Severe perioperative morbidity after robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopy in gynecologic oncology: Results of the randomized ROBOGYN-1004 trial

An effective surgical approach to treat obese patients with gynecological disease using a subcutaneous abdominal wall-retraction device to perform low-pressure laparoscopy: A prospective, single-center study

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic surgery of obese patients still represents a real challenge in clinical practice. High-pressure pneumoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg position are the main anesthesiologic indications to laparotomic conversion. The aim of this prospective study was to assess effectiveness and safety of low-pressure laparoscopic (LPL) procedures using a subcutaneous abdominal wall-retraction (LaparoTenser ®).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled obese patients (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) with early-stage endometrial cancer, atypical endometrial hyperplasia and suspicious adnexal mass who were planned for laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 33 patients were included in this study. The median age was 69 (range: 40-83), with a median BMI of 39 kg/m2 (range: 33-48). At final pathologic report, 24 patients had endometrial cancer, 4 atypical endometrial hyperplasia, 2 had ovarian borderline tumors and 3 benign cysts. All LPL procedures were performed using the LaparoTenser ® device. Total hysterectomy plus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and sentinel node biopsy was the main procedure (69.7 % of cases). Laparotomy conversion rate due to inadequate visualization of the surgical field was 6.1 %. Postoperatively, no patient reported relevant abdominal discomfort caused by lifting of the abdominal wall. Grade < 2 early complications rate was 21.1 %. One grade ≥ 3 complications was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

LPL technique using the LaparoTenser ® device is feasible and safe in morbidly obese patients. The wall-lifting device enables adequate viscera exposure creating a large intra-abdominal operative space avoiding the disadvantages of intraperitoneal high-pressure and CO2 absorption.

Current trends and challenges in minimally invasive surgical treatment for gynecologic cancers in Japan: a cancer statistics report

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gynecologic cancers, which includes laparoscopic and robotic approaches, has seen significant growth in Japan over the past decade. While offering numerous benefits, including reduced postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays, its rapid adoption has also highlighted several challenges, particularly in the management of severe surgical adverse events and disparities in training and access to technology. This article explores the current trends in MIS adoption in Japan, focusing on laparoscopy and robotic surgery, their benefits and limitations, the regulatory and certification frameworks established by the Japan Society of Gynecologic and Obstetric Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Therapy, and future directions for ensuring safety and efficacy in gynecologic oncology surgery.

Comparison of laparoscopic vs. robotic sentinel lymph node mapping and biopsy in endometrial cancer

We compare the success of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy between standard laparoscopy and robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) in patients with endometrial cancer. Patients with uterine epithelial tumour types undergoing staging surgery were identified from January 2019 to March 2023. Included patients underwent a total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and attempted bilateral SLN biopsy with indigocyanine green (ICG) dye, utilising either standard laparoscopy or RAL. 298 patients met the inclusion criteria. 211 (70.8%) had standard laparoscopy and 87 (29.2%) underwent RAL. The RAL cohort had significantly higher median body mass index (BMI) compared to standard laparoscopy (37 vs. 28 kg/m2, p < 0.001). The overall rate of successful bilateral SLN biopsy was 66.8% (n = 199), and at least one hemi-pelvis was successfully biopsied in 87.3% (n = 260) of patients. There was no significant difference in bilateral SLN biopsy success between RAL and standard laparoscopy (60.9% vs 69.2%, p = 0.17). RAL was not predictive of bilateral SLN biopsy success in multivariate analysis (OR 1.10, p = 0.76). There was no difference in SLN biopsy location, number of nodes identified, or empty-packet dissections between the surgical approaches. Increasing age (OR 0.96, p = 0.002) and BMI (OR 0.94, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with reduced bilateral SLN biopsy success. Between the learning and experienced periods of the study, the bilateral SLN biopsy success rate improved significantly for RAL (40.6 vs. 72.7%, p = 0.03), which was not found with standard laparoscopy. The decision to perform RAL should consider multiple factors including surgeon experience. Future research should be directed towards prospective, randomised and BMI-matched cohorts.

Methods of surgical quality assurance in cervical and endometrial cancer trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Surgery quality in gynecology oncology trials varies, potentially biasing results. This systematic review examines methods for assuring surgical quality in multi-center gynecologic oncology trials and the impact on patient outcomes. A systematic search (2000-2023) was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. Multi-center randomized controlled trials reporting on surgical endometrial and cervical cancer trials and lymph node harvest, short-term mortality, or conversion rate were included. Studies were assessed using a 10-point checklist to determine surgical quality. This was used to assess the association with variation in lymph node harvest, post-operative mortality, and conversion rate. Overall, 5963 titles and abstracts were screened for their eligibility and 10 studies reporting on 22 surgical-only arms were included for further analysis. The total number of included patients was 7434 from 366 centers. Analysis showed that standardization of surgical approach (β = -6.6, 95%, p = .043), standardization of the extent of lymphadenectomy (β = -2.432, p = .004), video assessment pre-trial (β = -3.492, p = .04) and monitoring of data including clinical outcome measures (β = -4.018, p = .009) were significantly associated with reducing variation in lymph node harvest. It also showed that standardization of the extent of lymphadenectomy (β = -0.718, p < .001) and pre-trial case/procedure volume assessment (β = -0.531, p = .049) were significantly associated with reducing short-term mortality. The regression model showed standardization of the extent of lymphadenectomy (β = -3.123, p = .034) was significantly associated with reducing conversion rate. In conclusion, the heterogeneity of surgical quality measures showed that there is no clear consensus on the approach to delivering surgical quality assurance in gynecology oncology trials. The analysis in this evidence synthesis has shown a potential association between different aspects of surgical quality assurance and clinical outcomes. Further research is required to develop a framework ensuring surgical quality deliverance in gynecology oncology trials.

The efficacy and safety of robot-assisted surgery in cancer patients: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The utilization of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has been increasing among cancer patients. However, evidence supporting the use of RAS remains uncertain. The availability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for each surgical procedure is limited. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of RAS in cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from the inception of the databases until 1 April 2023. We included RCTs of RAS in cancer patients compared with laparoscopic, thoracoscopic, or open surgery, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 32 trials (6092 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Among these, 22 trials had a low risk of bias, seven trials had some concerns, and three trials were at high risk. Most trials were conducted for bladder cancer ( n = 8), rectal cancer ( n = 5), prostate cancer ( n = 4), and endometrial cancer (n = 4). In all cancers, RAS likely resulted in a slight reduction in the length of hospital stay (31 comparisons; mean difference [MD], - 0.91 days; 95% CI, - 1.33 to - 0.49), but resulted in little to no difference in overall survival (11 comparisons; hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17). Compared with open surgery, RAS was found to reduce estimated blood loss (MD, - 239.1 mL; 95% CI, - 172.0 to - 306.2) and overall complication (relative risk [RR] 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.96), but increase total operative time (MD, 55.4 minutes; 95% CI, 30.9 to 80.0). Additionally, RAS seemed to be not associated with positive surgical margin, any recurrence, disease-free survival, and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

RAS has demonstrated small favorable effects on short-term outcomes, particularly when compared to open surgery. However, these effects may vary across different cancers. Additionally, RAS may not impact long-term survival, oncological outcomes, or quality of life in cancer patients.

Guidelines for robotic credentialling in reconstructive and functional urology. Consensus study

Objectives

This study aims to define criteria for robotic reconstructive and functional urology credentialing using expert consensus. A recent narrative review identified a lack of standardised minimal requirements for performing robotic-assisted surgery procedures. The substantial variability or absence of a standardised curriculum and credentialing process within a highly specialised surgical field is often insufficient to guarantee surgeon proficiency and could potentially jeopardise patient safety.

Subjects and Methods

Thirty-five international robotic surgery experts in urology and urogynaecology, selected based on surgical and research expertise, were invited to participate as expert panellists. Using a modified Delphi process the experts were asked to indicate their agreement with the proposed list of recommendations that was identified from the literature and review of relevant international credentialing policies in three electronic survey rounds.

Results

Fourteen experts participated in round 1 of online surveys, 9 in round 2 and 13 in round 3. From 50 statements presented to the Delphi panel in round 1, a total of 39 recommendations (32 from round 1, 4 from round 2 and 3 from round 3) with median importance (MI) ≥ 7 and disagreement index (DI) < 1 were proposed for inclusion into the final draft set and were reviewed by the project team. Panellists agreed reconstructive and functional urology required its own specific modular training curriculum as the foundation for robotic training and a surgeon must have appropriate training i.e., fellowship or evidence of speciality training in functional urology.

Conclusions

This was the first study to develop preliminary guidelines on credentialing for robotic surgery in reconstructive and functional urology. A Delphi approach was employed to establish comprehensive credentialing criteria for robotic-assisted surgery. The consistent adoption of these criteria across institutions will foster the proficiency of robotic surgeons and has the potential to bring improvements in patient outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopy for the management of early-stage cervical cancer: a model-based economic evaluation in China

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) vs laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in early-stage cervical cancer (ECC).

DESIGN

Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

SETTING

Based on long-term survival data, a three-state Markov model was constructed using TreeAge Pro 2022 to simulate the possible recurrence of ECC. Data on clinical efficacy and costs were derived from published literature and local databases.

PARTICIPANTS

A hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals diagnosed with early-stage cervical cancer (FIGO 2009 stages

OUTCOME MEASURES

The study endpoints were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total costs (in Chinese renminbi (RMB) adjusted to 2023-year values using the Consumer Price Index) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A willingness-to-pay threshold of 268 074 RMB per QALY was used to assess cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Robotic group gained more 4.84 QALYs than the laparoscopic group, but total costs for robotic strategy are substantially higher, with the incremental costs of 1 031 108 RMB. The ICER of robotic strategy is 213 054 RMB per QALY. Outcomes were robust in most one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic strategy is on the efficient frontier but incurs substantial initial cost. Our findings indicated that this strategy is a cost-effective treatment option for ECC patients if assessed over a time horizon of patients' lifetime. This study underscores the need for long-term clinical trials in early-stage cervical cancer patients with follow-up data that capture financial and quality-of-life end points.

Collapse

Key Words

• China
• Gynaecological oncology
• Health economics
• Minimally invasive surgery

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Female
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/surgery
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/economics
• Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/pathology
• Cost-Benefit Analysis
• Laparoscopy/economics
• Laparoscopy/methods
• Robotic Surgical Procedures/economics
• Robotic Surgical Procedures/methods
• China
• Hysterectomy/methods
• Hysterectomy/economics
• Quality-Adjusted Life Years
• Markov Chains
• Neoplasm Staging
• Middle Aged
• Models, Economic
• Adult

Collapse

Grants

• the National Natural Science Foundation of China
• the Future Medical Research Innovation Team Project of Chongqing Medical University

Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Chunlan Chen School of Medical Informatics, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
Min Zhang School of Medical Informatics, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
Junying Tang Department of Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China
Kexue Pu School of Medical Informatics, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

Collapse

Morbidity following robot-assisted surgery in a gynecological oncology setting: A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

The objective of the study was to provide a comprehensive description of perioperative morbidity associated with robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in a gynecological oncology setting in order to improve the preoperative counseling of women and support shared decision-making.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All women scheduled for intended RAS between January 2015 and December 2022 were prospectively included in an electronic morbidity database for the analyses of perioperative complications.

RESULTS

In total, 2225 women were included. Sixty-four patients (2.9%) experienced an intraoperative complication. Intraoperative complications were associated with a higher rate of conversion to laparotomy (15.6% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001), a higher rate of major postoperative morbidity (9.3% vs. 2.4%, p < 0.001), and a higher rate of reoperation (9.3% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.001), compared to cases without intraoperative complications. Thirty-day postoperative morbidity was evaluated according to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Surgical Secondary Events Grading System. Grade 3-5 events were considered major. A total of 57 patients (2.6%) experienced a major event after surgery, postoperative rupture of the vaginal vault being the most common complication requiring surgical intervention. Conversion to laparotomy occurred in 49 cases (2.2%) and was associated with higher intraoperative blood loss (300 mL vs. 25 mL, p < 0.001), a higher rate of postoperative major events (20.4% vs. 2.2%, p < 0.001), and a higher rate of reoperation (11.8% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates low rates of major perioperative morbidity and conversion to laparotomy after RAS performed by trained high-volume surgeons in a gynecological oncology setting.

The Influence of Surgical Complexity and Center Experience on Postoperative Morbidity After Minimally Invasive Surgery in Gynecologic Oncology: Lessons Learned from the ROBOGYN-1004 Trial

BACKGROUND

This study was a secondary analysis of the ROBOGYN-1004 trial conducted between 2010 and 2015. The study aimed to identify factors that affect postoperative morbidity after either robot-assisted laparoscopy (RL) or conventional laparoscopy (CL) in gynecologic oncology.

METHODS

The study used two-level logistic regression analyses to evaluate the prognostic and predictive value of patient, surgery, and center characteristics in predicting severe postoperative morbidity 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

This analysis included 368 patients. Severe morbidity occurred in 49 (28 %) of 176 patients who underwent RL versus 41 (21 %) of 192 patients who underwent CL (p = 0.15). In the multivariate analysis, after adjustment for the treatment group (RL vs CL), the risk of severe morbidity increased significantly for patients who had poorer performance status, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.62 for the 1-point difference in the WHO performance score (95 % CI 1.06-2.47; p = 0.027) and according to the type of surgery (p < 0.001). A focus on complex surgical acts showed significant more morbidity in the RL group than in the CL group at the less experienced centers (OR, 3.31; 95 % CI 1.0-11; p = 0.05) compared with no impact at the experienced centers (OR, 0.87; 95 % CI 0.38-1.99; p = 0.75).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that the center's experience may have an impact on the risk of morbidity for patients undergoing complex robot-assisted surgical procedures.

Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in the management of obese patients with early endometrial cancer in the sentinel lymph node era: a randomized controlled study (RObese)

BACKGROUND

Nearly 65% of patients with endometrial cancer who undergo primary hysterectomy have concurrent obesity. Retrospective data show advantages in using robotic surgery in these patients compared with conventional laparoscopy, namely lower conversion rate, increased rate of same-day discharge, and reduced blood loss. Nevertheless, to date no prospective randomized controlled trials have compared laparoscopic surgery versus robotic-assisted surgery in morbidly obese patients.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

The robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in the management of obese patients with early endometrial cancer in the sentinel lymph node era: a randomized controlled study (RObese) trial aims to find the most appropriate minimally invasive surgical approach in morbidly obese patients with endometrial carcinoma.

STUDY HYPOTHESIS

Robotic surgery will reduce conversions to laparotomy in endometrial cancer patients with obesity compared with those who undergo surgery with conventional laparoscopy.

TRIAL DESIGN

This phase III multi-institutional study will randomize consecutive obese women with apparent early-stage endometrial cancer to either laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgery.

MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION RITERIA

The RObese trial will include obese (BMI≥30 kg/m2) patients aged over 18 years with apparent 2009 Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IA-IB endometriod endometrial cancer.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

Conversion rate to laparotomy between laparoscopic surgery versus robot-assisted surgery.

SAMPLE SIZE

RObese is a superiority trial. The clinical superiority margin for this study is defined as a difference in conversion rate of -6%. Assuming a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 80%, the study plans to randomize 566 patients.

ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS

Patient recruitment will be completed by 2026, and follow-up will be completed by 2029 with presentation of data shortly thereafter. Two interim analyses are planned: one after the first 188 and the second after 376 randomized patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05974995.

Expanding Robotic-Assisted Surgery in Gynecology Using the Potential of an Advanced Robotic System

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in gynecology was introduced to achieve the same surgical objectives as traditional open surgery while minimizing trauma to surrounding tissues, reducing pain, accelerating recovery, and improving overall patient outcomes. Minimally invasive approaches, such as laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries, have become the standard for many gynecological procedures. In this review, we aim to summarize the advantages and main limitations to a broader adoption of robotic-assisted surgery compared to laparoscopic surgeries in gynecology. We present a new surgical system, the Dexter Robotic System™ (Distalmotion, Switzerland), that facilitates the transition from laparoscopy expertise to robotic-assisted surgery.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy vs. Robotic assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer

OBJECTIVE

Following compelling evidence that open techniques may be related to better survival and disease free survival rates, many gynecologic oncologists in the US have turned away from performing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) and robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) for the treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. While this may be warranted as a safety concern, there is little high-quality data on the head-to-head comparison of LRH and RRH and therefore little evidence to answer the question of where this decrease in patient survival is originating from. In our systematic review, we aimed to compare the complications and outcomes of LRH against those of RRH.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, ClinicalTrials.Gov, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from database inception until February 1st, 2022.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

A total of 676 studies were identified and screened through a manual three-step process. Ultimately 33 studies were included in our final analysis. We included all studies that compared LRH and RRH and included at least one of our selected outcomes. We included retrospective cohorts, prospective cohorts, case-control, and randomized clinical trials.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Data was independently extracted manually by multiple observers and the analysis was performed using Review Manager Software. PRISMA guidelines were followed. We analyzed homogenous data using a fixed-effects model, while a random-effects model was used for heterogeneous outcomes. We found that following RRH, women had a decreased hospital stay (MD = 0.80[0.38,1.21],(P < 0.002). We found no differences in estimated blood loss (MD = 35.24[-0.40,70.89],(P = 0.05), blood transfusion rate ((OR = 1.32[0.86,2.02],(P = 0.20), rate of post-operative complications (OR = 0.84[0.60,1.17],(P = 0.30), the operative time (MD = 6.01[-4.64,16.66],(P = 0.27), number of resected lymph node (MD = -1.22[-3.28,0.84],(P = 0.25) intraoperative complications (OR = 0.78[0.51,1.19],(P = 0.25), five-year overall survival (OR = 1.37[0.51,3.69],(P = 0.53), lifetime disease free survival (OR = 0.89[0.59,1.32],(P = 0.55), intraoperative and postoperative mortality (within 30 days) (OR = 1.30[0.66,2.54],(P = 0.44), and recurrence (OR = 1.14[0.79,1.64],(P = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

RRH seems to result in the patient leaving the hospital sooner after surgery. We were unable to find any differences in our ten other outcomes related to complications or efficacy. These findings suggest that the decreased survival seen in minimally invasive RH in previous studies could be due to factors inherent to both LRH and RRH.

PROSPERO PROSPECTIVE REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022273727.

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.

Fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in comparing laparoscopic versus robotic abdominopelvic surgeries

BACKGROUND

Utility of robotic over laparoscopic approach has been an area of debate across all surgical specialties over the past decade. The fragility index (FI) is a metric that evaluates the frailty of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) findings by altering the status of patients from an event to non-event until significance is lost. This study aims to evaluate the robustness of RCTs comparing laparoscopic and robotic abdominopelvic surgeries through the FI.

METHODS

A search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE for RCTs with dichotomous outcomes comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery in general surgery, gynecology, and urology. The FI and reverse fragility Index (RFI) metrics were used to assess the strength of findings reported by RCTs, and bivariate correlation was conducted to analyze relationships between FI and trial characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 21 RCTs were included, with a median sample size of 89 participants (Interquartile range [IQR] 62-126). The median FI was 2 (IQR 0-15) and median RFI 5.5 (IQR 4-8.5). The median FI was 3 (IQR 1-15) for general surgery (n = 7), 2 (0.5-3.5) for gynecology (n = 4), and 0 (IQR 0-8.5) for urology RCTs (n = 4). Correlation was found between increasing FI and decreasing p-value, but not sample size, number of outcome events, journal impact factor, loss to follow-up, or risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

RCTs comparing laparoscopic and robotic abdominal surgery did not prove to be very robust. While possible advantages of robotic surgery may be emphasized, it remains novel and requires further concrete RCT data.

Ergonomic Assessment of the Surgeon's Physical Workload During Robot-Assisted Versus Standard Laparoscopy in a French Multicenter Randomized Trial (ROBOGYN-1004 Trial)

BACKGROUND

Standard laparoscopy (SL) is responsible for musculoskeletal disorders in surgeons because of poor ergonomic positions, which could be reduced by robot-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) owing to the surgeons' seated position. One of the aims of the ROBOGYN-1004 study (NCT01247779) was to evaluate surgeons' workloads during real-time procedures of gynecological oncological surgery.

METHODS

Patients with gynecological cancer eligible for minimally invasive surgery were recruited from 13 French centers between December 2010 and December 2015. Physical workload was evaluated using the Borg scale every hour over the surgery duration and the perception of workload evaluated using NASA-TLX at the end of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 369 patients were recruited, of whom 176 underwent RAL and 193 underwent SL (per-protocol analysis). Posture during SL was significantly more challenging for all body parts except the back. There was an increase in discomfort over time (up to 4 h) for the hands and arms, neck, and legs in SL compared with RAL. Perceived physical activity and abilities were rated higher in SL than in RAL (p < 0.01), whereas perceived personal performance was higher in SL (p < 0.01). Perceived physical effort during surgery was lower in RAL than in SL.

CONCLUSIONS

RAL improves the perception of physical workload. Compared with SL, the perceived effort is lower in RAL regardless of the complexity of the surgery.

Prognosis and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Surgery on Patients with Endometrial Carcinoma: Systematic Evaluation and Meta-Analysis

Objective

The prognosis and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LPS) and open surgery or robotic surgery (RS) on endometrial carcinoma (EC) patients were compared.

Methods

Data as of May 2021 were retrieved from databases like PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The study involved randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, or case-control studies for comparing the effects of LPS and open surgery or robotic surgery (RS) on EC treatment. The primary outcomes included duration of operation, blood loss, length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes included 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate/disease-free survival (DFS) rate and 3-year overall survival (OS) rate.

Results

A total of 24 studies were involved, and all of them were cohort studies except 1 RCT and 1 case-control study. There was no significant difference in duration of operation between LPS and open surgery (MD = −0.06, 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.25) or RS (MD = −0.15, 95% CI: -1.27 to 0.96). In comparison with the open surgery, LPS remarkably reduced blood loss (MD = −0.43, 95% CI: -0.58 to -0.29), LOS (MD = −0.71, 95% CI: -0.92 to -0.50), and the complication occurrence rate (RR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.95). However, LPS and RS saw no difference in blood loss (MD = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.77 to 0.79). Besides, in comparison with RS, LPS prominently shortened the LOS (MD = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.40) but increased the complication occurrence rate (RR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.57 to 1.92). In contrast to open surgery or RS, LPS saw no difference in occurrence rate (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.01; RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.53), 3-year PFS/DFS (RR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.09; RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.96), and 3-year OS (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.04; RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.60).

Conclusion

In sum, LPS was better than open surgery, which manifested in the aspects of less blood loss, shorter LOS, and fewer complications. LPS, therefore, was the most suitable option for EC patients. Nevertheless, LPS had no advantage over RS, and sufficient prospective RCTs are needed to further confirm its strengths.

Five-Year Experience in the Surgical Treatment of Endometrial Cancer: Comparing Laparotomy With Robotic and Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy

OBJECTIVES

To compare surgical and oncological outcomes in the treatment of endometrial cancer between laparotomy and minimally invasive surgery. The secondary objective was to determine which MIS approach was the most beneficial.

METHODS

This was a single-centre retrospective review of all endometrial cancer surgeries performed between November 1, 2012 and October 31, 2017 in a gynaecologic oncology unit of a university hospital. Descriptive statistics were used to compare histopathologic results and oncological outcomes, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to compare survival.

RESULTS

A total of 735 cases were reviewed. The majority of patients (77%) underwent either laparotomy (35%) or robotic-assisted hysterectomy (42%); the remaining patients underwent total laparoscopic hysterectomy (12%) or a laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (8.7%). There was a statistically significant overall survival benefit (P = 0.02), a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.0001), and fewer early surgical complications (<30 d; P = 0.0002), as well as a survival benefit in elderly patients (>70 y) in the robotic-assisted hysterectomy group (P = 0.043) than the laparotomy group. Operating time was shorter in the laparotomy group (P < 0.0001). Recurrence rates in stage 1 low-risk disease were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgical approaches, particularly robotic surgery, do not compromise oncologic outcomes, especially for early-stage low-risk disease. In addition, these approaches are associated with fewer early surgical complications and shorter hospital stay, with significantly more same-day discharges. Overall survival and survival in a subgroup of elderly patients were significantly better in the robotic-assisted hysterectomy group.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing gynecologic laparoscopic procedures with and without robotic assistance

OBJECTIVE

Following the publication of several high quality randomized controlled trials regarding the comparison of similar laparoscopic gynecologic procedures being performed with or without robotic assistance, we aimed to perform a systematic review to identify any differences in patient safety and expected incidence of complications in these procedures.

DATA SOURCES

Articles on ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were retrieved and screened for eligibility up to April 1st 2021.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

In addition to meeting our screening algorithm, we included studies that met all the following: randomized control trials (RCT), enrolling patients for indicated laparoscopic gynecologic procedures, and comparing Robotic Surgery (RS) with Laparoscopic Surgery (LS) in terms of safety or complications.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Data was pooled as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Ultimately, six studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled data revealed that RS and LS have similar risk for intraoperative complications (RR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.23, 3.36], P = 0.84), postoperative complications (RR = 1.07; 95% CI [0.57, 2.01], P = 0.83), significant intraoperative hemorrhage (RR = 1.40; 95% CI [0.59, 3.34], P = 0.44), postoperative hemorrhage (RR = 0.43; 95% CI [0.15, 1.22], P = 0.11), vaginal cuff dehiscence (RR = 1.13; 95% CI [0.24, 5.41], P = 0.88), postoperative wound infection, urinary tract infection, and urinary bladder or ureteral injury. RS had "surgeon declared" lower estimated blood loss (MD = 85.27; 95% CI [46.45, 124.09], P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = 1.20; 95% CI [0.38, 2.01], P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

There was a statistically significant decrease in hospital stay and "surgeon declared" blood loss seen in the RS group. There was no statistically significant increase in risk of developing other postoperative complications between the LS and R groups.

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).

Independent Risk Factors of Postoperative Lymphatic Leakage in Patients with Gynecological Malignant Tumor: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Background

We aimed this investigation to screen and analyze the risk factors of postoperative lymphatic leakage of gynecological malignant tumors that contribute to the treatment of the diseases.

Material/Methods

According to the occurrence of lymphatic leakage after an operation, 655 patients with pelvic lymph node and/or abdominal para-aortic lymph node dissection for gynecological malignant tumor were retrospectively analyzed and divided into a case group and a control group. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to screen the effective independent risk factors and establish a clinical prediction model. The differentiation and calibration of the clinical prediction model were evaluated, and we performed internal and external validation of the model with 207 cases.

Results

The surgeons, the number of removed lymph nodes, the field and range of lymph nodes to be removed, the method of drainage, and postoperative infection are the independent risk factors of lymphatic leakage after lymph node dissection for gynecological malignant tumors. The area under the ROC curve of the clinical prediction model was 0.839 (P<0.001), the calibration Hosmer-Lemeshow test shows χ²=4.381, P=0.821. Through 10-fold cross-validation, the average correct rate of the prediction model was 0.899, the area under the ROC curve of the external verification group was 0.741, and the calibration Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed χ²=12.728, P=0.122.

Conclusions

The new logistic prediction model showed a good degree of differentiation and calibration in both the modeling and verification groups, and it can be used for early warning of the occurrence of lymphatic leakage after lymph node dissection.

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.