Search

Purpose: We describe details and outcomes of a novel technique for optimizing the surgical field during robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for distal pancreatic lesions, which has become common with potential advantages over laparoscopic surgery. Methods: For suprapancreatic lymph node dissection and splenic artery ligation, we used the basic center position with a scope through the midline port. During manipulation of the perisplenic area, the left position was used by moving the scope to the left medial side. The left lateral position is optionally used by moving the scope to the left lateral port when scope access to the perisplenic area is difficult. In addition, early splenic artery clipping and short gastric artery dissection for inflow block were performed to minimize bleeding around the spleen. We evaluated retrospectively the surgical outcomes of our method using a scoring system that allocated one point for blood inflow control and one point for optimizing the surgical view in the left position. Results: We analyzed 34 patients who underwent RDP or R-radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy (RAMPS). The left position was applied in 14 patients, and the left lateral position was applied in 6. Based on the scoring system, only the 0-point group (n = 8) had four bleeding cases (50%) with splenic injury or blood pooling; the other 1-point or 2-point groups (n = 13, respectively) had no bleeding cases (p = 0.0046). Conclusion: Optimization of the surgical field using scope transition and inflow control ensured safe dissection during RDP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transversus abdominis release (TAR) is an effective technique for treating large midline and off-midline hernias. Recent studies have demonstrated that robotic TAR (rTAR) is technically feasible and associated with improved outcomes compared to open surgery. There is no published experience to date describing abdominal wall reconstruction using the novel robotic platform HUGO RAS System (Medtronic®). Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent a rTAR in our institution were included. Three of the four arm carts of the HUGO RAS System were used at any given time. Each arm configuration was defined by our team in conjunction with Medtronic® personnel. rTAR was performed as previously described. Upon completion of the TAR on one side, a redocking process with different, mirrored arms angles was performed to continue with the contralateral TAR. Operative variables and early morbidity were recorded. Results: Ten patients were included in this study. The median BMI was 31 (21–40.6) kg/m2. The median height was 1.6 m (1.5–1.89 m). A trend of decreased operative time, console time, and redocking time was seen in these consecutive cases. No intraoperative events nor postoperative morbidity was reported. The median length of stay was 3 (1–6) days. Conclusion: Robotic TAR utilizing the HUGO RAS system is a feasible and safe procedure. The adoption of this procedure on this novel platform for the treatment of complex abdominal wall hernias has been successful for our team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The KangDuo surgical robot (KD-SR-01) was recently developed in China. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of KD-SR-01 for colorectal cancer surgery. Methods: This is a multicentre randomised controlled noninferiority trial conducted in three centers in China. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive surgery using the KD-SR-01 system (KD group) or the da Vinci Xi (DV) robotic system (DV group). The primary endpoint was the success rate of operation. The second endpoints were surgical outcomes, pathological outcomes, and postoperative outcomes. Results: Between July 2022 and May 2023. A total of 100 patients were included in the trial and randomly assigned to the KD group (50 patients) and the DV group (50 patients). All cases were completed successfully without conversion to laparoscopic surgery. The time to flatus and the incidence of postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher grade were comparable between the two groups. Surgeons reported a high level of comfort with the KD-SR-01 system. In the subgroup analysis of different operative procedures, there were no significant differences in docking time, console time, blood loss, and the length of the incision for extraction between the two groups. There were no differences in pathological outcomes including maximum tumor diameter, circumferential resection margin, distal resection margin, and number of harvested lymph nodes. Conclusions: The KD-SR-01 system was a viable option for colorectal cancer robotic surgery, with acceptable short-term outcomes comparable to the da Vinci Xi robotic system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Splenic surgery in hematological disorders requires a well-weighted decision on the indications because the medical treatment has rapidly changed in recent years due to new pharmaceutical approaches. Objective: Summary of the indications, surgical procedures and perioperative management regarding operative interventions on the spleen in hematological disorders. Material and methods: Selective literature search and summary of reviews and guideline recommendations. Results: In hematological disorders surgical procedures of the spleen (splenectomy and partial splenectomy) are an important part of the repertoire in the treatment. In recent years the indications for surgery have become narrower because of new forms of medicinal treatment. Especially in hereditary spherocytosis, immune thrombocytopenia and symptomatic splenomegaly and hypersplenism it is still of importance. The minimally invasive splenectomy is regarded as the gold standard. The spleen has an important immune and sequestration function, therefore preoperative and postoperative infectious and thromboembolic events have to be anticipated and prevented. A close interdisciplinary cooperation with hematologists is essential for an optimal outcome of patients. Conclusion: The minimally invasive splenectomy and partial splenectomy are part of the surgical repertoire in the diagnostics and treatment of hematological disorders. Because of novel medicinal approaches the therapeutic protocols are continuously changing. A close cooperation with hematologists is important for the optimal evaluation of the indications and the perioperative management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: With the widespread adoption of minimally invasive surgery, there is a growing need for surgical residents to be trained by a procedure-specific curriculum. This study aimed to evaluate the technical performance and feedback of surgical residents undergoing the robotic and laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) and gastrojejunostomy (GJ) biotissue modules. Methods: A total of 23 PGY-3 surgical residents participated in this study and performed the laparoscopic and robotic HJ and GJ drills, which were recorded and scored by two independent graders using the modified objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS). After completing each drill, all participants filled out the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), Borg Exertion Scale, and Edwards Arousal Rating Questionnaire. Results: Twenty-two (95.7%) residents had already received fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery certification. Eighteen (78.3%) residents had robotic virtual simulation training and the median (range) number of robotic surgery console experience was 4 (0–30). In the HJ comparison of the six OSATS domains, the robotic system was superior in Gentleness (p = 0.031). In the GJ comparison, the robotic system was superior in Time and Motion (p < 0.001), Instrument Handling (p = 0.001), Flow of Operation (p = 0.002), Tissue Exposure (p = 0.013), and Summary (p < 0.001). Participants answered significantly higher demand scores for laparoscopy on all six facets of NASA-TLX for both HJ and GJ (p < 0.05). The Borg Level of Exertion was > 2 points higher for laparoscopic HJ and GJ (p < 0.001). Residents rated more Nervousness and Anxiety for laparoscopic compared to robotic (p < 0.05) HJ and GJ. Additionally, when asked to score preference for robotic and laparoscopic approach in terms of technique and ergonomics, residents scored robot as better (laparoscopy worse) for both HJ and GJ in both domains. Conclusions: The robotic surgical system provided a more favorable environment for trainees with less mental and physical burden for minimally invasive HJ and GJ curriculum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic approach in paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair may improve outcomes over laparoscopic approach, though at additional cost. This study aimed to compare cost-effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic PEH repair. Methods: A decision tree was created analyzing cost-effectiveness of robotic and laparoscopic PEH repair. Costs were obtained from 2021 Medicare data and were accumulated within 60 months after surgery. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Branch-point probabilities and costs of robotic surgery consumables were obtained from published literature. The primary outcome of interest was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A secondary analysis including attributable capital and maintenance costs of robotic surgery was conducted as well. Results: Laparoscopic repair yielded 3.660 QALYs at $35,843.82. Robotic repair yielded 3.661 QALYs at $36,342.57, with an ICER of $779,488.62/QALY. Robotic repair was favored when rates of open conversion and symptom recurrence were low, or with reduced cost of robotic instruments. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis favored laparoscopic repair in 100% of simulations. When accounting for costs of robotic technology, robotic approach was preferred only in unrealistic clinical scenarios. Conclusions: Laparoscopic repair is likely more cost-effective for most institutions, though results were relatively similar. With experienced surgeons who surpass the initial learning curve, robotic surgery may improve outcomes enough to be cost-effective, but only when excluding capital and maintenance fees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare perioperative results of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders at the beginning of the surgical experience. Methods: Between 2017 and 2022, the first 30 laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexies and the first 30 robotic ventral mesh rectopexies at the beginning of the experience of 2 surgeons were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative (demographic characteristics, surgical indication, conversion rate, operative time), and postoperative (complications, length of stay, unplanned reintervention) data were compared between groups. Results: Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Conversion rate was lower (0 vs 17%, p = 0.05), but the operative time was significantly longer (182 [146–290] vs 150 [75–240] minutes, p < 0.0001) during robotic procedure when compared with laparoscopic approach. In terms of learning curve, the number of procedures to obtain the same operative time between the 2 approaches was 15. Postoperative results were similar between groups, in terms of pain (visual analogic scale = 2 [0–8] vs 4 [0–9], p = 0.07), morbidity (17 vs 3%, p = 0.2), and unplanned reintervention (1 vs 0%, p = 0.99). Mean length of stay was significantly reduced after robotic approach when compared with laparoscopic approach (3 [2–10] vs 5 [2–11] days, p < 0.01). Functional results were better after robotic than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, with higher satisfaction rate (93 vs 75%, p = 0.05), and reduced recurrence rate (0 vs 14%, p = 0.048). Conclusion: Despite longer operative time at the beginning of the learning curve, robotic ventral mesh rectopexy was associated with similar or better perioperative results than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is widely recognized as a safe and beneficial procedure in the treatment of both malignant and benign liver diseases. Hepatolithiasis has traditionally been reported to be endemic only in East Asia, but has seen a worldwide uptrend in recent decades with increasingly frequent and invasive endoscopic instrumentation of the biliary tract for a myriad of conditions. To date, there has been a woeful lack of high-quality evidence comparing the laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) approaches to treatment hepatolithiasis. Methods: This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 273 patients who underwent RLR or LRR for hepatolithiasis at 33 centers in 2003–2020. The baseline clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes of these patients were assessed. To minimize selection bias, 1:1 (48 and 48 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) and 1:2 (37 and 74 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. Results: In the unmatched cohort, 63 (23.1%) patients underwent RLR, and 210 (76.9%) patients underwent LLR. Patient clinicopathological characteristics were comparable between the groups after PSM. After 1:1 and 1:2 PSM, RLR was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.005 in 1:1 PSM), less patients with blood loss greater than 300 ml (p = 0.024 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.027 in 1:1 PSM), and lower conversion rate to open surgery (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p < 0.001 in 1:1 PSM). There was no significant difference between RLR and LLR in use of the Pringle maneuver, median Pringle maneuver duration, 30-day readmission rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality. Conclusion: Both RLR and LLR were safe and feasible for hepatolithiasis. RLR was associated with significantly less blood loss and lower open conversion rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conventional laparoscopic or robotic surgery for right-sided colon cancer often requires intraoperative repositioning and removal of the bowel. Changing positions during robotic surgery can be troublesome and robotic removal of the small intestine carries a risk of unexpected injury because robotic devices have a strong grasping force and no sense of touch. Herein, we introduce a novel mobilization of the medial approach without changing the position for robotic right hemicolectomy. Using this technique, mobilization is performed in counterclockwise succession, allowing all mobilizations and bowel removal to be completed sequentially, without positional change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimally invasive liver resection of the posterosuperior region is considered a challenging procedure due to poor exposure and difficult bleeding control. A robotic approach is supposed to be advantageous in posterosuperior segmentectomy. Its benefits over laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) remain undetermined. This study compared robotic liver resection (RLR) and LLR in the posterosuperior region performed by a single surgeon. Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive RLR and LLR performed by a single surgeon between December 2020 and March 2022. Patient characteristics and perioperative variables were compared. A 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) analysis was performed between both groups. Results: The analysis included 48 RLR and 57 LLR procedures in the posterosuperior region. After PSM analysis, 41 cases of both groups were retained. In pre-PSM cohort, the operative time in the RLR group was significantly shorter than in the LLR group (160 vs. 208 min, P = 0.001), especially in radical resection of malignant tumors (176 vs. 231 min, P = 0.004). The total Pringle maneuver duration was also markedly shorter (40 vs. 51 min, P = 0.047), and the estimated blood loss in the RLR group was lower (92 vs. 150 mL, P = 0.005). The postoperative hospital stay (POHS) in the RLR group was significantly shorter (5.4 vs. 7.5 days, P = 0.048). In PSM cohort, operative time in the RLR group was also significantly shorter (163 vs. 193 min, P = 0.036), and the estimated blood loss was lower (92 vs. 144 mL, P = 0.024). However, the total Pringle maneuver duration and POHS showed no significant difference. The complications were similar between two groups in both pre-PSM and PSM cohorts. Conclusion: RLR in the posterosuperior region was as safe and feasible as LLR. RLR was associated with reduced operative time and blood loss than LLR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increasing number of robotic pancreatoduodenectomies (RPD) are reported, however, questions remain on the number of procedures needed for gaining technical proficiency in RPD. Therefore, we aimed to assess the influence of procedure volume on short-term RPD outcomes and assess the learning curve effect. Methods: A retrospective review of consecutive RPD cases was undertaken. Non-adjusted cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was performed to identify the procedure volume threshold, following which before-threshold and after-threshold outcomes were compared. Results: Since May 2017, 60 patients had undergone an RPD at our institution. The median operative time was 360 min (IQR 302.25–442 min). CUSUM analysis of operative time identified 21 cases as proficiency threshold, indicated by curve inflexion. Median operative time was significantly shorter after the threshold of 21 cases (470 vs 320 min, p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between before- and after-threshold groups in major Clavien-Dindo complications (23.8 vs 25.6%, p = 0.876). Conclusions: A decrease in operative time after 21 RPD cases suggests a threshold of technical proficiency potentially associated with an initial adjustment to new instrumentation, port placement and standardisation of operative step sequence. RPD can be safely performed by surgeons with prior laparoscopic surgery experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The field of robotic liver resection (RLR) has developed in the past decades. This technique seems to improve the access to the posterosuperior (PS) segments. Evidence of a possible advantage over transthoracic laparoscopy (TTL) is not yet available. We aimed to compare RLR to TTL for tumors located in the PS segments of the liver in terms of feasibility, difficulty scoring, and outcome. Methods: This retrospective study compared patients undergoing robotic liver resections and transthoracic laparoscopic resections of the PS segments between January 2016 and December 2022 in a high-volume HPB center. Patients' characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative complications were evaluated. Results: In total, 30 RLR and 16 TTL were included. Only wedge resections were performed in the TTL group, while 43% of the patients in the RLR group had an anatomical resection (p < 0.001). The difficulty score according to the IWATE difficulty scoring system was significantly higher in the RLR group (p < 0.001). Total operative time was similar between the two groups. Complication rates, either overall or major, were comparable between the two techniques and hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RLR group. Patients in the TTL group were found to have more pulmonary complications (p = 0.01). Conclusion: RLR may provide some advantages over TTL for the resection of tumors located in the PS segments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive liver resections. While laparoscopic (L)-LLS is a well-established technique, over traditional open resection, it remains controversial if robotic (R)-LLS provides any advantages of L-LLS. Methods: A post hoc analysis of 997 patients from 21 international centres undergoing L-LLS or R-LLS from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. A total of 886 cases (214 R-LLS, 672 L-LLS) met study criteria. 1:1 and 1:2 propensity score matched (PSM) comparison was performed between R-LLS & L-LLS. Further subset analysis by Iwate difficulty was also performed. Outcomes measured include operating time, blood loss, open conversion, readmission rates, morbidity and mortality. Results: Comparison between R-LLS and L-LLS after PSM 1:2 demonstrated statistically significantly lower open conversion rate in R-LLS than L-LLS (0.6% versus 5%, p = 0.009) and median blood loss was also statistically significantly lower in R-LLS at 50 (80) versus 100 (170) in L-LLS (p = 0.011) after PSM 1:1 although there was no difference in the blood transfusion rate. Pringle manoeuvre was also found to be used more frequently in R-LLS, with 53(24.8%) cases versus to 84(12.5%) L-LLS cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other key perioperative outcomes such as operating time, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity and 90-day mortality between both groups. Conclusion: R-LLS was associated with similar key perioperative outcomes compared to L-LLS. It was also associated with significantly lower blood loss and open conversion rates compared to L-LLS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery has emerged as an alternative to traditional laparoscopy and may offer some clinical benefits when performing complex hiatal hernia repairs. Many institutions may choose to not invest in robotic surgery because of perceived higher costs, and when they already have proficient laparoscopic surgeons. We hypothesized that the robotic approach would yield lower profits overall due to higher supply costs, while offering comparable outcomes to the traditional laparoscopic approach. Methods: Financial and outcomes data from a single quaternary academic center was retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database from July 2020 to May 2021. Laparoscopic hiatal hernia repairs and robotic-assisted repairs were compared for metrics including length of stay, operative time, hospital and supply cost, payments, and profits. Metrics of these two groups were compared using t-test analyses with significance set to p < 0.05. Results: Seventy-three patients were included with 31 in the robotic group (42.5%) and 42 in the laparoscopic group (57.5%). There were no significant differences in length of stay (robotic mean 2.0 days, laparoscopic 2.55 days, p = 0.09) or operative time (257.6 min vs 256.7 min, p = 0.48) between the two approaches. The robotic approach was associated with higher supply costs ($2,655 vs $2,028, p < 0.001) and patient charges ($63,997 vs $56,276, p < 0.05). Despite higher costs associated with robotics, hospital profits were not different between the two groups ($7,462 vs $7,939, p = 0.42). Conclusion: Despite higher supply costs and charges for robotic-assisted hiatal hernia repair, hospital profits were similar when comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches. Short-term clinical outcomes were also similar. Programs should do their own analysis to understand their individual cost issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Laparoscopic (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) are both challenging procedures. The feasibility and safety of simultaneously developing LPD and RPD remain unreported. We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients undergoing LPD or RPD between 2014 and 2021. A total of 114 patients underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD): 39 LPDs and 75 RPDs. The learning process of LPD and RPD were similar. The cutoff points of the learning curve were LPD, 13th patient (the 27th patient of MIPD), and RPD, 18th patient (the 31st patient of MIPD) according the cumulative sum analysis of operative time. A decrease in the operative time was associated with the case sequence (p < 0.001) but not with the surgical approach (p = 0.36). The overall surgical outcomes were comparable between both the LPD and RPD groups. When evaluating the learning curve impact on MIPD, LPD had higher major complication (≧ Clavien–Dindo grade III), bile leak and wound infection rates in the pre-learning curve phase than those in the after-learning curve phase, while RPD had similar surgical outcomes between two phases. Simultaneous development of LPD and RPD is feasible and safe for experienced surgeons, with similar learning process and comparable surgical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM's) are increasingly used to assess surgical outcomes in low-risk surgeries such as minimally invasive primary ventral and incisional hernia repair. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to systematically summarize the available evidence for the effect of laparoscopic versus robotic primary ventral and incisional hernia repair on PROM's. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Randomised control trials, retrospective and prospective studies were included. Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL, and two trial registers were searched. Pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Mantel–Haenszel method. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: Of the 2728 titles screened, eight studies involving 41,205 participants were included. Return to activities of daily living, return to work day and recurrence rate were statistically better in the robotic group. Length of stay, readmission, postoperative pain, quality of life, body image, and patient satisfaction were similar in both groups. The GRADE rating of the quality of evidence was moderate for postoperative pain and low to very low for the quality of life, length of stay, recurrence and readmission. Conclusion: The available data of PROM's of laparoscopic and robotic primary ventral and incisional hernia repair is scarce and highly heterogeneous, thus making it difficult to assess the superiority of the laparoscopic technique over the robotic technique. Further studies with uniform reporting of PROM's in laparoscopic and robotic primary ventral and incisional hernia repair are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: An increasing number of centers have implemented a robotic surgical program for rectal cancer. Several randomized controls trials have shown similar oncological and postoperative outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic resections. While introducing a robot rectal resection program seems safe, there are no data regarding implementation on a nationwide scale. Since 2018 robot resections are separately registered in the mandatory Dutch Colorectal Audit. The present study aims to evaluate the trend in the implementation of robotic resections (RR) for rectal cancer relative to laparoscopic rectal resections (LRR) in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2020 and to compare the differences in outcomes between the operative approaches. Methods: Patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2018 and 2020 were selected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. The data included patient characteristics, disease characteristics, surgical procedure details, postoperative outcomes. The outcomes included any complication within 90 days after surgery; data were categorized according to surgical approach. Results: Between 2018 and 2020, 6330 patients were included in the analyses. 1146 patients underwent a RR (18%), 3312 patients a LRR (51%), 526 (8%) an open rectal resection, 641 a TaTME (10%), and 705 had a local resection (11%). The proportion of males and distal tumors was higher in the RR compared to the LRR. Over time, the proportion of robotic procedures increased from 15% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 13–16%) in 2018 to 22% (95% CI 20–24%) in 2020. Conversion rate was lower in the robotic group [4% (95% CI 3–5%) versus 7% (95% CI 6–8%)]. Anastomotic leakage rate was similar with 16%. Defunctioning ileostomies were more common in the RR group [42% (95% CI 38–46%) versus 29% (95% CI 26–31%)]. Conclusion: Rectal resections are increasingly being performed through a robot-assisted approach in the Netherlands. The proportion of males and low rectal cancers was higher in RR compared to LRR. Overall outcomes were comparable, while conversion rate was lower in RR, the proportion of defunctioning ileostomies was higher compared to LRR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the advantages of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) have been described, guidelines regarding robotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) have yet to be established, despite its increased adoption as a minimally invasive alternative. This study compares the largest single-center cohorts of LIHR and RIHR and aims to shed light on the differences in outcomes between these two techniques. Methods: Patients who underwent LIHR or RIHR over an 8-year period were included as part of a retrospective analysis. Variables were stratified by preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative timeframes. Complications were listed according to the Clavien–Dindo classification system and comprehensive complication index (CCI®). Study groups were compared using univariate analyses and Kaplan–Meier's time-to-event analysis. Results: A total of 1153 patients were included: 606 patients underwent LIHR, while 547 underwent RIHR. Although demographics and comorbidities were mostly similar between the groups, the RIHR group included a higher proportion of complex hernias. Operative times were in favor of LIHR (42 vs. 53 min, p < 0.001), while RIHR had a smaller number of peritoneal breaches (0.4 vs. 3.8%, p < 0.001) as well as conversions (0.2 vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001). The number of patients lost-to-follow-up and the average follow-up times were similar (p = 0.821 and p = 0.304, respectively). Postoperatively, CCI® scores did not differ between the two groups (median = 0, p = 0.380), but Grade IIIB complications (1.2 vs. 3.3%, p = 0.025) and recurrences (0.8% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.013) were in favor of RIHR. Furthermore, estimated recurrence-free time was higher in the RIHR group [p = 0.032; 99.7 months (95% CI 98.8–100.5) vs. 97.6 months (95% CI 95.9–99.3). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that RIHR may confer advantages over LIHR in terms of addressing more complex repairs while simultaneously reducing conversion and recurrence rates, at the expense of prolonged operation times. Further large-scale prospective studies and trials are needed to validate these findings and better understand whether RIHR offers substantial clinical benefit compared with LIHR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic surgical systems introduce new opportunities for the minimal accessed surgeon. The combination of three-dimensional magnified vision and articulated instruments with seven degrees of freedom provide a good and safe alternative to laparoscopic surgery. Indeed some of these features may support the case that robotic surgery may be better than conventional surgery. In this study, we report our experience of robotic surgery by using the first open console, modular robotic platform in Germany, the Versius Surgical System®. Methods: We implemented the Versius Surgical System® in April 2021 at our centre. Since then, 175 patients received robotic assisted surgery. All patients were included in this study. Data were analysed by using the SPSS (IBM Statistics) Software. Results: 175 patients underwent robotic surgery. We started the implementation of the system by performing cholecystectomy. After the first 50 successful operations, we began to perform robotic assisted oncological resections. We saw a learning curve with improvements in total operative time and console time until reaching a standard similar to conventional laparoscopic surgery. The perioperative complication-ratio was equivalent for operations matched the histopathological outcome (MERCURY graduation, R0-staus) at oncological resections. However, four patients had to be revised because of secondary bleeding. Interestingly the total hospital stay for right sided hemicolectomy and oesophagus-resection was shorter than in laparoscopic surgery. Summary: In our opinion, the Versius Surgical System® seems to be a good, promising system and a safe alternative to other robotic systems, although any comparison is still missing. The open design enabling a better communication between console surgeon and bedside-unit assistant as well as the mobile bedside units are very interesting and allow more flexibility. Nevertheless, there are limitations of the system that require a direct comparison with other robotic systems as well as continuous advancement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Work related injuries in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) are common because of the strains placed on the surgeon's or assistant's body. The objective of this study was to compare specific ergonomic risks among surgeons and surgical trainees performing robotic and laparoscopic procedures.Materials and Methods: Ergonomic data and discomfort questionnaires were recorded from surgeons and trainees (fellows/residents) for both robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Perceived discomfort questionnaires were recorded pre/postoperatively. Intraoperatively, biomechanical loads were captured using motion tracking sensors and electromyography (EMG) sensors. Perceived discomfort, body position and muscle activity were compared between robotic and laparoscopic procedures using a linear regression model.Results: Twenty surgeons and surgical trainees performed 29 robotic and 48 laparoscopic procedures. Postoperatively, increases in right finger numbness and right shoulder stiffness and surgeon irritability were noted after laparoscopy and increased back stiffness after robotic surgery. Further, the laparoscopic group saw increases in right hand/shoulder pain (OR 0.8; p = 0.032) and left hand/shoulder pain (0.22; p < 0.001) compared to robotic. Right deltoid and trapezius excessive muscle activity were significantly higher in laparoscopic operations compared to robotic. Demanding and static positioning was similar between the two groups except there was significantly more static neck position required for robotic operations.Conclusion: Robotic assisted surgeries led to lower postoperative discomfort and muscle strain in both upper extremities, particularly dominant side of the surgeon, but increased static neck positioning with subjective back stiffness compared with laparoscopy. These recognized ergonomic differences between the two platforms can be used to raise surgeon awareness of their intraoperative posture and to develop targeted physical and occupational therapy interventions to decrease surgeon WMSDs and increase surgeon longevity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With more than 5500 da Vinci Surgical System (DVSS) installed worldwide, the robotic approach for general surgery, including for inguinal hernia repair, is gaining popularity in the USA. However, in many countries outside the USA, robotic surgery is performed at only a few advanced institutions; therefore, its advantages over the open or laparoscopic approaches for inguinal hernia repair are unclear. Several retrospective studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of robotic inguinal hernia repair, but there is still no firm evidence to support the superiority of robotic surgery for this procedure or its long-term clinical outcomes. Robotic surgery has the potential to overcome the disadvantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery through appropriate utilization of technological advantages, such as wristed instruments, tremor filtering, and high-resolution 3D images. The potential benefits of robotic inguinal hernia repair are lower rates of complications or recurrence than open and laparoscopic surgery, with less postoperative pain, and a rapid learning curve for surgeons. In this review, we summarize the current status and future prospects of robotic inguinal hernia repair and discuss the issues associated with this procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Literature concerning surgical management of transverse colon cancer is scarce, since many key trials excluded transverse colon cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and oncological outcomes comparing open, laparoscopic and robotic transverse colon cancer resection. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent elective surgery for transverse colon cancer between December 2005 and July 2021 were included. Data were kept in a prospective database approved by the institutional ethics committee. Primary outcome was overall and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included complications, operative time, length of stay and lymph node harvest. Statistical analysis was corrected for age and tumour localisation. Results: Two hundred and forty-six (38 robotic, 71 open and 137 laparoscopic resections) were recruited in this study. There were five conversions during laparoscopic procedures. Operative time was significantly shorter in robotic vs laparoscopic procedures (195 vs 238 min, p = 0.005) and length of stay was shorter in robotic vs laparoscopic and open group (7 vs 9 vs 15 days, p < 0.001). There was no difference in overall complications. R0 resections were similar. Lymph node harvest was highest in the robotic group vs. laparoscopic or open (32 vs. 29 vs. 21, p < 0.001). Overall survival was 97%, 85% and 60% (p < 0.001) and disease-free survival was 91%, 78% and 56% (p < 0.001) for the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups, respectively. Conclusions: Minimally invasive surgery for transverse colon cancer is safe and offers good clinical and oncological outcomes. Robotic resection is associated with significantly shorter operating times, higher lymph node harvest, lower conversion rate and does not increase morbidity. Differences in disease-free and overall survival should be further explored in randomised controlled trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy. Methods: A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates. Results: Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5–0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3–60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8–0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7–0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8–3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8–1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies. Conclusions: Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preliminary experience in laparoscopic liver surgery is usually suggested prior to implementation of a robotic liver resection program. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing robotic (RLR) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma at a center with concomitant initiation of robotic and laparoscopic programs Results: A total of 92 consecutive patients operated on between May 2014 and February 2019 were included: 40 RLR versus 52 LLR. Median age (69 vs. 67; p = 0.74), male sex (62.5% vs. 59.6%; p = 0.96), incidence of chronic liver disease (97.5% vs.98.1%; p = 0.85), median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (8 vs. 9; p = 0.92), and median largest nodule size (22 vs. 24 mm) were similar between RLR and LLR. In the LLR group, there was a numerically higher incidence of nodules located in segment 4 (20.0% vs. 16.6%; p = 0.79); a numerically higher use of Pringle's maneuver (32.7% vs. 20%; p = 0.23), and a shorter duration of surgery (median of 165.5 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.04). Incidence of complications (25% vs.32.7%; p = 0.49), blood transfusions (2.5% vs.9.6%; p = 0.21), and median length of stay (6 vs. 5; p = 0.54) were similar between RLR and LLR. The overall (OS) and recurrence-free (RFS) survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 100 and 79 and 95 and 26% for RLR versus 96.2 and 76.9 and 84.6 and 26.9% for LLR (log-rank p = 0.65 for OS and 0.72 for RFS). Conclusions: Based on our results, concurrent implementation of a robotic and laparoscopic liver resection program appears feasible and safe, and is associated with similar oncologic long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Blood loss is a major determinant of outcomes following hepatectomy. Robotic technology enables hepatobiliary surgeons to mimic open techniques for inflow control and parenchymal transection during major hepatectomy, increasing the ability to minimize blood loss and perform safe liver resections. Methods: Initial experience of 20 consecutive major robotic hepatectomies from November 2018 to July 2020 at two co-located institutions was reviewed. All cases were performed with extrahepatic inflow control and parenchymal transection with the laparoscopic cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA), and a technical description is illustrated. Clinical characteristics, operative data, and surgical outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Results: The median (range) patient age was 58 years (20–76) and the majority of 14 (70%) patients were ASA III–IV. There were 12 (60%) resections for malignancy and the median tumor size was 6.2 cm (1.2–14.6). Right or extended right hepatectomy was the most common procedure (12 or 60% of cases). There were 7 (35%) left or extended left hepatectomies and 1 (5%) central hepatectomy. The median operative time was 420 (177–622) minutes. Median estimated blood loss was 300 mL (25–800 mL). One (5%) case was converted to open. Two (10%) patients required blood transfusion. The median length of stay was 3 (1–6) days. Major complications included 1 (5%) Clavien–Dindo IIIa bile leak requiring percutaneous drainage placement. There was no 90-day mortality. Conclusion: Advanced techniques to reduce blood loss in robotic hepatectomy may optimize safety and minimize morbidity in these complex minimally invasive procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate comparative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy (LLS). Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and bibliographic reference lists with application of a combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators and limits was conducted. Overall, minor (Clavien-Dindo grade < III) and major (Clavien-Dindo grade > III) postoperative complications, mortality, volume of blood loss, conversion to an open procedure, procedure time, length of hospital stay, cost-effectiveness and R1 resection were the evaluated outcome measures. Results: Seven comparative observational studies reporting a total of 319 patients of whom 150 underwent robotic LLS and the remaining 169 patients underwent laparoscopic LLS were included. The robotic approach was associated with significantly longer procedure time (MD: 29.40 min, p = 0.01) and higher cost (MD: $4170, p < 0.00001) compared to the laparoscopic approach. There was no significant difference in overall postoperative morbidity (OR: 1.29, p = 0.62), Clavien-Dindo grade < III (OR: 1.65, p = 0.49), Clavien-Dindo grade > III (OR: 1.18, p = 0.85), perioperative mortality (RD: 0.00, p = 1.00), volume of blood loss (MD: 1.96 mls, p = 0.91), conversion to an open procedure (RD: − 0.02, p = 0.46), length of hospital stay (MD: 0.22 day, p = 0.52) or R1 resection (RD:0.00, p = 1.00) between two groups. Conclusions: Meta-analysis of the best available evidence (level 2) demonstrated that robotic LLS is associated with significantly longer procedure time and higher cost and similar perioperative outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach. Future randomised studies are required to evaluate short-term perioperative, long-term oncological and surgeon-centred outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few studies have examined robotic surgery from a programmatic standpoint, yet this is how hospitals evaluate return on investment clinically and fiscally. This study examines the 10-year experience of a robotic program at a single academic institution.Study Design: All robotic operations performed at our institution from August 2005 to December 2016 were reviewed. Data were collected from the robotic system and hospital databases.Results: A total of 3485 robotic operations were performed. Yearly case volume nearly quadrupled. There have been 37 robotic-trained surgeons in 5 specialties performing 53 different operations. Rate of conversion to open was 4.2%. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class increased over time, with ASA class 3 increasing from 20% of patients to 45% of patients. Average case time in 2005 was 453 min, but decreased by 46% to 246 min by 2007, then remained relatively stable (range 226-247). Operating efficiency improved, with room time and case time decreasing by 9% in the past 4 years. Average cost for robotic supplies was $1519 per case. Additional costs per case related to equipment and contracts totaled an average of $11,822. Average length of stay (LOS) for robotic cases was 3.3 days, compared to 3.0 days for laparoscopic and 7.0 for open. Cost per day for admission after robotic surgery was 1.7 times greater than the cost of open or laparoscopic surgery. Total admission costs of robotic operations were 1.5 times those of laparoscopic surgery, but less than open operations. Readmissions following robotic cases were lower than open (15% v 26%, p < 0.0001).Conclusions: Over 10 years, the use of robotic technology has grown significantly at our institution, with good fiscal and clinical outcomes. Operating room costs are high; however, efficiency has improved, LOS is shorter, admission costs are lower than open operations, and readmission rates are lower. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Minimally invasive surgery has been universally accepted as a valid option for the treatment of diverticular disease, provided specific expertise is available. Over the last decade, there has been a growing interest in the application of robotic approaches for diverticular disease. We aimed at evaluating whether robotic colectomy may offer some advantages over the laparoscopic approach for surgical treatment of diverticular disease by meta-analyzing the available data from the medical literature. Methods: The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Web Of Sciences electronic databases were searched for literature up to December 2020. Inclusion criteria considered all comparative studies evaluating robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for diverticulitis eligible. The conversion rate to the open approach was evaluated as the primary outcome. Results: The data of 4177 patients from nine studies were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy compared to those who underwent surgery with a robotic approach had a significantly higher risk of conversion into an open procedure (12.5% vs. 7.4%, p < 0.00001) and abbreviated hospital stay (p < 0.0001) at the price of a longer operating time (p < 0.00001). Conclusion: Compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the robotic approach offers significant advantages in terms of conversion rate and shortened hospital stay for the treatment of diverticular disease. However, because of the lack of available evidence, it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to examine the perioperative outcomes of robotic inguinal hernia repair as compared to the open and laparoscopic approaches utilizing large-scale population-level data. Methods: This study was funded by the SAGES Robotic Surgery Research Grant (2019). The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) administrative database was used to identify all adult patients undergoing initial open (O-IHR), laparoscopic (L-IHR), and robotic (R-IHR) inguinal hernia repair between 2010 and 2016. Perioperative outcome measures [complications, length of stay (LOS), 30-day emergency department (ED) visits, 30-day readmissions] and estimated 1/3/5-year recurrence incidences were compared. Propensity score (PS) analysis was used to estimate marginal differences between R-IHR and L-IHR or O-IHR, using a 1:1 matching algorithm. Results: During the study period, a total of 153,727 patients underwent inguinal hernia repair (117,603 [76.5%] O-IHR, 35,565 [23.1%] L-IHR; 559 [0.36%] R-IHR) in New York state. Initial univariate analysis found R-IHR to have longer LOS (1.74 days vs. 0.66 O-IHR vs 0.19 L-IHR) and higher rates of overall complications (9.3% vs. 3.6% O-IHR vs 1.1% L-IHR), 30-day ED visits (11.6% vs. 6.1% O-IHR vs. 4.9% L-IHR), and 30-day readmissions (5.6% vs. 2.4% O-IHR vs. 1.2% L-IHR) (p < 0.0001). R-IHR was associated with higher recurrence compared to L-IHR. Following PS analysis, there were no differences in perioperative outcomes between R-IHR and L-IHR, and the difference in recurrence was found to be sensitive to possible unobserved confounding factors. R-IHR had significantly lower risk of complications (Risk difference − 0.09, 95% CI [− 0.13, − 0.056]; p < 0.0001) and shorter LOS (Ratio 0.53, 95% CI [0.45, 0.62]; p < 0.0001) compared to O-IHR. Conclusion: In adult patients, R-IHR may be associated with comparable to more favorable 30-day perioperative outcomes as compared with L-IHR and O-IHR, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: On a national level, the minimally invasive approach is widely adopted in Denmark. The adoption of robotic colorectal surgery is increasing; however, the advantage of a robotic approach in right colectomy is still uncertain. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic right colectomy with laparoscopic right colectomy on a national level. Methods: This was a nationwide database study based on data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients from all colorectal centers in Denmark in the period 2014–2018 treated with curative intend in an elective setting with either robotic or laparoscopic right colectomy were identified. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounding, and the groups were compared on demographics, disease characteristics, operative data, and postoperative and pathology outcomes. Reporting was done in accordance with the STROBE statement. Results: In total, 4002 patients were available for analysis. Propensity score matching in ratio 2:1 identified 718 laparoscopic and 359 robotic cases. After matching, we found a higher lymph node yield in the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic group, (32.5 vs. 28.4, P < 0.001), while radicality, plane of dissection, and pathological disease stages showed no differences. There were no statistical differences in morbidity and mortality. Intracorporeal anastomosis (23.7% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.001) was more commonly performed with a robotic approach. Conclusions: Robotic approach was associated with a significant higher lymph node yield and with similar postoperative morbidity compared to a laparoscopic approach for right colectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the conversion rate of laparoscopic or robotic to open sacrocolpopexy and to identify associated factors in a large population-based database. Methods: We used Health Care Cost and Utilization Project-National Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS) databases 2005–2014. We extracted data on apical suspension and synthetic mesh with laparoscopy or robot in adult women using International Classification of Diseases, ninth edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes. We evaluated the rate of conversion and used logistic regression to study the association with risk factors. Results: We identified 3295 women with laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexies. There were 2777 robotic procedures with 37 conversion (1.33%) and 518 laparoscopic procedures with 37 conversions (7.14%), with an overall conversion rate of 2.2%. Median age was 62 years [interquartile range (IQR) = 55–69]. Concomitant hysterectomy was significantly more frequent in the robotic than laparascopic group (41.7% versus 13.9%, p < 0.01) and was not associated with conversion. Factors associated with lower conversion included a robotic approach (adjusted odd ratio (aOR) 0.32 [95% CI 0.19–0.54]) and private insurance (aOR 0.53 [95% CI 0.32–0.86]). Factors associated with higher conversion were obesity (aOR 3.27 [95% CI 1.72–6.19]) and lysis of adhesions (aOR 3.32 [95% CI 1.89–5.85]). Accidental organ puncture was significantly associated with conversion (14.9% versus 3.8%; p < 0.01). Conclusion: In this American database, the rate of conversion of laparoscopic or robotic to open sacrocolpopexy was low. The majority (84%) of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexies used a robotic approach, which was associated with a lower risk of conversion. Obesity and lysis of adhesions were associated with a higher risk of conversion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The recent development of 3D vision in laparoscopic and robotic surgical systems raises the question of whether these two procedures are equivalent. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical and long-term oncological outcomes of 3D laparoscopic (3D-LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Methods: The data for operative time, morbidity, margins, and survival were reviewed for 3D-LLR and compared with RLR.Results: From 2011 to 2017, 93 patients with HCC, including 58 (62%) with cirrhosis, underwent 3D-LLR [49 (53%)] or RLR [44 (47%)]. No difference was observed in operative time (269 vs. 252 min; p = 0.52), overall (27% vs. RLR: 16%; p = 0.49) and severe morbidity (4% vs. 2%; p = 0.77) or in the surgical margin width (9 vs. 11 mm; p = 0.30) between the 3D-LLR and RLR groups. The 3-year overall and recurrence-free survival rates after 3D-LLR and RLR were 82% and 24% and 91% (p = 0.16) and 48% (p = 0.18), respectively.Conclusions: The 3D-LLR and RLR systems provide comparable surgical margins with similar short- and long-term oncological outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Stray energy transfer from surgical monopolar radiofrequency energy instruments can cause unintended thermal injuries during laparoscopic surgery. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery transfers more stray energy than traditional laparoscopic surgery. There is paucity of published data concerning stray energy during single-incision robotic surgery. The purpose of this study was to quantify stray energy transfer during traditional, multiport robotic surgery (TRS) compared to single-incision robotic surgery (SIRS).Methods: An in vivo porcine model was used to simulate a multiport or single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (DaVinci Si, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). A 5 s, open air activation of the monopolar scissors was done on 30 W and 60 W coag mode (ForceTriad, Covidien-Medtronic, Boulder, CO) and Swift Coag effect 3, max power 180 W (VIO 300D, ERBE USA, Marietta, GA). Temperature of the tissue (°C) adjacent to the tip of the assistant grasper or the camera was measured with a thermal camera (E95, FLIR Systems, Wilsonville, OR) to quantify stray energy transfer.Results: Stray energy transfer was greater in the SIRS setup compared to TRS setup at the assistant grasper (11.6 ± 3.3 °C vs. 8.4 ± 1.6 °C, p = 0.013). Reducing power from 60 to 30 W significantly reduced stray energy transfer in SIRS (15.3 ± 3.4 °C vs. 11.6 ± 3.3 °C, p = 0.023), but not significantly for TRS (9.4 ± 2.5 °C vs. 8.4 ± 1.6 °C, p = 0.278). The use of a constant voltage regulating generator also minimized stray energy transfer for both SIRS (0.7 ± 0.4 °C, p < 0.001) and TRS (0.7 ± 0.4 °C, p < 0.001).Conclusions: More stray energy transfer occurs during single-incision robotic surgery than multiport robotic surgery. Utilizing a constant voltage regulating generator minimized stray energy transfer for both setups. These data can be used to guide robotic surgeons in their use of safe, surgical energy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following several landmark trials, laparoscopic rectal resection has reached standard clinical practice. Current literature is undecided on the advantages of robotic rectal resection and little is known on its learning curve. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the first 100 robotic rectal resections to the laparoscopic approach in a teaching hospital experienced in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of a prospective cohort of all consecutive rectal resections between January 2012 and September 2019 at a single center. All laparoscopic cases were compared to the robotic approach. Outcomes included operative time, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, and hospital stay.Results: Out of the 326 consecutive resections, 100 were performed robotically and 220 laparoscopically, the remaining 6 open cases were excluded. Median operative time was lower for robotic cases (147 (121-167) versus 162 (120-218) minutes P = 0.024). Overall morbidity was lower in robotic cases (25% versus 50%, P < 0.001), while major morbidity was similar. Anastomotic leakage was observed in 11% (8/70) of robotic and 15% (18/120) of laparoscopic anastomoses, despite more anastomoses in the robotic group (70%, 70/100 versus 55%, 120/220, P = 0.001). Median length of stay was 4 (4-7) days after a robotic and 6 (5-9) days after a laparoscopic procedure.Discussion: Implementation of a robotic rectal resection program in an experienced laparoscopic surgery center was associated with reduced operative time, length of stay, and fewer complications despite a learning curve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The robotic surgical approach offers enhanced visualization, dexterity and reach, which may facilitate the more technically demanding portions of paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair such as hiatal reconstruction and mediastinal dissection. We sought to compare the peri-operative clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic vs. robotic approach to PEH repair.Methods: A prospective, IRB-approved database was maintained for all robotic PEH repairs performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary academic hospital from 2009 to 2019. A retrospective review of laparoscopic PEH over this same time period was used as a comparison group. Outcome measures included: operative time, conversion to open, need for an esophageal lengthening procedure, operative equipment costs and length of stay (LOS).Results: 1854 patients underwent PEH repair during this time period (830 robotic; 1024 laparoscopic). Demographics of both groups were similar, including BMI and PEH type, although a higher proportion of robotic cases were re-operative PEH repairs (32.5% vs 24.0%; p < 0.001). Patients who underwent a robotic PEH had a significant reduction in esophageal lengthening procedures performed (0.1% vs. 11.0%; p < 0.001), conversion to open (0% vs. 7.0%; p < 0.001), and LOS (1.8 days vs. 3.1 days; p < 0.001). Intra-operative equipment costs were similar.Conclusions: In one of the largest robotic PEH case series reported to date, there were significant improvements in peri-operative outcomes in patients undergoing a robotic-assisted approach. Although a greater number of patients in the robotic group were redo PEH repairs, when compared to the laparoscopic group, there were no conversions to open and significantly fewer esophageal lengthening procedures, both of which carry significant morbidity. The similar intra-operative costs were likely balanced by the higher costs associated with stapling equipment and conversions in the laparoscopic group. Our findings show that the robotic PEH repair is safe and can result in improved peri-operative outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for benign and malignant tumors. There has been an ongoing debate on whether conventional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR) is superior and if one approach should be favored over the other. We started using LLR in 2010, and introduced RLR in 2013. In the present paper, we report on our experiences with these two techniques as early adopters in Germany. Methods: The data of patients who underwent MILS between 2010 and 2020 were collected prospectively in the Magdeburg Registry for Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (MD-MILS). A retrospective analysis was performed regarding patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative parameters. Results: We identified 155 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Of these, 111 (71.6%) underwent LLR and 44 (29.4%) received RLR. After excluding cystic lesions, 113 cases were used for the analysis of perioperative parameters. Resected specimens were significantly bigger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (405 g vs. 169 g, p = 0.002); in addition, the tumor diameter was significantly larger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (5.6 cm vs. 3.7 cm, p = 0.001). Hence, the amount of major liver resections (three or more segments) was significantly higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group (39.0% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.005). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (331 min vs. 181 min, p = 0.0001). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (13.4 vs. LLR 8.7 days, p = 0.03). The R0 resection rate for solid tumors was higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group but without statistical significance (93.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.48). The postoperative morbidity ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade 3 was 5.6% in the LLR vs. 17.1% in the RLR group (p = 0.1). No patient died in the RLR but two patients (2.8%) died in the LLR group, 30 and 90 days after surgery (p = 0.53). Conclusion: Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and feasible. Robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery shows similar and adequate perioperative oncological results for selected patients. RLR might be advantageous for more advanced and technically challenging procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The number of abdominal procedures performed via a robotic-assisted approach is increasing as potential advantages of the modality are recognised. We report the first in human case series of major colorectal resection performed using a new system, Versius®, and assess the feasibility of its use. Methods: The initial cases performed using Versius® at a single centre in the UK were included in the study. Anonymised data were prospectively collected including patient demographics, operative details and postoperative outcomes. Results: Twenty-three operations were performed, including left (n = 14) and right (n = 9)-sided colonic resections. Rectal mobilisation was performed in 13. Fifty-seven percent of the patients were male, with a malignant indication for surgery in 70% of cases. Overall mean age was 59.1 ± 15.3 (range 23–89) years. Overall mean body mass index was 28.9 ± 5.2 with a mean of 31.3 ± 4.5 for left-sided resections. The median console operating time was 166 min (range 75–320 min). All malignant cases had negative resection margins and the mean lymph node yield was 18 (SD 9.4). Only one operation (4%) was converted from robotic to open approach. Postoperative length of stay was a median of 5 days (range 3–34 days) and there were no readmissions within 30 days. Conclusions: These results compare favourably with the literature on existing robotic systems and also conventional laparoscopic surgery; hence, we believe that this series indicates the Versius® system is feasible for use in major colorectal resection. These early results from a robot-naïve centre show exciting promise for an expanding robotic market and highlight the need for further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The implementation of the laparoscopic and robotic approaches for major hepatectomy (LMH and RMH) was slower than that for minor hepatectomy, but has significantly increased over the past years. The role or advantages of RMH remains controversial, and we aimed to compare the peri-/postoperative outcomes of LMH versus RMH. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases according to the PRISMA guidelines (end-of-search date: March 16th, 2020). Only comparative studies (LMH vs. RMH) reporting on outcomes of interest were included. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model when substantial heterogeneity was encountered; otherwise, the fixed-effects model was implemented. Quality of evidence assessment was performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Seven retrospective cohort studies comparing LMH (n = 300) versus RMH (n = 225) were identified. No significant difference was observed between LMH and RMH regarding overall complications [odds ratio (OR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90–2.23; p = 0.13], severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) [risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI − 0.03 to 0.05; p = 0.72], and overall mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI − 0.02 to 0.03; p = 0.73). The two approaches were also equivalent regarding conversion to open hepatectomy (RD 0.03, 95% CI − 0.01 to 0.08; p = 0.15), margin-positive resection (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.51–3.52; p = 0.55), and transfusion rate (RD − 0.03, 95% CI − 0.16 to 0.11; p = 0.67). No significant difference was observed for LMH versus RMH regarding blood loss [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27, 95% CI − 0.24 to 0.77; p = 0.30), operative time (SMD − 0.08, 95% CI − 0.51 to 0.34; p = 0.70), and length of stay (SMD 0.13, 95% CI − 0.58 to 0.84; p = 0.72). Conclusion: LMH and RMH have equivalent peri-/postoperative outcomes when performed in select patients and high-volume centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In minimally invasive surgery, complete mesocolic excision (CME) for transverse colon cancer is challenging; thus, non-CME resections are commonly preferred when laparoscopy is used. Robotic technology has been developed to reduce the limitations of laparoscopy. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether robotic CME for transverse colon cancer can be performed with short-term outcomes similar to those of laparoscopic conventional colectomy (CC). Methods: A retrospective review of 118 consecutive patients having robotic CME or laparoscopic CC for transverse colon cancer in two specialized centers between May 2011 and September 2018 was performed. Perioperative 30-day outcomes of the two procedures were compared. Results: There were 38 and 80 patients in the robotic CME group and laparoscopic CC group, respectively. The groups were comparable regarding preoperative characteristics. Intraoperative results were similar, including blood loss (median 50 vs 25 ml), complications (5.3% vs 3.8%), and conversions (none vs 7.5%). The rate of intracorporeal anastomosis was significantly higher (86.8% vs 20.0%), mean operative time was longer (325.0 ± 123.2 vs 159.3 ± 56.1 min (p < 0.001), and the mean number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the robotic CME group (46.1 ± 22.2 vs 39.1 ± 17.8, p = 0.047). There were only minor differences in length of hospital stay (7.2 ± 3.1 vs 7.9 ± 4.0 days), anastomotic leak (none vs 2.6%), bleeding (none vs 1.3%), surgical site infections (10.5% vs 12.5%), and reoperations (2.6% vs 6.3%). Conclusions: Robotic CME can be performed with a similar morbidity profile as laparoscopic CC for transverse colon cancer along with a higher rate of intracorporeal anastomosis, and higher number of lymph nodes retrieved, but longer operative times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following the Food and Drug Administration approval, robot-assisted colorectal surgery has gained more acceptance among surgeons. One of the open issues about robotic surgery is the economic sustainability. The aim of our study is to evaluate the economic sustainability of robotic as compared to laparoscopic right colectomy for the Italian National Health System.Methods: We performed a retrospective multicentre case-matched study including 94 patients for each group from four different Italian surgical departments. An economic evaluation gathered from a real-world data was performed to assess the sustainability of the robotic approach for right colectomy in the Italian National Health System. In particular, a differential cost analysis between the two procedures was performed.Results: No statistical differences were found between the two groups for postoperative outcomes. After a careful review of the literature on the cost assessment for the operative room, medical devices and hospital stay according with our data, we estimated the followings: (a) the mean operative room cost for robotic group was 2179 ± 476 € vs. 1376 ± 322 € for laparoscopic group; (b) the mean hospital stay cost for robotic group was 3143 ± 1435 € vs. 3292 ± 1123 € for laparoscopic group; and (c) the mean cost for instruments was 6280 € for robotic group vs. 1504 € for laparoscopic group. The total mean cost of robotic right colectomy was 11,576 ± 1915 € vs. 6196 ± 1444 € for laparoscopic right colectomy.Conclusion: In conclusion, to date, robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis does not provide any significant clinical advantages, which may justify the additional costs, as compared to its laparoscopic counterpart. Further evolution of robotic technology and experience may lead to a reduction of costs, especially if the robotic platform is used in an appropriate healthcare setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Utilization of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair (IHR) has increased in recent years, but randomized or prospective studies comparing outcomes and cost of laparoscopic and Robotic-IHR are still lacking. With conflicting results from only five retrospective series available in the literature comparing the two approaches, the question remains whether current robotic technology provides any added benefits to treat inguinal hernias. We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of Robotic-IHR versus laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal IHR (Laparoscopic-IHR).Methods: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent Robotic-IHR or Laparoscopic-IHR at a dedicated MIS unit in the USA from February 2015 to June 2017. Demographics, anthropometrics, the proportion of bilateral and recurrent hernias, operative details, cost, length of stay, 30-day readmissions and reoperations, and rates and severity of complications were compared.Results: 183 patients had surgery: 45 (24.6%) Robotic-IHR and 138 (75.4%) Laparoscopic-IHR. There were no differences between groups in age, gender, BMI, ASA class, the proportion of bilateral hernias and recurrent hernias, and length of stay. Operative time (Robotic-IHR: 116 ± 36 min, vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 95±44 min, p < 0.01), reoperations (Robotic-IHR: 6.7%, vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 0%, p = 0.01), and readmissions rates were greater for Robotic-IHR. While the overall perioperative complication rate was similar in between groups (Robotic-IHR: 28.9% vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 18.1%, p = 0.14), Robotic-IHR was associated with a significantly greater proportion of grades III and IV complications (Robotic-IHR: 6.7% vs. Laparoscopic-IHR: 0%, p = 0.01). Total hospital cost was significantly higher for the Robotic-IHRs ($9993 vs. $5994, p < 0.01). The added cost associated with the robotic device itself was $3106 per case and the total cost of disposable supplies was comparable between the 2 groups.Conclusions: In the setting in which it was studied, the outcomes of Laparoscopic-IHR were significantly superior to the Robotic-IHR, at lower hospital costs. Laparoscopic-IHR remains the preferred minimally invasive surgical approach to treat inguinal hernias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimally invasive single-port surgery is often associated with large incisions up to 2-3 cm, complicated handling due to the lack of triangulation, and instrument crossing. Aim of this prospective study was to perform true single-port surgery (cholecystectomy) without the use of assisting trocars using a new surgical platform that allows for triangulation incorporating robotic features, and to measure the perioperative outcome and cosmetic results.Methods: As the first European site after FDA and CE-mark approval, the new device has been introduced to our academic center. In patients with cholecystitis and cholecystolithiasis, the operation was performed through only one 15-mm trocar. For patients safety, intraoperative cholangiography using intravenous ICG and a standard Stryker 1588 system was routinely performed.Results: Symphonx was used in n = 12 patients for abdominal surgery (6 females, mean age 42.5 [30-77], mean BMI 26.2 [19.3-38.9]. A total of 8 patients underwent surgery using no additional ports besides the 15-mm trocar; in the remaining patients, one assisting instrument (3-5 mm) was used. Mean OR time was 107 [72-221] minutes. The postoperative course was uneventful in 11 patients; in one patient, a seroma at the surgical site required interventional drainage 1 month postoperatively. No intraoperative complications occurred.Conclusion: This is the first human case series using the commercially available symphonX platform for abdominal laparoscopic surgery and the first series using the system without assisting instruments. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with cholecystitis and cholecystolithiasis using the symphonX platform through only one 15-mm trocar is feasible, safe, and more cost-efficient compared to robotic platforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few studies have investigated the potential impact of robotic assistance on cognitive ergonomics during advanced minimally invasive surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of robotic assistance on mental workload and downstream cognitive performance in surgical trainees.Methods: Robot-naïve trainees from general surgery, urology and gynaecology, stratified by specialty and level of training, were randomised to either laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and performed a time-limited, complex laparoscopic suturing task after watching a 5-min instructional video. The RALS group received an additional 5-min orientation to the robotic console. Subjective mental workload was measured using NASA Task Load Index. Concentration and executive cognitive function were assessed using Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), respectively. A p value of 0.05 was considered significant.Results: Sixteen senior residents (SR; ≥ PGY3) and 14 junior residents (JR; PGY1-2) completed the study. There was no difference in mental workload between LS and RALS. Within JR there was no difference in task completion time comparing LS versus RALS; however, LS was associated with impaired concentration post-task versus pre-task (PVT reaction time 306 versus 324 ms, p = 0.03), which was not observed for RALS. In contrast, amongst SR, RALS took significantly longer than LS (10.3 vs. 14.5 min, p = 0.02) and was associated with significantly worse performance on WCST (p < 0.01).Conclusions: Robotic assistance, in this setting, did not provide a technical performance advantage nor impact subjective mental workload with novice users regardless of level of surgery training. We observed a protective effect on cognitive performance offered by RALS to junior trainees with limited LS experience, yet a detrimental effect on senior trainees with greater LS ability and inadequate pre-study robotic training, suggesting that robotic consoles may be mentally taxing for robotic novices and consideration should be given to formal console training prior to initial clinical exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Margin negative resection of rectal cancer with minimally invasive techniques remains technically challenging. Robotic surgery has potential advantages over traditional laparoscopy. We hypothesize that the difference in the rate of negative margin status will be < 6% between laparoscopic and robotic approach.Methods: The National Cancer Database (2010-2014) was queried for adults with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation and curative resection to conduct an observational retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database. Patients were grouped by either robotic (ROB) or laparoscopic (LAP) approach in an intent-to-treat analysis. Primary outcome was negative margin status, defined as a composite of circumferential resection margin and distal margin. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), readmission, 90-day mortality, and overall survival.Results: 7616 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent minimally invasive resection were identified. 2472 (32%) underwent attempted robotic approach. The overall conversion rate was 13% and was increased in the laparoscopic group [LAP: 15% vs. ROB: 8%; OR 0.47; 95% CI (0.39, 0.57)]. Differences in margin negative resection rate were within the prespecified range of practical equivalence (LAP: 93% vs.: ROB 94%; 95% CI (0.69, 1.06); [Formula: see text] = 1). For secondary outcomes, there was no difference in 30-day readmission [LAP: 9% vs.: ROB 8%; 95% CI (0.84, 1.24)] and 90-day mortality [LAP: 1% vs.: ROB 1%; 95% CI (0.38, 1.24)]. While the median LOS was 5 days in both groups, the mean LOS was 0.6 (95% CI: 0.24, 0.89) days shorter in the robotic group.Conclusion: This robust analysis supports either robotic or laparoscopic approach for resection of locally advanced rectal cancer from a margin perspective. Both have similar readmission and 5-year overall survival rates. Patients undergoing robotic surgery have a 0.6-day decrease in LOS and decreased conversion rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The development of robotic system may help to relieve the difficulties encountered during laparoscopic hepatectomy. A difficulty scoring system (DSS) was developed to assess the difficulty of various laparoscopic liver resection procedures. The aim of this study is to explore if the DSS is applicable in robotic hepatectomy and to compare the outcomes of robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy among different difficulty levels.Methods: Clinical data from all consecutive patients who underwent robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, were prospectively collected and reviewed. The difficulty level of operations was graded using the DSS. Perioperative outcomes of robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy were compared at each difficulty level.Results: A total of 107 and 94 patients underwent robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy during the study period, respectively. Among them, 16 and 2 patients were operated for recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, respectively, and were excluded because no mark for tumour location can be assigned. For robotic hepatectomy, a higher DSS was significantly correlated with higher minor complication rate (p = 0.001), more intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.002), longer operation time (p < 0.001) and longer post-operative hospital stay (p < 0.001). The mean DSS scores of robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy were 4.5 and 3.6, respectively. (p = 0.004). For cases with low (DSS 1-3) and intermediate (DSS 4-6) difficulty level, there was no significant difference in operative blood loss, operation time and overall complications rate. Only 2 cases (2.2%) with high difficulty level were operated with laparoscopic approach while 20% of patients operated with robotic approach had DSS > 6.Conclusions: DSS significantly correlated with surgical outcomes in patient who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Perioperative outcomes following robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy were similar in cases with low and intermediate difficulty. However, robotic system allowed minimally invasive approach in cases with higher difficulty level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Our aim was to assess the educational quality of the YouTube video content related to laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods: An objective scoring tool named as Prostatectomy Assessment and Competency Evaluation (PACE) score was used to measure and quantify seven critical steps in RP including bladder drop, preparation of the prostate, bladder neck dissection, posterior/seminal vesicle dissection, neurovascular bundle preservation, apical dissection, and urethro-vesical anastomosis. A five-point scale was used for grading the seven steps, where a score of 1 and 5 represented the lowest and ideal performance, respectively. Additionally, descriptive statistics including the upload time, video length, view count, number of comments, likes, and dislikes were all recorded. Results: Of the 1688 videos (551 from laparoscopic RP, 567 from robotic RP, and 570 from robot-assisted RP), 226 videos were analyzed after excluding duplicate and irrelevant videos. Robotic/robot-assisted RP videos were found to be statistically longer than laparoscopic RP videos (p = 0.016). The PACE score of urethro-vesical anastomosis step in robotic RP videos was statistically higher than laparoscopic RP videos (p = 0.021). A weak but significant positive correlation between the video length and total PACE score (rho: 0.51; p = 0.04 for laparoscopic RP and rho: 0.43; p = 0.03 for robotic/robot-assisted RP) was found. A weak but positive correlation was also determined between number of likes and total PACE score (rho: 0.39; p = 0.02) for robotic/robot-assisted RP videos. Conclusions: Although YouTube website includes high-quality videos for both laparoscopic and robotic/robot-assisted RP, there is no objective parameter to predict the educational quality of the videos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The differences between the costs of robotic rectal resection and of the laparoscopic approach are still not well known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. Methods: We conducted an observational, comparative, prospective, non-randomized study on patients having laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection between February 2014 and March 2018 at the Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Outcome parameters included surgical and post-operative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). The primary endpoint was to compare cost effectiveness in the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000€ and 30,000€ per QALY was used as a threshold to determine the most cost-effective treatment. Results: A total of 81 RRR and 104 LRR were included. The mean operative costs were higher for RRR (4307.09€ versus 3834.58€; p = 0.04), although mean overall costs were similar (7272.03€ for RRR and 6968.63€ for the LLR; p = 0.44). Mean QALYs at 1 year for the RRR group (0.8482) was higher than that associated with LRR (0.6532) (p = 0.018). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000€ and 30,000€ there was a 95.54% and 97.18% probability, respectively, that RRR was more cost-effective than LRR. Conclusions: Our data regarding the cost-effectiveness of RRR versus LRR shows a benefit for RRR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: We compared robotic hepaticojejunostomy anastomosis (RHJA) with laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy anastomosis (LHJA) in children undergoing complete excision of choledochal cyst.Methods: Difficulty of suturing (DOS) during anastomosis was scored blindly, from intraoperative video recordings, using: 5 = impossible; 4 = difficult; 3 = tedious; 2 = slow; and 1 = easy. A panel of fiveindependent surgeons was also asked to compare RHJA with matched LHJA and score + 1 if RHJA appeared superior to LHJA, 0 if RHJA appeared equivalent to LHJA, and - 1 if RHJA appeared inferior to LHJA.Results: RHJA (n = 10) was performed between 2017 and 2019; LHJA (n = 27) was performed between 2009 and 2018. LHJA cases were matched for age, weight, and anastomosis diameter to RHJA cases. Complete excision was performed laparoscopically in both groups. DOS was lower in RHJA with less variance. The panel all scored RHJA as + 1. Total anastomotic time (TAT) and TAT per suture were significantly shorter for RHJA. Times taken to ambulate and for return of bowel sounds postoperatively were significantly shorter for RHJA. There was one anastomotic leak with LHJA (3.7%) and no anastomotic complications with RHJA.Conclusions: RHJA is a more stable anastomosis that can be performed quicker, and thus, would appear to be superior to LHJA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Robotic surgery can overcome some limitations of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME), improving the quality of the surgery. We aim to compare the medium-term oncological outcomes of L-TME vs. robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) for rectal cancer. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed including patients who underwent L-TME or R-TME between 2011 and 2017. Patients presenting with metastatic disease or R1 resection were excluded. From a total of 680 patients, 136 cases of R-TME were matched based on age, gender, stage and time of follow-up with an equal number of patients who underwent L-TME. We compared 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: Major complications were lower in the robotic group (13.2% vs. 22.8%, p = 0.04), highlighting the anastomotic leakage rate (7.4% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.01). The 3-year DFS rate for all stages was 69% for L-TME and 84% for R-TME (p = 0.02). For disease stage III, the 3-year DFS was significantly higher in the R-TME group. OS was also significantly superior in the robotic group for every stage, reaching 86% in stage III. In the multivariate analysis, R-TME was a significant positive prognostic factor for distant metastasis (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.1, 0.6, p = 0.001) and OS (OR 0.2 95% CI 0.07, 0.4, p = 0.000). Moreover, major complications were also found to have a negative impact on OS (OR 8.3 95% CI 3.2, 21.6, p = 0.000). Conclusion: R-TME for rectal cancer can achieve better oncological outcomes compared with L-TME, especially in stage III rectal cancers. However, a longer follow-up period is needed to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic surgery (RS) may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic colorectal surgeries (LS) in obese patients, but remains less well studied. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the outcomes of obese patients who have undergone robotic colorectal surgery.Methods: This study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A search was performed on Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant articles. Dichotomous and continuous outcomes were analyzed as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively. All post-operative outcomes were within 30 days after surgery. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-regression analysis was conducted to identify sources of heterogeneity.Results: Three studies totaling 262 subjects compared LS (45.0%) against RS (55.0%) in obese patients. The RS group had a significantly reduced length of hospital stay (LOS) (MD - 2.55 days, 95%CI - 3.13 to - 1.97 days, P < 0.00001, I2 = 26%) and lower risk of re-admission (RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.19-0.92, P = 0.030, I2 = 0%), however, the length of operative time was longer (MD 40.54 min, 95%CI 32.72-48.36 min, P < 0.00001, I2 = 37%). Six studies totaling 761 subjects compared obese (40.5%) against non-obese (59.5%) patients who underwent RS. An increased operative time (MD 20.72 min, 95%CI 7.39-34.04 min, P = 0.002, I2 = 0%) and risk of wound infection (RR 2.59, 95%CI 1.12-6.02, P = 0.030, I2 = 0%) were noted in the former, with no differences in other intra- and post-operative outcomes. Meta-regression revealed that the pathology (rectal, colon, both) (P = 0.255), age (P = 0.530), gender (P = 0.279), and continent that the study originated from (P = 0.583) were not significant sources of heterogeneity for the risk of wound infection.Conclusion: Compared to laparoscopy, robotic surgery provides earlier recovery with shorter LOS and reduced re-admission rates for obese patients, without compromising on other operative outcomes. Among patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery, obesity is associated with a longer operative duration and greater risk of wound infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]