Robotic vs. laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

Antireflux surgeries and hiatal repair: keys to success

INTRODUCTION

Gastroesophageal reflux is common, and when medical therapy is ineffective, alternative treatments should be considered. Nissen fundoplication controls reflux but can be followed by side effects such as dysphagia and flatulence. To improve outcomes, modifications have been advocated.

AREAS COVERED

Modifications to Nissen fundoplication and newer procedures for gastroesophageal reflux aim to improve overall outcome. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term outcomes from large cohorts are prioritized to consider the optimal procedure for reflux and hiatus hernia.

EXPERT OPINION

Fundoplication is an effective treatment for gastroesophageal reflux, with success rates of >80% reported at 18-20-year follow-up. RCTs confirm that Nissen fundoplication delivers better reflux control than medication. However, some patients are troubled by side effects. Anterior and posterior partial fundoplication variants have been proposed as procedures that offer equally good reflux control, but fewer side effects, and RCTs have confirmed this with follow-up to 20 years. Which partial fundoplication is better is debated. Alternative laparoscopic or endoscopic approaches require expensive implants or equipment and deliver less reliable reflux control than partial fundoplication. Currently, level I evidence confirms that laparoscopic partial fundoplication delivers the optimal outcome in fit patients with reflux that is not well controlled by medication.

Robotic versus laparoscopic revision to Toupet fundoplication for failed Nissen fundoplication: a single-center experience

Nissen fundoplication (NF) is a common surgical procedure to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease; however, a subset of patients may continue to experience symptoms or develop symptom recurrence despite a successful procedure. This study aims to compare laparoscopic and robotic approaches for treating failed NF and evaluate the outcomes after converting to Toupet fundoplication (TF). We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic revision to TF for failed NF between 2016 and 2023. The data collected included demographics, pre-operative workup, and peri- and post-operative outcomes. Symptom analysis and anti-reflux medication usage were collected using a patient questionnaire. Failed fundoplication was defined as the need for an additional operation due to unresolved GERD symptoms or the emergence of a new issue. Eighty-eight patients (56 laparoscopic, 32 robotic) were included. Mean operative time was 148.71 ± 53.64 min for the total cohort and was significantly longer in the robotic group (RG) 167.43 min vs 138.01 min in the Laparoscopic group (LG) (p value = 0.012). The LG had a length of hospital stay of 2.16 ± 1.69 days vs RG 2.21 ± 1.28 days (p value = 0.867). The LG had a higher number of early readmissions (5.4%, p value = 0.629) and both the LG and the RG had 1 patient that required an early reintervention. Symptoms of dysphagia and reflux decreased in both groups at last follow-up, but the reduction in PPI use was not significant. Surgical revision to TF for failed NF provides significant symptom improvement with low rates of complications and recurrences. Our study shows that both approaches are safe and feasible and have comparable surgical and symptom outcomes.

Opinion, uptake and current practice of robot-assisted upper gastrointestinal and oesophagogastric surgery in the UK: AUGIS national survey results

INTRODUCTION

The uptake of upper gastrointestinal (GI) robotic surgery in the United Kingdom (UK), and Europe more widely, is expanding rapidly. This study aims to present a current snapshot of the practice and opinions of the upper GI community with reference to robotic surgery, with an emphasis on tertiary cancer (oesophagogastric) resection centres.

METHODS

An electronic survey was circulated to the UK upper GI surgical community via national mailing lists, social media and at an open-invitation conference on robotic upper GI surgery in January 2023. The survey included questions on surgeons' current practice or planned adoption (if any) of robotics at individual and unit level, and their opinions on robotic upper GI surgery in general. Priority ranking and Likert-scale response options were used.

RESULTS

In total, 81 respondents from 43 hospitals were included. Thirty-four resectional centres responded, including 30 of 31 (97%) recognised upper GI cancer centres in England. Respondents reported performing robotic surgery in 21 of 34 (61.8%) resectional centres, with a median of 65 procedures per centre performed at the time of the survey (range 0-500, interquartile range 93.75). Every centre without a robotic programme expressed a desire or had active plans to implement one. Respondents ranked surgeon ergonomics as the most important reason for pursuing robotics, followed by improvements in patient outcomes and oncological efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic upper GI practice is nascent but rapidly growing in the UK with plans for uptake in almost all tertiary centres. There is growing opinion that this is likely to become the predominant surgical approach in future with benefits to both patients and surgeons. This snapshot offers a point of reference to all stakeholders in upper GI surgery.

Robotic surgery versus Laparoscopic surgery for anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery: a short-term outcomes and cost systematic literature review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is to compare the operative time, intraoperative complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, mortality, and cost associated with Robotic Surgery (RS) and Laparascopic Surgery (LS) in anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science and Scopus databases. Studies comparing short-term outcomes and cost between RS and LS in patients with anti-reflux and hiatal hernia were included. Data on operative time, complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, mortality, and cost were extracted. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the MINORS scale.

RESULTS

Fourteen retrospective observational studies involving a total of 555,368 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed no statistically significant difference in operative time, intraoperative complications, length of stay, readmission rates, overall complications, and mortality between RS and LS. However, LS was associated with lower costs compared to RS.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that RS has non-inferior short-term outcomes in anti-reflux and hiatal hernia surgery, compared to LS. LS is more cost-effective, but RS offers potential benefits such as improved visualization and enhanced surgical techniques. Further research, including randomized controlled trials and long-term outcome studies, is needed to validate and refine these findings.

A decade of experience with minimally invasive anti-reflux operations: robot vs. LESS

BACKGROUND

The increasing use of robotic systems for anti-reflux operations prompted this study to evaluate and compare the efficacy of robotic and Laparo-Endoscopic Single-Site (LESS) approaches.

METHODS

From 2012, 228 robotic fundoplication and 518 LESS fundoplication patients were prospectively followed, analyzing perioperative metrics. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD); significance at p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing a robotic vs. LESS fundoplication were 67 (64 ± 13.7) vs. 61 (59 ± 15.1) years-old with BMIs of 25 (25 ± 3.2) vs. 26 (25 ± 3.9) kg/m2 (p = 0.001 and 1.00, respectively). 72% of patients who underwent the robotic approach had a previous abdominal operation(s) vs 44% who underwent the LESS approach (p = 0.0001). 38% vs. 8% had a re-operative fundoplication (p = 0.0001), 59% vs. 45% had a type IV hiatal hernia (p = 0.0004). Operative duration was 160 (176 ± 76.7) vs. 130 (135 ± 50.5) min (p = 0.0001). There were 0 (robotic) vs. 5 (LESS) conversions to a different approach (p = 0.33). 5 Patients vs. 3 patients experienced postoperative complications (p = 0.06), and length of stay (LOS) was 1 (2 ± 2.6) vs. 1 (1 ± 3.2) days (p = 0.0001). Patient symptomatic dysphagia preoperatively for the robotic vs. LESS approach was scored as 2 (2.4 ± 1.9) vs. 1 (1.9 ± 1.6). Postoperatively, symptomatic dysphagia was scored as 1 (1.5 ± 1.6) vs. 1 (1.7 ± 1.7). The change in these scores was - 1 (- 1 ± 2.2) vs. 0 (- 0.5 ± 2.2) (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Despite longer operative times and LOS in older patients, the robotic approach is efficient in undertaking very difficult operations, including patients with type IV or recurrent hiatal hernias. Furthermore, preoperative anti-reflux operations were more likely to be undertaken with the robotic approach than the LESS approach. The patient's postoperative symptomatic dysphagia improved relatively more than after the LESS approach. The vast majority of patients who underwent the LESS approach enjoyed improved cosmesis, thus, making LESS a stronger candidate for more routine operations. Despite patient selection bias, the robotic and LESS approaches to anti-reflux operations are safe, efficacious, and should be situationally utilized.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic redo antireflux surgery in children: A cost-effectiveness study

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted redo fundoplication has some advantages compared to the laparoscopic approach in adults, although to date there are no studies in children.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was performed among consecutive children who underwent redo antireflux surgery between 2004 and 2020, divided into two groups: LAF group (laparoscopic redo-fundoplication) and RAF group (robotic-assisted redo-fundoplication). Demographics, clinical, intraoperative, postoperative and economic data were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 24 patients were included (10 LAF group; 14 RAF group) without demographic or clinical differences. The RAF group presented lower intraoperative blood loss (52 ± 19 vs. 145 ± 69 mL; p < 0.021), shorter surgery time (135 ± 39 vs. 179 ± 68 min; p = 0.009) and shorter length of hospital stay (median 3 days [2-4] vs. 5 days [3-7]; p = 0.002). The RAF group presented a higher rate of symptom improvement (85.7% vs. 60%; p = 0.192) and lower overall associated economic costs (25 800$ vs. 45 500$; p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted redo antireflux surgery may offer several benefits over the laparoscopic approach. Prospective studies are still needed.

Robotic-assisted proctosigmoidectomy for Hirschsprung’s disease: A multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is a cutting-edge minimally invasive technique that overcomes many shortcomings of laparoscopic techniques, yet few studies have evaluated the use of robotic surgery to treat Hirschsprung’s disease (HSCR).

AIM

To analyze the feasibility and medium-term outcomes of robotic-assisted proctosigmoidectomy (RAPS) with sphincter- and nerve-sparing surgery in HSCR patients.

METHODS

From July 2015 to January 2022, 156 rectosigmoid HSCR patients were enrolled in this multicenter prospective study. Their sphincters and nerves were spared by dissecting the rectum completely from the pelvic cavity outside the longitudinal muscle of the rectum and then performing transanal Soave pull-through procedures. Surgical outcomes and continence function were analyzed.

RESULTS

No conversions or intraoperative complications occurred. The median age at surgery was 9.50 months, and the length of the removed bowel was 15.50 ± 5.23 cm. The total operation time, console time, and anal traction time were 155.22 ± 16.77, 58.01 ± 7.71, and 45.28 ± 8.15 min. There were 25 complications within 30 d and 48 post-30-d complications. For children aged ≥ 4 years, the bowel function score (BFS) was 17.32 ± 2.63, and 90.91% of patients showed moderate-to-good bowel function. The postoperative fecal continence (POFC) score was 10.95 ± 1.04 at 4 years of age, 11.48 ± 0.72 at 5 years of age, and 11.94 ± 0.81 at 6 years of age, showing a promising annual trend. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications, BFS, and POFC scores related to age at surgery being ≤ 3 mo or > 3 mo.

CONCLUSION

RAPS is a safe and effective alternative for treating HSCR in children of all ages; it offers the advantage of further minimizing damage to sphincters and perirectal nerves and thus providing better continence function.

A systematic review of robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery to examine reporting standards

Robot-assisted anti-reflux surgery (RA-ARS) is increasingly being used to treat refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow up) Collaboration's framework aims to improve the evaluation of surgical innovation, but the extent to which the evolution of RA-ARS has followed this model is unclear. This study aims to evaluate the standard to which RA-ARS has been reported during its evolution, in relation to the IDEAL framework. A systematic review from inception to June 2020 was undertaken to identify all primary English language studies pertaining to RA-ARS. Studies of paraoesophageal or giant hernias were excluded. Data extraction was informed by IDEAL guidelines and summarised by narrative synthesis. Twenty-three studies were included: two case reports, five case series, ten cohort studies and six randomised controlled trials. The majority were single-centre studies comparing RA-ARS and laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication. Eleven (48%) studies reported patient selection criteria, with high variability between studies. Few studies reported conflicts of interest (30%), funding arrangements (26%), or surgeons' prior robotic experience (13%). Outcome reporting was heterogeneous; 157 distinct outcomes were identified. No single outcome was reported in all studies.The under-reporting of important aspects of study design and high degree of outcome heterogeneity impedes the ability to draw meaningful conclusions from the body of evidence. There is a need for further well-designed prospective studies and randomised trials, alongside agreement about outcome selection, measurement and reporting for future RA-ARS studies.

Innovative Techniques Associated with Traditional Abdominal Surgery in Complex Pediatric Cases: A Tertiary Center Experience

Pediatric abdominal surgery is constantly evolving, alongside the advent of new surgical technologies. A combined use of new tools and traditional surgical approaches can be useful in the management of complex cases, allowing less invasive procedures and sometimes even avoiding multiple interventions. This combination of techniques has implications even from the anesthetic point of view, especially in post-operative pain control. Thereby, tertiary level centres, including highly-specialized professionals and advanced equipment, can maximize the effectiveness of treatments to improve the final outcomes. Our paper aims to present some possible combinations of techniques recently used at our institution to provide a one-session, minimally invasive treatment within different areas of abdominal surgery.

Heller myotomy perforation: robotic visualization decreases perforation rate and revisional surgery is a perforation risk

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has improved surgical access to the foregut. While the benefits of MIS versus open surgery are well accepted, the relative benefits of laparoscopic versus robotic approaches continue to be debated. Procedure-specific comparisons are difficult to obtain for Heller myotomy, due to the relative rarity of the procedure in most practices. A retrospective review of prospectively collected perioperative data of a single surgical practice from 2001 to 2019 was conducted for the rate of perforation during Heller myotomy laparoscopically compared to robotically. From 2001 through February 2012, a laparoscopic approach was employed and from October 2008 to 2019, a robotic approach was employed. All perforations were recorded, as well as secondary outcomes of perforation location (gastric or esophageal), postoperative imaging for evidence of leak, length of stay, and complications. Chi-square and simple t test were employed for data analysis. During the 11 years of laparoscopic Heller myotomy, 14 cases resulted in 7 instances of perforation (50%). During the 11 years of robotic Heller myotomy, 45 cases resulted in 11 instances of perforation (24%) (p value = 0.06). All perforations in both groups were tiny, recognized, and repaired immediately. The length of stay (LOS) was longer in the laparoscopic perforation group (3.4 days) compared to the laparoscopic non-perforation group (1.2 days) (p value = 0.06). LOS for robotic was not significantly longer in the perforation group (2.8 days) compared to the robotic non-perforation group (1.5 days) (p value = 0.18). First time Heller myotomies showed a higher rate of perforation with laparoscopic (50%) vs robotic (14%) (p value = 0.009) approach. In subgroup analysis of revisional procedures, all ten were performed robotically (p value < 0.001) with a 60% perforation rate (p value = 0.001) and one associated, radiographically confirmed leak. Primary laparoscopic Heller myotomy related to more than four times the frequency of perforation than did primary robotic myotomy. We propose that the robotic platform provided the surgeon with superior ability to avoid perforation. Interestingly, the robotic group in this study dealt with more complex redo cases. In fact, reoperation in the area of the hiatus was a separate risk factor for perforation during robotic Heller myotomy. We recommend further prospective trials be done to better evaluate the benefits of robotic platform in regard to revisional foregut surgery.

A narrative review of gastroesophageal reflux in the pediatric patient

Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) is the retrograde passage of gastric contents into the esophagus. It is a physiologic condition that is common in neonates, typically resolves spontaneously, and does not result in clinically significant complications. When pathologic, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can cause numerous complications including persistent emesis, failure to thrive, aspiration, and respiratory symptoms. While a diagnosis can often be made from a thorough history and physical, some patients may require further testing. In general, many clinicians will reserve extensive investigation such as multiple intraluminal impedance and pH monitoring for patients with a confounding clinical picture or relative contraindications to medical or surgical management. Whereas most pediatric GER resolves spontaneously, medical management including lifestyle changes, changes to feeds, and the use of H₂-antagonists and/or proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can be utilized to alleviate symptoms. Surgical treatment is reserved for patients who are refractory to medical management or have suffered significant complications as a consequence of GER. In this article we seek to provide a concise but detailed review of recent updates in the understanding, work up and management of GER in the pediatric patient. A summary of new technologies used in the diagnostic and therapeutic arms of this disease are included.

Robotics and minimally invasive esophageal surgery

The robotic platform has permeated esophageal surgery both in the abdominal and thoracic approaches. The most widely studied entities include achalasia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hiatal hernia and esophageal cancer. A literature review of robotic surgeries for the management of the above mentioned disorders is presented. Data is limited to meta-analyses, case series, or small prospective trials in the different indications. One exception is a randomized controlled trial looking at outcomes in esophageal cancer being managed with a hybrid robotic versus open approach. Overall differences when comparing laparoscopic or thoracoscopic surgery to robotic are few. These differences are best highlighted in the achalasia and esophageal cancer literature. There are less intraoperative mucosal injuries in robotic Heller myotomy. A large meta analysis found a rate of 1% versus 24.5% mucosal injury rate favoring the robotic versus laparoscopic Heller myotomy methods. With respect to esophagectomy data, there is slightly less vocal cord paralysis in the robotic versus MIE data, with a P value of 0.044. However, length of stay, intraoperative bleeding and major morbidity are similar across the various indications. Robotic esophageal surgery is a safe alternative to laparoscopic/thoracoscopic techniques. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to fully ascertain if it yields superior outcomes.

Short-Term Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Paraesophageal Hiatal Hernia Repair

Many patients with hiatal hernias (HH) are asymptomatic; however, symptoms may include heartburn, regurgitation, dysphagia, nausea, or vague epigastric pain depending on the hernia type and severity. The ideal technique and timing of repair remains controversial. This report describes short-term outcomes and readmissions of patients undergoing HH repair at our institution. All patients who underwent HH repair from January 2012 through April 2017 were reviewed. Patients undergoing concomitant bariatric surgery were excluded. 239 patients were identified and 128 were included. Eighty-eight were female (69%) and 40 were male (31%) with a mean age of 59 years (range 20–91 years) and a mean BMI of 29.2 kg/m² (17–42). Worsening GERD was the most common presenting symptom in 79 (61.7%) patients. Eighty-four laparoscopic cases (65.6%) and 44 robotic assisted (34.4%) procedures were performed. Mesh was used in 59 operations (3 polytetrafluoroethylene; 56 biologic). All hiatal hernia types (I-IV) were collected. Majority were initial operations (89%). Techniques included: Toupet fundoplication in 68 cases (63.0%), Nissen fundoplication in 36 (33.3%), Dor fundoplication in 4 (3.7%), concomitant Collis gastroplasty in 4 (3.1%), and primary suture repair in 20 (15.6%). Outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic procedures were compared. Length of stay was reported as median and interquartile range for laparoscopic and robotic: 1.0 day (1.0–3.0) and 2.0 days (1.0–2.5); p = 0.483. Thirty-day readmission occurred in 9 patients, 7 (8.3%) laparoscopic and 2 (4.6%) robotic; p = 0.718. Two 30-day reoperations occurred, both laparoscopic; p = 0.545. Total of 16 complications occurred; 18.6% had a complication with the use of mesh compared to 8.7% without the use of mesh, p = 0.063. There were no conversion to open modality and no mortalities were reported. Hiatal hernia repair can be performed safely with a low incidence of complications.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Importance

This review provides a comprehensive comparison of treatment outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) based on randomly-controlled trials (RCTs).

Objectives

We employed RCTs to provide a systematic review that will enable the relevant community to weigh the effectiveness and efficacy of surgical robotics in controversial fields on surgical procedures both overall and on each individual surgical procedure.

Evidence review

A search was conducted for RCTs in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 1981 to 2016. Among a total of 1,517 articles, 27 clinical reports with a mean sample size of 65 patients per report (32.7 patients who underwent RLS and 32.5 who underwent CLS), met the inclusion criteria.

Findings

CLS shows significant advantages in total operative time, net operative time, total complication rate, and operative cost (p < 0.05 in all cases), whereas the estimated blood loss was less in RLS (p < 0.05). As subgroup analyses, conversion rate on colectomy and length of hospital stay on hysterectomy statistically favors RLS (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Despite higher operative cost, RLS does not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favorable with CLS.

Socioeconomic factors and parity of access to robotic surgery in a county health system

Equal access to novel surgical technologies remains a policy concern as hospitals adopt robotic surgery with increasing prevalence. This study sought to determine whether socioeconomic factors influence access to robotic surgery. All laparoscopic and robotic fundoplications and paraesophageal hernia repairs performed by a surgical group over 6 years at a county and two neighboring private hospitals were identified. Robotic use by hospital setting, age, gender, reported ethnicity, estimated income, insurance payer, and diagnosis were examined. Of 418 patients identified, 180 (43%) presented to the county hospital, where subjects were younger (51.1 versus 56.2 years, p < 0.001) with lower estimated income ($50,289 versus $62,959, p < 0.001). In the county setting, there was no difference in reported ethnicity (p = 0.169), estimated income (p = 0.081), or insurance payer (p = 0.535) between groups treated laparoscopically versus robotically. There was no difference in the treatment groups by estimated income in the private hospital setting (p = 0.308). Overall higher estimated income and insurance payer were associated with a higher chance of undergoing robotic procedures (p < 0.001). Presence of a paraesophageal hernia was associated with increased chance of undergoing robotic therapy in all comparisons (p < 0.001). No disparity in access to robotic surgery offered in the county hospital was observed based on age, gender, reported ethnicity, estimated income, or insurance payer. Patients with higher income and private insurers were more likely to present to the private hospital setting where robotics is utilized more often. The presence of a paraesophageal hernia was a significant factor in determining robotic therapy in both settings.

Robotic technological aids in esophageal surgery

Robotic technology is an emerging technology that has been developed in order to overcome some limitations of the standard laparoscopic approach, offering a stereoscopic three-dimensional visualization of the surgical field, increased maneuverability of the surgical tools with consequent increased movement accuracy and precision and improved ergonomics. It has been used for the surgical treatment of most benign esophageal disorders. More recently, it has been proposed also for patients with operable esophageal cancer. The current evidence shows that there are no real benefits of the robotic technology over conventional laparoscopy in patients undergoing a fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), hiatal closure for giant hiatal hernia, or Heller myotomy for achalasia. A few small studies suggest potential advantages in patients undergoing redo surgery for failed fundoplication or Heller myotomy, but large comparative studies are needed to better clarify the role of the robotic technology in these patients. Robot-assisted esophagectomy seems to be safe and effective in selected patients; however, there are no data showing superiority of this approach over both conventional laparoscopic and open surgery. The short-term and long-term oncologic results of ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are awaited to validate this approach for the treatment of esophageal cancer.

[Robotics in the operating room : Out of the niche into widespread application]

In the last few years robotic surgery has progressed from being confined to a small niche to a widespread application in routine visceral surgery; however, evidence for superiority of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopy from randomized studies with a sufficient number of patients is still lacking in most fields of visceral surgery. For complex operations that necessitate an extensive reconstruction phase, such as pancreatectomy, gastrectomy and esophagectomy, there is a potential benefit for the permanent and justified use of robotic surgery. Even in operations where delicate nerve preparation and radical surgical resection are simultaneously necessary, such as rectal resection, robotic surgery may provide certain benefits. In the long term there is a great potential for the integration of innovative techniques, such as navigation or other medical imaging procedures into robotic surgery, which can currently only partially be estimated. Care must be taken to avoid premature euphoria; however, due to the assumed great potential there is an urgent need for randomized studies to evaluate the possible benefits of robotic surgical techniques in visceral surgery in order to generate evidence for the welfare of patients.

Robotic general surgery: current practice, evidence, and perspective

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology commenced to be adopted for the field of general surgery in the 1990s. Since then, the da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has remained by far the most commonly used system in this domain. The da Vinci surgical system is a master-slave machine that offers three-dimensional vision, articulated instruments with seven degrees of freedom, and additional software features such as motion scaling and tremor filtration. The specific design allows hand-eye alignment with intuitive control of the minimally invasive instruments. As such, robotic surgery appears technologically superior when compared with laparoscopy by overcoming some of the technical limitations that are imposed on the surgeon by the conventional approach.

PURPOSE

This article reviews the current literature and the perspective of robotic general surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

While robotics has been applied to a wide range of general surgery procedures, its precise role in this field remains a subject of further research. Until now, only limited clinical evidence that could establish the use of robotics as the gold standard for procedures of general surgery has been created. While surgical robotics is still in its infancy with multiple novel systems currently under development and clinical trials in progress, the opportunities for this technology appear endless, and robotics should have a lasting impact to the field of general surgery.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Robotic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Since its introduction, the Da Vinci surgical system for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been the subject of much controversy. Several prospective randomized controlled trials, conducted to assess its effectiveness and safety, have revealed differences. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the efficiency and safety of robotic Nissen fundoplication for GERD.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and OVID-MEDLINE, from 1950 to the present, with daily updates generated by a computer, to identify all published papers on robotic Nissen fundoplication for the treatment of GERD. The meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager Version 5.0. Differences of the overall effect were considered significant at P < 0.05 with a 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI).

RESULTS

Five studies with a collective total of 160 patients were included. Apart from intra-operative and post-operative complications, which were excluded because of incomplete primary data, there were no significant differences in outcomes, including of total operation interval (P = 0.16), effective operation interval (P = 0.95), post-operative dysphagia (P = 0.94), intra-operative conversion (P = 0.94), re-operation (P = 0.43), hospital stay (P = 0.97) and in-hospital costs (P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

As current data do not clarify the advantages of the Da Vinci surgical system in Nissen fundoplication for GERD, we believe that a large a multi-center controlled trial is warranted.

Analysis of conversion factors in robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgical management of rectal cancer has a series of advantages which might facilitate the surgical approach to the pelvic cavity and reduce conversion rates. The aim of the present study is to identify independent factors for conversion during robotic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A total of 67 patients underwent preoperative CT scan in order to obtain a three-dimensional image of the pelvis, the tumour and prostate. We measured maximum and minimum ilio-iliac, sacral promontory-pubis, coccyx-pubis diameters and maximum lateral axis. Further variables under consideration were age, BMI and use of neoadjuvant therapy. We recorded short-term follow-up outcomes of the resected tumour.

RESULTS

The present study included 67 patients (39 males) with an average age of 65.11 ± 10.30 years and a BMI of 27.70 ± 3.97 kg/m(2). Operative procedures included nine abdominoperineal resections and 58 low anterior resections. There were 15 (22.38 %) conversions. Mean operating time was 192.2 ± 42.73 min. Minimum ilio-iliac, maximum ilio-iliac, promontory-pubic and coccyx-pubis diameter as well as maximum lateral axis were 100.38 ± 7.65, 107.10 ± 10.01, 109.97 ± 9.20, 105.61 ± 9.27 and 129.01 ± 9.94 mm, respectively. Mean tumour volume was 37.06 ± 44.08 cc; mean prostate volume was 42.07 ± 17.49 cc. The univariate analysis of the variables showed a correlation between conversion and BMI and minimum ilio-iliac and coccyx-pubis diameters (p = 0.004, 0.047, 0.046). In the multivariate analysis, the only independent predictive factor for conversion was the BMI (p = 0.004).No correlation was found between conversion and sex, age, tumour volume or the rest of pelvic diameters.

CONCLUSION

BMI is an independent factor for conversion in robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the most commonly performed robotic-assisted general surgery (RAGS) procedures in a nationwide database and compare them with their laparoscopic counterparts.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried from October 2008 to December 2010 for patients undergoing elective, abdominal RAGS procedures. The two most common, robotic-assisted fundoplication (RF) and gastroenterostomy without gastrectomy (RG), were individually compared with the laparoscopic counterparts (LF and LG, respectively).

RESULTS

During the study, 297,335 patients underwent abdominal general surgery procedures, in which 1,809 (0.6 %) utilized robotic-assistance. From 2009 to 2010, the incidence of RAGS nearly doubled from 573 to 1128 cases. The top five RAGS procedures by frequency were LG, LF, laparoscopic lysis of adhesions, other anterior resection of rectum, and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. Eight of the top ten RAGS were colorectal or foregut operations. RG was performed in 282 patients (0.9 %) and LG in 29,677 patients (99.1 %). When comparing RG with LG there was no difference in age, gender, race, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), postoperative complications, or mortality; however, length of stay (LOS) was longer in RG (2.5 ± 2.4 vs. 2.2 ± 1.5 days; p < 0.0001). Total cost for RG was substantially higher ($60,837 ± 28,887 vs. $42,743 ± 23,366; p < 0.0001), and more often performed at teaching hospitals (87.2 vs. 50.9 %; p < 0.0001) in urban areas (100 vs. 93.0 %; p < 0.0001). RF was performed in 272 patients (3.5 %) and LF in 7,484 patients (96.5 %). RF patients were more often male compared with LF (38.2 vs. 32.3 %; p < 0.05); however, there was no difference in age, race, CCI, LOS, or postoperative complications. RF was more expensive than LF ($37,638 ± 21,134 vs. $32,947 ± 24,052; p < 0.0001), and more often performed at teaching hospitals (72.4 vs. 54.9 %; p < 0.0001) in urban areas (98.5 vs. 88.7 %; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide study of RAGS exemplifies its low but increasing incidence across the country. RAGS is regionalized to urban teaching centers compared with conventional laparoscopic techniques. Despite similar postoperative outcomes, there is significantly increased cost associated with RAGS.

Robot-assisted gastroesophageal surgery: usefulness and limitations

Robot-assisted surgery overcomes some of the limitations of traditional laparoscopic surgery. We present our experience and lessons learned in two surgical units dedicated to gastro-esophageal surgery. From June 2009 to January 2013, we performed 130 robot-assisted gastroesophageal procedures, including Nissen fundoplication (29), paraesophageal hernia repair (18), redo for failed antireflux surgery (11), esophagectomy (19), subtotal (5) or wedge (4) gastrectomy, Heller myotomy for achalasia (22), gastric bypass for morbid obesity (12), thoracoscopic leiomyomectomy (4), Morgagni hernia repair (3), lower-third esophageal diverticulectomy (1) and two diagnostic procedures. There were 80 men and 50 women with a median age of 54 years (interquartile range: 46-65). Ten patients (7.7 %) had severe postoperative complications: eight after esophagectomy (three leaks-two cervical and one thoracic-managed conservatively), one stapler failure, one chylothorax, one case of gastric migration to the thorax, one case of biliary peritonitis, and one patient with a transient ventricular dyskinesia. One redo procedure needed reoperation because of port-site bleeding, and one patient died of pulmonary complications after a giant paraesophageal hernia repair; 30-day mortality was, therefore, 0.8 %. There were six elective and one forced conversions (hemorrhage), so total conversion was 5.4 %. Median length of stay was 4 days (IQ range 3-7). Robot-assisted gastroesophageal surgery is feasible and safe, and may be applied to most common procedures. It seems of particular value for Heller myotomy, large paraesophageal hernias, redo antireflux surgery, transhiatal dissection, and hand-sewn intrathoracic anastomosis.

Reducing cost of surgery by avoiding complications: the model of robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is a complex technology offering technical advantages over conventional methods. Still, clinical outcomes and financial issues have been subjects of debate. Several studies have demonstrated higher costs for robotic surgery when compared to laparoscopy or open surgery. However, other studies showed fewer costly anastomotic complications after robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) when compared to laparoscopy.

METHODS

We collected data for our gastric bypass patients who underwent open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgery from June 1997 to July 2010. Demographic data, BMI, complications, mortality, intensive care unit stay, hospitalization, and operating room (OR) costs were analyzed and a cost projection completed. Sensitivity analyses were performed for varied leak rates during laparoscopy, number of robotic cases per month, number of additional staplers during robotic surgery, and varied OR times for robotic cases.

RESULTS

Nine-hundred ninety patients underwent gastric bypass surgery at the University Hospital Geneva from June 1997 to July 2010. There were 524 open, 323 laparoscopic, and 143 robotic cases. Significantly fewer anastomotic complications occurred after open and robotic RYGBP when compared to laparoscopy. OR material costs were slightly less for robotic surgery (USD 5,427) than for laparoscopy (USD 5,494), but more than for the open procedure (USD 2,251). Overall, robotic gastric bypass (USD 19,363) was cheaper when compared to laparoscopy (USD 21,697) and open surgery (USD 23,000).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic RYGBP can be cost effective due to balancing greater robotic overhead costs with the savings associated with avoiding stapler use and costly anastomotic complications.

Meta-analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of rectal cancer

AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the relative merits of robotic surgery (RS) and laparoscopic surgery (LS) for rectal cancer.

METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting perioperative outcomes for RS and LS for rectal cancer. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or random effects model.

RESULTS: Eight studies matched the selection criteria and reported on 661 subjects, of whom 268 underwent RS and 393 underwent LS for rectal cancer. Compared the perioperative outcomes of RS with LS, reports of RS indicated favorable outcomes considering conversion (WMD: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.11-0.58; P = 0.001). Meanwhile, operative time (WMD: 27.92, 95% CI: -13.43 to 69.27; P = 0.19); blood loss (WMD: -32.35, 95% CI: -86.19 to 21.50; P = 0.24); days to passing flatus (WMD: -0.18, 95% CI: -0.96 to 0.60; P = 0.65); length of stay (WMD: -0.04; 95% CI: -2.28 to 2.20; P = 0.97); complications (WMD: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.71-1.55; P = 0.82) and pathological details, including lymph nodes harvested (WMD: 0.41, 95% CI: -0.67 to 1.50; P = 0.46), distal resection margin (WMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -1.27 to 0.58; P = 0.46), and positive circumferential resection margin (WMD: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.12-2.39; P = 0.42) were similar between RS and LS.

CONCLUSION: RS for rectal cancer is superior to LS in terms of conversion. RS may be an alternative treatment for rectal cancer. Further studies are required.

Twenty years of laparoscopic fundoplication for GERD

The first laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication was performed 20 years ago. Surgical management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) should be offered only to appropriately studied and selected patients, with the ultimate aim of improving the well-being of the individual, the "quality of life." The choice of fundoplication should be dictated by the surgeon's preference and experience.

Robotic redo fundoplication for incompetent wrapping after antireflux surgery: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is high. antireflux surgery with specific indications could be an option. Nissen fundoplication is the most popular surgical procedure for GERD, and recent results using laparoscopy have reported excellent short- and mid-term results. Regarding surgical outcome of antireflux surgery, the rate of complications has been reported as below 2.4%, but rare cases still require reoperation.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 53-year old male patient underwent laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication three years ago owing to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) troubled by dysphagia and heartburn However, despite undergoing surgery, his symptoms did not show improvement .A robotic redo fundoplication was planned. The patient recovered uneventfully, and the esophagography on postoperative day four revealed improvement of previous upward contrast reflux and distension of the distal esophagus during swallowing had disappeared. Dysphagia and heartburn had still not occurred at one year follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Redo antireflux surgery for postoperative stricture is not an easy procedure due to postoperative adhesion and anatomical change. Robotic surgery may be more helpful for precise dissection of the adhesion site by a previous operation and robotic suturing for re-fundoplication was more effective.

CONCLUSION

Re-do fundoplication using a robot, which is a complicated procedure compared with primary anti-reflux surgery would be a general procedure in the near future.

Emergency and weekend robotic surgery are feasible

Robotic surgery has made a minimally invasive approach feasible for many complex operations that were previously performed by the open approach. Because of the complexity of its technology and the need for specially trained personnel, robotic operations have been limited to elective cases during weekdays. As more surgeons from different specialties perform robotic operations, the chances of scheduling conflicts and the possibility of complications needing a re-operation at night or during a weekend (defined as after hours) are also increasing. Until now, complications have been salvaged by conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy but we were able to demonstrate that, with appropriately trained staff, robotic surgery is feasible after hours and in emergencies. Use of the robot after hours could help alleviate scheduling conflicts for the operating room. For patients, it could potentially avoid laparotomy with its associated morbidity. As far as we are aware, use of the robot for emergency surgery has previously not been reported in the literature.