Early experience of robotic axillary lymph node dissection in patients with node-positive breast cancer

Emerging Role of Robotic Surgery in the Breast

In recent years, there has been increased adoption of robotic technology in oncologic breast surgery, particularly with the use of robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (r-NSM). Here we review the emergence of robotic-assisted surgery in breast procedures, and discuss the safety, limited oncologic outcomes, apparent advantages, and potential limitations of r-NSM compared to conventional open-NSM (c-NSM). Limited data suggests that robotic-assisted surgery offers smaller incisions and potential for improved cosmesis and ergonomic advantage when compared to c-NSM. Similar periprocedural complication rates are seen with r-NSM compared with c-NSM. Short-term oncologic follow-up is reassuring however, but remains early and continues to be investigated. The increased cost of r-NSM compared to open surgery and feasibility of widespread adoption of the procedure are important considerations that need to be evaluated. Randomized trials are currently ongoing to address the apparent advantages, oncologic outcomes, and cost/feasibility of robotic breast surgery.

Evaluating the utility of robotic axillary lymph node dissection in patients with invasive breast cancer: a systematic review

Robot-assisted axillary lymph node dissection (RALND) has been proposed to improve surgical and oncological outcomes for patients with breast cancer. To perform a systematic review of current literature evaluating RALND in patients with invasive breast cancer. A systematic search was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies outlining outcomes following RALND were included. Two studies involving 92 patients were included in this review. Of these, 41 underwent RALND using the da Vinci© robotic system (44.57%), and 51 underwent conventional axillary lymph node dissection (CALND) (55.43%). There was no significant difference observed with respect to intra-operative blood loss or duration of procedure in those undergoing CALND and RALND (P > 0.050). One study reported a significant difference in lymphoedema rates in support of RALND (6.67% vs 26.67%, P = 0.038). Overall, data in relation to postoperative fat necrosis (10.00% vs 33.33%, P = 0.028), wound infection rates (3.33% vs. 20.00%, P = 0.044), and wound ≤ 40 mm in length (63.63% vs. 19.05%, P = 0.020) supported RALND. Oncological outcomes were only reported in one of the studies, which concluded that there was no local or metastatic recurrence in either group at 3-month follow-up. These provisional results support RALND as a safe alternative to CALND. Notwithstanding, the paucity of data limits the robustness of conclusions which may be drawn surrounding the adoption of RALND as the standard of care. Further high-quality studies are required to ratify these findings.