Comparison of the operative outcomes and learning curves between laparoscopic and "Micro Hand S" robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a retrospective study

Emerging multi-port soft tissue robotic systems: a systematic review of clinical outcomes

Multiple novel multi-port robotic surgical systems have been introduced into clinical practice. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of these novel robotic systems to conventional laparoscopic technique and established da Vinci robotic surgical platforms. A literature search of Embase, Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines from 2012 to May 2023. Studies comparing clinical outcomes of novel multi-port robotic surgical systems with laparoscopic or the da Vinci platforms were included. Case series with no comparison groups were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to report patient and outcome data. A systematic narrative review was provided for each outcome. Twelve studies comprised of 1142 patients were included. A total of 6 novel multi-port robotic systems: Micro Hand S, Senhance, Revo-i MSR-5000, KangDuo, Versius, and Hugo™ RAS were compared against the laparoscopic or the da Vinci robotic platforms. Clinical outcomes of these novel robotic platforms were comparable to the established da Vinci platforms. When compared against conventional laparoscopic approaches, the robotic platforms demonstrated lower volume of blood loss, shorter length of stay but longer operative time. This systematic review highlighted the safe implementation and efficacy of 6 new robotic systems. The clinical outcomes achieved by these new robotic systems are comparable to the established da Vinci robotic system in simple to moderate case complexities. There is emerging evidence that these new robotic systems provide a viable alternative to currently available robotic platforms.

New Robotic Platforms in General Surgery: What's the Current Clinical Scenario?

Background and Objectives: Robotic surgery has been widely adopted in general surgery worldwide but access to this technology is still limited to a few hospitals. With the recent introduction of new robotic platforms, several studies reported the feasibility of different surgical procedures. The aim of this systematic review is to highlight the current clinical practice with the new robotic platforms in general surgery. Materials and Methods: A grey literature search was performed on the Internet to identify the available robotic systems. A PRISMA compliant systematic review was conducted for all English articles up to 10 February 2023 searching the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Clinical outcomes, training process, operating surgeon background, cost-analysis, and specific registries were evaluated. Results: A total of 103 studies were included for qualitative synthesis after the full-text screening. Of the fifteen robotic platforms identified, only seven were adopted in a clinical environment. Out of 4053 patients, 2819 were operated on with a new robotic device. Hepatopancreatobiliary surgery specialty performed the majority of procedures, and the most performed procedure was cholecystectomy. Globally, 109 emergency surgeries were reported. Concerning the training process, only 45 papers reported the background of the operating surgeon, and only 28 papers described the training process on the surgical platform. Only one cost-analysis compared a new robot to the existing reference. Two manufacturers promoted a specific registry to collect clinical outcomes. Conclusions: This systematic review highlights the feasibility of most surgical procedures in general surgery using the new robotic platforms. Adoption of these new devices in general surgery is constantly growing with the extension of regulatory approvals. Standardization of the training process and the assessment of skills' transferability is still lacking. Further studies are required to better understand the real clinical and economical benefit.

Effects of robotic and laparoscopic-assisted surgery on lymph node dissection and quality of life in the upper third of gastric cancer: A retrospective cohort study based on propensity score matching

Objective

The objective of this study was compare the effects of robot-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted surgery on lymph node dissection and quality of life in upper third gastric cancer patients undergoing radical total gastrectomy.

Methods

The clinical and follow-up data of 409 patients with upper third gastric cancer who underwent total gastrectomy from July 2016 to May 2021 were enrolled. The patients were divided into a robotic group (n = 106) and a laparoscopic group (n = 303). Age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor size and location, pathological type, cT, cN, and cTNM were adjusted to offset selection bias. The patient characteristics, operative procedures, surgical outcomes, oncologic and pathologic outcomes, number of lymph node dissections, quality of life assessment, and nutritional status were compared between the two groups.

Results

After propensity score matching, 61 cases were included in the robotic group and 122 cases were included in the laparoscopic group. The number of dissected lymph nodes (37.3 ± 13.5 vs. 32.8 ± 11.8, P = 0.022) significantly differed between the two groups. The number of lower mediastinal and subphrenic lymph nodes in the robotic group was greater than that in the laparoscopic group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Compared with the laparoscopic group, the total score of physical symptoms in the robotic group was significantly lower at 6 and 12 months after surgery (P = 0.03 and P = 0.001, respectively). The total social function score at 6 and 12 months after surgery was higher in the robotic group (P = 0.006 and P = 0.022). The quality of life scores were statistically significant only at 3 months after the operation (P = 0.047). A higher patient-generated subjective global assessment (PG-SGA) score is when the score significantly correlated (P < 0.001) with a higher related physical symptoms score, lower social function score, and lower quality of life score.

Conclusion

Compared with laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, robotic radical gastrectomy is safe and feasible. Compared with laparoscopic radical gastrectomy, robotic radical gastrectomy was more refined, was associated with less surgical bleeding, and increased the quality of lymph node dissection. In addition, patients in the robotic group showed better postoperative quality of life.

The learning curve of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment of rectal carcinoma is surgical resection according to the total mesorectal excision principle, either by open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal technique. No clear consensus exists regarding the length of the learning curve for the minimal invasive techniques. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the learning curve of minimal invasive TME.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for studies with the primary or secondary aim to assess the learning curve of either laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal TME for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was length of the learning curve per minimal invasive technique. Descriptive statistics were used to present results and the MINORS tool was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

45 studies, with 7562 patients, were included in this systematic review. Length of the learning curve based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, or a composite endpoint using a risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis was 50 procedures for the laparoscopic technique, 32-75 procedures for the robot-assisted technique and 36-54 procedures for the transanal technique. Due to the low quality of studies and a high level of heterogeneity a meta-analysis could not be performed. Heterogeneity was caused by patient-related factors, surgeon-related factors and differences in statistical methods.

CONCLUSION

Current high-quality literature regarding length of the learning curve of minimal invasive TME techniques is scarce. Available literature suggests equal lengths of the learning curves of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal TME. Well-designed studies, using adequate statistical methods are required to properly assess the learning curve, while taking into account patient-related and surgeon-related factors.