Comparison of Reduced-Port Robotic Surgery (RPRS) with conventional 2 port laparoscopy for myomectomy

Efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic radical resection has become the most important treatment for resectable colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there is still a lack of researches on the efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in the treatment of CRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2019 to July 2022, 698 patients with CRC received surgical treatment in the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into RPLS group (n = 220) and CLS group (n = 478) according to their surgical procedures. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust the differences in baseline characteristics. The incidence of perioperative outcomes and survival rates related results were analyzed after PSM.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-two patients were equally divided into RPLS group (n = 211) and CLS group (n = 211) after PSM. There were no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the two groups (P value was 0.773 and 0.579 respectively). The perioperative outcomes of patients between the two groups were comparable, except that patients in the RPLS group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P value < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For patients with CRC, both RPLS and CLS might be acceptable surgical options. No significant differences in perioperative outcomes, PFS rates and OS rates were observed between the two groups. For certain cases, RPLS was superior to CLS in terms of postoperative recovery.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus abdominal and laparoscopic myomectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Myomectomy is the preferred treatment for women with uterine fibroids and fertility requirements. There are three modalities are used in clinical practice for myomectomy: abdominal myomectomy (AM), laparoscopic myomectomy (LM), and robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (RLM).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of RLM, AM, and LM.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Clinical Trials for relevant literature published between January 2000 and January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all studies reporting peri- and postoperative outcomes of myomectomy in patients with uterine myomas. Surgical treatments were classified as RLM, LM, or AM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more authors selected studies independently, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We derived mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, subgrouping trials by the patient characteristics and myoma characteristics. We used the I2 statistic to quantify heterogeneity and the random-effects model for meta-analysis when appropriate. We used the funnel plot to assess the publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 32 studies with 6357 patients were included, of which 1982 women had undergone RLM. The operating time was significantly longer (MD = 43.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 25.22-61.93, P < 0.001), and the incidence of cesarean section after myomectomy was significantly lower (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.10-0.78, P = 0.02) in RLM than in LM. Compared with AM, the operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, complication rate, total cost, length of hospital stay, and pregnancy rate of patients with RLM were significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and effectiveness of RLM are superior to those of AM but inferior to those of LM.

Enhancing surgical performance: the role of robotic surgery in myomectomies, a systematic review and metanalysis

Examine the role, benefits, and limitations of robotic surgery in myomectomies compared to laparoscopic and open surgical approaches. This review sourced data from CENTRAL, Pubmed, Medline, and Embase up until May 1, 2023. Full articles comparing clinical outcomes of robotic myomectomy with open or laparoscopic procedures were included without language restriction. Initially, 2150 records were found. 24 studies were finally included for both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Two investigators independently assessed all reports following PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analysis was conducted using the software "Review Manager Version 5.4". Risk-of-bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Sensitivity analysis was conducted, when feasible. In a comparison between robotic and laparoscopic myomectomies, no significant difference was observed in fibroid weights and the size of the largest fibroid. Robotic myomectomy resulted in less blood loss, but transfusion rates were comparable. Both methods had similar complication rates and operative times, although some robotic studies showed longer durations. Conversion rates favored robotics. Hospital stays varied widely, with no overall significant difference, and pregnancy rates were similar between the two methods. When comparing robotic to open myomectomies, open procedures treated heavier and larger fibroids. They also had greater blood loss, but the robotic approach required fewer transfusions. The complication rate was slightly higher in open procedures. Open surgeries were generally faster, postoperative pain scores were similar, but hospital stays were longer for open procedures. Pregnancy rates were comparable for both robotic and open methods. Robotic surgery offers advancement in myomectomy procedures by offering enhanced exposure and dexterity, leading to reduced blood loss and improved patient outcomes. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023462348.

Outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for benign gynaecological disease: a systematic review

Benign gynaecological diseases are usually treated with minimally invasive approaches. Robotic surgery seems an alternative to laparoscopic surgery. No definitive conclusions have yet been made regarding comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for benign diseases. In this scenario, we performed a systematic review in order to assess the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopy versus robotic surgery and conclude whether laparoscopy should be replaced by robotic surgery for the treatment of benign gynaecological conditions, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) Statement. We included 64 studies: no significant difference was observed regarding overall complication rate; no significant benefit of robotic approach was demonstrated regarding length of hospital stay and conversion to laparotomy; furthermore, robotic surgery is more easily used by non-experienced surgeons, while it is more expensive and characterised by longer operative time. In conclusion, current evidence indicates neither statistically significant nor clinically meaningful differences in surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for benign gynaecological diseases. Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Benign gynaecological diseases are usually treated with minimally invasive approaches. Nevertheless, no definitive conclusions have yet been made regarding comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for benign diseases.What do the results of this study add? No significant difference was observed regarding overall complication rate; no significant benefit of robotic approach was demonstrated regarding length of hospital stay and conversion to laparotomy; furthermore, robotic surgery is more easily used by non-experienced surgeon, while it is more expensive and characterised by longer operative time.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Robotic surgery should not replace laparoscopy for the treatment of benign gynaecological conditions; in addition, gynaecologic surgeon should offer robotic surgery for benign diseases only after a proper counselling and a balanced decision-making process involving the patient.

Single-site robotic myomectomy without accessory instrument compared with two-port laparoscopic myomectomy: A propensity score matching analysis

OBJECTIVES

Despite the advantages of robotic technology, single stie robotic myomectomy without an accessory instrument (SSRM) is limited by a restricted range of motion, weaker suturing of a thick myometrium, and non-articulating instruments. We present our novel gradual turning out method (GTOM) of SSRM and our assessment of its feasibility and safety by comparing its perioperative outcomes with those of two-port laparoscopic myomectomy (LM).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort case control study.

METHODS

This study included consecutive 46 patients who underwent SSRM for intramural myomas larger than 7 cm, from 2016 to 2019. Subsequently, 46 patients who underwent LM were selected by 1:1 propensity score matching by controlling for age, body mass index, myoma number, myoma diameter, and the presence of sexual intercourse. The perioperative outcomes of the two groups were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test. The effect of covariates on operation time was analyzed using univariable and multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

SSRM was performed successfully with GTOM for myomas of up to 14 cm in the longest diameter, without conversion to laparotomy and intraoperative injuries. No differences between the groups were found in length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, hemoglobin level decrease, transfusion rate, and postoperative pain, but operative time was significantly longer in the SSRM group than in the LM group (P < 0.001). Larger myomas, location of the lower segment, and the operation method of SSRM were significantly associated with a longer operation time. Whereas operation time for myomas located at the anterior wall, singleton myomas, and myomas <10 cm was significantly longer in the SSRM group than in the LM group, that for myomas at the posterior or lateral side of the uterus, multiple myomas, and myomas ≥10 cm did not differ significantly between the groups, indicating the advantage of SSRM for difficult myomectomy.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective nature of the study and limitation to a single-center study.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of an accessory instrument, SSRM using the GOTM was feasible and safe as it yielded similar perioperative outcomes to those of LM.