Robotic radical hysterectomy

Effect of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery on postoperative wound infection in patients with cervical cancer: A meta-analysis

The objective of this research is to evaluate the risk of postoperative infection and other risks associated with robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). Recent studies on RRH versus LRH have not been conclusive for cervical carcinoma. Our group attempted to use meta-analyses to evaluate the effects of both RRH and LRH on postoperative outcomes in order to make sure that the best operative method was used to prevent wound infections. We looked up Cochrane Library and published databases for this research and found 594 findings. Articles were screened by title and abstract and then carefully examined for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction was performed independently by two researchers. Comparison studies were used to describe the incidence of wound complications after surgery. The publication bias was assessed using Egger regression correlation analysis. There were six trials eligible for inclusion, of which 491 RRH and 807 LRH. Depending on surgery for cervical carcinoma, it is true that there is a difference in the way that surgery affects the postoperative complications. Our analysis demonstrated that the use of robotic operation can decrease the amount of blood loss during operation as compared with routine laparoscopy (MD, -77.69; 95% CI, -132.08, -23.30; p = 0.005). However, there were no statistical differences in the incidence of postoperative wound infections (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.25, 1.19; p = 0.13) and intraoperative operative time (MD, 13.01; 95% CI, -41.38, 67.41; p = 0.64) among the two procedures. There was no statistically significant difference between these two groups of patients with severe postoperative complications. Unlike other research, the findings of this meta-analysis are not consistent with the findings of the present study, which suggest that robotic operations cannot lower the rate of postoperative wound infections. However, because of the limitations and the retrospective character of the trials covered, these findings should be interpreted with care and more extensive research is required.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Optimal Interval Cytoreduction Surgery (LOICS) in Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancers Having Low Burden Disease

Laparoscopy has been increasingly utilised for cytoreduction surgery in patients with early ovarian cancers. The present study tries to assess the feasibility of laparoscopic interval cytoreduction surgery (LOICS) in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) having low burden residual disease. A retrospective study of was done of AOC's who underwent LOICS between 2010 and 2014. Epithelial ovarian cancer patients who underwent interval cytoreduction surgery were included and analysed for short-term and long-term outcomes. In all, 36 patients with stage III ovarian cancers were included in the analysis. Twenty-two (61.1%) were grade 3 and 14 (38.8%) were grade 2, and no patient had grade 1 tumour. Stage wise majority were stage IIIC (94.4%) followed by 2 (5.5%) in stage IIIA. There was 1 postoperative complication (2.5%) and no intraoperative complications. Median time to discharge and to start chemotherapy was 5 days and 23 days respectively. After a median follow-up of 60 months, 3 patients (8.3%) were lost to follow-up and the remaining 33 patients were analysed for survival outcomes. The overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were 58.3% and 36.1% respectively. The median RFS and OS were 24 months and 51 months, respectively. Most recurrences involved the peritoneum (82.6%), and 5 patients (21.7%) had nodal recurrence alone. Laparoscopic optimal interval cytoreduction is feasible in patients with advanced ovarian cancers provided the disease burden permits optimal surgery, especially in centres with expertise in complex laparoscopic procedures.

Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: the Right Surgical Approach

OPINION STATEMENT

Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node assessment is the standard initial therapy for early-stage cervical cancer. Radical hysterectomy via laparotomy (an "open" approach) was first described more than 100 years ago and has been the standard for decades. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been increasingly adopted by many surgeons due to its reported perioperative benefits. MIS was deemed safe for radical hysterectomy for many years based on multiple retrospective publications. Recently, the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer (LACC) trial reported that patients randomized to MIS had inferior oncologic outcomes. The results of the LACC trial and subsequent retrospective studies led multiple professional societies to state that open radical hysterectomy should remain the gold standard surgical approach. We acknowledge that the open approach for radical hysterectomy is an appropriate option for all cervical cancer patients eligible for surgical treatment. However, considering the limitations of the LACC trial and the available data from other retrospective studies, we feel the MIS approach should not be simply abandoned. There may still be a role for MIS in cervical cancer surgery for properly and carefully selected cases and with detailed counseling; surgeons should analyze their own outcomes closely in order to perform such counseling. Modification of surgical technique and maintaining proper oncologic surgical principles are key for MIS to remain a viable option. Tumor manipulation and contamination should be avoided. Transcervical uterine manipulators should not be used. Cervical and tumor containment prior to colpotomy, as is performed during an open approach, is required. This will all require validation in future trials. We await the results of ongoing randomized trials to further inform us. A one-size-fits-all approach may be short-sighted; we may need to decide treatment strategy based on the notion of the right surgical approach for the right patient by the right surgeon.

Identification of Inertial Parameters for Position and Force Control of Surgical Assistance Robots

Surgeries or rehabilitation exercises are hazardous tasks for a mechanical system, as the device has to interact with parts of the human body without the hands-on experience that the surgeon or physiotherapist acquires over time. For various gynecological laparoscopic surgeries, such as laparoscopic hysterectomy or laparoscopic pelvic endometriosis, Uterine Manipulators are used. These medical devices allow the uterus to be suitably mobilized. A gap needs to be filled in terms of the precise handling of this type of devices. In this sense, this manuscript first describes the mathematical procedure to identify the inertial parameters of uterine manipulators. These parameters are needed to establish an accurate position and force control for an electromechanical system to assist surgical operations. The method for identifying the mass and the center of mass of the manipulator is based on the solution of the equations for the static equilibrium of rigid solids. Based on the manipulator inertial parameter estimation, the paper shows how the force exerted by the manipulator can be obtained. For this purpose, it solves a matrix system composed of the torques and forces of the manipulator. Different manipulators have been used, and it has been verified that the mathematical procedures proposed in this work allow us to calculate in an accurate and efficient way the force exerted by these manipulators.

The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Cancer

Cervical cancer incidence and mortality have declined in developed countries during the past few decades as a result of screening programs and vaccination. However, it remains a significant cause of cancer-related mortality in young women. Early-stage cervical cancer, defined as disease limited to the cervix, has traditionally been treated with abdominal radical hysterectomy via laparotomy. Although most early-stage cervical cancers can be cured with open radical hysterectomy, the morbidity associated with open radical hysterectomy is significant compared with simple extrafascial hysterectomy. Since the early 1990s, minimally invasive surgery has been explored for the treatment of this disease, with the goal of minimizing the morbidity associated with open surgery, as reported for endometrial cancer surgery. This report reviews the landmark studies describing and evaluating minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

Robotic Radical Hysterectomy Is Not Superior to Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy in Perioperative Urologic Complications: A Meta-Analysis of 23 Studies

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the risks of intraoperative and postoperative urologic complications after robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH).

DATA SOURCES

We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to March 2019. Related articles and relevant bibliographies of published studies were also checked.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Two researchers independently performed data extraction. We selected comparative studies that reported perioperative urologic complications.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Twenty-three eligible clinical trials were included in this analysis. When all studies were pooled, the odds ratio for the risk of any urologic complication after RRH compared with LRH was .91 (95% confidence interval [CI], .64-1.28; p = .585). The odds ratios for intraoperative and postoperative complications after RRH versus LRH were .86 (95% CI, .48-1.55; p = .637) and .94 (95% CI, .64-1.38; p = .767), respectively. In a secondary analysis study quality, study location, and the publication year were not associated with intraoperative or postoperative urologic complications.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that RRH is not superior to LRH in terms of perioperative urologic complications.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology

BACKGROUND

This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid, on 8 January 2018. We searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov. on 16 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RAS versus CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We examined different procedures in separate comparisons and for hysterectomy subgrouped data according to type of disease (non-malignant versus malignant). When more than one study contributed data, we pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs involving 1016 women. Studies were at moderate to high overall risk of bias, and we downgraded evidence mainly due to concerns about risk of bias in the studies contributing data and imprecision of effect estimates. Procedures performed were hysterectomy (eight studies) and sacrocolpopexy (three studies). In addition, one trial examined surgical treatment for endometriosis, which included resection or hysterectomy. Among studies of women undergoing hysterectomy procedures, two studies involved malignant disease (endometrial cancer); the rest involved non-malignant disease.• RAS versus CLS (hysterectomy)Low-certainty evidence suggests there might be little or no difference in any complication rates between RAS and CLS (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.59; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 51%), intraoperative complication rates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.50; participants = 583; studies = 6; I² = 37%), postoperative complications (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.34; participants = 629; studies = 6; I² = 44%), and blood transfusions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.94; participants = 442; studies = 5; I² = 0%). There was no statistical difference between malignant and non-malignant disease subgroups with regard to complication rates. Only one study reported death within 30 days and no deaths occurred (very low-certainty evidence). Researchers reported no survival outcomes.Mean total operating time was longer on average in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) 41.18 minutes, 95% CI -6.17 to 88.53; participants = 148; studies = 2; I² = 80%; very low-certainty evidence), and the mean length of hospital stay was slightly shorter with RAS than with CLS (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.07; participants = 192; studies = 2; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).• RAS versus CLS (sacrocolpopexy)Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in rates of any complications between women undergoing sacrocolpopexy by RAS or CLS (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.24; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 78%), nor in intraoperative complications (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.59; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 47%). Low-certainty evidence on postoperative complications suggests these might be higher with RAS (RR 3.54, 95% CI 1.31 to 9.56; studies = 1; participants = 68). Researchers did not report blood transfusions and deaths up to 30 days.Low-certainty evidence suggests that RAS might be associated with increased operating time (MD 40.53 min, 95% CI 12.06 to 68.99; participants = 186; studies = 3; I² = 73%). Very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two techniques in terms of duration of stay (MD 0.26 days, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.67; participants = 108; studies = 2; I² = 0%).• RAS versus open abdominal surgery (hysterectomy)A single study with a total sample size of 20 women was included in this comparison. For most outcomes, the sample size was insufficient to show any possible differences between groups.• RAS versus CLS for endometriosisA single study with data for 73 women was included in this comparison; women with endometriosis underwent procedures ranging from relatively minor endometrial resection through hysterectomy; many of the women included in this study had undergone previous surgery for their condition. For most outcomes, event rates were low, and the sample size was insufficient to detect potential differences between groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS for non-malignant disease (hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy) is of low certainty but suggests that surgical complication rates might be comparable. Evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for malignant disease is more uncertain because survival data are lacking. RAS is an operator-dependent expensive technology; therefore evaluating the safety of this technology independently will present challenges.

Surgical and oncologic outcomes after robotic radical hysterectomy as compared to open radical hysterectomy in the treatment of early cervical cancer

Objective

The use of robotic radical hysterectomy has greatly increased in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer. We sought to compare surgical and oncologic outcomes of women undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy compared to open radical hysterectomy.

Methods

The clinic-pathologic, treatment, and recurrence data were abstracted through an Institutional Review Board-approved protocol at 2 separate large tertiary care centers in Seattle, Swedish Medical Center and the University of Washington. Data were collected from 2001–2012. Comparisons between the robotic and open cohorts were made for complications, recurrence, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

In the study period, 109 robotic radical hysterectomies were performed. These were compared to 202 open radical hysterectomies. The groups were comparable in terms of age and body mass index (BMI). Length of stay (LOS) was considerably shorter in the robotic group (42.7 vs. 112.6 hours, p<0.001) as was estimated blood loss (EBL; 105.9 vs. 482.6 mL, p<0.001). There were more complications in the open radical hysterectomy group, 23.4% vs. 9.2% in the robotic group (p=0.002). The recurrence rate was comparable between the groups (10.1% vs. 10.4%, p=0.730). In multivariate adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was not a statistically significant predictor of PFS (p=0.230) or OS (0.85).

Conclusion

Our study, one of the largest multi-institution cohorts of patients undergoing robotic radical hysterectomy, suggest robotic radical hysterectomy leads to comparable oncologic outcomes in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer with improved short-term surgical outcomes such as decreased LOS and EBL.

Feasibility study on robot-assisted retinal vascular bypass surgery in an ex vivo porcine model

PURPOSE

To describe a new robot-assisted surgical system for retinal vascular bypass surgery (RVBS) and to compare the success rate with freehand RVBS.

METHODS

A robot-assisted system for retinal microsurgery was constructed to include two independent robotic arms. A 23-gauge light probe and an intraocular forceps were affixed to the arm end effectors to perform the intraocular manipulation. Harvested porcine eyes were introduced to be established animal models of closed-sky eyeballs after that pars plana vitrectomy using temporary keratoprosthesis was performed by a skilful surgeon. Retinal vascular bypass surgery (RVBS) was performed by an inexperienced ophthalmologist to test the ease of use. A stainless steel wire (45-μm pipe diameter) was used as an artificial vessel. Before RVBS, the wires were prepositioned at the retinal surface of the eyes. The Control group (n = 20) underwent freehand RVBS, and the Experimental group (n = 20) underwent robot-assisted RVBS. To create the simulated bypass, the distal end of the wire was inserted into the selected vessel and advanced ~4 mm away from the optic disc. If successful, then the proximal wire end was inserted and advanced ~2 mm towards the optic disc. The difference in the success rate for the freehand and robot-assisted procedures was analysed by the chi-square test.

RESULTS

The success rate for the freehand RVBS was 5% (1/20 eyes). In contrast, the robot-assisted success rate was 35% (7/20) of eyes (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the feasibility of robot-assisted RVBS in ex vivo porcine eyes. The robotic system increased the accuracy and stability of manipulation by eliminating freehand tremor, leading to a higher surgical success rate.

Role of robotic surgery in cervical malignancy

Surgical treatment is the mainstay of the management of early-stage cervical cancer. Abdominal radical hysterectomy and trachelectomy have long been the standard surgical approach to early-stage cervical cancer, achieving excellent survival outcomes. Recently, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and trachelectomy have become the preferred alternative to abdominal surgery because laparoscopic approaches lead to better surgical outcomes without compromising survival outcomes. Since the robotic surgery platform was approved for the use of gynaecologic surgery in 2005, robotic radical hysterectomy and trachelectomy have been increasingly used in the surgical management of early-stage cervical cancer. However, the role of robotic surgery is poorly defined. This review examines the role of robotic surgery in the surgical management of cervical cancer by comparing the published data on its use with those of abdominal and laparoscopic surgeries.

Cooperative robot assistant for vitreoretinal microsurgery: development of the RVRMS and feasibility studies in an animal model

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to describe the development of a robotic aided surgical system named RVRMS (robotic vitreous retinal microsurgery system) and to evaluate the capability for using it to perform vitreoretinal surgery.

METHODS

The RVRMS was designed and built to include the key components of two independent arms. End-effectors of each arm fix various surgical instruments and perform intraocular manipulation. To evaluate properly the RVRMS, robot-assisted 23-gauge surgical tasks including endolaser for retinal photocoagulation, pars plana vitrectomy (PPV), retinal foreign body removal and retinal vascular cannulation were performed in two different sizes of an animal model. Endolaser was performed in the eye of a living Irish rabbit and the other tasks were done in a harvested porcine eye. For each evaluation, the duration and the successful completion of the task was assessed.

RESULTS

Robot-assisted vitreoretinal operations were successfully performed in nine rabbit eyes and 25 porcine eyes without any iatrogenic complication such as retinal tear or retinal detachment. In the task of using an endolaser, three rows of burns around the induced retinal hole were performed in nine rabbit eyes with half size intervals of laser spots. Nine procine eyes underwent PPV followed by successful posterior vitreous detachment (PVD) induction assisted with triamcinolone acetonide (TA). Nine porcine eyes completed removal of a fine stainless steel wire, which was inserted into prepared retinal tissue. Finally, retinal vascular cannulation with a piece of stainless steel wire (6mm length, 45 μm pipe diameter and one end cut to ∼30° slope) was successfully achieved in seven porcine eyes. The average duration of each procedure was 10.91±1.22 min, 11.68±2.11min, 5.90±0.46 min and 13.5±6.2 min, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Maneuverability, accuracy and stability of robot-assisted vitreoretinal microsurgery using the RVRMS were demonstrated in this study. Wider application research of robotic surgery and improvement of a robotic system should be continued.

Robot-assisted Surgery in Gynecologic Cancers

Robotic-assisted surgery is a technological advancement that facilitates the application of minimally invasive techniques for complex operations in gynecologic oncology. The objective of this article was to review the literature regarding the role of robotic-assisted surgery to treat women with gynecologic cancers. The majority of publications on robotic surgery are still retrospective or descriptive in nature; however, the data for managing patients with a robotic-assisted approach show comparable, and at times improved, outcomes compared with both laparoscopy (2-dimensional) and laparotomy approaches. Robotic-assisted surgery has been used for patients with endometrial cancer and resulted in the increased use of minimally invasive surgery with improved outcomes compared with laparotomy and partially with laparoscopy. This has been shown in large cohorts of patients as well as in obese patients in whom the complication rates have significantly decreased. For early cervical cancer, robotic radical hysterectomy seems to be safe and feasible and to be preferable to laparotomy with seemingly comparable oncologic outcomes. Robotic-assisted surgery and conventional laparoscopy to stage women with early-stage ovarian cancer seem to have similar surgical and oncologic outcomes, with a shorter learning curve for robotic-assisted surgery. However, robotic-assisted surgery appears to be more expensive than laparotomy and traditional laparoscopy. In conclusion, robotic-assisted surgery appears to facilitate the surgical approach for complex operations to treat women with gynecologic cancers. Although randomized controlled trials are lacking to further elucidate the equivalence of robot-assisted surgery with conventional methods in terms of oncologic outcome and patients' quality of life, the technology appears to be safe and effective and could offer a minimally invasive approach to a much larger group of patients.

The Wertheim hysterectomy: Development, modifications, and impact in the present day

Ernst Wertheim was a pioneer in the history of the surgical treatment of cervical cancer. His English-language manuscript "The extended abdominal operation for carcinoma uteri (based on 500 operative cases)," which was published in 1912, detailed his standardization of the radical hysterectomy and formed the basis of the current treatment for early stage cervical cancer. We contextualize the Wertheim hysterectomy, emphasizing medical advances that allowed for its development and subsequent modification. We then discuss modifications to the originally proposed procedure, including a maximally extended parametrical resection pioneered by Takayama, and the addition of the Taussig en bloc lymph node dissection by Meigs, both of which afforded an improved mortality profile due to decreased disease recurrence. Finally, we discuss progress that has been made in the present day, such as the development of nerve-sparing and fertility-sparing surgeries, as well as the introduction of the robotic platform. In this way, we hope to provide a historical background for the Wertheim hysterectomy-a cornerstone of gynecologic oncology.

Bowel injury in robotic gynecologic surgery: risk factors and management options. A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

We sought to analyze the published literature on bowel injuries in patients undergoing gynecologic robotic surgery with the aim to determine its incidence, predisposing factors, and treatment options.

DATA SOURCES

Studies included in this analysis were identified by searching PubMed Central, OVID Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. References for all studies were also reviewed. Time frame for data analysis spanned from November 2001 through December 2014.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All English-language studies reporting the incidence of bowel injury or complications during robotic gynecologic surgery were included. Studies with data duplication, not in English, case reports, or studies that did not explicitly define bowel injury incidence were excluded.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

The Guidelines for Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies were used to complete the systematic review with the exception of scoring study quality and a single primary reviewer.

RESULTS

In all, 370 full-text articles were reviewed and 144 met the inclusion criteria. There were 84 bowel injuries recorded in 13,444 patients for an incidence of 1 in 160 (0.62%; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.76%). There were no significant differences in incidence of bowel injury by procedure type. The anatomic location of injury, etiology, and management were rarely reported. Of the bowel injuries, 87% were recognized intraoperatively and the majority (58%) managed via a minimally invasive approach. Of 13,444 patients, 3 (0.02%) (95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.07%) died in the immediate postoperative period and no deaths were a result of a bowel injury.

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence of bowel injury in robotic-assisted gynecologic surgery is 1 in 160. When the location of bowel injuries were specified, they most commonly occurred in the colon and rectum and most were managed via a minimally invasive approach.

Complication reports for robotic surgery using three arms by a single surgeon at a single institution

BACKGROUND:

The aim of this study is to evaluate perioperative complications related to robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for management of gynaecologic disorders.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Eight hundred and fifty-one women who underwent robotic procedures between December 2011 and April 2015 were retrospectively included for analysis. Patient demographics, surgical outcomes and complications were evaluated.

RESULTS:

The overall complication rate was 5.5%, whereas the rate of complications for oncologic cases was 8.4%. Intra-operative complications (n = 7, 0.8%) consisted of five cases of bowel lacerations, one case of ureter laceration and one case of bladder injury. Early and late post-operative complications were 4.0% (n = 34) and 0.8% (n = 6), respectively. Six patients (0.7%) experienced Grade III complications based on the Clavien-Dindo classification and required further surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION:

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery is a feasible approach for management of gynaecologic disorders; the complication rates for this type of procedure are acceptable.

Robotic surgery for early stage cervical cancer: Evolution and current trends

The management of early stage cervical cancer often includes surgery in the form of radical hysterectomy, radical trachelectomy, or radical parametrectomy. Surgical techniques have evolved to include minimal invasive approaches, and more recently, to include robotic assisted techniques. This review highlights the evolution of surgical management of early cervical cancer and specifically explores robotic assisted radical hysterectomy, radical trachelectomy, radical parametrectomy, and the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Minimally invasive hysterectomy at a university teaching hospital

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of a minimally invasive approach for hysterectomy for benign disease at a university teaching hospital.

METHODS

Five hundred thirty-seven consecutive patients underwent hysterectomy for benign disease at Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in 2010. No cases were excluded. Minimally invasive approaches included total vaginal hysterectomy, laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy, total laparoscopic hysterectomy, and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. All surgeries were completed with the resident as the primary surgeon or first assistant.

RESULTS

The median age was 45 years, the median body mass index was 30 kg/m2, the median estimated uterine size was 11 cm, and 22% of patients had a prior cesarean section. Of the 537 hysterectomies, 526 (98%) were started with a minimally invasive approach and 517 (96%) were completed in that fashion; thus only 9 conversions (2%) were required. Of the cases in which a minimally invasive approach was used, 16% were vaginal and 84% were laparoscopic. The median operative time was 86 minutes, the median blood loss was 95 mL, the median hospital stay was 1 day, and the median uterine weight was 199 g. For the minimally invasive hysterectomies, there was a 5% major complication rate.

CONCLUSION

Our residency training institution completed 96% of 537 hysterectomies using a minimally invasive approach while maintaining an acceptable operative time, amount of blood loss, hospital stay, and complication rate. Thus our study supports that a minimally invasive approach for hysterectomy for benign disease at an academic resident teaching facility is feasible.

Robotic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) to laparoscopic and open approaches in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE (using Ovid interface) and SCOPUS databases was conducted from database inception through February 15, 2014. We included studies comparing surgical approaches to radical hysterectomy (robotic vs. laparoscopic or abdominal, or both) in women with stages IA1-IIA cervical cancer. Intraoperative outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, number of pelvic lymph nodes harvested and intraoperative complications. Postoperative outcomes were hospital stay and surgical morbidity. The random effects model was used to pool weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

Twenty six nonrandomized studies were included (10 RRH vs abdominal radical hysterectomy [ARH], 9 RRH vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy [LRH] and 7 compared all 3 approaches) enrolling 4013 women (1013 RRH, 710 LRH and 2290 ARH). RRH was associated with less EBL (WMD=384.3, 95% CI=233.7, 534.8) and shorter hospital stay (WMD=3.55, 95% CI=2.10, 5.00) than ARH. RRH was also associated with lower odds of febrile morbidity (OR=0.43, 95% CI=0.20-0.89), blood transfusion (OR=0.12, 95% CI 0.06, 0.25) and wound-related complications (OR=0.31, 95% CI=0.13, 0.73) vs. ARH. RRH was comparable to LRH in all intra- and postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that RRH may be superior to ARH with lower EBL, shorter hospital stay, less febrile morbidity and wound-related complications. RRH and LRH appear equivalent in intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes and thus the choice of approach can be tailored to the choice of patient and surgeon.

Perioperative complications of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery using three robotic arms at a single institution

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate perioperative complications of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent elective robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery between February 2006 and December 2013 were identified. Robotic procedures were performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Patient demographic data and operative outcomes were prospectively collected in a computerized database and extracted for this study.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety eight patients were identified during the study period. One case was converted to conventional laparoscopy due to mechanical failure of the robot system before the procedure and excluded from review. The median age and body mass index of patients were 48 years and 23.0 kg/m², respectively. The majority (n=130, 43.6%) of operative procedures was radical hysterectomy, followed by endometrial cancer staging (n=112, 37.6%), total hysterectomy (n=39, 13.1%), and myomectomy (n=17, 5.7%). The median operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay were 208.5 min, 184.8 mL, and 8.9 days, respectively. The overall complication rate was 18.8% and that for only oncologic cases was 16.1%. Intraoperative complications (n=5, 1.7%) consisted of three vessel injuries, one bowel content leakage during an appendectomy during endometrial cancer staging and one case of bladder injury during radical hysterectomy. Early and late postoperative complications were 14.4% and 2.7%, respectively. Five patients (1.7%) experienced grade 3 complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification and therefore needed further intervention.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is a feasible approach in gynecology with acceptable complications.

WITHDRAWN: Robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer

This review is being withdrawn as now superceded by a new review covering both malignant an benign disease: Lawrie TA, Liu H, Lu D, Dowswell T, Song H, Wang L, Shi G. Robot‐assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2019, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD011422. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2 (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011422.pub2/full )

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.

Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology

BACKGROUND

This is an updated merged review of two originally separate Cochrane reviews: one on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for benign gynaecological disease, the other on RAS for gynaecological cancer. RAS is a relatively new innovation in laparoscopic surgery that enables the surgeon to conduct the operation from a computer console, situated away from the surgical table. RAS is already widely used in the United States for hysterectomy and has been shown to be feasible for other gynaecological procedures. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) have not been clearly established and require independent review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of RAS in the treatment of women with benign and malignant gynaecological disease.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 5) and the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register. We also searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, to complement the searches of the original malignant and benign disease reviews (conducted up to July 2010 and November 2011, respectively), from July 2010 to June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery in women requiring surgery for gynaecological disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted study data and entered them into an Excel spreadsheet. We subgrouped data according to type of procedure and pooled data using random-effects methods in RevMan 5.3. We performed sensitivity analyses by excluding studies at high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs involving 517 women. Most were at low to moderate overall risk of bias; one was at high risk of bias. Four studies evaluated RAS for hysterectomy (371 women), and two studies evaluated RAS for sacrocolpopexy (146 women). All studies compared RAS with CLS, except for one study, which compared RAS with CLS or a vaginal surgical approach for hysterectomy. Confidence intervals for the risk of intraoperative and postoperative complications included benefits with either approach when they were analysed together (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.99; participants = 513; studies = 6; I(2) = 74%) and separately (low-quality evidence). Moderate-quality evidence was found for the effects of RAS on intraoperative injury when compared with CLS (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.46; participants = 415; studies = 5; I(2) = 0%), along with low-quality evidence for bleeding and infection complications.Mean total operating time was consistent across procedures and on average was about 42 minutes longer in the RAS arm compared with the CLS arm (95% CI 17 to 66 minutes; participants = 294; studies = 4; I(2) = 82%; moderate-quality evidence). Mean hospital stay for hysterectomy procedures was on average about seven hours shorter in the RAS arm than in the CLS arm (mean difference (MD) -0.30 days, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06; participants = 217; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%; low-quality evidence). The estimated effect of conversion with RAS compared with CLS was imprecise (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.12; participants = 337; studies = 4; I(2) = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Limited data from two studies suggest that RAS for sacrocolpopexy may be associated with increased postoperative pain compared with CLS; this needs further investigation. We identified five ongoing trials-four of cancer surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain as to whether RAS or CLS has lower intraoperative and postoperative complication rates because of the imprecision of the effect and inconsistency among studies when they are used for hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that these procedures take longer with RAS but may be associated with a shorter hospital stay following hysterectomy. We found limited evidence on the effectiveness and safety of RAS compared with CLS or open surgery for surgical procedures performed for gynaecological cancer; therefore its use should be limited to clinical trials. Ongoing trials are likely to have an important impact on evidence related to the use of RAS in gynaecology.

Effects of electrosurgery and vaginal closure technique on postoperative vaginal cuff dehiscence

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study is to evaluate the role of electrosurgery and vaginal closure technique in the development of postoperative vaginal cuff dehiscence.

METHODS

From prospective surgical databases, we identified 463 patients who underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) for benign disease and 147 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) for cancer. All TLHs and LAVHs were performed entirely by use of electrosurgery, including colpotomy. Colpotomy in the TLH group was performed with Harmonic Ace Curved Shears (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH, USA), and in the LAVH group, it was performed with a monopolar electrosurgical pencil. The main surgical difference was vaginal cuff closure--laparoscopically in the TLH group and vaginally in the LAVH group.

RESULTS

Although patients in the LAVH group were at increased risk for poor healing (significantly older, higher body mass index, more medical comorbidities, higher blood loss, and longer operative time), there were no vaginal cuff dehiscences in the LAVH group compared with 17 vaginal cuff dehiscences (4%) in the TLH group (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

It does not appear that the increased vaginal cuff dehiscence rate associated with TLH is due to electrosurgery; rather, it is due to the vaginal closure technique.

Intraoperative autologous blood transfusion use during radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: long-term follow-up of a prospective trial

PURPOSE

A primary operative complication of radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer is hemorrhage. Intraoperative autologous blood transfusion (ABT) may be beneficial in reducing the need for homologous blood transfusion.

METHODS

Our institution published a prospective cohort study examining the use of ABT in cervical cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy in 1995. Patients who were initially consented to participate in this prospective trial using intraoperative ABT (cell saver) were evaluated with a median follow-up of 3 years. We sought to update this original report with 16-year follow-up data collected from the clinical charts, Tumor Registry, and the Social Security Death Index.

RESULTS

Two groups of patients undergoing radical hysterectomy were compared: patients who received ABT, and those who did not. Of the 71 original patients, all were included in this updated review, with an average follow-up of 12.4 years for both groups. Originally, thirty-one patients received an ABT. In this group, 1 patient was lost to follow-up, and 4 (12.9 %) are deceased including 1 (3 %) with disease. In the non-autologous group, there were 7 (17.5 %) patient deaths, including 3 (7.5 %) with disease. Eighty-three percent were alive after 12 years in both groups. The ABT group had 1 patient (3 %) who developed a secondary malignancy, a colon adenocarcinoma. The non-autologous group had 2 patients (5 %) who developed a secondary malignancy; one patient developed multiple myeloma and one patient developed a verrucous cancer of the tongue.

CONCLUSIONS

Autologous blood transfusion during radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer appears safe and effective.

Robotic surgery applications in the management of gynecologic malignancies

This review evaluates the use of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of gynecologic malignancies and objectively evaluates the use of these systems in performing radical hysterectomies and surgical staging of gynecologic malignancies. The review focuses on surgical length, blood loss, complications, recovery time, and adequacy of surgical staging of robotic-assisted surgery compared to abdominal and non-robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery for malignancies.

Robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is the latest innovation in the field of minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgical systems have been used to perform surgery for endometrial, cervical cancer and ovarian cancer. There is mounting evidence which demonstrates the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for gynaecological oncology.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence for and against robotic assisted surgery in gynaecological cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to July 2010) and citation lists of relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing robotic assisted surgery for gynaecological cancer to laparoscopic or open surgical procedures as well as RCTs comparing different types of robotic assistants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion. No RCTs were identified, therefore data collection and analysis could not be performed.

MAIN RESULTS

No studies were found that met the inclusion criteria. Controlled clinical trials (CCTs) are summarised and analysed, but are not discussed in the main body of the review as they present a high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Well-designed RCTs are required as only low quality evidence from CCTs is available. These studies support the use of robotic assisted surgery for endometrial cancer and cervical cancer, but these findings present a high risk of bias.

[Study of surplus cost of robotic assistance for radical hysterectomy, versus laparotomy and standard laparoscopy]

OBJECTIVES

The study purpose was to compare the costs among robotic, laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-seven patients underwent robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer. Cases were performed by three surgeons, at two institutions, and were retrospectively reviewed to perform a cost comparison between all three modalities. We included costs for edible materials in anesthesia and surgery, but costs for staff and indirect financial expenses were excluded. Those data are compared to open and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy data.

RESULTS

The average cost for robotic assistance presented a surplus of 1796 euros compare to laparotomy and 1313 euros compare to standard laparoscopy in 2008, and 1320 and 837 euros respectively.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The average cost for radical hysterectomy was highest for robotic, followed by standard laparoscopy, and least for laparotomy. However, over only 2 years of use, this difference tends to decrease. Medico-economic impact is the main restraint for robotic assistance development, and needs to be assessed permanently.

Robotic surgery in gynecology: an updated systematic review

The introduction of da Vinci Robotic Surgery to the field of Gynecology has resulted in large changes in surgical management. The robotic platform allows less experienced laparoscopic surgeons to perform more complex procedures. In general gynecology and reproductive gynecology, the robot is being increasingly used for procedures such as hysterectomies, myomectomies, adnexal surgery, and tubal anastomosis. Among urogynecology the robot is being utilized for sacrocolopexies. In the field of gynecologic oncology, the robot is being increasingly used for hysterectomies and lymphadenectomies in oncologic diseases. Despite the rapid and widespread adoption of robotic surgery in gynecology, there are no randomized trials comparing its efficacy and safety to other traditional surgical approaches. Our aim is to update previously published reviews with a focus on only comparative observational studies. We determined that, with the right amount of training and skill, along with appropriate patient selection, robotic surgery can be highly advantageous. Patients will likely have less blood loss, less post-operative pain, faster recoveries, and fewer complications compared to open surgery and potentially even laparoscopy. However, until larger, well-designed observational studies or randomized control trials are completed which report long-term outcomes, we cannot definitively state the superiority of robotic surgery over other surgical methods.

Surgical management of cervical carcinoma

Surgical management for cervical carcinoma uses a wide variety of procedures for all stages of disease, ranging from the most conservative excisional biopsy to aggressive extirpative surgery with sophisticated reconstruction. Innovative surgical procedures have given fertility-sparing treatment options to women of reproductive age, and refinement and use of minimally invasive surgical approaches have minimized operative morbidity without sacrificing outcomes. Conservative staging procedures are being evaluated to improve survival in locally advanced disease. There have been many breakthroughs in the treatment of cervical carcinoma over recent years, which have improved not only survival but also the quality of ensuing life for women afflicted by this disease.

Robot-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: review of surgical and oncological outcomes

Robot-assisted procedures are being increasingly incorporated in gynaecologic oncology. Several studies have confirmed the feasibility and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy for selected patients with early-stage cervical cancer. It has been demonstrated that robotic radical hysterectomy offers an advantage over other surgical approaches with regard to operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay. Also initial evidences concerning oncological outcomes seem to confirm the equivalence to traditional open technique. Despite the fact that costs of robotic system are still high, they could be partially offset by several health-related and social benefits: less pain, faster dismissal, and return to full activity than other surgical approaches. The development of robotic technology may facilitate the spread of minimally invasive surgery in gynaecological oncology, overcoming some drawbacks of laparoscopic technique for challenging intervention such as radical hysterectomy. Further studies are needed to evaluate overall and disease-free survival of this technique and associated morbidity after adjuvant therapies.

Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery is growing rapidly and there is an increasing need for a structured approach to train future robotic surgeons.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature on training and learning strategies for robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and the Journal of Robotic Surgery was performed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included articles concerning training, learning, education and teaching of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery in any specialism.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected articles to be included. We categorised the included articles into: training modalities, learning curve, training future surgeons, curriculum design and implementation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 114 full text articles. Training modalities such as didactic training, skills training (dry lab, virtual reality, animal or cadaver models), case observation, bedside assisting, proctoring and the mentoring console can be used for training in robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery. Several training programmes in general and specific programmes designed for residents, fellows and surgeons are described in the literature. We provide guidelines for development of a structured training programme.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgical training consists of system training and procedural training. System training should be formally organised and should be competence based, instead of time based. Virtual reality training will play an import role in the near future. Procedural training should be organised in a stepwise approach with objective assessment of each step. This review aims to facilitate and improve the implementation of structured robotic surgical training programmes.

Laparoscopic major gynecologic surgery in patients with prior laparotomy bowel resection

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To review the success and morbidity of laparoscopic major gynecologic surgery in patients with prior laparotomy bowel resection.

METHODS

Review of a prospective surgical database of all cases of laparoscopic major gynecologic surgery in patients with prior laparotomy bowel resection. No cases were excluded. Bowel diagnoses and procedures were total colectomy for inflammatory bowel disease (4), partial colectomy for colon cancer (6), partial small bowel resection for obstruction (1), and Whipple for pancreatic cancer (2). Two patients had 3 prior laparotomies, 8 patients had 2 prior laparotomies, and 3 patients had 1 prior laparotomy. All prior abdominal incisions were midline. Gynecologic diagnoses and procedures were laparoscopic cytoreduction for ovarian cancer (1), lsh/bso/staging for ovarian cancer (1), lavh/bso/lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer (4), and lavh/bso, lsh/bso, or bso for large ovarian mass (7). Median patient age was 57 years, median BMI was 31kg/m(2), and all patients had medical comorbidities.

RESULTS

All 13 laparoscopic gynecologic surgeries were successful without trocar insertion injury, conversion to laparotomy, and without enterotomy. Abdominal adhesions were present in all cases. Median operative time was 2 hours, median blood loss was 100cc, and median hospital stay was 1 day. There were no postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic major gynecologic surgery in patients with prior laparotomy bowel resection is feasible for experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

Role of robotic surgery in urogynecologic surgery and radical hysterectomy: how far can we go?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose is to review the current literature regarding robotic assistance in urogynecologic surgery and radical pelvic surgery and to discuss the future of robotics in these two areas of gynecology.

RECENT FINDINGS

When the first and only Food and Drug Administration-approved robot-assisted device, the daVinci surgical system, was approved for use in gynecology in April 2005, many procedures were translated to a robotic approach. In the field of urogynecology, much attention was given to the use of robotic assistance for sacrocolpopexy. In oncology, there was an attraction to the use of robotics for radical hysterectomies. There are a number of published observational studies comparing the outcomes of both robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALS) and robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) to their conventional laparoscopic and open versions. Overall, the literature suggests that the use of robotics for these procedures increases operative time and cost, but decreases estimated blood loss and length of stay. The complication rates appear to be similar. Recurrence of apical prolapse after RALS appears to be similar to that in conventional laparoscopic or open sacrocolpopexy. The number of lymph nodes harvested is the same or increases with RRH, whereas the disease-free progression and overall survival are similar for all the methods of radical hysterectomy.

SUMMARY

Literature suggests that RALS and RRH have equivalent outcomes when compared to conventional laparoscopic and open techniques. The question is whether the use of robotics that combines the outcomes of an open procedure, the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, and easy adoptability will outweigh the increased cost and time associated with robotic surgery.