Cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and quality of life after da Vinci Single-Site cholecystectomy and multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: short-term results from a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial

Impact of single-port laparoscopic approach on scar assessment by patients and observers: a multicenter retrospective study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the wound cosmesis of a single-incision approach on scar assessment after laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer.

METHODS

This study included 32 patients undergoing single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and 61 patients undergoing multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPLS) for colon cancer at 3 tertiary referral hospitals between September 2011 and December 2019. We modified and applied the Korean version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) to assess cosmetic outcomes. To assess the interobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient values for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), the surgeons evaluated 5 images of postoperative scars.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the time before the return of normal bowel function, time to sips of water and soft diet initiation, length of in-hospital stay, and postoperative complication rate. The SPLS group had a shorter total incision length than the MPLS group. The POSAS favored the SPLS approach, revealing significant differences in the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS), OSAS, and overall scores. The SPLS approach was an independent factor influencing the POSAS, PSAS, and OSAS scores. Eleven colorectal surgeons had a significantly substantial intraclass coefficient.

CONCLUSION

The cosmetic outcomes of SPLS as assessed by the patients and surgeons were superior to those of MPLS in colon cancer. Reducing the number of ports is an independent factor affecting scar assessment by patients and observers.

Docking Methods for Robot-assisted Rhytidectomy and Platysmaplasty

Background

In recent years, the development of robotic surgery has been rapidly evolving as well as the interest in their use due to the advantages they provide, such as precision in dissection, the ability to magnify the visualization of the operative field up to 20:1, and the ability to operate in hard-to-reach areas that otherwise cannot be achieved using the traditional methods. Research is being published constantly on the utilization of such robots within the fields of general surgery, oncology, and urology, with few cases in maxillofacial surgery.

Methods

There are no docking algorithms or methods for plastic surgery operations, especially those involving the head and neck area. In this article, we explore different docking methods with da Vinci Si, Xi, and 5 surgical systems for aesthetic facial and neck surgery.

Results

The results of the multiple different techniques used highlighted a few possible access points, whereas others were deemed impractical due to certain limitations such as the limited maneuverability of the robot's arms, the angles required for safe access, and the patient's body limiting the movement of the robot. Da Vinci 5 comes with significant advantages compared with its predecessors due to its novel and improved technologies, such as force feedback technology and artificial intelligence greatly enhancing the robot's usability.

Conclusions

Robotic surgery is a viable operative method that is beneficial for improving the outcomes when using the appropriate docking methods.

Simultaneous Robot-assisted Lipoabdominoplasty and Cholecystectomy

In the current era of advanced technologies, robotic surgery is rapidly evolving. New articles are emerging on the use of robots in general surgery, urology, and oncology, with single cases in maxillofacial surgery. In this article, we describe the successful use of robotic techniques for simultaneously performing suturing repair of the diastasis of the rectus abdominis muscles, aesthetic correction of the anterior abdominal wall with lipoabdominoplasty, and cholecystectomy. That, according to our knowledge, has not ever been done before.

A Retrospective Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Indian Tertiary Care Comparative Experience

Background There has been a gradual adoption of general surgery robotic programs in India. However, we still do not have a single comparative study reporting the initial experience of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This retrospective study is aimed at addressing this clinical data gap. Methods This is a retrospective medical chart review where data related to patient demographics, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected. All patients underwent either RC or LC for gallstone disease, performed by a single surgeon from January 2020 to September 2023. The surgeon had passed the learning curve for RC and this data collection reflects his post-learning curve experience. Results A total of 100 cases (RC: 50; LC: 50) were collected. Baseline parameters such as age, sex, BMI, and comorbidities were comparable. There were no conversions from the planned procedure in either of the groups (0% vs 0%). There were no intraoperative complications such as bleeding or common bile duct injury (0% vs 0%). The rates of surgical site infections (SSIs) were numerically lower in the robotic group, 2% vs 6% (p = 0.3099). There were no postoperative complications in the robotic group, whereas one patient in the laparoscopic group experienced port side bleeding (0% vs 2%, p = 0.3173). The mean length of hospital stay was one day in both groups. The mean pain score 24- hours after the surgery was 1.78 ± 0.68 in the robotic group and 3.3 ± 1.2 in the laparoscopic group (p = <0.001). None of the patients required opioid analgesics in the robotic group, whereas 20% of patients in the laparoscopic group needed at least one dose of opioid analgesics (p = 0.0009). There were no reoperations reported in the robotic group, whereas the laparoscopic group reported 1 case. The 30-day mortality was nil in both groups. Conclusion RC is feasible in Indian settings. Compared to LC, it does not increase morbidity. The improvement in acute postoperative pain can potentially allow early ambulation and recovery. A larger multicentric study, comparing RC to LC in India will validate our initial experience.

Establishment of a 24/7 robotic acute care surgery program at a large academic medical center

BACKGROUND

For many years, robotic surgery has been an option for various elective surgical procedures. Though robotic surgery has not traditionally been the first choice for acute surgical patients, recent work has shown promise in broader applications. However, there are limited data regarding how to establish an institutional robotics program for higher acuity patients. This project aimed to map a pathway for the creation of an acute care surgery robotic program at a large academic medical center.

METHODS

Various stakeholders were gathered jointly with our surgical faculty: anesthesia, operating room leadership, surgical technologists, circulating nurses, Central Sterile Supply, and Intuitive Surgical Inc. representatives. Staff underwent robotics training, and surgical technologists were trained as bedside first assistants. Nontraditional robotic operating rooms were allocated for coordinated placement of appropriate cases, and pre-made case carts were arranged with staff to be available at all hours. A workflow was created between surgical faculty and staff to streamline add-on robotic cases to the daily schedule.

RESULTS

Six faculty and two fellows are now credentialed in robotics surgery, and additional surgeons are undergoing training. Numerous staff have completed training to perform operative assistant duties. The operating capacity of robotic acute care surgeries has more than doubled in just one year, from 77 to 172 cases between 2022 and 2023, respectively. Two add-on cases can be accommodated per day. Select patients are being offered robotic surgeries in the acute surgical setting, and ongoing efforts are being made to create guidelines for which patients would best benefit from robotic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Launching a successful robotic surgery program requires a coordinated, multidisciplinary effort to ensure seamless integration into daily operations. Additional assistance from outside technology representatives can help to ensure comfort with procedures. Further studies are needed to determine the acute patient population that may benefit most from robotic surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review

Robot-assisted general surgery, an advanced technology in minimally invasive procedures, is increasingly employed in elective general surgery, showing benefits over laparoscopy in specific cases. Although laparoscopy remains a standard approach for common acute abdominal conditions, the role of robotic surgery in emergency general surgery remains uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare outcomes in acute general surgery settings for robotic versus laparoscopic surgeries. A PRISMA-compliant systematic search across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. The literature review focused on articles comparing perioperative outcomes of emergency general surgery managed laparoscopically versus robot-assisted. A descriptive analysis was performed, and outcome measures were recorded. Six articles, involving 1,063 patients, compared outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Two articles covered cholecystectomies, while the others addressed ileocaecal resection, subtotal colectomy, hiatal hernia and repair of perforated gastrojejunal ulcers. The level of evidence was low. Laparoscopic bowel resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) had higher complications; no significant differences were found in complications for other operations. Operative time showed no differences for cholecystectomies, but robotic approaches took longer for other procedures. Robotic cases had shorter hospital length of stay, although the associated costs were significantly higher. Perioperative outcomes for emergency robotic surgery in selected general surgery conditions are comparable to laparoscopic surgery. However, recommending robotic surgery in the acute setting necessitates a well-powered large population study for stronger evidence.

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the established gold standard treatment for benign gallbladder diseases. However, robotic cholecystectomy is still controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in LC and robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) in patients with nonmalignant gallbladder conditions. PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies comparing RAC to LC in patients with benign gallbladder disease. Only randomized trials and non-randomized studies with propensity score matching were included. Mean differences (MDs) were computed for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Statistical analysis was performed using Software R, version 4.2.3. A total of 13 studies comprising 22,440 patients were included, of whom 10,758 patients (47.94%) underwent RAC. The mean age was 48.5 years and 65.2% were female. Compared with LC, RAC significantly increased operative time (MD 12.59 min; 95% CI 5.62-19.55; p < 0.01; I2 = 79%). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in hospitalization time (MD -0.18 days; 95% CI - 0.43-0.07; p = 0.07; I2 = 89%), occurrence of intraoperative complications (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.38-1.15; p = 0.14; I2 = 35%) and bile duct injury (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.64, 1.55; p = 0.97; I2 = 0%). RAC was associated with an increase in operative time compared with LC without increasing hospitalization time or the incidence of intraoperative complications. These findings suggest that RAC is a safe approach to benign gallbladder disease.

Early Single-Center Experience of DaVinci® Single-Port (SP) Robotic Surgery in Colorectal Patients

Background: DaVinci® single-port (SP) robotic surgery offers several benefits compared to traditional multiport laparoscopic or robotic surgeries. One of the main advantages is that it allows for a minimally invasive approach, resulting in a single, smaller incision and reduced trauma to the patient's body, leading to less postoperative pain, faster recovery, and reduced risk of complications. The cosmesis of a single port with minimal visible scarring is also an attractive aspect to the patients; however, many surgeons use an additional port for energy device, stapler use, and drain insertion. Pure single-port surgery with one incision is still rare. Here, we share our experience of our first 10 cases using the SP robotic platform in colorectal surgery. Methods: From May 2023 to December 2023, colorectal patients who underwent SP robotic surgery were analyzed. Placement of the incision was the umbilicus for eight patients, and right lower quadrant for two patients, through which ileostomy maturation was performed. Data on perioperative parameters and postoperative outcomes were analyzed, with a median follow-up of 4.6 months (range 0.6-7.4 months). Results: A total of 10 colorectal patients underwent DaVinci® single-port robotic colorectal surgery at our institution during this period. The patient demographic was four males (40%) and six females (60%) with a median age of 63.5 years (range 50-75 years). Median body mass index (BMI) was 22.89 kg/m2 (range 19.92-26.84 kg/m2). Nine patients were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, and one patient was diagnosed with a rectal gastrointestinal tumor. One patient underwent anterior resection and cholecystectomy simultaneously. Mean operation time was 222 min (range 142-316 min), and mean wound size was 3.25 cm (range 2.5-4.5 cm). Nine patients underwent surgery with single incision through which a single-port trocar was inserted, and one patient had one additional port for drain insertion. Mean hospital stay was 6 days (range 4-8 days) with one postoperative complication of bleeding requiring transfusion, but there was no readmission within 30 days. Conclusions: Overall, our experience with single-port robotic colorectal surgery has been promising. With only one patient with additional port for drain insertion, all nine patients underwent SP-robotic surgery with single incision for colon as well as rectal surgeries. Compared to an average postoperative length of stay of 6.5-8 days in laparoscopic colorectal surgeries reported in literature, SP-robotic surgery 33showed faster recovery of 6 days highlighting its benefits in patient recovery and satisfaction.

A Medium-Term Comparison of Quality of Life and Pain After Robotic or Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

INTRODUCTION

We sought to compare medium-term outcomes between robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) using validated quality of life (QoL) and pain assessments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent RC or LC between 2012 and 2017 at a single academic institution were examined. Cases converted to open were excluded. Patients were contacted by telephone in 2019 and completed two standardized surveys to rate their QoL and pain.

RESULTS

Of those screened, 122 (35.8%) completed both surveys. Ninety three (76.2%) underwent RC and 29 (23.8%) underwent LC. The groups (RC versus LC) were similar based on mean age (47.9 versus 45.5 y, P = 0.48), gender (66.7% versus 72.4% female, P = 0.56), race (86.0% White/5.4% Black versus 72.4% White/13.8% Black, P = 0.2), insurance status (98.9% versus 100.0% insured, P = 0.58), median body mass index (31.8 versus 31.3, P = 0.43), and median Charlson Comorbidity Index (1 versus 0, P = 0.14). Fewer RC patients had a history of steroid use compared to LC (16.1% versus 34.5%, P = 0.03). No overall significant difference in QoL was demonstrated. LC group had higher severity of "tiring-exhausting pain" (P = 0.04), "electric-shock pain" (P = 0.003), and "shooting pain" (P = 0.05). The "overall intensity" of pain in the "gallbladder region" between the groups was similar at the time of follow-up (P = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

QoL over 2-7 y following time of surgery is comparable for robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The laparoscopic approach may be associated with a higher severity of subset categories of pain, but overall pain between the two approaches is comparable.

Prospective cohort study investigating quality of life outcomes following multi-speciality robotic-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

Despite recent evidence on the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), other patient centre outcomes, including quality of life (QOL), are lacking. This study aims to examine changes in QoL trajectories following RAS across different surgical specialities.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted for patients undergoing urologic, cardiothoracic, colorectal or benign gynaecological RAS, between June 2016 and January 2020 at a tertiary referral hospital in Australia. QoL was measured using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey at pre-operative, 6 weeks and 6 months postoperatively. Physical and mental summary scores and utility index were primary outcomes, and sub-domains were secondary outcomes.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Mixed-effects linear regressions were used to determine changes in QoL trajectories.

RESULTS

Of the 254 patients undergoing RAS, 154 underwent urologic, 36 cardiothoracic, 24 colorectal and 40 benign gynaecological surgery. Overall, the average age was 58.8 years and most patients were male (75.1%). Physical summary scores significantly decreased from pre-operative to 6 weeks' post-operative in urologic and colorectal RAS; with all surgical specialities at least returning to pre-operative levels within 6 months postoperatively. Mental summary scores consistently increased from pre-operative to 6 months postoperatively for colorectal and gynaecological RAS.

CONCLUSIONS

RAS contributed to positive changes in QoL, with physical health returning to the pre-operative level and mental health improvements across specialities, in the short term. While degrees of post-operative changes varied amongst specialities, significant improvements demonstrate benefits in RAS.

Robotic Anterior Resection for Rectosigmoid Colon Cancer Using Single-Port Access

Single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and a robotic surgical system have recently been included in contemporary colorectal surgical practice. 1–4 SPLS may result in better cosmetic outcomes, reduced postoperative incisional pain, fewer incisional hernias, minimal organ damage, and fewer wound complications. 2,5 However, SPLS for left-sided colorectal cancer is a challenging technique, even for experienced laparoscopic colorectal surgeons, owing to the difficulty of constructing instrument triangulation and using endo-staplers in the pelvic cavity from a single umbilical port with adequate distal margins. The Da Vinci Si Single-Site ® system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) was specifically developed to overcome SPLS limitations. Since the robotic instruments are crossed at the port site, but the software "reassigns" them to the surgeon's hand on the robotic console, the platform can easily create instrument triangulation while minimizing external robotic arm collisions. 6–8 Due to the lack of wrist articulation, the limited range of motion of the semi-rigid robotic instruments, and the limited choice of instruments, the Single-Site ® platform has not yet been widely utilized for colorectal diseases. A novel robotic technique, the da Vinci SP ® system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), was designed for single-site surgery. This platform has a robotic arm with a high degree of freedom that is introduced directly into the peritoneal cavity through a single incision. The benefits of the single-port da Vinci robot platform include a holographic display of the instrument location, wristed articulation and flexible elbows, a console-controlled camera, and three-dimensional optics. This robotic system for single-port access can perform lymph node dissection around the inferior mesenteric artery using 4-arm wrist articulation while preserving the autonomic nerves during left-sided colorectal cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic Versus Transanal IPAA for Ulcerative Colitis: A Patient-Centered Treatment Trade-Off Study

BACKGROUND

Transanal IPAA is a relatively new technique aiming to reduce surgical invasiveness while providing better access to the pelvis in patients with ulcerative colitis. Currently, patients' preference for a surgical approach has never been investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To observe patient preference between transanal and laparoscopic IPAA by measuring the potential risk, expressed in pouch function reduction, patients are willing to take to undergo transanal surgery.

DESIGN

We conducted standardized interviews of patients using the threshold technique.

SETTINGS

Patients from Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto were included.

PATIENTS

Fifty-two patients with ulcerative colitis participated in this study.

INTERVENTION

Patients with ulcerative colitis, with or without previous pouch surgery, were submitted to standardized interviews using the threshold technique.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We measured the absolute increase in bowel frequency, bowel urgency, and fecal incontinence that patients would accept if undergoing transanal IPAA.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients (mean age: 38.7 ± 15.3 years) with previous surgery and 20 patients (mean age: 39.5 ± 11.9 years) with no previous surgery participated in this study. Patients accepted an absolute increase of 2 bowel movements per day and 1 episode of fecal incontinence per month to undergo transanal IPAA. They also accepted 10 minutes of worsening bowel urgency (ie, decrease of 10 minutes in "holding time") for transanal surgery. Younger patients aged 21 to 29 years only accepted an absolute decrease of 5 minutes in "holding time" ( p = 0.02).

LIMITATIONS

Biases inherent to study design.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients were willing to accept a potential reduction in pouch function to receive the less invasive method of transanal IPAA. More studies evaluating long-term functional outcomes after transanal IPAA are required to help patients make educated surgical decisions. See Video Abstract.

ANASTOMOSIS LAPAROSCPICA VERSUS TRANSANAL ILEALBOLSA ANAL PARA LA COLITIS ULCEROSA UN ESTUDIO DE COMPENSACIN DE TRATAMIENTO CENTRADO EN EL PACIENTE

ANTECEDENTES:La anastomosis anal transanal con reservorio ileal es una técnica relativamente nueva que tiene como objetivo reducir la invasividad quirúrgica y al mismo tiempo proporcionar un mejor acceso a la pelvis en pacientes con colitis ulcerosa. Actualmente, nunca se ha investigado la preferencia de los pacientes sobre el abordaje quirúrgico.OBJETIVO:Observar la preferencia de los pacientes entre la anastomosis ileoanal con reservorio transanal y laparoscópica midiendo el riesgo potencial, expresado en la reducción de la función del reservorio, que los pacientes están dispuestos a someterse a una cirugía transanal.DISEÑO:Realizamos entrevistas estandarizadas de pacientes utilizando la técnica del umbral.AJUSTES:Se incluyeron pacientes del Hospital Mount Sinai en Toronto.PACIENTES:Cincuenta y dos pacientes con colitis ulcerosa participaron en este estudio.INTERVENCIÓN(ES):Los pacientes con colitis ulcerosa, con o sin cirugía previa de reservorio fueron sometidos a entrevistas estandarizadas utilizando la técnica del umbral.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO PRINCIPALES:Medimos el aumento absoluto en la frecuencia intestinal, la urgencia intestinal y la incontinencia fecal que los pacientes aceptarían si se sometieran a una anastomosis transanal con bolsa ileal.RESULTADOS:Treinta y dos pacientes (edad media: 38,7 ± 15,3) con cirugía previa y 20 pacientes (edad media: 39,5 ± 11,9) sin cirugía previa participaron en este estudio. Los pacientes aceptaron un aumento absoluto de 2 deposiciones por día y un episodio de incontinencia fecal por mes para someterse a una anastomosis transanal ileoanal con reservorio. También aceptaron 10 minutos de empeoramiento de la urgencia intestinal (es decir, disminución de 10 minutos del "tiempo de espera") para la cirugía transanal. Los pacientes más jóvenes de 21 a 29 años solo aceptaron una disminución absoluta de 5 minutos en el "tiempo de espera" ( P = 0,02).LIMITACIONES:Sesgos inherentes al diseño del estudio.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes estaban dispuestos a aceptar una reducción potencial en la función del reservorio para recibir el método menos invasivo de anastomosis transanal ileoanal con reservorio. Se requieren más estudios que evalúen los resultados funcionales a largo plazo después de la anastomosis transanal ileoanal con reservorio para ayudar a los pacientes a tomar decisiones quirúrgicas informadas. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Clinical status and future prospects of single-incision robotic-assisted surgery: a review

Since the advent of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery, the prosperity of minimally invasive surgery has been thriving on the advancement of endoscopic techniques. Cosmetic superiority, recovery benefits, and noninferior surgical outcomes weigh single-incision laparoscopic surgery as a promising modality. Although there are surgical challenges posed by steep learning curve and technological difficulties, such as instruments collision, triangulation loss and limited retraction, the establishment of robotic surgical platform as a solution to all is inspiring. Furthermore, with enhanced instrument maneuverability and stability, robotic ergonomic innovations adopt the advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and surmount its recognized barriers by introducing a novel combination, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery. As was gradually diffused in general surgery and other specialties, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery manifests privileges in noninferior clinical outcomes an satisfactory cosmetic effect among strictly selected patients, and has the potential of a preferable surgical option for minimally invasive surgery.

Laparoscopic versus robotic abdominal and pelvic surgery: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The current evidence is inconclusive on whether robotic or laparoscopic surgery is the optimal platform for minimally invasive surgery. Existing comparisons techniques focus on short-term outcomes only, while potentially being confounded by a lack of standardisation in robotic procedures. There is a pertinent need for an up-to-date comparison between minimally invasive surgical techniques. We aimed to systematically review randomised controlled trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques in major surgery.

METHODS

Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to 13th September 2022. Included studies were randomised controlled trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic techniques in abdominal and pelvic surgery. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Short-term, health-related quality of life, and long-term, outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies, across thirteen procedures, involving 7364 patients were included. All of the studies reported non-significant differences in mortality between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. In majority of studies, there was no significant difference in complication rate (n = 31/35, 85.6%), length of postoperative stay (n = 27/32, 84.4%), and conversion rate (n = 15/18, 83.3%). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter operative time (n = 16/31, 51.6%) and lower total cost (n = 11/13, 84.6%). Twenty three studies reported on quality of life outcomes; majority (n = 14/23, 60.9%) found no significant differences.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery with regards to mortality and morbidity outcomes in the majority of studies. Robotic surgery was frequently associated with longer operative times and higher overall cost. Selected studies found potential benefits in post-operative recovery time, and patient-reported outcomes; however, these were not consistent across procedures and trials, with most studies being underpowered to detect differences in secondary outcomes. Future research should focus on assessing quality of life, and long-term outcomes to further elucidate where the robotic platform could lead to patient benefits, as the technology evolves.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis of Intra- and Post-Operative Complications

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic surgery is attracting ever-growing interest for its potential advantages such as small incisions, fine movements, and magnification of the operating field. Only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have explored the differences in perioperative outcomes between the two approaches.

METHODS

We screened the main online databases from inception to May 2023. We included studies in English enrolling adult patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery. We used the following exclusion criteria: surgery with the involvement of thoracic esophagus, and patients affected by severe heart, pulmonary and end-stage renal disease. We compared intra- and post-operative complications, length of hospitalization, and costs between laparoscopic and robotic approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs were included. We found no differences in the rate of anastomotic leakage, cardiovascular complications, estimated blood loss, readmission, deep vein thrombosis, length of hospitalization, mortality, and post-operative pain between robotic and laparoscopic surgery; post-operative pneumonia was less frequent in the robotic approach. The conversion to open surgery was less frequent in the robotic approach, which was characterized by shorter time to first flatus but higher operative time and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic gastrointestinal surgery has some advantages compared to the laparoscopic technique such as lower conversion rate, faster recovery of bowel movement, but it has higher economic costs.

Pediatric Single-Incision Robotic Cholecystectomy: A 6-Year Update from a Single Institution

Introduction: In children, gallbladder disease has become more common due to the rise in childhood obesity and subsequent shift in etiology. While the gold standard of surgical management remains a laparoscopic technique, there has been increasing interest in robotic-assisted techniques. The aim of this study is to report a 6-year update on the experience of treating gallbladder disease with robotic-assisted surgery at a single institution. Materials and Methods: A database was created to prospectively collect patient demographic and operative variables at the time of operation from October 2015 to May 2021. Descriptive analysis of select available variables was performed using median and interquartile ranges (IQRs) for all continuous variables. Results: In total, 102 single-incision robotic cholecystectomies and one single-port subtotal cholecystectomy were performed. From available data, 82 (79.6%) patients were female, median weight was 66.25 kg (IQR: 58.09-74.24 kg), and median age was 15 years (IQR: 15-18 years). Median procedure time was 84 minutes (IQR: 70.25-103.5 minutes) and median console time was 41 minutes (IQR: 30-59.5 minutes). The most frequent preoperative diagnosis was symptomatic cholelithiasis (79.6%). One (0.97%) operation was converted from a single-incision robotic approach to open. Conclusion: Single-incision robotic cholecystectomy is a safe and reliable technique for the treatment of gallbladder disease in the adolescent population.

Implementation of robotic surgery in Dubai: a focus on outcomes

The rapid acceptance of robotic surgery in gallbladder, inguinal, and ventral hernia surgery has led to the growth of robotic surgery programs around the world. As this is new technology, implementation of such programs needs to be done safely, with a focus on patient outcomes. We herein describe the implementation of a new robotic surgery program in a major hospital in the Middle East. A laparoendoscopic surgeon led the program after training and proctoring. Competency based credentialing were created and put in place. To confirm safety of the program, all laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomy and hernia operations were followed, and perioperative data analyzed. Out of the 304 patients included in this study, 157 were performed using the robotic approach. In the cholecystectomy group (n = 103) the single site approach offered shorter operative times (P < 0.05). Both the single site robotic and the robotic assisted approaches resulted in less pain (P < 0.05). In the inguinal hernia group (n = 146) the laparoscopic approach offered shorter operative times (P < 0.05), but the robotic approach was associated with less pain (P < 0.05). In the ventral hernia group (n = 55), the open approach offered the best operative times, but the robotic approach was associated with the least amount of pain (P < 0.05). This is the first report of the implementation of a robotic program in the MENA region where the primary measure of success is outcomes. We show that monitoring cholecystectomy, inguinal or ventral hernia data can confirm the quality of the program before expansion and moving forward to more complex procedures.

Robotic Cholecystectomies: What Are They Good for? - A Retrospective Study - Robotic versus Conventional Cases

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted cholecystectomies are often criticized as expensive with uncertain benefit to patients. Characterization of robotic surgery benefits, as well as specific factors that drive cost, has the potential to shape the current debate.

METHODS

The surgical cost and outcomes among patients who underwent robotic (n = 283) or non-robotic (n = 1438) laparoscopic cholecystectomies between 2012 and 2018 at a single academic institution were examined retrospectively. All cholecystectomies were primary surgical procedures with no secondary procedures. We also examined the subset of robotic (n = 277) and non-robotic (n = 1108) outpatient procedures.

RESULTS

Robotic cholecystectomies were associated with higher median total cost compared to conventional procedures, largely attributable to variable costs and surgical costs. Patients who underwent conventional cholecystectomy had longer mean lengths of stays (1.7 versus 1.1 days) compared to robotic procedures-with over 10 times as many requiring hospital admission.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, robotic cholecystectomies have a little value to patients and institutions outside of surgical training. Prior to narrowing the analysis to outpatient cases, difference in total cost between procedures was less pronounced due to more frequent inpatient management following conventional procedures. Future optimization of robotic consumables and free market competition among system manufacturers may increase financial feasibility by decreasing variable costs associated with robotic surgery.

A systematic review of robot-assisted cholecystectomy to examine the quality of reporting in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) is a recent innovation in minimally invasive gallbladder surgery. The IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, long-term study) framework aims to provide a safe method for evaluating innovative procedures. This study aimed to understand how RC was introduced, in accordance with IDEAL guidelines.

METHODS

Systematic searches were used to identify studies reporting RC. Eligible studies were classified according to IDEAL stage and data were collected on general study characteristics, patient selection, governance procedures, surgeon/centre expertise, and outcome reporting.

RESULTS

Of 1425 abstracts screened, 90 studies were included (5 case reports, 38 case series, 44 non-randomized comparative studies, and 3 randomized clinical trials). Sixty-four were single-centre and 15 were prospective. No authors described their work in the context of IDEAL. One study was classified as IDEAL stage 1, 43 as IDEAL 2a, 43 as IDEAL 2b, and three as IDEAL 3. Sixty-four and 51 provided inclusion and exclusion criteria respectively. Ethical approval was reported in 51 and conflicts of interest in 34. Only 21 reported provision of training for surgeons in RC. A total of 864 outcomes were reported; 198 were used in only one study. Only 30 reported a follow-up interval which, in 13, was 1 month or less.

CONCLUSION

The IDEAL framework was not followed during the adoption of RC. Few studies were conducted within a research setting, many were retrospective, and outcomes were heterogeneous. There is a need to implement appropriate tools to facilitate the incremental evaluation and reporting of surgical innovation.

Change in quality of life between primary laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy after percutaneous transhepatic gall bladder drainage

One of the most important reasons for avoiding percutaneous transhepatic gall bladder drainage (PTGBD) is the deterioration of quality of life (QOL). However, there is no study comparing the QOL between primary laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and LC following PTGBD.Among the LC patients, 69 non-PTGBD patients and 21 PTGBD patients were included after excluding the patients with malignant disease or who needed additional common bile duct procedures. Clinicopathologic characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared. QOL was evaluated with questionnaire EORCT-C30 before and after surgery.The included patients comprised 69 non-PTGBD and 21 PTGBD patients. The PTGBD group include older and higher morbid patients. PTGBD group needed longer operation times than the non-PTGBD group (72.4±34.7 minute vs 52.8±22.0 minute, P = .022) Regarding the overall incidence of complication, the PTGBD group had a significantly higher complication rate than the non-PTGBD group (38.1% vs 10.1%, P = .003) However, there was no significant difference in severe complication). Regarding the QOL, both the functional and global health scales were improved following surgery compared to the preoperative evaluation. Comparative analysis of the 2 groups showed no significant difference in global heath scale either preoperative or postoperatively, while the functional scale and emotional scale were better in the PTGBD group compared to the non-PTGBD group. Regarding the symptom scale, postoperative dyspnea and perioperative diarrhea were better in the PTGBD group.LC following an interval from earlier PTGBD that targets acute cholecystitis or complicated GB had little to no impact on QOL when compared to standard LC.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Healthcare requires patient feedback to improve outcomes and experience. This study undertook a systematic review of the depth, variability, and digital suitability of current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

A PROSPERO-registered (registration number CRD42021261707) systematic review was undertaken for all relevant English language articles using PubMed version of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases in June 2021. The search used Boolean operators and wildcards and included the keywords: laparoscopic cholecystectomy AND patient outcome OR patient-reported outcome OR patient-reported outcome measure OR PRO OR PROM. Medical Subjects Heading terms were used to search PubMed and Scopus. Articles published from 1 January 2011 to 2 June 2021 were included.

Results

A total of 4960 individual articles were reviewed in this study, of which 44 were found to evaluate PROMs in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and underwent methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) grading. Twenty-one articles spanning 19 countries and four continents met all inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative data synthesis. There was significant heterogeneity in PROMs identified with eight different comprehensive PROM tools used in the 21 studies. There was wide variation in the time points at which PROMs were recorded. Fourteen of 21 studies recorded PROMs before and after surgery, and 7 of 21 recorded PROMs only after surgery. Follow-up intervals ranged from 3 days to 2 years after surgery.

Conclusions

This study identified that while post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy PROMs are infrequently measured currently, tools are widely available to achieve this in clinical practice. PROMs may not capture all the outcomes but should be incorporated into future cholecystectomy outcome research. The EQ-5D™ (EuroQoL Group, Rotterdam, the Netherlands) provides a simple platform for the modern digital era.

Laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for single-incision cholecystectomy: an updated systematic review

The role of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) is still unclear. We update the summarization of the feasibility and safety of SILC and SIRC. A comprehensive search of SILC and SIRC of English literature published on PubMed database between January 2015 and November 2020 was performed. A total of 70 articles were included: 41 covering SILC alone, 21 showing SIRC alone, 7 reporting both, and 1 study not specified. In total, 7828 cases were recorded (SILC/SIRC/not specified, 6234/1544/50); and the gender of 7423 cases was definitively reported: the female rate was 64.0% (SILC/SIRC/not specified, 62.1%/71.5%/74.0%). The weighted mean for body mass index (BMI), operative time, blood loss and post-operative hospital stay was 25.5 kg/m2 (SILC/SIRC, 25.0/27.0 kg/m2), 73.8 min (SILC/SIRC, 68.2/88.8 min), 12.6 mL (SILC/SIRC, 12.1/14.8 mL) and 2.5 days (SILC/SIRC, 2.8/1.9 days), respectively. The pooled prevalence of an additional port, conversion to open surgery, post-operative complications, intraoperative biliary injury, and incisional hernia was 4.1% (SILC/SIRC, 4.7%/1.9%), 0.9% (SILC/SIRC, 0.7%/1.5%), 5.9% (SILC/SIRC, 6.2%/4.1%), 0.1% (SILC/SIRC, 0.2%/0.09%), and 2.1% (SILC/SIRC, 1.4%/4.8%), respectively. Compared with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy, SIRC has experienced more postoperative incisional hernias (risk difference = 0.05, 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.07; P < 0.0001). By far, SILC and SIRC have not been considered a standard procedure. With the innovation of medical devices and gradual accumulation of surgical experience, feasibility and safety of performing SILC and SIRC will improve.

Comparative analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Despite increased utilization of robotic-assisted surgery in the pediatric population during the past decade, reports of comparative analysis between robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery are lacking. Our aim was to evaluate outcomes between pediatric robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RC) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

A single institution retrospective analysis of 299 patients undergoing either RC or LC, between January 2015 and December 2018 was performed. Demographic data as well as clinical characteristics and related outcomes were abstracted and compared using univariate analysis. Related hospital costs were estimated using a charge to cost methodology.

RESULTS

The median age of the cohort was 15.5 years (IQR 14.0-17.0); 76% females and 70% white, with 74% (n = 220) undergoing LC and 26% (n = 79) undergoing RC. The majority of RC were performed using single-site technique and RC proportion increased with time (10% in 2015 vs. 41% in 2018, p<0.001). The majority of RC were more commonly attributed to patients with nonacute indications for cholecystectomy compared to acute clinical indications (87% vs. 13%). Median operative time was 98 min vs. 79 min for RC and LC respectively (p<0.001). Median postoperative LOS was similar between groups (22 h). There were no significant differences in postoperative complication, in-hospital opioid utilization and 30-day readmissions. Average total hospital costs for RC were $15,519 compared to $11,197 for LC.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is feasible with similar outcomes compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, it is associated with longer operative times and higher costs. The single-site RC technique may provide a potential cosmetic benefit.

The Evidence Behind Robot-Assisted Abdominopelvic Surgery : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Use of robot-assisted surgery has increased dramatically since its advent in the 1980s, and nearly all surgical subspecialties have adopted it. However, whether it has advantages compared with laparoscopy or open surgery is unknown.

PURPOSE

To assess the quality of evidence and outcomes of robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopy and open surgery in adults.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to April 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials that compared robot-assisted abdominopelvic surgery with laparoscopy, open surgery, or both.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted study data and risk of bias.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 50 studies with 4898 patients were included. Of the 39 studies that reported incidence of Clavien-Dindo complications, 4 (10%) showed fewer complications with robot-assisted surgery. The majority of studies showed no difference in intraoperative complications, conversion rates, and long-term outcomes. Overall, robot-assisted surgery had longer operative duration than laparoscopy, but no obvious difference was seen versus open surgery.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity was present among and within the included surgical subspecialties, which precluded meta-analysis. Several trials may not have been powered to assess relevant differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is currently no clear advantage with existing robotic platforms, which are costly and increase operative duration. With refinement, competition, and cost reduction, future versions have the potential to improve clinical outcomes without the existing disadvantages.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None. (PROSPERO: CRD42020182027).

Outcome after single-site robotic cholecystectomy: An initial single center's experience

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the gold standard for symptomatic gallbladder disease, a single-incision approach may be a new challenge in order to achieve minimization of surgical trauma. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) is able to offset the ergonomic limitation of laparoscopic single-site cholecystectomy and improves cosmesis.

METHODS

We present a single-institution initial experience of SSRC for cholecystolithiasis. Intra-operative and post-operative data of patients were reviewed to assess the technical feasibility and cosmetic outcome.

RESULTS

We evaluated a series of 27 consecutive patients retrospectively analyzed and prospectively collected who underwent SSRC. One patient was excluded from the final analysis because they converted to open procedure. The female/male ratio was 17/9, with mean age of 48 ± 12 years. The body mass index mean value was 26.0 ± 4.2. The mean operative time was 99.6 ± 21.5 minutes. No intra- or post-operative complications and readmissions were recorded. At 12 months follow up, every patient received the Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) and a Photo Series Questionnaire. We recorded three patients (11.5%) with post-operative incisional hernia. Scores of the BIQ subscale for body image perception were 6 ± 1.2, while the scores of scar cosmesis were 21.1 ± 3.0. A statistically significant improvement in scar self-rating from T0 to T1 (P < .01) was found.

CONCLUSION

In our initial experience SSRC may be preferred to treat patients with higher needs in terms of cosmesis and body image perception. Lower costs for rent, maintenance and consumables may allow the spread of robotic surgery also for singe site cholecystectomy.

Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Rapid adoption of robotic-assisted general surgery procedures, particularly for cholecystectomy, continues while questions remain about its benefits and utility. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease as compared with the laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

A literature search was performed from January 2010 to March 2020, and a narrative analysis was performed as studies were heterogeneous.

RESULTS

Of 887 articles screened, 44 met the inclusion criteria (range 20-735,537 patients). Four were randomized controlled trials, and four used propensity-matching. There were variable comparisons between operative techniques with only 19 out of 44 studies comparing techniques using the same number of ports. Operating room time was longer for the robot-assisted technique in the majority of studies (range 11-55 min for 22 studies, p < 0.05; 15 studies showed no difference; two studies showed shorter laparoscopic times), while conversion rates and intraoperative complications were not different. No differences were detected for the length of stay, surgical site infection, or readmissions. Across studies comparing single-port robot-assisted to multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, there was a higher rate of incisional hernia; however, no differences were noted when comparing single-port robot-assisted to single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes were similar for benign, elective gallbladder disease for robot-assisted compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Overall, the rates of complications were low. More high-quality studies are needed as the robot-assisted technique expands to more complex gallbladder disease, where its utility may prove increasingly beneficial.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020156945.

IS THERE A FUTURE FOR SINGLE PORT LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY?

Aim. To identify a perspectives for using a single incision laparoscopic technologies in surgery.

Materials and methods: Today we have a several questions relating to a single incision laparoscopic surgery such as the possible spectrum of their application, safety and economic efficiency. The main is: does this technologies have a perspectives in future.

In paper was performed a retro and prospective analysis of the data of modern literature and authors own experience in surgical treatment using a single incision laparoscopic technologies.

Results: The study included 74 patients who underwent: cholecystectomy – 64 (86,5%), nephrectomy – 4 (5,4%), ovarian cyst removal – 4 (5,4%), kidney resection – 2 (2,7 %), using various kind of ports: “X-Cone Karl Storz” (28), “Covidien” (18), “PPP” (7), and 21 cases of multi-trocar access.

Conclusions: Our opinion that the perspectives for the development of single incision laparoscopy, is the further development of endoscopic devices, including robotic ones, and we believe that it will be a real future and endoscopic surgeons should be ready for this.

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

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has potential panspecialty surgical benefits. High-quality evidence for widespread implementation is lacking. This systematic review aimed to assess the RAS evidence base for the quality of randomized evidence on safety and effectiveness, specialty 'clustering', and outcomes for RAS research.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines. All pathologies and procedures utilizing RAS were included. Studies were limited to RCTs, the English language and publication within the last decade. The main outcomes selected for the review design were safety and efficacy, and study purpose. Secondary outcomes were study characteristics, funding and governance.

RESULTS

Searches identified 7142 titles, from which 183 RCTs were identified for data extraction. The commonest specialty was urology (35·0 per cent). There were just 76 unique study populations, indicating significant overlap of publications; 103 principal studies were assessed further. Only 64·1 per cent of studies reported a primary outcome measure, with 29·1 per cent matching their registration/protocol. Safety was assessed in 68·9 per cent of trials; operative complications were the commonest measure. Forty-eight per cent of trials reported no significant difference in safety between RAS and comparator, and 11 per cent reported RAS to be superior. Efficacy or effectiveness was assessed in 80·6 per cent of trials; 43 per cent of trials showed no difference between RAS and comparator, and 24 per cent reported that RAS was superior. Funding was declared in 47·6 per cent of trials.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base for RAS is of limited quality and variable transparency in reporting. No patterns of harm to patients were identified. RAS has potential to be beneficial, but requires continued high-quality evaluation.

Robotic Biliary Surgery

Robotic cholecystectomy is safe and feasible approach and can be combined with common bile duct exploration to address complicated pathology in a single setting. This article summarizes reported outcomes after robotic biliary surgery. A technical overview of robotic multiport and single port cholecystectomy is provided. Last, the approach to benign bile duct disease during robotic cholecystectomy, including reconstruction of the biliary tree, is described.

The Impact of Corporate Payments on Robotic Surgery Research: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the influence of financial conflict of interest (COI) payments on the reporting of clinical results for robotic surgery.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

A systematic search (Ovid MEDLINE databases) was conducted (May 2017) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy of the da Vinci robot on clinical outcomes. Financial COI data for authors (per study) were determined using open payments database.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes assessed were receipt of financial COI payments and overall conclusion reported between robotic versus comparative approach. Quality/risk of bias was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)/Cochrane risk of bias tool. Disclosure discrepancies were also analyzed.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Study characteristics, surgical subspecialty, methodological assessment, reporting of disclosure statements, and study findings dual abstracted. The association of the amount of financial support received as a predictor of reporting positive findings associated robotic surgery was assessed at various cut-offs of dollar amount received by receiver operating curve (ROC).

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included, 9 RCTs and 24 observational studies. There was a median, 111 patients (range 10 to 6420) across studies. A little more than half (17/33) had a conclusion statement reporting positive results in support of robotic surgery, with 48% (16/33) reporting results not in favor [equivocal: 12/33 (36%), negative: 4/33 (12%)]. Nearly all (91%) studies had authors who received financial COI payments, with a median of $3364.46 per study (range $9 to $1,775,378.03). ROC curve demonstrated that studies receiving greater than $9557.31 (cutpoint) were more likely to report positive robotic surgery results (sensitivity: 0.65, specificity: 0.81, area under the curve: 0.73). Studies with financial COI payment greater than this amount were more likely to report beneficial outcomes with robotic surgery [(78.57% vs 31.58%, P = 0.013) with an odds ratio of 2.07 (confidence interval: 0.47-3.67; P = 0.011)]. Overall, studies were high quality/low risk of bias [median NOS: 8 (range 5 to 9)]; Cochrane risk: "low risk" (9/9, 100%)].

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Financial COI sponsorship appears to be associated with a higher likelihood of studies reporting a benefit of robotic surgery. Our findings suggest a dollar amount where financial payments influence reported clinical results, a concept that challenges the current guidelines, which do not account for the amount of COI funding received.

Hidden blood loss and the influencing factors after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

A small amount of bleeding usually occurs during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), but the occurrence of perioperative hidden blood loss (HBL) is ignored. So our objective is to investigate the amount of HBL and find out the influential factors in LC.

METHODS

From January 2017 to May 2019, 139 patients scheduled for LC were enrolled in the study. The data of patients' sex, age, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), form of gallbladder bed, gallbladder status, hypertension, diabetes, liver cirrhosis, drainage volume and operation time were recorded. The patients' height, weight and preoperative and postoperative haematocrit and haemoglobin were recorded and applied to the Gross formula to determine the amount of blood loss. The data of sex, age, BMI, hypertension, diabetes, gallbladder status, liver cirrhosis and operation time were analysed by multivariate linear regression analysis. One-way analysis of variance was performed to find out the relative correlation between HBL and the type of gallbladder bed.

RESULTS

The HBL was 259.3 ± 188.5 mL. On the basis of multivariate linear regression analysis and analysis of variance, the gallbladder bed, hypertension and the operation time are influential factors of HBL in patients with LC. However, sex, age, BMI, gallbladder status, liver cirrhosis and diabetes are not significantly correlated with HBL.

CONCLUSIONS

HBL should not be overlooked during the perioperative period of LC, especially in patients with hypertension, gallbladder bed >50% gallbladder surface or operation time >60 min.

Operative results and patient satisfaction after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

There are no reports available on patient satisfaction and quality-of-life after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD). This study aimed to evaluate not only surgical outcomes but also patient satisfaction after RPD.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data for RPD were analyzed for surgical outcomes. Questionnaires were sent to patients to assess patient satisfaction regarding RPD.

RESULTS

The study included 105 patients who underwent RPD, with 44 (41.9%) patients presenting with associated surgical complications. There were no significant differences between the without and with complication groups in median console time (390 min. Vs. 373 min.), blood loss (100 mL vs. 100 mL), and harvested lymph node number (14 vs. 15). There was no surgical mortality in this study. Major complications ≥ Clavien-Dindo III occurred in 7.6% of the total 105 RPD patients. The most common complication was chyle leakage (18.1%), followed by postoperative pancreatic fistula (5.7%), intra-abdominal abscess (4.8%), delayed gastric emptying (3.8%), and post pancreatectomy hemorrhage (3.8%). Almost all of the patients responded to this RPD-related survey with "fair" to "excellent" grades for all items, except 1 (<1%) poor grade for operation service and 2 (1.9%) "not good" grades for diet tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

RPD is a feasible procedure with acceptable surgical outcomes. This patient survey with high patient satisfaction rates indicates that RPD provides acceptable satisfaction results, and the robotic approach for a major operation such as RPD has probably a higher priority than cost concerns. RPD could be recommended not only to surgeons but also to patients in terms of surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Robotic Single-Port Platform in General, Urologic, and Gynecologic Surgeries: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic platforms have recently acquired progressive importance in different surgical fields, such as urology, gynecology, and general surgery. Through the years, new surgical robots have become available as single-port robotic platform. The study is aimed to value the single-port robotic platform characteristics in different surgical specialties.

METHODS

The terms "LESS" OR "single port" OR "single site" AND "robot" OR "robotic" were systematically used to search the PubMed and Scopus databases. A total of 57 studies were considered eligible for the present review. The articles included were divided according to the surgical field in which the study was conducted: General surgery (29 articles), Gynecology (18 articles), Urology (10 articles).

RESULTS

Most part of the articles showed the feasibility of robotic single-port surgical procedures and described advantages in terms of cosmetic, hospital stay, and in some series even cost reduction. A meta-analysis was conducted, showing a significant increment of complications using RSP if compared with SLPS and a trend (P = 0.008) when RSP was compared with LESS. The comparison of different techniques in terms of conversion to laparotomy did not show any significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Robotic single port potentially furnishes an important surgical and post-operatory improvement; however, some limits still prolong the surgical time and complication rate.

A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and quality of life reporting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a valuable means of measuring outcomes subjectively from a patient's perspective, facilitating the assessment of service quality across healthcare providers, and assisting patients and clinicians in shared decision making. The primary aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise all historic studies evaluating patient reported quality of life, in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones. The secondary aim was to perform a quality assessment of cholecystectomy-specific PROM-validation studies. A literature review was performed in PubMed, Google ScholarTM, the Cochrane Library, Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychINFO databases up to September 2017. Study characteristics, PROM-specific details and a bias assessment were summarised for non-validation studies. A COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) analysis was performed to assess the methodological quality of identified PROM-validation studies. Fifty one studies were found to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Although 94.1% of these studies included PROMs as a primary outcome measure, <20% provided level 1 evidence through randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There was significant variation in the selection and reporting of PROMs, with no studies declaring patient involvement in PROM selection, and 88.2% of studies failing to document the management of missing data points, or non-returned surveys (33.3%). In the 6 PROM-validation studies identified, only 5 psychometric properties were evaluated, the findings of which were limited due to the small number of studies. This systematic review identifies a lack in consistency of study design and PRO reporting in clinical trials. Whilst an increasing number of studies are being performed to evaluate PROs, a lack of adherence to existing PRO administration and reporting guidelines is continuing to negatively affect study quality. We recommend that future clinical trials utilizing PROs should adhere to established comprehensive guidelines as described.

European association for endoscopic surgery (EAES) consensus statement on single-incision endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery changed the management of numerous surgical conditions. It was associated with many advantages over open surgery, such as decreased postoperative pain, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay and excellent cosmesis. Since two decades single-incision endoscopic surgery (SIES) was introduced to the surgical community. SIES could possibly result in even better postoperative outcomes than multi-port laparoscopic surgery, especially concerning cosmetic outcomes and pain. However, the single-incision surgical procedure is associated with quite some challenges.

METHODS

An expert panel of surgeons has been selected and invited to participate in the preparation of the material for a consensus meeting on the topic SIES, which was held during the EAES congress in Frankfurt, June 16, 2017. The material presented during the consensus meeting was based on evidence identified through a systematic search of literature according to a pre-specified protocol. Three main topics with respect to SIES have been identified by the panel: (1) General, (2) Organ specific, (3) New development. Within each of these topics, subcategories have been defined. Evidence was graded according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Recommendations were made according to the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

In general, there is a lack of high level evidence and a lack of long-term follow-up in the field of single-incision endoscopic surgery. In selected patients, the single-incision approach seems to be safe and effective in terms of perioperative morbidity. Satisfaction with cosmesis has been established to be the main advantage of the single-incision approach. Less pain after single-incision approach compared to conventional laparoscopy seems to be considered an advantage, although it has not been consistently demonstrated across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the increased direct costs (devices, instruments and operating time) of the SIES procedure and the prolonged learning curve, wider acceptance of the procedure should be supported only after demonstration of clear benefits.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Safety of single-incision robotic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC) is the gold standard technique for cholecystectomy. In order to reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmetic results, the application of the single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) technique was introduced, leading surgeons to face important challenges. Robotic technology has been proposed to overcome some of these limitations. The purpose of this review is to assess the safety of single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) for benign disease.

METHODS

An Embase and Pubmed literature search was performed in February 2017. Randomized controlled trial and prospective observational studies were selected and assessed using PRISMA recommendations. Primary outcome was overall postoperative complication rate. Secondary outcomes were postoperative bile leak rate, total conversion rate, operative time, wound complication rate, postoperative hospital stay, and port site hernia rate. The outcomes were analyzed in Forest plots based on fixed and random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies provided data about 1010 patients who underwent to SIRC for benign disease of gallbladder. Overall postoperative complications rate was 11.6% but only 4/1010 (0.4%) patients required further surgery. A postoperative bile leak was reported in 3/950 patients (0.3%). Conversion occurred in 4.2% of patients. Mean operative time was 86.7 min including an average of 42 min should be added as for robotic console time. Wound complications occurred in 3.7% of patients. Median postoperative hospital stay was 1 day. Port site hernia at the latest follow-up available was reported in 5.2% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the Da Vinci robot in single-port cholecystectomy seems to have similar results in terms of incidence and grade of complications compared to standard laparoscopy. In addition, it seems affected by the same limitations of single-port surgery, consisting of an increased operative time and incidence of port site hernia.

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the outcomes of single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) compared to multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MLC), evaluate the safety and feasibility of SSRC.

METHODS

To find relevant studies, the electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE were used to seek information in English literature from 2011 to 2017. Studies comparing SSRC to MLC, for any indication, were included in the analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed with RevMan Version 5.3.

RESULTS

Seven studies (two randomized control trails (RCTs) and five comparative studies, n = 1657 patients) were included in our analysis. The data showed that the SSRC and MLC had equivalent outcomes for operative time (MD = -3.06, 95% CI: -7.61-1.49, p = 0.19), bleeding (OR = 1.63, 95%CI: 0.40-6.56, p = 0.49), postoperative complications (OR = 1.11, 95%CI: 0.35-3.51, p = 0.86), bile leakage (OR = 0.38, 95%CI: 0.07-2.00, p = 0.26), wound infection (OR = 1.92, 95%CI: 0.86-4.32, p = 0.11), conversion rate (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.71-2.37, p = 0.40), and hospital stay (MD = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.60-0.57, p = 0.96). However, in the SSRC group the risk of incisional hernia is higher than the MLC group (OR = 4.23, 95% CI: 1.87-9.58, p = 0.0005), incidence of incisional hernia rate in SSRC group is higher than MLC group (5.8% vs. 0.9%), and the total costs in the SSRC group is higher than MLC group (MD = 3.51, 95% CI: 0.31-6.71, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The medical cost is significantly higher in SSRC compared with MLC, and SSRC can increasing the risk of incisional hernia. Therefore, surgeons must be carefully balanced its advantage, disadvantage and risk.

The emerging role for robotics in cholecystectomy: the dawn of a new era?

Though laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was highly criticized in its early stages, it quickly grew to become a new standard of care and has revolutionized the field of general surgery. Now emerging robotic technology is making its way into the minimally invasive arena. Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) is often disparaged as a costly technology that can lead to increased operative times with outcomes that are quite similar to LC. However, this perspective is skewed as many existing studies were performed in the early phase of learning for this procedure. RC can be performed in a cost-effective manner as the volume of robotic procedures increases. In addition, improved visualization and capability to perform fluorescence cholangiography can improve the safety profile of cholecystectomy to a level that has not yet been achieved with conventional laparoscopy. Advanced simulation technology for robotic surgery, and newer single-site robotic platforms have the potential to further revolutionize this technology and lead to improved patient satisfaction. In this review, we will present current data, trends, and controversies in robotic-assisted cholecystectomy.

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.

Single-site robotic-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy in children and adolescents: a report of 20 cases

BACKGROUND

Single-site laparoscopy is increasingly popular for straightforward operations like appendectomy. Due to limited triangulation and maneuverability, single-site cholecystectomy is riskier and more difficult. Robotics offer to make it easier and safer.

METHODS

Twenty children and adolescents underwent robotic-assisted single-site cholecystectomy at a large academic children's hospital. Patients were not randomized; patients were offered the option of robotic-assisted single-site (SSR) or standard four-incision laparoscopic (LAP) cholecystectomy. Demographics and perioperative details were compared with those of a comparable cohort who underwent LAP during the same period.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in physical characteristics and indications for operation. The robotic operations took longer but both groups received similar PRN doses of parenteral opiates. Patients in the SSR group were all discharged on the first postoperative day. There were no major complications in either group but a slightly higher incidence of minor wound complications in the SSR group.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted single-site cholecystectomy appears to be a safe alternative to standard laparoscopy with a similar postoperative pain profile, short postoperative lengths of stay, and, for some, a superior cosmetic result. Nevertheless, it comes with longer set-up and operative times, a higher incidence of minor wound complications, an unknown but possibly higher risk of incisional hernia, and higher costs.

Robotic single-site versus multiport laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a case-matched analysis of short- and long-term costs

BACKGROUND

Multiport laparoscopy is the gold-standard approach for cholecystectomy, and single-port laparoscopy has been developed to further reduce its invasiveness. A specific robotic single-port platform (da Vinci single-site, Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has been released in 2011, which could technically facilitate single-site cholecystectomy. Current data show its feasibility; however, detailed short- and long-term analyses of costs and comparisons relative to multiport laparoscopy are not available to date.

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic single-site cholecystectomy for benign, clinically noninflammatory disease between 2011 and 2015 were matched for disease, age, gender, BMI, ASA classification, diagnosis, and elapsed year of surgery to a cohort of multiport cholecystectomies. Demographic, perioperative, and long-term data were collected retrospectively and analyzed. Perioperative and long-term costs including re-operations due to the primary procedure until February 2017 were compared across both cohorts.

RESULTS

99 patients who underwent robotic single-site cholecystectomy were matched to 99 patients with multiport cholecystectomy. A higher rate of outpatient procedures in the robotic cohort (31.3 vs. 17.2%, p = 0.0305) was found, and demographic parameters and perioperative clinical outcomes were similar. Perioperative costs were significantly higher for the robotic single-site patients (6158.0 vs. 4288.0 USD, p < 0.0001). With similar follow-up times of 59.0 and 58.9 months, respectively (p = 0.9552), significantly more patients of the robotic Single-Site cohort underwent follow-up surgery (7.1 vs. 0.0%, p = 0.0140), and follow-up costs were significantly higher for the robotic cohort (694.7 vs. 0.0 USD, p = 0.0145).

CONCLUSION

With similar early postoperative clinical results and a higher rate of re-operations, perioperative and long-term costs are significantly higher with robotic Single-Site cholecystectomy compared with multiport cholecystectomy. Considering the unclear clinical value of robotic single-site cholecystectomy and the significant short- and long-term costs, a call for further research and a debate as to who should bear the costs beyond the ones of the gold-standard treatment appear reasonable.

Advantages of the glove port docking technique in robotic single-site cholecystectomy: comparison with the conventional silicone port

Although the da Vinci Single-Site^® silicone port allows exact alignment and effective triangulation of instruments, it also has drawbacks. We introduce an alternative docking technique using the Glove port^®. From April 2014 to December 2016, respective 50 patients of the conventional silicone port and the glove port group were compared. The mean docking time was 16.6 ± 6.6 min in the silicone port group and 10.6 ± 3.6 min in the glove port group. Re-docking during the operation was needed in three patients in the silicone port group and readjustment of cannulae without re-docking could be simply performed in five patients in the glove port group. Skin injury was observed in 17 patients in the silicone port group and 0 patients in the glove port group without significant complications. Some limitations of the conventional silicone port were improved by the glove port.