncology. Early studies focused on using AI to interrogate electronic health records in order to improve clinical outcome and facilitate clinical research. In cervical cancer, AI algorithms can enhance image analysis of cytology and visual inspection with acetic acid or colposcopy. In uterine cancers, AI can improve the diagnostic accuracies of radiologic imaging and predictive/prognostic capabilities of clinicopathologic characteristics. Artificial intelligence has also been used to better detect early-stage ovarian cancer and predict surgical outcomes and treatment response.

Conclusions and Relevance

Artificial intelligence has been shown to enhance diagnosis, refine clinical decision making, and advance personalized therapies in gynecologic cancers. The rapid adoption of AI in gynecologic oncology will depend on overcoming the challenges related to data transparency, quality, and interpretation. Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming health care. However, many physicians are unaware that this technology is being used in their practices and could benefit from a better understanding of the statistics and computer science behind these algorithms. This review provides a summary of AI, its applicability, and its limitations in gynecologic oncology.

The association of robotic lobectomy volume and nodal upstaging in non-small cell lung cancer

Robotic lung resection for lung cancer has gained popularity over the last 10 years. As with many surgical techniques, there are improvements in outcomes associated with increased operative volume. We sought to investigate lymph-node harvest and upstaging rates for robotic lobectomies performed at hospitals with varying robotic experience. The National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer who received lobectomy between 2010 and 2015. Hospitals were stratified into volume categories based on the number of robotic resections performed, as a proxy for robotic experience: low at  ≤ 12, low-middle 13-26, middle-high 27-52, and high volume at greater than or equal to 53. Lymph-node counts and nodal upstaging were compared among these volume categories. 8360 robotic lobectomies were performed. Mean lymph-node counts were for low, low-middle, middle-high, and high-volume robotic lobectomies were 9.8, 11.4, 12.9, and 12.6, respectively (P  < 0.001), while nodal-upstaging rates were 10.3%, 10.2%, 12.8%, and 13.4%, respectively (P < 0.001). Compared to low-volume hospitals, on multivariable analysis, high-volume robotic centers had increased nodal harvest (P < 0.001) and nodal-upstaging rates (P < 0.001). Robotic lobectomies performed at high-volume hospitals have greater lymph-node harvest and upstaging than low-volume hospitals.

Association of revisions or conversions after sleeve gastrectomy with annual bariatric center procedural volume in the state of New York

INTRODUCTION

Although bariatric center procedural volume has been associated with early perioperative safety, data on the effect of such volume and long-term outcomes after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) are limited. This study aims to examine the relationship between annual bariatric center SG volume and the incidence of revisions or conversions (RC) after SG.

METHODS

The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database was used to identify all patients who underwent SG between 2006 and 2012. Subsequent RC events were captured up to 2016. Bariatric centers having annual SG volume less than 45, between 45 and 65, and greater than 65 were defined as low (LV), medium (MV), and high volume (HV), respectively. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to compare the risk of having RC among centers with different yearly sleeve volumes.

RESULTS

We identified 8389 patients who underwent SG. The overall estimated cumulative incidence of RC was 0.5% (95% CI 0.3-0.6%) at 1 year, 6.2% (95% CI 5.4-7.0%) at 5 years, and 15.3% (95% CI 12.6-18.0%) at 8 years after SG. The estimated cumulative incidence of RC for LV, MV, and HV at 8 years after SG was 16.7% (95% CI 11.1-22.3%), 15.5% (95% CI 11.2-19.8%), and 13.7% (95% CI 9.4-17.9%), respectively. HV centers have lower risk of RC compared to LV (hazard ratio 0.65; 95% CI 0.48-0.88) and MV (hazard ratio 0.75; 95% CI 0.57-0.98). LV and MV centers have comparable risk of RC (hazard ratio 1.15; 95% CI 0.87-1.51). Patients having the initial SG performed in LV were the least likely to have RC in the same institution (46.1% of LV, 13.2% of MV and 22.3% of HV; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing SG at LV centers experience the highest risk of subsequent RC. This effect persists after adjusting for patient-level factors. These data underline the relationship between volume threshold and long-term effect.

Robot-assisted gynaecological cancer surgery-complications and prevention

Ever since the US Food and Drug Administration approval of the use of da Vinci surgical systems (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, California) in gynaecology in 2005, robot-assisted surgery has been widely adopted in different countries. Some of the applications in benign and oncological gynaecology include myomectomy, sacrocolpopexy, tubal anastomosis, simple hysterectomy, radical hysterectomy, radical trachelectomy, pelvic and/or para-aortic lymphadenectomy and even debulking surgery for ovarian cancer and pelvic exenteration for recurrent cervical and vaginal cancer. Although there is robust evidence on the safety and treatment outcomes in robot-assisted surgery, complications still rarely occur. Team approach is particularly important in robotic surgery and thorough communication between the bedside assistant and the console surgeon cannot be stressed any more. Thus, complications can be due to miscommunication between the console surgeon and bedside assistant, positioning of the patients, the length of the operations, the malfunction of the instrument and the risks specific to the types of anaesthesia and surgery per se, leading to thromboembolism, haemorrhage, organ damage, and so on. The most important strategies that can prevent complications are to have thorough preoperative assessment of the patients' fitness, good communication between surgical team members, caution regarding the positioning, a good knowledge of the pelvic and abdominal anatomy, careful and meticulous manipulation of the instrument and early recognition of the complications. In this article, different types of complications and the preventive measures are described.

Review of Robotic Surgery in Gynecology-The Future Is Here

The authors present a systematic review of randomized and observational, retrospective and prospective studies to compare between robotic surgery as opposed to laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal surgery for the treatment of both benign and malignant gynecologic indications. The comparison focuses on operative times, surgical outcomes, and surgical complications associated with the various surgical techniques. PubMed was the main search engine utilized in search of study data. The review included studies of various designs that included at least 25 women who had undergone robotic gynecologic surgery. Fifty-five studies (42 comparative and 13 non-comparative) met eligibility criteria. After careful analysis, we found that robotic surgery was consistently connected to shorter post-surgical hospitalization when compared to open surgery, a difference less significant when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Also, it seems that robotic surgery is highly feasible in gynecology. There are quite a few inconsistencies regarding operative times and estimated blood loss between the different approaches, though in the majority of studies estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic surgery group. The high variance in operative times resulted from the difference in surgeon's experience. The decision whether robotic surgery should become mainstream in gynecological surgery or remain another surgical technique in the gynecological surgeon's toolbox requires quite a few more randomized controlled clinical trials. In any case, in order to bring robotic surgery down to the front row of surgery, training surgeons is by far the most important goal for the next few years.