Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety Between da Vinci Robotic and Laparoscopic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a review of systematic reviews on the clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery across a mix of intracavity procedures, using evidence mapping to inform the decision makers on the best utilisation of robotic-assisted surgery.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included systematic reviews with randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials describing any clinical outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library from 2017 to 2023.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We first presented the number of systematic reviews distributed in different specialties. We then mapped the body of evidence across selected procedures and synthesised major findings of clinical outcomes. We used a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The overlap of primary studies was managed by the corrected covered area method.

RESULTS

Our search identified 165 systematic reviews published addressing clinical evidence of robotic-assisted surgery. We found that for all outcomes except operative time, the evidence was largely positive or neutral for robotic-assisted surgery versus both open and laparoscopic alternatives. Evidence was more positive versus open. The evidence for the operative time was mostly negative. We found that most systematic reviews were of low quality due to a failure to deal with the inherent bias in observational evidence.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery has a strong clinical effectiveness evidence base to support the expanded use of robotic-assisted surgery in six common intracavity procedures, which may provide an opportunity to increase the proportion of minimally invasive surgeries. Given the high incremental cost of robotic-assisted surgery and longer operative time, future economic studies are required to determine the optimal use of robotic-assisted surgery capacity.

First worldwide report on rectal resections with Hugo™ surgical system: description of docking angles and tips for an effective setup

BACKGROUNDS

Rectal robotic surgery gained momentum in the last decade, but it is still associated with not-negligible costs. In order to reduce costs, recently different robotic systems have received approval for clinical use. This study aims to present the first case series of rectal resection with the novel cost-effective platform Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS) Hugo™. Tips for effective set up of the system and detailed configuration of tilt and docking angles are also provided.

METHODS

Three cases of rectal resection with Hugo RAS™ system are reported. After the first two cases of resection with partial mesorectal excision in which surgeries were performed with the setup proposed by the vendor company, in the third case we tested a novel setup that allowed a full robotic low rectal resection performing vascular ligations, TME and colonic splenic flexure mobilization without the need of any de-docking.

RESULTS

Our first three robotic rectal resections with the Hugo RAS™ system were completed without complications with a median docking time of 12 min (range 8-15) and a median console time of 345 minutes (range 271-475). In the first two cases, hybrid robotic and laparoscopic surgeries were performed to obtain an adequate haemostasis and traction during the pelvic phase. In the third case, a full robotic TME was successfully accomplished.

CONCLUSION

Our experience demonstrates that a full robotic low rectal resection with TME with Hugo™ RAS system is feasible, safe and associated with satisfactory postoperative outcomes.

Robotic surgery and work-related stress: A systematic review

Despite robot-assisted surgery (RAS) becoming increasingly common, little is known about the impact of the underlying work organization on the stress levels of members of the operating room (OR) team. To this end, assessing whether RAS may impact work-related stress, identifying associated stress factors and surveying relevant measurement methods seems critical. Using three databases (Scopus, Medline, Google Scholar), a systematic review was conducted leading to the analysis of 20 articles. Results regarding OR team stress levels and measurement methods were heterogeneous, which could be explained by differing research conditions (i.e., lab. vs. real-life). Relevant stressors such as (in)experience with RAS and quality of team communication were identified. Development of a common, more reliable methodology of stress assessment is required. Research should focus on real-life conditions in order to develop valid and actionable knowledge. Surgical teams would greatly benefit from discussing RAS-related stressors and developing team-specific strategies to handle them.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Expedited Summary of the Clinical Evidence

Background

Rectal cancer is a disease in which cancer cells form in the rectum, which has the primary function of temporarily storing feces, controlling defecation, and maintaining continence. Surgery is the most common treatment for rectal cancer; surgical approaches include open, laparoscopic, and robotic assisted. We conducted an expedited summary of the clinical evidence for robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer, which included an evaluation of effectiveness and safety.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence to retrieve systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed the risk of bias in the included systematic reviews using AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2), and we assessed the risk of bias in the included RCT using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials, version 1. We reported the quality of the body of evidence as evaluated in the included systematic reviews according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria if it was evaluated.

Results

We included 14 studies in the clinical evidence review (12 systematic reviews and 1 RCT on robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery and 1 systematic review on robotic-assisted vs. open rectal cancer surgery). Compared with laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery, robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar overall survival; similar rates of conversion, blood transfusion, and readmission,· reduced blood loss; shorter length of stay; and improved quality of life. Compared with open rectal cancer surgery, robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar overall survival, reduced blood loss, and shorter length of stay.

Conclusions

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery may result in similar or improved clinical outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open rectal cancer surgery.

Robotic colorectal surgery and future directions

As the adoption of robotic-assisted procedures expands across various surgical specialties, colorectal surgery stands out as a prominent beneficiary. This rise in usage can be traced back to the increased accessibility of robotic platforms and a growing institutional shift towards cutting-edge surgical methods. When compared with traditional laparoscopic methods, robotic techniques offer distinct advantages. Their true potential shines in surgeries involving complex anatomical regions, where the robot's enhanced dexterity and range of motion prove invaluable. The three-dimensional, magnified view provided by robotic systems further boosts surgical precision and clarity. These advantages render robotic assistance especially suitable for colorectal surgeries, notably in intricate areas such as the rectum and endoluminal spaces. As the medical world emphasizes minimally invasive surgical methods, there's a pressing need to evolve and optimize robotic techniques in colorectal surgery. This article traces the evolution of robotic interventions in colorectal surgeries, highlighting both its historical milestones and anticipated future trends. We'll also explore emerging robotic tools and systems set to reshape the colorectal surgical arena.

A systematic review of full economic evaluations of robotic-assisted surgery in thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures

This study aims to conduct a systematic review of full economic analyses of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in adults' thoracic and abdominopelvic indications. Authors used Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed to conduct a systematic review following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Fully published economic articles in English were included. Methodology and reporting quality were assessed using standardized tools. Majority of studies (28/33) were on oncology procedures. Radical prostatectomy was the most reported procedure (16/33). Twenty-eight studies used quality-adjusted life years, and five used complication rates as outcomes. Nine used primary and 24 studies used secondary data. All studies used modeling. In 81% of studies (27/33), RAS was cost-effective or potentially cost-effective compared to comparator procedures, including radical prostatectomy, nephrectomy, and cystectomy. Societal perspective, longer-term time-horizon, and larger volumes favored RAS. Cost-drivers were length of stay and equipment cost. From societal and payer perspectives, robotic-assisted surgery is a cost-effective strategy for thoracic and abdominopelvic procedures.Clinical trial registration This study is a systematic review with no intervention, not a clinical trial.

Quo Vadis Anesthesiologist? The Value Proposition of Future Anesthesiologists Lies in Preserving or Restoring Presurgical Health after Surgical Insult

This Special Issue of the Journal of Clinical Medicine is devoted to anesthesia and perioperative care [...].