Comparison of perioperative outcomes and cost between robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopy for transperitoneal infrarenal para-aortic lymphadenectomy (TIPAL)

Robot-assisted Surgery with Para-aortic Lymphadenectomy for Endometrial Cancer: A Preliminary Report

Objectives

There are few reported cases of robot-assisted surgery for endometrial cancer with para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PAL) in Japan. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted surgery with PAL for endometrial cancer.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective cohort study was analyzed 13 endometrial cancer patients who underwent robotic surgery with PAL between January 2011 and October 2018 at our hospital. We examined their perioperative complications and oncological outcomes.

Results

The median follow-up period, median overall survival, and disease-free interval were 80 months, 79 months (61-120), and 79 months (5-120), respectively. There were two (15.3%) cases of perioperative complications of Clavien-Dindo Class II or higher and three (23.0%) cases of recurrence.

Conclusion

Our results showed that the surgical and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted surgery for endometrial cancer with PAL were comparable with those of other developed countries.

Robotic-assisted para-aortic lymphadenectomy: Technique and indications in gynecological oncology

The benefits of minimally-invasive surgeries have been documented, and they have been established as the preferred approach for gynecological surgeries. With the development of robotic surgery, many highly complex surgeries can benefit from these advantages. Due to the complexity of aortocaval lymphadenectomy, surgical technique protocols have been described to reduce risks by maximizing benefits. We describe the technique using five ports (4 robotic arms and an assistant) to work the upper abdominal field, and different instruments recommended in each of their positions to reduce errors and optimize surgical time. After the "step by step" description, we summarize indications of aortocaval lymphadenectomy for every gynecological cancer in different stages.

Robotic Surgery and Hospital Reimbursement

The field of plastic surgery remains at the forefront of technological and surgical innovation. However, the promising applications of robotics in plastic surgery must be thoughtfully balanced with hospital finances and reimbursements. Robotic systems have been studied extensively across multiple surgical disciplines and across diverse health care systems. The results show that there may be equal or better patient outcomes than alternatives. In an era where fiscal responsibility in health care is a top priority, thoughtful budgeting and spending must be considered and revisited frequently to attain sustainable organizational models that ensure appropriate use of robotic technology.

Comparison of Robotic-Assisted vs. Conventional Laparoscopy for Para-aortic Lymphadenectomy in Gynecological Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Robotic-assisted surgery is one of the novel minimally invasive surgical techniques for the treatment of gynecological malignancies. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopy for para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PAL) in patients with gynecological malignancies.

Methods

An electronic search in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar databases was performed for articles, published up to 01^st November 2021. Outcomes including operating time (OT), total blood loss (TBL), length of stay (LOS), and complication rate (CR) in robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopy were investigated.

Results

A total of nine studies (7 non-RCTs and 2 RCTs) involving 914 participants were included. Of them, 332 patients underwent robotic laparoscopy (robotic group) and 582-conventional laparoscopy (conventional laparoscopy group). A significant decrease in TBL (MD = -149.1; 95% CI: -218.4 to -79.91) [ml] was observed in the robotic group as compared to the conventional laparoscopy group. However, no significant difference was noted for OT, CR, and LOS in the overall findings. Further subgroup analysis showed that the robotic group had a lower OT in mixed histological populations and studies reporting on the extraperitoneal approach. The lower chance of TBL was observed in mixed histological populations and studies involving extraperitoneal approach, Caucasian population, and non-RCTs design.

Conclusions

Robotic laparoscopy has a significant advantage over the conventional laparoscopy approach for PAL in gynecological malignancies. Further prospective observational studies embedded with a large sample size are needed to validate our findings.

Value of robotic surgery in endometrial cancer by body mass index

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative outcomes and complications in robotically assisted laparoscopy (RAL) and standard laparoscopy (SLP) approaches in the treatment of endometrial cancer by body mass index (BMI, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters).

METHODS

A comparative study was carried out of women treated for endometrial cancer at the Hospital Clinico San Carlos from January 2012 to December 2016: 133 patients were operated by RAL and 101 by SLP. Demographic characteristics of the patients, perioperative outcomes and complications were compared in both approaches.

RESULTS

Hospital stay was significantly lower in patients with BMI ≤30 operated with RAL (2 days RAL vs 4 days SLP; P=0.002). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the group with BMI<25 (60 mL RAL vs 100 mL SLP; P=0.004) and in the group with BMI ≥30 (87.5 mL RAL vs 180 SLP; P=0.003) operated with RAL. RAL significantly reduced the conversion rate in patients with BMI ≥30 (2 [3.4%] patients RAL vs 6 [27.3%] patients SLP; P=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

RAL has demonstrated advantages in treating obese women with endometrial cancer by reducing blood loss and conversion to laparotomy.

Robotic-Assisted Pelvic Lymphadenectomy for Metastatic Melanoma Results in Durable Oncologic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Robotic pelvic lymphadenectomy (rPLND) has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective minimally invasive approach for patients with metastatic melanoma to the iliac nodes. However, the long-term oncologic benefit of this procedure remains poorly defined.

METHODS

A single-institutional study comparing perioperative outcomes and survival [recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS)] between rPLND and open PLND (oPLND) for metastatic melanoma was conducted.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2018, a total of 63 PLND cases were identified: 22 rPLND and 41 oPLND. Evidence of isolated pelvic metastasis was the most common indication for PLND in both groups (rPLND: 64%, oPLND: 85%). There was no difference in median pelvic lymph node yield (11 vs. 9 nodes, p = 0.65). Neither treatment group experienced a Clavien-Dindo complication ≥ 3. rPLND was associated with a shorter length of stay compared with oPLND (2 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001). With a median follow-up of 37 months, there was no difference in RFS (14.4 vs. 9.6 months, p = 0.47) and OS (43 vs. 50 months, p = 0.58) between rPLND and oPLND, respectively. In basin recurrence was low with 1 (4.5%) and 3 (7.3%) patients in the rPLND and oPLND cohorts, respectively, experiencing an event (p = 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

rPLND for metastatic melanoma is a safe, minimally invasive treatment strategy that appears to result in similar intermediate term recurrence and survival rates as oPLND but shorter hospital stays.

The role of robotic aortic lymphadenectomy in gynecological cancer: surgical and oncological outcome in a single institution experience

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate the surgical outcomes observed in robotic transperitoneal aortic lymphadenectomy (AL) in gynecological cancer patients.

METHODS

Retrospective data were collected and analyzed on 71 patients undergoing robotic surgical procedures for gynecological cancers, including transperitoneal AL, between December 2014 and February 2018 at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.

RESULTS

Median age of the sample population was 50 years (range, 26-76 years). The median operative time was 210 minutes (range, 75-480 minutes), the median estimated blood loss was 50 ml (range, 20-300 ml). The number of para-aortic nodes removed was 12 (range, 7-43). In the whole series, 13 patients (18.3%) had at least one metastatic node. Overall, 10 patients (14.1%) experienced any grade early postoperative complications. Three patients experienced more than one complication. Three intraoperative complications occurred with two cases of vascular injury. Conversion to laparotomy was necessary for one patient (1.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows the safety and adequacy of robotic transperitoneal AL as surgical staging step for gynecological cancers in terms of perioperative and postoperative outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Surgery to Treat Gynecological Cancer: Conventional Laparoscopy and/or Robot-Assisted Surgery

Robotic-assisted surgery is a technological advancement derived from conventional laparoscopy, which facilitates the application of minimally invasive techniques for complex operations in the field of gynecological oncology. However, its introduction in gynecological cancer has been scarce in most hospitals worldwide. Most publications on robotic surgery are still retrospective or descriptive in nature. Some studies compare robotic-assisted laparoscopy with open procedures, which is a questionable analysis, because the advantages of minimally invasive surgery have been already well established. Robotic surgery should be directly compared with conventional laparoscopy to determine whether its additional direct and indirect costs are in accordance with some improvements within patient clinical outcomes. On the other hand, the role of robotic-assisted surgery in allowing more patients to receive the benefits of the minimally invasive approach should also be considered. The objective of this article was, therefore, to review the literature regarding the role of conventional and robotic-assisted laparoscopy to treat women with gynecologic cancer.

Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Robotic rectal cancer surgery is gaining popularity, but limited data are available regarding safety and efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized clinical trial comparing robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery among 471 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection conducted at 29 sites across 10 countries, including 40 surgeons. Recruitment of patients was from January 7, 2011, to September 30, 2014, follow-up was conducted at 30 days and 6 months, and final follow-up was on June 16, 2015.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to robotic-assisted (n = 237) or conventional (n = 234) laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, performed by either high (upper rectum) or low (total rectum) anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection (rectum and perineum).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was conversion to open laparotomy. Secondary end points included intraoperative and postoperative complications, circumferential resection margin positivity (CRM+) and other pathological outcomes, quality of life (36-Item Short Form Survey and 20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory), bladder and sexual dysfunction (International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, and Female Sexual Function Index), and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 471 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [11.0] years; 320 [67.9%] men), 466 (98.9%) completed the study. The overall rate of conversion to open laparotomy was 10.1%: 19 of 236 patients (8.1%) in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group and 28 of 230 patients (12.2%) in the conventional laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 4.1% [95% CI, -1.4% to 9.6%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.31 to 1.21]; P = .16). The overall CRM+ rate was 5.7%; CRM+ occurred in 14 (6.3%) of 224 patients in the conventional laparoscopic group and 12 (5.1%) of 235 patients in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 1.1% [95% CI, -3.1% to 5.4%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.76]; P = .56). Of the other 8 reported prespecified secondary end points, including intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, plane of surgery, 30-day mortality, bladder dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, as compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion to open laparotomy. These findings suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, when performed by surgeons with varying experience with robotic surgery, does not confer an advantage in rectal cancer resection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN80500123.

Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in gynaecological neoplasms: comparison of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal lymphadenectomy

OBJECTIVE

The main aim of our study is to review the till now available literature data on the role of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in gynaecological cancers by comparing the extraperitoneal versus the transperitoneal approach.

METHODS

A thorough and systematic search was performed in electronic databases of PubMed and Scopus.

RESULTS

The extraperitoneal approach is described in 148 patients. The age of the patients ranged from 26 to 78 years. The indications included cervical, endometrial and ovarian carcinoma in 113, 22 and 12 patients, respectively. The operative time ranged between 45 and 410 min. The number of dissected lymph nodes ranged from 3 to 25, while only 13 of them were found to be positive. The mean estimated blood loss during the operation was 77 ml (range <50-200 ml). Seven cases were converted to open. The duration of hospital stay ranged from 2 to 14 days. The transperitoneal approach is described in 898 patients. The age of the patients ranged from 15 to 89 years. Cervical, endometrial and ovarian carcinomas were the principal neoplasias present in 248, 449 and 164 patients, respectively. The operative time ranged from 19 to 633 min. The number of dissected lymph nodes ranged from 1 to 54, while the total number of patients with positive lymph nodes dissected was 56 patients. The estimated blood loss during the operation varied between 20 and 1800 ml. Only 9 out of 898 patients were converted to open. The duration of hospital stay ranged from 1 to 40 days.

CONCLUSION

A reliable definition of the "kind" of lymphadenectomy used in each study is the first step in order to reach safe conclusions. The lack of comparative studies, especially the randomized ones, cannot help us draw any safe conclusion regarding both the clinical outcomes and the possibility of any superiority of these different approaches (extraperitoneal and transperitoneal).