Research quality and transparency, outcome measurement and evidence for safety and effectiveness in robot-assisted surgery: systematic review

High in-vivo accuracy of a novel robotic-arm-assisted system for total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been shown to improve the accuracy and precision of bony resections and implant position. However, the in vivo accuracy of the full surgical workflow has not been widely reported. The primary objective of this study is to determine the accuracy and precision of a robotic-arm-assisted system throughout the intraoperative workflow.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent primary TKA with various workflows and alignment targets by three arthroplasty-trained surgeons with previous experience using the ROSA® Knee System (Zimmer Biomet) over a 3-month follow-up period. Accuracy and precision were determined by measuring the difference between various workflow time points, including the final preoperative plan (PP), robot-validated (RV) resection angle and postoperative radiographs (PR). The absolute mean difference between the measurements determined accuracy, and the standard deviation represented precision. The lateral distal femoral angle, medial proximal tibial angle, femoral flexion angle and tibial slope were measured on postoperative coronal long-leg radiographs and true short-leg lateral radiographs.

RESULTS

A total of 77 patients were included in the final analyses. The accuracy for the coronal femoral angle was 1.62 ± 1.11°, 0.75 ± 0.79° and 1.96 ± 1.29° for the differences between PP and PR, PP and RV and RV and PR. The tibial coronal accuracy was 1.44 ± 1.03°, 0.81 ± 0.67° and 1.57 ± 1.14° for PP/PR, PP/RV and RV/PR, respectively. Femoral flexion accuracy was 1.39 ± 1.05°, 0.83 ± 0.59° and 1.81 ± 1.21° for PP/PR, PP/RV and RV/PR, respectively. Tibial slope accuracy was 0.99 ± 0.72°, 1.19 ± 0.87° and 1.63 ± 1.11°, respectively. The proportion of patients within 3° was 93.2%, 95.3%, 97.3% and 94.6% for the distal femur, proximal tibia, femoral flexion and tibial slope angles when the final intraoperative plan was compared to PRs. No patients had a postoperative complication at the final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The ROSA Knee System has acceptable accuracy and precision of coronal and sagittal plane resections with few outliers at various steps throughout the platform's entire workflow in vivo.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Robot-assisted surgery in thoracic and visceral indications: an updated systematic review

BACKGROUND

In surgical advancements, robot-assisted surgery (RAS) holds several promises like shorter hospital stays, reduced complications, and improved technical capabilities over standard care. Despite extensive evidence, the actual patient benefits of RAS remain unclear. Thus, our systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in visceral and thoracic surgery compared to laparoscopic or open surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in two databases (Medline via Ovid and The Cochrane Library) in April 2023. The search was restricted to 14 predefined thoracic and visceral procedures and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Synthesis of data on critical outcomes followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, and the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool Version 1.

RESULTS

For five out of 14 procedures, no evidence could be identified. A total of 20 RCTs and five follow-up publications met the inclusion criteria. Overall, most studies had either not reported or measured patient-relevant endpoints. The majority of outcomes showed comparable results between study groups. However, RAS demonstrated potential advantages in specific endpoints (e.g., blood loss), yet these findings relied on a limited number of low-quality studies. Statistically significant RAS benefits were also noted in some outcomes for certain indications-recurrence, quality of life, transfusions, and hospitalisation. Safety outcomes were improved for patients undergoing robot-assisted gastrectomy, as well as rectal and liver resection. Regarding operation time, results were contradicting.

CONCLUSION

In summary, conclusive assertions on RAS superiority are impeded by inconsistent and insufficient low-quality evidence across various outcomes and procedures. While RAS may offer potential advantages in some surgical areas, healthcare decisions should also take into account the limited quality of evidence, financial implications, and environmental factors. Furthermore, considerations should extend to the ergonomic aspects for maintaining a healthy surgical environment.

Perception of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) among medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery, also known as robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), involves a camera and a small surgical instrument attached to a robotic arm. A trained surgeon operates the robot from a viewing screen while being in the same room.

METHODOLOGY

This review was prepared following Cochrane collaboration guidelines and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Two authors independently searched and appraised the studies published in PubMed, cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature (CINAHL), Embase, Clinical Key, and Google Scholar. Pooled data analyzed and reported in RevMan software version-5.4.

RESULTS

This systematic review and meta-analysis comprised 1400 medical students, from 8 studies. The participants' age ranged from 23 to 49 years. Similarly, the sample size ranged from 25 and 300. The pooled prevalence of the existing studies revealed that 29.8% of medical students, were favorable towards RAS. Effect size (ES), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and heterogeneity (I2) [ES = 29.8, 95% CI 16.4-43.2, I2 = 95.1%, P < 0.00]. About 40% of Australian medical students' positive opinion on RAS [ES = 40.4, 95% CI 25.7-55.2]. Similarly, 34.2% of students from Saudi Arabia [ES = 29.8, 95% CI 22.4-90.8, I2 = 99.3%, P < 0.00], 27.8% students from Canada [ES = 27.8, 95% CI 15.9-39.6], 24.8% from USA [ES = 24.8, 95% CI 6.9-42.7, I2 = 77.3%, P < 0.00] and 24% [ES = 24, 95% CI 18-30] from India favorable towards RAS.

DISCUSSION

Medical students from developed nations display favorable attitudes towards RAS. However, implementing of revised curriculum at the beginning of the graduation level sparks medical students' attitude towards robotic surgery.

The IDEAL framework for surgical robotics: development, comparative evaluation and long-term monitoring

The next generation of surgical robotics is poised to disrupt healthcare systems worldwide, requiring new frameworks for evaluation. However, evaluation during a surgical robot's development is challenging due to their complex evolving nature, potential for wider system disruption and integration with complementary technologies like artificial intelligence. Comparative clinical studies require attention to intervention context, learning curves and standardized outcomes. Long-term monitoring needs to transition toward collaborative, transparent and inclusive consortiums for real-world data collection. Here, the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term monitoring (IDEAL) Robotics Colloquium proposes recommendations for evaluation during development, comparative study and clinical monitoring of surgical robots-providing practical recommendations for developers, clinicians, patients and healthcare systems. Multiple perspectives are considered, including economics, surgical training, human factors, ethics, patient perspectives and sustainability. Further work is needed on standardized metrics, health economic assessment models and global applicability of recommendations.

The RoboCOS Study: Development of an international core outcome set for the comprehensive evaluation of patient, surgeon, organisational and population level impacts of robotic assisted surgery

BACKGROUND

The introduction of robot-assisted surgery is costly and requires whole system transformation, which makes the assessment of benefits (or drawbacks) complex. To date, there has been little agreement on which outcomes should be used in this regard. The aim of the RoboCOS study was to develop a core outcome set for the evaluation of robot-assisted surgery that would account for its impact on the whole system.

METHODS

Identification of a long-list of potentially relevant outcomes through systematic review of trials and health technology assessments; interviews with individuals from a range of stakeholder groups (surgeons, service managers, policy makers and evaluators) and a focus group with patients and public; prioritisation of outcomes via a 2-round online international Delphi survey; consensus meeting.

RESULTS

721 outcomes were extracted from the systematic reviews, interviews and focus group which were conceptualised into 83 different outcome domains across four distinct levels (patient, surgeon, organisation and population) for inclusion in the international Delphi prioritisation survey (128 completed both rounds). The consensus meeting led to the agreement of a 10-item core outcome set including outcomes at: patient level (treatment effectiveness; overall quality of life; disease-specific quality of life; complications (including mortality); surgeon level (precision/accuracy; visualisation); organisation (equipment failure; standardisation of operative quality; cost-effectiveness); and population (equity of access).

CONCLUSION

The RoboCOS core outcome set, which includes the outcomes of importance to all stakeholders, is recommended for use in all future evaluations of robot-assisted surgery to ensure relevant and comparable reporting of outcomes.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma in patients with severe chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVES

To compare surgical and functional outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy in patients with renal cell carcinoma with stage 4 chronic kidney disease.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 60 patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate 15-30 ml/min/1.73 m² ) who underwent partial nephrectomy for T1 renal cell carcinoma between April 2004 and April 2020. We compared perioperative outcomes according to the surgical approach. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictive factors for end-stage renal disease.

RESULTS

Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy and open partial nephrectomy were performed in 31 and 29 patients, respectively. The median age was 68 years and 17% of all patients were women. Patient and tumor characteristics did not differ between groups. The operative time (155.2 vs. 221.0 min, p < 0.0001) and the postoperative length of hospital stay (5.2 vs. 10.6 days, p = 0.0083) were significantly shorter, and the estimated blood loss was lower (53.4 vs. 363.2 ml, p = 0.0003) in the robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy group than in the open partial nephrectomy group. Preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate was the only significant predictor of end-stage renal disease after partial nephrectomy on multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Both procedures preserved renal function in this patient cohort, delaying the requirement for postoperative dialysis. Furthermore, robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy was associated with shorter operative time and postoperative length of hospital stay, as well as lesser estimated blood loss than open partial nephrectomy.