The Emergence of Robotic-assisted Breast Surgery: Proceed With Caution

Postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthesis breast reconstruction in breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor worldwide, and mastectomy remains the primary strategy for treating early stage breast cancer. However, the complication rates, surgical variables, and oncologic safety of minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (MINSM) have not been fully addressed. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compared MINSM with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (CNSM), both followed by Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction (PBR). The main outcomes observed included overall complications, (Grade III) complications, skin and nipple necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, seroma, hematoma, implant loss, and oncologic safety (positive margins and recurrence). Secondary outcomes included operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, cost-effectiveness, and patient satisfaction. Binary and continuous variables were compared using odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 10 studies involving 2,166 patients were included. There were no statistically significant differences between MINSM and CNSM in terms of skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, seroma, hematoma, implant loss, or oncologic safety. However, MINSM significantly reduced overall complications (OR = 0. 74, 95% CI [0. 58, 0. 94], p = 0. 01) and (Grade III) complications (OR = 0. 47, 95% CI [0. 31, 0. 71], p = 0. 0003). Nipple necrosis events were also significantly reduced in the MINSM group (OR = 0. 49, 95% CI [0. 30, 0. 80], p = 0. 005). Patient satisfaction improved notably in the MINSM group. Additionally, compared with the CNSM group, the MINSM group had longer operating times (MD = 46. 88, 95% CI [19. 55, 74. 21], p = 0. 0008) and hospital stays (MD = 1. 39, 95% CI [0. 65, 2. 12], p < 0. 001), while intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced (MD = -29. 05, 95% CI [-36. 20, -21. 90], p < 0. 001). Compared with CNSM, MINSM offers advantages in reducing complications and intraoperative blood loss, as well as improving aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. Therefore, MINSM may become a viable option for breast surgery. Nevertheless, a long-term evaluation of the oncologic safety of this approach is necessary to ensure its efficacy and safety for patients.

Robotic Versus Conventional or Endoscopic-assisted Nipple-sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction in the Management of Breast Cancer: A Prospectively Designed Multicenter Trial Comparing Clinical Outcomes, Medical Cost, and Patient-reported Outcomes (RCENSM-P)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of minimal access and conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (C-NSM). The secondary outcomes investigated included medical costs and oncological safety.

BACKGROUND

Minimal-access NSM has been increasingly applied in the treatment of patients with breast cancer. However, prospective multicenter trials comparing robotic-assisted NSM (R-NSM) versus C-NSM or endoscopic-assisted NSM (E-NSM) are lacking.

METHODS

A prospectively designed 3-arm multicenter, nonrandomized trial (NCT04037852) was conducted from October 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021, to compare R-NSM with C-NSM or E-NSM.

RESULTS

A total of 73 R-NSM, 74 C-NSM, and 84 E-NSM procedures were enrolled. The median wound length and operation time of C-NSM was (9 cm, 175 minutes), (4 cm, and 195 minutes) in R-NSM, and (4 cm and 222 minutes) in E-NSM. Complications were comparable among the groups. Better wound healing was observed in the minimal-access NSM group. The R-NSM procedure was 4000 and 2600 United States Dollars more expensive than C-NSM and E-NSM, respectively. Wound/scar and postoperative acute pain evaluation favored the use of minimal access NSM over C-NSM. Quality of life in terms of chronic breast/chest pain, mobility, and range of motion of the upper extremity showed no significant differences. The preliminary oncologic results showed no differences among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

R-NSM or E-NSM is a safe alternative if compared with C-NSM in terms of perioperative morbidities, especially with better wound healing. The advantage of minimal access groups was higher wound-related satisfaction. Higher costs remain one of the major limiting factors in the widespread adoption of R-NSM.

Robotic-Assisted Nipple Sparing Mastectomy

Minimally invasive approaches to breast surgery have evolved from endoscopic techniques to recent developments in robotic-assisted mastectomies. Initial studies on robotic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM) have shown improved patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcomes with similar complication rates and oncological outcomes in selected patients. This chapter reviews techniques used and available data on complications and clinical outcomes for RNSM. Currently, RNSM is an investigational technique in the United States and should be performed in clinical trials with U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval to rigorously evaluate the safety and effectiveness of this approach.

Robot-assisted Nipple Sparing Mastectomy: Recent Advancements and Ongoing Controversies

Purpose of review

The purpose of this review is to summarize the recent technical advancements in RNSM, describe the ongoing teaching programs, and discuss the ongoing controversies.

Recent findings

Robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (RNSM) is the newest addition to the armamentarium of surgical techniques for patients who require a mastectomy. The potential benefits of using the da Vinci® Robotic Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) are the small 3D camera and lighting offering superior visualization, the Endowrist robotic instruments offering greater range of motion, and surgeon being at a seated position at the console rendering a more ergonomic operating position.

Summary

RNSM can potentially help overcome the technical difficulties of performing a conventional NSM. Further studies are needed to elucidate the oncologic safety and cost-effectiveness of RNSM.

Innovation in Breast Surgery: Practical and Ethical Considerations

The adoption of innovation is essential to the evolution of patient care. Breast surgical oncology advances through incorporating new techniques, devices, and procedures. Historical changes in practice standards from radical to modified radical mastectomy or axillary node dissection to sentinel node biopsy reduced morbidity without sacrifice in oncologic outcome. Contemporary oncoplastic techniques afford broader consideration for breast conservation and the potential for improved cosmetic outcomes. At present, many breast surgeons face the decision of which wireless device to use for localization of nonpalpable lesions. Consideration for future changes, such as robotic mastectomy, are on the horizon. No guideline exists to assist breast surgeons in the adoption of innovation into practice. The Ethics Committee of the American Society of Breast Surgeons acknowledges that breast surgeons confront many questions associated with onboarding innovation. This paper aims to provide a framework for asking relevant questions along with the ethical principles to consider when integrating an innovation into practice.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery for the Treatment of Breast and Cervical Cancers

Background:

Robotic-assisted surgery facilitates the performance of numerous, complex procedures, namely conferring precision, flexibility, and control that is otherwise unavailable with conventional laparoscopy; and compared to open surgery, robotic-assisted surgery is ostensibly associated with fewer complications, reduced intraoperative complications, and shorter hospital stay duration. Nevertheless, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Food and Drug Administration have criticized the pervasive acceptance of robotic-assisted surgery, given the absence of randomized clinical trial data compared to traditional laparoscopy and open procedures, not to mention the increased surgical cost.

Conclusions:

While the research data continue to be borne out, surgeons should exercise considerable discretion in selecting the surgical approach from which their patients would derive the greatest clinical benefit.