Search

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and therapeutic effect of Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for choledochal cysts (CCs) excisions. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM were searched from database inception to 1 May 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to conduct quality assessments, and RevMan (Version 5.4) was used to perform the meta-analysis. In all, 9 studies, involving 623 patients, were analyzed. RAS compared with LAS was associated with less intraoperative blood loss, shorter time to start solid diets, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower complications. There was no significant difference in operative time between the two groups, but the total costs were higher in RAS. Our subgroup analysis showed that RAS had significant advantages over LAS in the child group: minor bleeding, shorter length of hospital stay, and fewer postoperative complications. The available evidence indicates that the RAS system has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, minor tissue damage, quick recovery, and sound healing in treating choledochal cyst, which proves that the RAS is safely feasible. Especially in children, RAS tends to be a better choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) is a new technique that is rapidly gaining popularity and may help overcome the limitations of laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG); however, its safety and therapeutic efficacy remain controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RDG.Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies that compared RDG and LDG and were published between the time of database inception and May 2021. We assessed the bias risk of the observational studies using ROBIN-I, and a random effect model was always applied.Results: The meta-analysis included 22 studies involving 5386 patients. Compared with LDG, RDG was associated with longer operating time (Mean Difference [MD] = 43.88, 95% CI = 35.17-52.60), less intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 24.84, 95% CI = - 41.26 to - 8.43), a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes (MD = 2.41, 95% CI = 0.77-4.05), shorter time to first flatus (MD = - 0.09, 95% CI = - 0.15 to - 0.03), shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = - 0.68, 95% CI = - 1.27 to - 0.08), and lower incidence of pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.07-0.79). Mean proximal and distal resection margin distances, time to start liquid and soft diets, and other complications were not significantly different between RDG and LDG groups. However, in the propensity-score-matched meta-analysis, the differences in time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay between the two groups lost significance.Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, RDG appears feasible and safe, shows better surgical and oncological outcomes than LDG and, comparable postoperative recovery and postoperative complication outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LC-IntraERCP) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy combined with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LC-LCBDE) to determine which one-stage therapeutic strategy provides better outcomes for patients with gallstones and common bile duct stones.Methods: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible articles from the database inception to September 2020. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized trials (RoB-2) and non-randomized interventions (ROBINS-I) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. The overall quality of evidence was assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. The primary outcomes consisted of surgical success, retained stones, and overall postoperative complications, while secondary outcomes included postoperative bleeding, postoperative pancreatitis, postoperative bile leakage, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time.Results: Eight studies (four RCTs and four Non-RCTs with high quality) with 2948 patients were included. No significant difference was seen between the two groups regarding surgical success, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time. The meta-analysis demonstrated that in the LC-IntraERCP group, the rate of retained stones (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28-0.91) and postoperative bile leakage were lower (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09-0.69), while in the LC-LCBDE group, postoperative bleeding (OR 5.24, 95% CI 1.65-16.65) and postoperative pancreatitis (OR 4.80, 95% CI 2.35-9.78) decreased.Conclusions: LC-IntraERCP and LC-LCBDE exhibited similar efficacies when surgical success rate, overall postoperative complications, conversion to laparotomy, and operative time were compared. However, LC-IntraERCP is probably to be more effective in terms of lowering the rate of retained stones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recently, no relevant research has focused on the relationship between the clinical efficacy of da Vinci robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and the number of mechanical arms and assistants used for RDP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and advantages of RDP with the "3 + 2" mode. Methods: Clinical data from 53 patients (observation group) who received RDP using the "3 + 2" mode in our department, from March 2016 to September 2018, were reviewed. An additional 53 patients who received RDP using the classical mode were chosen at random for the control group. Short‐term outcomes for the two groups were compared. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for estimated blood loss, postoperative day of flatus passage, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complication (P > 0.05). Compared with the control group, the observation group had a significantly shorter operative time (166.9 ± 13.3 vs 192.6 ± 11.1 minutes, P < 0.001), lower surgical costs ($2827.79 ± $173.02 vs $3900.63 ± $317.29, P < 0.001). Conclusions: The RDP using the "3 + 2" mode can increase the exposure of surgical field, improve cooperation between assistants, lower the surgical costs, and shorten the operative time and learning curve. Moreover, the clinical effect is equal to that of RDP using the classical mode. These findings indicate that RDP using the "3 + 2" mode is safe and feasible for institutions that are equipped for robot‐assisted surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of robotic hysterectomy (RH) with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) for the treatment of cervical cancer using multivariate regressions.Methods: We designed a retrospective single-center study and consecutively collected patients with cervical cancer from February 2014 to October 2017. Data extraction was performed by two independent researchers. The surgical outcomes include operative time, estimated blood loss, number of lymph nodes, time to first flatus, time to a full diet, time to remove drainage tube, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complication.Results: A total of 152 patients with cervical cancer were collected in our study including 92 patients who underwent RH and 60 patients who underwent LH. Both groups have similar characteristics. The RH group showed shorter operative time (Coe - 42.89; 95% CI - 74.39 to 11.39; P = 0.008) and more number of lymph nodes (Coe 6.06; 95% CI 2.46-9.66; p = 0.001) than the LH group. As for the postoperative parameters, the RH group showed shorter time to remove drainage tube (Coe - 0.89; 95% CI -1.62 to -0.15; p = 0.019) and length of hospital stay (Coe - 6.40; 95% CI - 10.19 to - 2.95; p = 0.001). No significant difference was found between the groups in estimated blood loss (Coe 34.64; 95% CI - 33.08 to 102.37; p = 0.314), time to first flatus (Coe 0.11; 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.61; p = 0.652), time to a full diet (Coe - 0.24; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.06, p = 0.118), and postoperative complication (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.35-1.98; p = 0.685).Conclusion: The results from this study suggest that RH is safe and effective as LH but robotic surgery significantly contributed to the feasibility of alternative treatment options for cervical cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robotic surgery, an emerging technology, has some potential advantages in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is still a controversial issue on its comparative merit compared with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RAC compared with LC for benign gallbladder disease.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (from their inception to December 2017) to obtain comparative studies assessing the safety and efficacy between RAC and LC. The quality of the literature was assessed, and the data analyzed using R software, random effects models were applied.Results: Twenty-six studies, including 5 RCTs and 21 NRCSs (3 prospective plus 18 retrospective), were included. A total of 4004 patients were included, of which 1833 patients (46%) underwent RAC and 2171 patients (54%) underwent LC. No significant differences were found in intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, readmission rate, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and conversion rate between RAC and LC groups. However, RAC was related to longer operative time compared with LC (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI 7.26-16.82) in RCT group, which was consistent with NRCS group; RAC also had a higher rate of incisional hernia in NRCS group (RR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.42-6.57), and one RCT reported that RAC was similar to LC (RR = 7.00, 95% CI 0.38-129.84).Conclusions: The RAC was not found to be more effective or safer than LC for benign gallbladder diseases, which indicated that RAC is a developing procedure instead of replacing LC at once. Given the higher costs, the current evidence is in favor of LC in cholecystectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]