Comparison of surgical performance using articulated (ArtiSential®) and conventional instruments for colorectal laparoscopic surgery: A single-centre, open, before-and-after, prospective study

AIM

Rigid surgical instruments limit movement whereas articulated instruments offer better control in small spaces and allow for intuitive and ergonomic movements. However, the effectiveness of the use of articulated instruments in improving colorectal laparoscopic outcomes remains unclear. The aim of this work was to determine whether colorectal laparoscopic surgical proficiency improved when multijoint instruments were used instead of conventional ones.

METHOD

We enrolled 70 consecutive patients (n = 20 for conventional instruments) aged 19-80 years who underwent elective laparoscopic surgery for colorectal diseases. Unedited surgery videos were validated using the modified Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (mGOALS) scale. Learning curves were analysed using a cumulative sum control chart for mGOALS grades.

RESULTS

The surgery type, length of hospital stay and 30-day postoperative complication rates were comparable between the groups, and the surgeon's mGOALS grades were similar (p = 0.190). However, in the articulated group, the scores were significantly higher for depth perception (p = 0.012) and tissue-handling domains (p = 0.046), while surgical duration was significantly shorter and intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower (p = 0.022), compared with those in the conventional (p = 0.002) group. Learning curve findings indicated that the first 10 and subsequent 40 surgeries in the articulated group were within the inexperienced and experienced phases, respectively. The mGOALS score in the experienced phase improved in the articulated group compared with that in the conventional group (p = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of articulated instruments in laparoscopic colorectal surgery showed potential benefits. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Transformative Potential of AI in Healthcare: Definitions, Applications, and Navigating the Ethical Landscape and Public Perspectives

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a crucial tool in healthcare with the primary aim of improving patient outcomes and optimizing healthcare delivery. By harnessing machine learning algorithms, natural language processing, and computer vision, AI enables the analysis of complex medical data. The integration of AI into healthcare systems aims to support clinicians, personalize patient care, and enhance population health, all while addressing the challenges posed by rising costs and limited resources. As a subdivision of computer science, AI focuses on the development of advanced algorithms capable of performing complex tasks that were once reliant on human intelligence. The ultimate goal is to achieve human-level performance with improved efficiency and accuracy in problem-solving and task execution, thereby reducing the need for human intervention. Various industries, including engineering, media/entertainment, finance, and education, have already reaped significant benefits by incorporating AI systems into their operations. Notably, the healthcare sector has witnessed rapid growth in the utilization of AI technology. Nevertheless, there remains untapped potential for AI to truly revolutionize the industry. It is important to note that despite concerns about job displacement, AI in healthcare should not be viewed as a threat to human workers. Instead, AI systems are designed to augment and support healthcare professionals, freeing up their time to focus on more complex and critical tasks. By automating routine and repetitive tasks, AI can alleviate the burden on healthcare professionals, allowing them to dedicate more attention to patient care and meaningful interactions. However, legal and ethical challenges must be addressed when embracing AI technology in medicine, alongside comprehensive public education to ensure widespread acceptance.

Robotic reconstruction of a left hemi-diaphragm defect with double mesh in a patient with trisomy 21

Robotic reconstructions of large diaphragmatic defects with mesh reconstructions are rare in the literature. We present a case of a complicated diaphragmatic defect, in an adult with trisomy 21, which was successfully repaired robotically with double mesh reinforcement. The meshes were sutured together via a separate suture in the middle to avoid fluid accumulation between them. The patient recovered quickly and uneventfully. On follow-up, he reported no pain, and his performance score improved dramatically. We present this complicated reconstruction in this specific patient, who we think benefitted from avoiding a thoraco-abdominal incision, demonstrating the merits of persevering with a robotic approach.

Introducing robotic oesophagectomy into an Australian practice: an assessment of the early procedural outcomes and learning curve

BACKGROUND

Robotic oesophagectomy (RAMIO) is a novel procedure in Australia and New Zealand. We aimed to report the early operative and clinical outcomes achieved during the introduction of RAMIO into the practice of a single Australian surgeon and benchmark these against outcomes of patients receiving conventional minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) by the same surgeon.

METHODS

Data on all patients undergoing RAMIO, performed by a single high-volume Australian surgeon, were collected from a prospectively maintained database. Operative, clinical and surgical quality outcomes were benchmarked on a univariable basis against those of patients receiving MIO. Learning curves were computed using quadratic and linear regression of operating times on case-numbers and compared using Cox regression modelling.

RESULTS

290 patients (237 MIO, 53 RAMIO (47% Ivor-Lewis, 53% McKeon oesophagectomy)) were included. Compared with MIO, the median thoracic operating time was 20 min longer for RAMIO (P = 0.03). Following RAMIO, there was less blood loss (P < 0.01) and a shorter length of stay (P < 0.01).There were no differences in morbidity and quality of surgery following RAMIO compared with MIO. There were no deaths following RAMIO. Having progressed from MIO, the operating times for RAMIO improved after 22 cases compared with MIO (110 cases) (HR 0.70 (0.51-0.93), P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

With careful implementation, RAMIO may be safely performed within the Australian setting and is associated with a modest increase in procedure duration, but less blood loss and shorter length of stay compared with conventional MIO.

Robot-assisted and conventional urology surgical procedures: comparison of average length of stay, economic status, operative time and patient's expenditure in a tertiary care hospital of North India

Robot-assisted surgeries allows the surgeons to operate using remote-controlled robotic arms that are more effective in comparison to conventional (open/laparoscopic) surgeries. However, there is substantial lack of evidence on the effectiveness of robot-assisted surgeries in low to middle income countries (LMICs) like India. A study was conducted with an aim to evaluate the average length of stay (ALOS), Operative time, economic status (patient's) and cost borne by the patient (patient's expenditure) for undergoing robot-assisted surgeries and conventional surgeries. Grouping of the surgical procedures was done wherein patients who were treated with robot-assisted surgical procedures were placed in Group-01 whereas those treated with conventional surgical procedures were placed under Group-02. Comparative evaluation of the two surgical groups revealed that in robot-assisted surgical procedure, the ALOS was less (18.43 vs. 23.14 days, p = 0.06) whereas operative time (316.7 vs. 252.63 min, p = 0.05) and patient's expenditure were more (INR 70,654.29 vs. INR 41,314.73, p = 0.00). However, there was no significant difference between the economic statuses of patients in both groups. The study concluded that in this era of rapidly expanding health care scenario; targeted, regular, rigorous and repeated training programmes in future may shorten the learning curve thereby paving a way to reduce the cost as well as the operative time of robot-assisted surgeries in LMICs.

Robotic Cholecystectomies: What Are They Good for? - A Retrospective Study - Robotic versus Conventional Cases

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted cholecystectomies are often criticized as expensive with uncertain benefit to patients. Characterization of robotic surgery benefits, as well as specific factors that drive cost, has the potential to shape the current debate.

METHODS

The surgical cost and outcomes among patients who underwent robotic (n = 283) or non-robotic (n = 1438) laparoscopic cholecystectomies between 2012 and 2018 at a single academic institution were examined retrospectively. All cholecystectomies were primary surgical procedures with no secondary procedures. We also examined the subset of robotic (n = 277) and non-robotic (n = 1108) outpatient procedures.

RESULTS

Robotic cholecystectomies were associated with higher median total cost compared to conventional procedures, largely attributable to variable costs and surgical costs. Patients who underwent conventional cholecystectomy had longer mean lengths of stays (1.7 versus 1.1 days) compared to robotic procedures-with over 10 times as many requiring hospital admission.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, robotic cholecystectomies have a little value to patients and institutions outside of surgical training. Prior to narrowing the analysis to outpatient cases, difference in total cost between procedures was less pronounced due to more frequent inpatient management following conventional procedures. Future optimization of robotic consumables and free market competition among system manufacturers may increase financial feasibility by decreasing variable costs associated with robotic surgery.

Intraoperative workload during robotic radical prostatectomy: Comparison between multi-port da Vinci Xi and single port da Vinci SP robots

The goal of this study was to quantify and compare prospective self-reported intraoperative workload and teamwork during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for multi-port da Vinci Xi (MP) and single-port da Vinci SP (SP) robots. The self-reported workload (surgeon and surgical team) and teamwork (surgeon) measures were collected and compared between MP and SP RARPs, as well as the learning curve. Results from 25 MP and SP RARPs showed that overall, the NASA-TLX workload subscales were lower, and the teamwork modified NOTECHS subscales were higher for the MP RARPs compared to the SP RARPs. The underlying reason for the significant differences between these two RARP surgical procedures could be other factors (e.g., robot design factors) in addition to the surgeon and surgical team's experience. The results also suggested learning effects through the 25 SP RARPs; however, twenty-five procedures may not be enough to achieve proficiency with the SP system.

Should Endometrial Cancer Treatment Be Centralized?

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the most common malignancy of the female genital tract in Western and emerging countries. In 2012, new cancer cases numbered 319,605, and 76,160 cancer deaths were diagnosed worldwide. ECs are usually diagnosed after menopause; 70% of ECs are diagnosed at an early stage with a favorable prognosis and a 5-year overall survival rate of 77%. On the contrary, women with advanced or recurrent disease have extremely poor outcomes because they show a low response rate to conventional chemotherapy. EC is generally considered easy to treat, although it presents a 5-year mortality of 25%. Though the guidelines (GLs) recommend treatment in specialized centers by physicians specializing in gynecologic oncology, most women are managed by general gynecologists, resulting in differences and discrepancies in clinical management. In this paper we reviewed the literature with the aim of highlighting where the treatment of EC patients requires gynecologic oncologists, as suggested by the GLs. Moreover, we sought to identify the causes of the lack of GL adherence, suggesting useful changes to ensure adequate treatment for all EC patients.

Robot-assisted kidney transplantation as a minimally invasive approach for kidney transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) has emerged as an alternative for kidney transplant recipients with the potential benefits of minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the clinical outcomes of RAKT with open kidney transplantation (OKT).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were systematically searched. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected, as well as long-term renal function and data on graft and patient survival.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included, which compared 482 RAKT procedures with 1316 OKT procedures. RAKT was associated with lower a risk of surgical site infection (Risk ratio (RR) = 0.15, p < 0.001), symptomatic lymphocele (RR = 0.20, p = 0.03), less postoperative pain (Mean difference (MD) = -1.38 points, p < 0.001), smaller incision length (MD = -8.51 cm, p < 0.001), and shorter length of hospital stay (MD = -1.69 days, p = 0.03) compared with OKT. No difference was found in renal function, graft, and patient survival.

CONCLUSIONS

RAKT is a safe and feasible alternative to OKT with less surgical complications without compromising renal function, graft and patient survival.

Safety with Innovation in Colon and Rectal Robotic Surgery

Robotic colorectal surgery has been touted as a possible way to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and has shown promise in rectal resections, thus shifting traditional open surgeons to a minimally invasive approach. The safety, efficacy, and learning curve have been established for most colorectal applications. With this and a robust sales and marketing model, utilization of the robot for colorectal surgery continues to grow steadily. However, this disruptive technology still requires standards for training, privileging and credentialing, and safe implementation into clinical practice.

Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment

Rectal prolapse is a condition that can cause significant social impairment and negatively affects quality of life. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, with the aim of restoring the anatomy and correcting the associated functional disorders. During recent decades, laparoscopic abdominal procedures have emerged as effective tools for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with the advantages of faster recovery, lower morbidity, and shorter length of stay. Robotic surgery represents the latest evolution in the field of minimally invasive surgery, with the benefits of enhanced dexterity in deep narrow fields such as the pelvis, and may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal prolapse is feasible and safe. It could reduce complication rates and length of hospital stay, as well as shorten the learning curve, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required on long-term functional outcomes and recurrence rates.

Hospital Ownership, Geographic Region, Patient Age, Comorbidities and Insurance Status Appear to Influence Patient Selection Robotic-Assisted Ureteral Reimplantation for Benign Disease: A Population-Based Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted ureteral reimplantation (RAUR) is a relatively new minimally-invasive surgery. As such, research is lacking, and the largest adult cohort studies include fewer than 30 patients. Our aim was to be the first population-based study to report on national utilization trends, factors associated with patient selection, inpatient outcomes, and the relative cost of RAUR for adults with benign ureteral disease (BUD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample (2010-2015) was queried to identify all elective, non-transplant related, open and robotic-assisted reimplants for adult BUD. Survey-weighted logistic regression using Akaike Information Criterion identified patient-/hospital-level factors associated with robotic surgery. Survey-weighted regression models examined the association of robotic surgery with outcomes and charges.

RESULTS

A weighted-total of 9,088 cases were included: 1,688 (18.6%) robotic-assisted and 7,400 (81.4%) open. There were significantly increased odds of RAUR across consecutive years (OR 3.0, p < 0.001) and among patients operated on at private for-profit hospitals (OR 2.1; p = 0.01), but significantly decreased odds among older patients (OR 0.98, p < 0.001), those with Medicaid (OR 0.5, p = 0.02), those with 2+ comorbidities (OR 0.6, p = 0.009) and those operated on in Western (OR 0.5; p = 0.005) states. RAUR was significantly associated with a reduced length-of-stay (IRR: 0.60; p <0.001), decreased odds of blood transfusion (OR: 0.40; p <0.001) and a lower mean ratio of total hospital charges (Ratio: 0.71; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first population-based study to report on the utilization and clinical benefits of RAUR for adult BUD. Open reimplantation remains the most common surgical technique utilized, despite the potential benefits of RAUR. Future research is needed to explore the mechanisms behind patient-/hospital-level factors and surgical selection. Work to investigate potential barriers in access to robotic surgery can help us provide equitable care across patient populations.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Robotic resections represent a novel approach to treatment of colorectal cancer. The aim of our study was to critically assess the implementation of robotic colorectal surgical program at our institution and to compare it to the established laparoscopically assisted surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was designed to compare outcomes of consecutively operated patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic colorectal resections at a tertiary academic centre from 2019 to 2020. The associations between patient characteristics, type of operation, operation duration, conversions, duration of hospitalization, complications and number of harvested lymph nodes were assessed by using univariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 83 operations met inclusion criteria, 46 robotic and 37 laparoscopic resections, respectively. The groups were comparable regarding the patient and operative characteristics. The operative time was longer in the robotic group (p < 0.001), with fewer conversions to open surgery (p = 0.004), with less patients in need of transfusions (p = 0.004) and lower reoperation rate (p = 0.026). There was no significant difference between the length of stay (p = 0.17), the number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.24) and the overall complications (p = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term results of robotic colorectal resections were comparable to the laparoscopically assisted operations with fewer conversions to open surgery, fewer blood transfusions and lower reoperation rate in the robotic group.

Minimally Invasive Management of Diverticular Disease

Traditionally, management of complicated diverticular disease has involved open damage control operations with large definitive resections and colostomies. Studies are now showing that in a subset of patients who would typically have undergone an open Hartmann's procedure for Hinchey III/IV diverticulitis, a laparoscopic approach is equally safe, and has better outcomes. Similar patients may be good candidates for primary anastomosis to avoid the morbidity and subsequent reversal of a colostomy. While most operations for diverticulitis across the country are still performed open, there has been an incremental shift in practice toward minimally invasive approaches in the elective setting. The most recent data from large trials, most notably the SIGMA trial, found laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy is associated with fewer short-term and long-term complications, decreased pain, improvement in length of stay, and maintains better cost-effectiveness than open resections. Some studies even demonstrate that robotic sigmoid resections can maintain a similar if not more reduction in morbidity as the laparoscopic approach while still remaining cost-effective. Intraoperative approaches also factor into improving outcomes. One of the most feared complications in colorectal surgery is anastomotic leak, and many studies have sought to find ways to minimize this risk. Factors to consider to minimize incidence of leak are the creation of tension-free anastomoses, amount of contamination, adequacy of blood supply, and a patient's use of steroids. Techniques supported by data that decrease anastomotic leaks include preoperative oral antibiotic and mechanical bowel prep, intraoperative splenic flexure mobilization, low-tie ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery, and use of indocyanine green immunofluorescence to assess perfusion. In summary, the management of benign diverticular disease is shifting from open, morbid operations for a very common disease to a minimally invasive approach. In this article, we review those approaches shown to have better outcomes, greater patient satisfaction, and fewer complications.

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study

Background

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) potentially reduces workload and shortens the surgical learning curve compared to conventional laparoscopy (CL). The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the initial learning phase for novices.

Methods

In a randomized crossover study, medical students (n = 40) in their clinical years performed both LC and RAC on a cadaveric porcine model. After standardized instructions and basic skill training, group 1 started with RAC and then performed LC, while group 2 started with LC and then performed RAC. The primary endpoint was surgical performance measured with Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) score, secondary endpoints included operating time, complications (liver damage, gallbladder perforations, vessel damage), force applied to tissue, and subjective workload assessment.

Results

Surgical performance was better for RAC than for LC for total OSATS (RAC = 77.4 ± 7.9 vs. LC = 73.8 ± 9.4; p = 0.025, global OSATS (RAC = 27.2 ± 1.0 vs. LC = 26.5 ± 1.6; p = 0.012, and task specific OSATS score (RAC = 50.5 ± 7.5 vs. LC = 47.1 ± 8.5; p = 0.037). There were less complications with RAC than with LC (10 (25.6%) vs. 26 (65.0%), p = 0.006) but no difference in operating times (RAC = 77.0 ± 15.3 vs. LC = 75.5 ± 15.3 min; p = 0.517). Force applied to tissue was similar. Students found RAC less physical demanding and less frustrating than LC.

Conclusions

Novices performed their first cholecystectomies with better performance and less complications with RAS than with CL, while operating time showed no differences. Students perceived less subjective workload for RAS than for CL. Unlike our expectations, the lack of haptic feedback on the robotic system did not lead to higher force application during RAC than LC and did not increase tissue damage. These results show potential advantages for RAS over CL for surgical novices while performing their first RAC and LC using an ex vivo cadaveric porcine model.

Registration number

researchregistry6029

Graphic abstract

Impact of Robotic Surgery on Residency Training for Herniorrhaphy and Cholecystectomy

Robotic surgery has increased for common general surgery procedures. This study evaluates how robotic use affects the case distributions of herniorrhaphy and cholecystectomy for general surgery residents according to postgraduate year (PGY). We reviewed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) biliary or hernia cases logged by surgical residents in the academic year 2017-2018. Operative reports were reviewed to compare approaches (robotic, laparoscopic, and open) by resident role and PGY level. Open cholecystectomies were excluded. Overall, 470 hernia and 657 cholecystectomy cases were logged. Hernia repairs were performed robotically in 15.9%, laparoscopically in 9.5%, and open in 74.7%. Cholecystectomies were performed robotically in 16.4% and laparoscopically in 83.6%. Residents were teaching assistants in 1.8% of hernia repairs and 1.5% of cholecystectomies. Distribution of cases by technique and PGY level was significantly different for both procedures, with chief residents performing the majority of robotic cholecystectomies (52.6%, P < .0001) and hernia repairs (59.7%, P < .0001). Migration of robotic cases to senior resident level and low percentage of teaching assistant roles held by residents suggest exposure to common operations may be delayed during general surgery residency training. Introduction of new technology in surgical training should be carefully reviewed and may benefit from a structured curriculum.

Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic hernia repair: real-world evidence from the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC)

BACKGROUND

Ventral hernia repair (VHR) is a commonly performed procedure and is especially prevalent in patients who have undergone previous open abdominal surgery: up to 28% of patients who have undergone laparotomy will develop a ventral hernia. There is increasing interest in robotic-assisted VHR (RVHR) as a minimally invasive approach to VHR not requiring myofascial release and in RVHR outcomes relative to outcomes associated with laparoscopic VHR (LVHR). We hypothesized real-world evidence from the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative (AHSQC) database will indicate comparable clinical outcomes from RVHR and LVHR approaches not employing myofascial release.

METHODS

Retrospective, comparative analysis of prospectively collected data describing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted elective ventral hernia repair procedures reported in the multi-institutional AHSQC database. A one-to-one propensity score matching algorithm identified comparable groups of patients to adjust for potential selection bias that could result from surgeon choice of repair approach.

RESULTS

Matched data describe preoperative characteristics and perioperative outcomes in 615 patients in each group. The following significant differences were observed among the 11 outcomes that were pre-specified. Operative time tended to be longer for the RVHR group compared to the LVHR group (p < 0.001). Length of stay differed between the two groups; while both groups had a median length of stay of 0, stay lengths tended to be longer in the LVHR group (p < 0.001). Rates of conversion to laparotomy were fewer for the RVHR group: < 1% and 2%, respectively (p = 0.007). Through 30 days, there were fewer RVHR patient-clinic visits (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

Both RVHR and LVHR perioperative results compare favorably with each other in most measures. Differences favored RVHR in terms of shorter LOS, fewer conversions to laparotomy, and fewer postoperative clinic visits; differences favored LVHR in terms of shorter operative times.

Comparison of outcome and cost between the open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis using nationwide hospital record database

BACKGROUND

There are limited studies that compare the cost and outcome of robotic-assisted surgery to open and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer treatment. We aimed to compare the three surgical modalities for colon cancer treatment.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study using the population-based Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Patients with a primary diagnosis of colon cancer who underwent robotic, laparoscopic, or open surgeries between 2008 and 2014 were eligible for enrollment. We compared in-hospital mortality, complications, length of hospital stay, and cost for patients undergoing one of these three procedures using a multivariate adjusted logistic regression analysis and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of the 531,536 patients undergoing surgical treatment for colon cancer during the study period, 348,645 (65.6%) patients underwent open surgeries, 174,748 (32.9%) underwent laparoscopic surgeries, and 8143 (1.5%) underwent robotic surgeries. In-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, wound complications, general medical complications, general surgical complications, and costs of the three surgical treatment modalities. Compared to those undergoing laparoscopic surgery, patients undergoing open surgery had a higher mortality rate (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.61-3.40), more general medical complications (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.67-1.87), a longer length of hospital stay (6.60 vs. 4.36 days), and higher total cost ($18,541 vs. $14,487) in the propensity score matched cohort. Mortality rate and general medical complications were equivalent in the laparoscopic and robotic surgery groups, but the median cost was lower in the laparoscopic group ($14641 vs. $16,628 USD).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colon cancer surgery was associated with a favourable short-term outcome and lower cost compared with open surgery. Robot-assisted surgery had comparable outcomes but higher cost as compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Semi-autonomous Robotic Anastomoses of Vaginal Cuffs Using Marker Enhanced 3D Imaging and Path Planning

Autonomous robotic anastomosis has the potential to improve surgical outcomes by performing more consistent suture spacing and bite size compared to manual anastomosis. However, due to soft tissue's irregular shape and unpredictable deformation, performing autonomous robotic anastomosis without continuous tissue detection and three-dimensional path planning strategies remains a challenging task. In this paper, we present a novel three-dimensional path planning algorithm for Smart Tissue Autonomous Robot (STAR) to enable semi-autonomous robotic anastomosis on deformable tissue. The algorithm incorporates (i) continuous detection of 3D near infrared (NIR) markers manually placed on deformable tissue before the procedure, (ii) generating a uniform and consistent suture placement plan using 3D path planning methods based on the locations of the NIR markers, and (iii) updating the remaining suture plan after each completed stitch using a non-rigid registration technique to account for tissue deformation during anastomosis. We evaluate the path planning algorithm for accuracy and consistency by comparing the anastomosis of synthetic vaginal cuff tissue completed by STAR and a surgeon. Our test results indicate that STAR using the proposed method achieves 2.6 times better consistency in suture spacing and 2.4 times better consistency in suture bite sizes than the manual anastomosis.

Autonomous Laparoscopic Robotic Suturing with a Novel Actuated Suturing Tool and 3D Endoscope

Compared to open surgical techniques, laparoscopic surgical methods aim to reduce the collateral tissue damage and hence decrease the patient recovery time. However, constraints imposed by the laparoscopic surgery, i.e. the operation of surgical tools in limited spaces, turn simple surgical tasks such as suturing into time-consuming and inconsistent tasks for surgeons. In this paper, we develop an autonomous laparoscopic robotic suturing system. More specific, we expand our smart tissue anastomosis robot (STAR) by developing i) a new 3D imaging endoscope, ii) a novel actuated laparoscopic suturing tool, and iii) a suture planning strategy for the autonomous suturing. We experimentally test the accuracy and consistency of our developed system and compare it to sutures performed manually by surgeons. Our test results on suture pads indicate that STAR can reach 2.9 times better consistency in suture spacing compared to manual method and also eliminate suture repositioning and adjustments. Moreover, the consistency of suture bite sizes obtained by STAR matches with those obtained by manual suturing.

[Robot-assisted surgery - Progress or expensive toy? : Matched-pair comparative analysis of robot-assisted cholecystectomy vs. laparoscopic cholecystectomy]

AIM AND METHODS

By means of a matched-pair analysis comparing data obtained from laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RAC), the value of both methods as well as the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches were elucidated. The consideration was carried out by evaluation of postoperative surgical results, a cost analysis and a subjective survey of the patients using a questionnaire. Thus, from the 35 consecutive RAC, 35 (parallel) retrospectively matched pairs were established.

RESULTS

Postoperative surgical results did not show any significant differences between LC and RAC. In the individual assessment by each patient, there were also no significant differences; however, there was a tendency towards the assessment of the RAC to be slightly worse. A striking difference was found with respect to the cost analysis at the time of surgery.

CONCLUSION

The RAC operation alone is significantly more expensive compared to LC with respect to maintenance and acquisition costs. In addition, RAC can at present not be completely reimbursed under the current German diagnosis-related system. The postulated advantages of RAC comprise mainly the precise preparation within narrow confinements and the favorable ergonomic handling for the surgeon. The basic prerequisites are control of the costs and a reasonable reflection in the current reimbursement system.

Is robotic hepatectomy cost-effective? In view of patient-reported outcomes

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatectomy has been accepted as an alternative for patients needing surgery. However, few reports addressed the patient-reported outcomes and long-term quality of life (QoL) of patients having undergone robotic liver surgery.

METHODS

This study presented the QoL and cost-effectiveness associated with robotic and open hepatectomy by performing a comparative survey using two standardized questionnaires (Short Form-36 and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index).

RESULTS

One hundred patients completed the study. The robotic group tended to experienced longer operation time but shorter length of hospital stay compared to open group. Moreover, the robotic group had faster return to daily activities, less need of patient-controlled anesthesia, and less wound-related complaints in long-term follow-up. The robotic group incurred higher peri-operative expenses; however, the cost of inpatient care was lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested that robotic hepatectomy provided good post-operative QoL and recovery of daily activity. However, efforts for lowering the financial burden of medical care by reducing the cost of robotic surgery is necessary for further application.

Training robotic community surgeons: our experience implementing a robotics curriculum at a rural community general surgery training program

Robotic-assisted surgical procedures are being increasingly used in general surgery, including in the rural and community setting. Although there is no requirement, general surgery residency programs have begun to incorporate curriculums to train residents in this discipline. As a small rural community program, we recently instituted a voluntary and structured curriculum, and our initial experience is shared here. Our curriculum was voluntary for all general surgical residents for the academic years 2016-2017. The curriculum consisted of online training, bedside training, console simulation, bedside assisting, and operating at the console. During the fiscal year of 2016, 193 robot-assisted surgeries performed within the General Surgery Department. Fourteen of fifteen residents participated in the curriculum, with the exception being a resident new to our program. A survey was sent to the residents to evaluate their opinions towards robotic surgery and the curriculum, with 12/15 residents responding. Overall, residents' impressions were very favorable, with all reporting being either very or mostly satisfied with the curriculum and most, 58.4%, reporting there participating level on the robot to be appropriate. Importantly most, 91.7% did not think that the curriculum put an undue stress on their time or that it was detrimental to other aspects of their training. This study shows that a community rural general surgery program can incorporate a voluntary robotic curriculum effectively with high resident participation and satisfaction.

Building a Single-Site Robotic Cholecystectomy Program in a Public Teaching Hospital: Is It Safe for Patients and Feasible for Residents to Participate?

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) accounts for most of the robotic surgery cases performed by general surgeons at our institution since acquiring the da Vinci Si Surgical SystemTM (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) in 2014. We sought to determine whether a SSRC program is safe to start in a public teaching hospital and to determine whether resident participation in this procedure is feasible. Data on age, gender, race, BMI, total operative time, length of stay, comorbidities, and conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery were examined for elective SSRC and laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs) performed by two faculty surgeons between February 2015 and August 2015. Thirty-eight patients underwent elective SSRC, whereas 27 patients underwent LC. Residents participated as operating surgeons for some portion of the case in 15 SSRC cases and in all LC cases. There were no significant differences in operative time, length of stay, or 30-day readmission rates, regardless of resident involvement. Patients in the SSRC group had a significantly lower BMI (25.8 vs 33.7, P = 0.008). This study suggests that resident participation does not increase complications or total operative time and that SSRC is a safe procedure to start in a public teaching hospital after proper faculty and resident training.

[First national survey on use of robotics for visceral surgery in Germany]

BACKGROUND

The operation robot is the most advanced technology available in minimally invasive surgery for facilitating complex surgical procedures and is increasingly used in visceral surgery; however, to date no data are available concerning its use in visceral surgery in Germany.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the survey was to document the development and current state of the art of robotics for visceral surgery in Germany.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All 41 surgical departments with access to the da Vinci robot were invited to participate in the survey. Data were acquired with a specially designed Excel spreadsheet, documenting all procedures and also the dignity in gastrointestinal operations for each year since inception of the robot program up to 2015.

RESULTS

Of the 41 surgical departments with an active robotic program only 23 participated in the analysis. The overall volume rose steadily from 4 procedures in 2010 to 50 in 2012, 106 in 2013, 441 in 2014 and reached 819 in 2015. In this period 2 centers had > 200 operations, 1 center had 150, 3 centers had ≥ 100, 3 departments had ≥ 50 and 14 departments had < 50 operations. The type of robotic procedures used encompassed the full scope of laparoscopic surgery. Colorectal surgery was predominant with 50 % of all procedures and was performed in 87 % of the departments. Thymus resections amounted to 10 % of all surgical procedures and gastric surgery to 9 %. Approximately 5 % of all cases involved the esophagus, gall bladder and pancreas. Hepatic surgery amounted to only 2.4 % and all other operations even less and were performed in only a few departments.

CONCLUSION

Despite a doubling of procedures in recent years, robotics is still in the initial phase for visceral surgery in Germany.

Robotic Vitreoretinal Surgery

PURPOSE

To review the current literature on robotic assistance for ophthalmic surgery, especially vitreoretinal procedures.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to August, 2016, for articles relevant to the review topic. Queries included combinations of the terms: robotic eye surgery, ophthalmology, and vitreoretinal.

RESULTS

In ophthalmology, proof-of-concept papers have shown the feasibility of performing many delicate anterior segment and vitreoretinal surgical procedures accurately with robotic assistance. Multiple surgical platforms have been designed and tested in animal eyes and phantom models. These platforms have the capability to measure forces generated and velocities of different surgical movements. "Smart" instruments have been designed to improve certain tasks such as membrane peeling and retinal vessel cannulations.

CONCLUSION

Ophthalmic surgery, particularly vitreoretinal surgery, might have reached the limits of human physiologic performance. Robotic assistance can help overcome biologic limitations and improve our surgical performance. Clinical studies of robotic-assisted surgeries are needed to determine safety and feasibility of using this technology in patients.

Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in Adolescents; Reality or Hype

BACKGROUND

The rising prevalence of childhood obesity and concomitant increase in comorbid disease pose significant challenges for the health care system. While mounting evidence demonstrates the safety and efficacy of bariatric surgery for severely obese adolescents, the potential role of robotic technology has not been well defined.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to establish the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) in treating severe adolescent obesity. In addition, 30-day outcomes and hospital charges were compared to subjects undergoing RSG versus laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 28 subjects (14 LSG vs. 14 RSG) at a single institution was conducted. Data collection included demographics, body mass index, comorbidities, hospital length of stay (LOS), operative time, 30-day outcomes, and hospital charges. Analysis was performed using chi-square, Fisher's exact, and nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

RESULTS

There were no differences in subject demographics or comorbidities. While median operative time was longer for RSG vs. LSG (132 vs. 100 min, p = 0.0002), the median LOS for RSG compared to LSG was shorter (69.6 vs. 75.9 h, p = 0.0094). In addition, RSG-related hospital charges were higher ($56,646 vs. $49,498, p = 0.0366). No significant differences in post-operative outcomes or complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

RSG is equally safe and efficacious when compared to LSG among adolescents. Similar to studies in adults, LOS is shortened while hospital charges are higher. Larger prospective studies are needed to gain insight regarding cost benefit ratios.

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy and robotics training: should we start in the junior years?

BACKGROUND

It has become increasingly important to expose surgical residents to robotic surgery as its applications continue to expand. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) is an excellent introductory case to robotics. Resident involvement in SSRC is known to be feasible. Here, we sought to determine whether it is safe to introduce SSRC to junior residents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 98 SSRC cases were performed by general surgery residents between August 2015 and August 2016. Cases were divided into groups based on resident level: second- and third-years (juniors) versus fourth- and fifth-years (seniors). Patient age, gender, race, body mass index, and comorbidities were recorded. The number of prior laparoscopic cholecystectomies completed by participating residents was noted. Outcomes including operative time, console time, rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy, and complication rate were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Juniors performed 54 SSRC cases, whereas seniors performed 44. There were no significant differences in patient age, gender, race, body mass index, or comorbidities between the two groups. Juniors had less experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There was no significant difference in mean operative time (92.7 min versus 98.0 min, P = 0.254), console time (48.7 min versus 50.8 min, P = 0.639), or complication rate (3.7% versus 2.3%, P = 0.68) between juniors and seniors.

CONCLUSIONS

SSRC is an excellent way to introduce general surgery residents to robotics. This study shows that with attending supervision, SSRC is feasible and safe for both junior and senior residents with very low complication rates and no adverse effect on operative time.

The cost of conversion in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Conversion from minimally invasive to open colorectal surgery remains common and costly. Robotic colorectal surgery is associated with lower rates of conversion than laparoscopy, but institutions and payers remain concerned about equipment and implementation costs. Recognizing that reimbursement reform and bundled payments expand perspectives on cost to include the entire surgical episode, we evaluated the role of minimally invasive conversion in total payments.

METHODS

This is an observational study from a linked data registry including clinical data from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative and payment data from the Michigan Value Collaborative between July 2012 and April 2015. We evaluated colorectal resections initiated with open and minimally invasive approaches, and compared reported risk-adjusted and price-standardized 30-day episode payments and their components.

RESULTS

We identified 1061 open, 1604 laparoscopic, and 275 robotic colorectal resections. Adjusted episode payments were significantly higher for open operations than for minimally invasive procedures completed without conversion ($19,489 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). The conversion rate was significantly higher with laparoscopic than robotic operations (15.1 vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). Adjusted episode payments for minimally invasive operations converted to open were significantly higher than for those completed by minimally invasive approaches ($18,098 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). Payments for operations completed robotically were greater than those completed laparoscopically ($16,949 vs. $15,250, p < 0.001), but the difference was substantially decreased when conversion to open cases was included ($16,939 vs. $15,699, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

Episode payments for open colorectal surgery exceed both laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive options. Conversion to open surgery significantly increases the payments associated with minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Because conversion rates in robotic colorectal operations are half of those in laparoscopy, the excess expenditures attributable to robotics are attenuated by consideration of the cost of conversions.

Trends and Outcomes of Surgical Treatment for Colorectal Cancer between 2004 and 2012- an Analysis using National Inpatient Database

Limited data are available for the epidemiology and outcome of colorectal cancer in relation to the three main surgical treatment modalities (open, laparoscopic and robotic). Using the US National Inpatient Sample database from 2004 to 2012, we identified 1,265,684 hospitalized colorectal cancer patients. Over the 9 year period, there was a 13.5% decrease in the number of hospital admissions and a 43.5% decrease in in-hospital mortality. Comparing the trend of surgical modalities, there was a 35.4% decrease in open surgeries, a 3.5 fold increase in laparoscopic surgeries, and a 41.3 fold increase in robotic surgeries. Nonetheless, in 2012, open surgery still remained the preferred surgical treatment modality (65.4%), followed by laparoscopic (31.2%) and robotic surgeries (3.4%). Laparoscopic and robotic surgeries were associated with lower in-hospital mortality, fewer complications, and shorter length of stays, which might be explained by the elective nature of surgery and earlier tumor grades. After excluding patients with advanced tumor grades, laparoscopic surgery was still associated with better outcomes and lower costs than open surgery. On the contrary, robotic surgery was associated with the highest costs, without substantial outcome benefits over laparoscopic surgery. More studies are required to clarify the cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A comparative study of medical resource utilization and clinical outcomes

Conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) is currently the standard of surgical procedure for gallstone disease. Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) has revolutionized the field of minimally invasive surgery; it is safe and ergonomic, but expensive. The aim of this study is to compare the medical resource utilization and clinical outcomes between the two procedures. This study was conducted retrospectively by assessing data of the clinical outcomes and medical resource of 78 patients receiving RC and 367 patients receiving CLC. We reviewed the data of operation times, length of hospital stay, hospital charges, outpatient department visits, outpatient department service charges, and postoperative complications, which were retrieved from the health information system (HIS) database in this hospital. Patients in both groups had similar demographic and clinical features. The RC group had longer length of hospital stay (p=0.056), significantly longer operation time (p=0.035), and much more hospital charges (p=0.001). The RC group, however, experienced less postoperative complication rates (average 3.8% vs. 20.4%, p=0.001). Conversion rate was 1.9% in the CLC group versus 0% in the RC group (p=0.611). Most complications were mild, and following the Clavien-Dindo classification, there were two cases (2.5%) Grade I for the RC group; 50 cases (13.6%) Grade I and 14 cases (3.81%) Grade II for the CLC group (p<0.001 and 0.001, respectively). Procedure-related complications of Grade IIIa status were encountered in nine patients (2.45%) in the CLC group and none in the RC group (p=0.002).The RC group consumed more medical resources in the index hospitalization; however, they experienced significantly less postoperative complications.

Two years of experience with robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery (RAAS) is an alternative to conventional laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery (CLAS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate initial Danish experiences with robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery incorporating follow-up and evaluation of possible learning curve.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients undergoing primary RAAS or CLAS at The Department of Surgery A, Odense University Hospital and The Department of General Surgery, Kolding Hospital from April 2013 to April 2015 was included. Demographic data, comorbidity, docking time, length of procedure, type of fundic wrap as well as perioperative complications and postoperative complications, need for reoperation or any upper gastrointestinal endoscopy from surgery to final follow-up was retrospectively extracted from patient records.

RESULTS

103 patients were included in this study. 39 patients underwent RAAS and 64 patients underwent CLAS. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data or comorbidities except distribution of heart disease (RAAS: 5.1% vs. CLAS: 18.8%, p = 0.05) and previous abdominal surgery (RAAS: 28.2% vs. CLAS: 48.4%, p = 0.04). Duration of surgery was significantly increased in patients undergoing RAAS (RAAS: 135 ± 27 min vs. CLAS: 86 ± 19 min, p < 0.01). There was no statistical significant difference in intraoperative complications (p = 0.20), 30-day postoperative complication rate (p = 0.20) or mortality (p = 1.00). At follow-up in April 2016, there were no statistically significant differences in patients having undergone upper endoscopy postoperatively (p = 0.92), the use of anti-secretory drugs (p = 0.46) or patients having undergone reoperation (p = 0.60). Reasons for reoperation were significantly dependent on type of fundic wrap with reoperation of Nissen fundoplication being dysphagia and reoperation of Toupet being recurrent reflux (p = 0.008). There was no clearly determined learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

RAAS was safe, feasible and with equal efficacy to CLAS. There were however no particular advantages to performing antireflux surgery as robot-assisted procedures neither intra-operatively nor at follow-up.

[Minimally invasive surgery and robotic surgery: surgery 4.0?]

Surgery can only maintain its role in a highly competitive environment if results are continuously improved, accompanied by further reduction of the interventional trauma for patients and with justifiable costs. Significant impulse to achieve this goal was expected from minimally invasive surgery and, in particular, robotic surgery; however, a real breakthrough has not yet been achieved. Accordingly, the new strategic approach of cognitive surgery is required to optimize the provision of surgical treatment. A full scale integration of all modules utilized in the operating room (OR) into a comprehensive network and the development of systems with technical cognition are needed to upgrade the current technical environment passively controlled by the surgeon into an active collaborative support system (surgery 4.0). Only then can the true potential of minimally invasive surgery and robotic surgery be exploited.

[Robotics in the operating room : Out of the niche into widespread application]

In the last few years robotic surgery has progressed from being confined to a small niche to a widespread application in routine visceral surgery; however, evidence for superiority of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopy from randomized studies with a sufficient number of patients is still lacking in most fields of visceral surgery. For complex operations that necessitate an extensive reconstruction phase, such as pancreatectomy, gastrectomy and esophagectomy, there is a potential benefit for the permanent and justified use of robotic surgery. Even in operations where delicate nerve preparation and radical surgical resection are simultaneously necessary, such as rectal resection, robotic surgery may provide certain benefits. In the long term there is a great potential for the integration of innovative techniques, such as navigation or other medical imaging procedures into robotic surgery, which can currently only partially be estimated. Care must be taken to avoid premature euphoria; however, due to the assumed great potential there is an urgent need for randomized studies to evaluate the possible benefits of robotic surgical techniques in visceral surgery in order to generate evidence for the welfare of patients.

Risk factors for postoperative complications in robotic general surgery

The feasibility and safety of robotically assisted procedures in general surgery have been reported from various groups worldwide. Because postoperative complications may lead to longer hospital stays and higher costs overall, analysis of risk factors for postoperative surgical complications in this subset of patients is clinically relevant. The goal of this study was to identify risk factors for postoperative morbidity after robotic surgical procedures in general surgery. We performed an observational monocentric retrospective study. All consecutive robotic surgical procedures from November 2001 to December 2013 were included. One thousand consecutive general surgery patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean overall postoperative morbidity and major postoperative morbidity (Clavien >III) rates were 20.4 and 6 %, respectively. This included a conversion rate of 4.4 %, reoperation rate of 4.5 %, and mortality rate of 0.2 %. Multivariate analysis showed that ASA score >3 [OR 1.7; 95 % CI (1.2-2.4)], hematocrit value <38 [OR 1.6; 95 % CI (1.1-2.2)], previous abdominal surgery [OR 1.5; 95 % CI (1-2)], advanced dissection [OR 5.8; 95 % CI (3.1-10.6)], and multiquadrant surgery [OR 2.5; 95 % CI (1.7-3.8)] remained independent risk factors for overall postoperative morbidity. It also showed that advanced dissection [OR 4.4; 95 % CI (1.9-9.6)] and multiquadrant surgery [OR 4.4; 95 % CI (2.3-8.5)] remained independent risk factors for major postoperative morbidity (Clavien >III). This study identifies independent risk factors for postoperative overall and major morbidity in robotic general surgery. Because these factors independently impacted postoperative complications, we believe they could be taken into account in future studies comparing conventional versus robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures in general surgery.

Safety in Numbers: Progressive Implementation of a Robotics Program in an Academic Surgical Oncology Practice

Background Robotic-assisted surgery has potential benefits over laparoscopy yet little has been published on the integration of this platform into complex surgical oncology. We describe the outcomes associated with integration of robotics into a large surgical oncology program, focusing on metrics of safety and efficiency. Methods A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of robotic procedures from July 2009 to October 2014 identifying trends in volume, operative time, complications, conversion to open, and 90-day mortality. Results Fourteen surgeons performed 1236 cases during the study period: thyroid (246), pancreas/duodenum (458), liver (157), stomach (56), colorectal (129), adrenal (38), cholecystectomy (102), and other (48). There were 38 conversions to open (3.1%), 230 complications (18.6%), and 13 mortalities (1.1%). From 2009 to 2014, operative volume increased (7 cases/month vs 24 cases/month; P < .001) and procedure time decreased (471 ± 166 vs 211 ± 140 minutes; P < .001) with statistically significant decreases for all years except 2014 when volume and time plateaued. Conversion to open decreased (12.1% vs 1.7%; P = .009) and complications decreased (48.5% vs 12.3%; P < .001) despite increasing complexity of cases performed. There were 13 deaths within 90 days (5/13 30-day mortality) and 2 (15.4%) were from palliative surgeries. Conclusions Implementation of a diverse robotic surgical oncology program utilizing multiple surgeons is safe and feasible. As operative volume increased, operative time, complications, and conversions to open decreased and plateaued at approximately 3 years. No unanticipated adverse events attributable to the introduction of this platform were observed.

Clinical outcomes and cost-benefit analysis comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries

BACKGROUND

The introduction of minimally invasive platforms for colorectal surgery-laparoscopy and more recently robotics-allows for smaller incisions, shortened hospital stay, less postoperative pain, and quicker return to normal activity. There exists a lack of evidence-based knowledge comparing the clinical outcomes and cost-benefit analysis of the different types of minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the short-term clinical outcomes and overall hospital costs between laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

After IRB approval, we conducted a retrospective chart review from 131 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery and 96 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery. Data analyzed included pertinent patient demographics, operative times (OR times), conversion rates, postoperative pathology, complications, length of hospital stay, 90-day readmission rates, 30-day mortality, and overall hospital costs.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-seven patients were included-laparoscopic (N = 131) and robotic (N = 96) colorectal surgeries. Mean age of patients in the laparoscopic versus robotic cohort was 70.9 vs 63.6 years, (p < 0.001). Around 62 % were operated on for malignant disease. Mean OR time was 113 min for laparoscopy and 109 min for robotics, p = 0.59. Conversion rates were comparable. Mean length of hospital stay (6.6 vs 5.7 days) and postoperative complications (3.2 vs 7 %) were comparable between the laparoscopic and robotic arms. Overall hospital charges were $114,853 for laparoscopy and $107,220 for robotics, and no significant difference was noted (p = 0.448, NS).

CONCLUSION

Robotic colectomies were comparable to laparoscopic colectomies in terms of overall hospital charges and short-term clinical outcomes, including length of stay and conversion rates. Robotic surgery was favored for left-sided colectomy. With shorter learning curves and wider availability, robotic approach offers a safe and economically feasible minimally invasive platform for complex colorectal resections.

Effect of BMI on Short-Term Outcomes with Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery: a Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Many benefits of minimally invasive surgery are lost in the obese, but robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) may offer advantages in this population. Our goal was to compare outcomes for RALS in obese and non-obese patients.

METHODS

A prospective database was reviewed for colorectal resections using RALS. Patients were stratified into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)), then case-matched for comparability. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay and complication, readmission, and reoperation rates between groups.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were evaluated in each cohort. The BMI was significantly different (p < 0.01). All other demographics were well matched. There were no significant differences in operative time (p = 0.86), blood loss (p = 0.38), intraoperative complications (p = 0.54), or conversion rates (p = 0.91) across cohorts. Length of stay was comparable between groups (p = 0.45). Postoperatively, the complication (p = 0.87), readmission (p = 1.00), and reoperation rates (p = 0.95) were similar. There were no mortalities. For malignant cases (37.8 %), the lymph node yield (p = 0.48) and positive margins (p = 1.00) were similar and acceptable in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

In our matched RALS series, perioperative and postoperative outcomes were similar between obese and non-obese patients undergoing colorectal surgery. RALS is a feasible option in the surgical setting of the obese patient. Further controlled studies are warranted to explore the full benefits.

Robotic surgery for treatment of chyluria

Chyle is a milky lymphatic fluid that is normally formed in the small intestine to aid in the absorption of dietary fats. Occasionally, chyle leaks into the kidney, ureter, or bladder, which results in chyluria. Chyluria is most commonly caused by the parasite Wuchereria bancrofti and is therefore extremely rare in the USA. The use of robotic surgery for treatment has been suggested as a viable option, but has not been thoroughly reported in the literature. This article reviews the literature on the various treatment options for chyluria and presents the case of a 75-year-old Indian female from the USA who was diagnosed with non-parasitic, persistent chyluria and treated with right robotic ureterolysis, renal hilar dissection and intraperitonealization of the ureter.

The centralization of robotic surgery in high-volume centers for endometrial cancer patients--a study of 6560 cases in the U.S

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the hospital and patient factors associated with robotic surgery for endometrial cancer in the United States.

METHODS

Data was obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from the year 2010. Chi-squared and multivariate analyses were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 6560 endometrial cancer patients who underwent surgery, the median age was 62 (range: 22 to 99). 1647 (25%) underwent robotic surgery, 820 (13%) laparoscopic, and 4093 (62%) had open surgery. The majority was White (65%). Hospitals with 76 or more hysterectomy cases for endometrial cancer patients per year (4% of hospitals in the study) performed 31% of all hysterectomies and 40% of all robotic hysterectomies (p<0.01). 29% of Whites had robotic surgery compared to 15% of Hispanics, 12% of Blacks, and 11% of Asians (p<0.01). Patients with upper-middle and high incomes underwent robotic surgery more than patients with low or middle incomes (p<0.01). 27% of Medicare patients and 26% of patients with private insurance had robotic surgery compared to only 14% of Medicaid patients and 12% of uninsured patients (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of robotic surgeries for endometrial cancer were performed at a small number of high-volume hospitals in the United States. Socioeconomic status, insurance type, and race were also important predictors for the use of RS. Further studies are warranted to better understand the barriers to receiving minimally invasive surgery.

A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Current data addressing the role of robotic surgery for the management of colorectal disease are primarily from single-institution and case-matched comparative studies as well as administrative database analyses. The purpose of this study was to compare minimally invasive surgery outcomes using a large regional protocol-driven database devoted to surgical quality, improvement in patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study from the prospectively collected Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative registry designed to compare outcomes of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and robotic colon and rectal operations between July 1, 2012 and October 7, 2014. We adjusted for differences in baseline covariates between cases with different surgical approaches using propensity score quintiles modeled on patient demographics, general health factors, diagnosis, and preoperative co-morbidities. The primary outcomes were conversion rates and hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes included operative time, and postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 2735 minimally invasive colorectal operations met inclusion criteria. Conversion rates were lower with robotic as compared to laparoscopic operations, and this was statistically significant for rectal resections (colon 9.0 vs. 16.9%, p < 0.06; rectum 7.8 vs. 21.2%, p < 0.001). The adjusted length of stay for robotic colon operations (4.00 days, 95% CI 3.63-4.40) was significantly shorter compared to laparoscopic (4.41 days, 95% CI 4.17-4.66; p = 0.04) and hand-assisted laparoscopic cases (4.44 days, 95% CI 4.13-4.78; p = 0.008). There were no significant differences in overall postoperative complications among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared to conventional laparoscopy, the robotic platform is associated with significantly fewer conversions to open for rectal operations, and significantly shorter length of hospital stay for colon operations, without increasing overall postoperative morbidity. These findings and the recent upgrades in minimally invasive technology warrant continued evaluation of the role of the robotic platform in colorectal surgery.