Robotics and ergonomics

Patient Complexity and Bile Duct Injury After Robotic-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Importance

Recent evidence suggests higher bile duct injury rates for patients undergoing robotic-assisted cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Proponents of the robotic-assisted approach contend that this may be due to selection of higher-risk and more complex patients being offered robotic-assisted cholecystectomy.

Objective

To evaluate the comparative safety of robotic-assisted cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy among patients with varying levels of risk for adverse postoperative outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study assessed fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years who underwent cholecystectomy between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2021. Data analysis was performed between June and August 2024. Medicare beneficiaries were separated into model training and experimental cohorts (60% and 40%, respectively). Random forest modeling and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator techniques were then used in a risk model training cohort to stratify beneficiaries based on their risk of a composite outcome of postoperative adverse events consisting of 90-day postoperative complications, serious complications, reoperations, and rehospitalization in an independent experimental cohort.

Exposures

Robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome of interest was bile duct injury requiring operative intervention after cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were composite outcomes from cholecystectomy composed of any complications, serious complications, reoperations, and readmissions.

Results

A total of 737 908 individuals (mean [SD] age, 74.7 [9.9] years; 387 563 [52.5%] female) were included, with 295 807 in an experimental cohort and 442 101 in a training cohort. Bile duct injury was higher among patients undergoing robotic-assisted compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy in each subgroup (low-risk group: relative risk [RR], 3.14; 95% CI, 2.35-3.94; medium-risk group: RR, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.35-3.92; and high-risk group: RR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.34-3.88). Overall, composite outcomes between the 2 groups were similar for robotic-assisted cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.07-1.12), aside from reoperation, which was overall higher in the robotic-assisted group compared with the laparoscopic group (RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.35-1.59).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries, bile duct injury rates were higher among low-, medium-, and high-risk surgical candidates after robotic-assisted cholecystectomy. These findings suggest that patient selection may not be the cause of differences in bile duct injury rates among patients undergoing robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Feasibility of hybrid robotic rectal surgery

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility of combined robotic rectal surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision (hybrid robotic surgery).

METHODS

Among 143 robotic rectal surgeries performed from 2017 to 2022, 85 were hybrid robotic surgeries and were analyzed in this study. The cohort comprised 59 males and 26 females with a mean age of 65.8 years old and a mean body mass index of 22.6 kg/m2. The cStage was I in 20 cases, II in 21, III in 36, IV in 4, and other in 4. The operation types were low anterior resection in 21 cases, intersphincteric resection in 27, abdominoperineal resection in 32, total pelvic exenteration in 2, and other in 3. Twelve patients (14.1%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, and 39 (45.9%) underwent lateral lymph node dissection.

RESULTS

The mean operation time for total mesorectal excision was 302.7 min, and the median blood loss was 71.5 ml. No cases required conversion to laparotomy. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 15.9 days. Complications of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 occurred in 3 cases (4.2%). Urinary dysfunction occurred in 6 cases (8.3%). Three (4.2%) patients were diagnosed with positive circumferential resection margins.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid robotic surgery is safe and oncologically feasible.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Adrenalectomy for Adrenal Tumors: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis on Perioperative Outcomes

Background: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for adrenal glands is becoming increasingly developed worldwide and robotic surgery has advanced significantly. Although there are still concerns about the generalization of outcomes and the cost burden, the robotic platform shows several advantages in overcoming some laparoscopic shortcomings. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using the PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane library databases of published articles comparing RA and LA up to January 2024. The evaluated endpoints were technical and post-operative outcomes. Dichotomous data were calculated using the odds ratio (OR), while continuous data were analyzed usingmean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). A random-effects model (REM) was applied. Results: By the inclusion of 28 studies, the meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the rates of intraoperative RBC transfusion, 30-day mortality, intraoperative and overall postoperative complications, re-admission, R1 resection margin and operating time in the RA group compared with the LA. However, the overall cost of hospitalization was significantly higher in the RA group than in the LA group, [MD USD 4101.32, (95% CI 3894.85, 4307.79) p < 0.00001]. With respect to the mean intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open surgery rate, time to first flatus and length of hospital stay, the RA group showed slightly statistically significant lower rates than the laparoscopic approach. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest and most recent meta-analysis that makes these comparisons. RA can be considered safe, feasible and comparable to LA in terms of the intraoperative and post-operative outcomes. In the near future, RA could represent a promising complementary approachto LA for benign and small malignant adrenal masses, particularly in high-volume referral centers specializing in robotic surgery. However, further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Robotic living donor hepatectomy is associated with superior outcomes for both the donor and the recipient compared with laparoscopic or open - A single-center prospective registry study of 3448 cases

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy is an emerging surgical technique in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We examined outcomes across open, laparoscopic, and robotic LDLT using a prospective registry. We analyzed 3448 cases (1724 donor-recipient pairs) from January 2011 to March 2023 (NCT06062706). Among donors, 520 (30%) were female. Adult-to-adult LDLT comprised 1061 (62%) cases. A total of 646 (37%) of the donors underwent open, 165 (10%) laparoscopic, and 913 (53%) robotic hepatectomies. Primary outcomes: donor overall morbidity was 4% (35/903) for robotic, 8% (13/165) laparoscopic, and 16% (106/646) open (P < .001) procedures. Pediatric and adult recipient mortality was similar among the 3 donor hepatectomy approaches: robotic 1.5% and 7.0%, compared with 2.3% and 8.3% laparoscopic, and 1.6% and 5.5% for open donor surgery, respectively (P = .802, P = .564). Secondary outcomes: pediatric and adult recipients major morbidity after robotic hepatectomy was 15% and 23%, compared with 25% and 44% for laparoscopic surgery and 19% and 31% for open surgery, respectively (P = .033, P < .001). Graft and recipient 5-year survival were 90% and 93% for pediatrics and 79% and 80% for adults, respectively. In conclusion, robotic LDLT was associated with superior outcomes when compared with the laparoscopic and open approaches. Both donors and, for the first time reported, recipients benefitted from lower morbidity rates in robotic surgery, emphasizing its potential for further advancing this field.

Retrospective cost analysis of robotic and laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery and paraesophageal hernia repair

INTRODUCTION

Increased adoption of robotics in foregut surgery evokes questions regarding efficacy, safety, and cost. To many, cost remains a barrier to adoption of a robotic approach. The authors' aim to determine the difference in cost of a robotic (R-) vs laparoscopic (L-) approach for paraesophageal hernia repair (PEHR).

METHODS

Patients 18 years and older who underwent PEHR between July 2016 and June 2021 at a university health network were included. Variables of interest included 30 day outcomes, 1 year recurrence rates, and several cost variables including hospital length of stay, operating room (OR) time, chargeable supplies and implants, non-chargeable supplies, and indirect cost. Cost data were stratified by type and the presence of fundoplication, as well as the elective versus urgent nature of the procedures. Statistical analysis consisted of parametric and non-parametric analyses, with p < 0.05 denoting statistical significance.

RESULTS

405 patients were included in the study (n = 188 for R-, n = 217 for L-). Significant differences were observed in the type of anti-reflux procedure performed (p < 0.001), use of mesh (R- 70.2% vs. L- 59.0%, p = 0.019), and whether a Collis gastroplasty was performed (R- 4.3% vs. L- 10.2%, p = 0.023). No differences in 30-day readmission or reoperation rates, Clavien-Dindo complication rates, or 1-year hernia recurrence rates were observed. For elective cases, regardless of the type of anti-reflux procedure performed, a robotic approach was associated with a significantly greater cost (p < 0.002). Comparing all procedures, a statistically significant increase in cost was seen with a robotic approach (R- $29,706.88 vs. L- $23,457.07, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rates and surgical outcomes between the two approaches were similar; however, cost is significantly increased when a robotic approach is utilized. Future studies are needed to delineate which drivers of cost are modifiable with the robot.

Ergonomics in the operation-theatre: a healthcare provider-based cross-sectional study

Background

Performing surgery is a task that demands mental stability, precision, and vigilant eyes, along with resilient physical strength, as surgeons and those who assist the surgeons have to assume a sustained, difficult posture that can go on for hours. About 23-100% of surgeons report musculoskeletal discomfort that originates from poor ergonomics.

Methods

Ethical clearance for the study was obtained. This cross-sectional study, conducted in a tertiary centre among the healthcare providers working inside the operating room, spanned from 1 March 2023, to 26 June 2023. Systematic sampling was applied, and consent was obtained before data collection. A structured questionnaire was used as the study tool, and the collected data was analysed in SPSS 20.

Results

A total of 98 personnel responded, among which 67.3% were males and 32.7% were females, with a median age of 36 (32-42) years. Only 6.1% of the workers had received training on ergonomics. The prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders was 82.7%, and more than two-thirds of the participant's life outside of work was affected by this. More than two-thirds (69.4%) felt their work environment was not safe, and surgeons performing open surgery were at lower odds of feeling that their work environment was safe.

Conclusion

There is a high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among healthcare providers working inside the operating room, and the majority had their body position deviated from neutral most of the time during the surgery. There is a deficiency in ergonomic practices, which demands an effective intervention.

Visualisation ergonomics and robotic surgery

Stereopsis may be an advantage of robotic surgery. Perceived robotic ergonomic advantages in visualisation include better exposure, three-dimensional vision, surgeon camera control, and line of sight screen location. Other ergonomic factors relating to visualisation include stereo-acuity, vergence-accommodation mismatch, visual-perception mismatch, visual-vestibular mismatch, visuospatial ability, visual fatigue, and visual feedback to compensate for lack of haptic feedback. Visual fatigue symptoms may be related to dry eye or accommodative/binocular vision stress. Digital eye strain can be measured by questionnaires and objective tests. Management options include treatment of dry eye, correction of refractive error, and management of accommodation and vergence anomalies. Experienced robotic surgeons can use visual cues like tissue deformation and surgical tool information as surrogates for haptic feedback.

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic lateral transperitoneal adrenalectomies

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomies.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 93 patients underwent adrenalectomy using 2 surgical modalities: 45 patients underwent adrenalectomy using the da Vinci Xi system (robotic group), and 48 patients using laparoscopic devices (laparoscopic group). We compared the operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and hospital stay according to the surgical modality and tumor characteristics.

Results

There were no significant differences in the operative time (P = 0.827), hospital stay (P = 0.177), and intraoperative bleeding (P = 0.174) between the groups. However, the robotic group showed a lower coefficient of variation in total operative time than that of the laparoscopic group (100.6 ± 23.3 minutes vs. 101.9±32.7 minutes, 0.230 vs. 0.321). When divided into 2 subgroups based on the tumor size (<3 cm and ≥3 cm), the robotic group with a tumor sized >3 cm had a shorter operative time than that of the laparoscopic group (P = 0.032). The robotic group also had fewer cases of intraoperative bleeding (P = 0.034).

Conclusions

Compared to the laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy, the robotic one achieved a lower deviation in total operative time and showed less bleeding and a shorter operative time, especially for tumors sized >3 cm.

A narrative review of ergonomic problems, principles, and potential solutions in surgical operations

BACKGROUND

Ergonomic development and awareness are critical to the long-term health and well-being of surgeons. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders affect an overwhelming majority of surgeons, and various operative modalities (open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery) differentially affect the musculoskeletal system. Previous reviews have addressed various aspects of surgical ergonomic history or methods of ergonomic assessment, but the purpose of this study is to synthesize ergonomic analysis by surgical modality while discussing future directions of the field based on current perioperative interventions.

METHODS

pubmed was queried for "ergonomics," "work-related musculoskeletal disorders," and "surgery," which returned 124 results. From the 122 English-language papers, a further search was conducted via the articles' sources for relevant literature.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine sources were ultimately included. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders culminate in detrimental effects ranging from chronic pain and paresthesias to reduced operative time and consideration for early retirement. Underreporting symptoms and a lack of awareness of proper ergonomic principles substantially hinder the widespread utilization of ergonomic techniques in the operating room, reducing the quality of life and career longevity. Therapeutic interventions exist at some institutions but require further research and development for necessary widespread implementation.

CONCLUSION

Awareness of proper ergonomic principles and the detrimental effects of musculoskeletal disorders is the first step in protecting against this universal problem. Implementing ergonomic practices in the operating room is at a crossroads, and incorporating these principles into everyday life must be a priority for all surgeons.

Human factors in pelvic surgery

In the pelvis, anatomic complexity and difficulty in visualization and access make surgery a formidable task. Surgeons are prone to work-related musculoskeletal injuries from the frequently poor design and flow of their work environment. This is exacerbated by the strain of surgery in the pelvis. These injuries can result in alterations to a surgeons practice, inadvertent patient injury, and even early retirement. Human factors examines the relationships between the surgeon, their instruments and their environment. By bridging physiology, psychology, and ergonomics, human factors allows a better understanding of some of the challenges posed by pelvic surgery. The operative approach involved (open, laparoscopic, robotic, or perineal) plays an important role in the relevant human factors. Improved understanding of ergonomics can mitigate these risks to surgeons. Other human factors approaches such as standardization, use of checklists, and employing resiliency efforts can all improve patient safety in the operating theatre.

Alimentary tract obstruction attributed to use of barbed suture for double tract reconstruction after robot-assisted proximal gastrectomy: a case report

Background

Anastomotic stenosis following esophagojejunostomy reconstruction by the overlap method with absorbable barbed sutures occurs only rarely in patients who have undergone laparoscopic surgery. We report anastomotic stenosis by the overlap method that we attributed to the lack of tactile sensation during robot-assisted surgery.

Case presentation

An 83-year-old man underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy and lymph node dissection at our hospital for treatment of gastric cancer. Double tract reconstruction followed with side-to-side esophagojejunostomy (overlap method) performed with an endoscopic linear stapler. On completion of the anastomosis, the enterotomy was closed under robotic assistance with absorbable barbed suture. Once solid foods were introduced, the patient had difficulty swallowing and felt as though his digestive tract was stopped up. When upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed, we found the anastomotic lumen to be coated with food residue. After rinsing off the residue with water, we could see barbed suture protruding into the anastomotic lumen that had become entangled upon itself, which explained how the food residue had accumulated. We cut the entangled suture under endoscopic visualization using a loop cutter.

Conclusion

This case highlights a stricture caused by insufficiently tensioning barbed suture, which subsequently protruded into the anastomotic lumen and became entangled upon itself. We believe this occurrence was associated with the lack of tactile sensation in robot-assisted surgery.

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.

Role and importance of ergonomics in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): outcomes of a narrative review

BACKGROUND

With recent technological advancement, new and improved endoscopic instruments and laser devices have catapulted flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) to the forefront, hence making retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) a popular choice for the management of renal stones. However, RIRS has also resulted in an increasing number of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, which can have a detrimental impact on surgeons' physical health and operative lifespan. The aim of our review is to examine the impact and feasibility of ergonomic adjustments, and outline future directions and recommendations in order to improve the awareness of and reduce the prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries among urologists.

METHODS

This study was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. A thorough literature review was conducted of several databases using the following keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms to generate a search strategy: nephrolithiasis, kidney calculus, renal calculus, staghorn calculus, ergonomics, position, fatigue, comfort, tire, physical strain, visual strain, muscle, ureteroscopy (URS), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), laser, and lithotripsy. Studies were chosen for inclusion by reviewers independently, and the data was consolidated for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1446 articles were identified on initial literature search; 23 were included in the final analysis. The impact of various ergonomic modifications on operative outcomes, surgeons, surgical equipment, and patients, was analysed. In addition, we summarized all the improvements that resulted in better ergonomics in RIRS.

CONCLUSION

Ergonomics in RIRS is poorly understood and there are currently no formal guidelines for this aspect. While modern endourology armamentarium seems to help with procedural ergonomics, more needs to be done to enhance surgeon comfort, protect surgeon longevity, and prioritize the health and safety of endourologists.

Robotic colorectal surgery and ergonomics

Improved ergonomics for the operating surgeon may be an advantage of robotic colorectal surgery. Perceived robotic ergonomic advantages in visualisation include better exposure, three-dimensional vision, surgeon camera control, and line of sight screen location. Postural advantages include seated position and freedom from the constraints of the sterile operating field. Manipulation benefits include articulated instruments with seven degrees of freedom movement, elimination of fulcrum effect, tremor filtration, and scaling of movement. Potential ergonomic detriments of robotic surgery include lack of haptic feedback, visual, and mental strain from increased operating time and interruptions to workflow from crowding.

Experience with 10 years of a robotic surgery program at an Academic Medical Center

Background

Few studies have examined robotic surgery from a programmatic standpoint, yet this is how hospitals evaluate return on investment clinically and fiscally. This study examines the 10-year experience of a robotic program at a single academic institution.

Study design

All robotic operations performed at our institution from August 2005 to December 2016 were reviewed. Data were collected from the robotic system and hospital databases.

Results

A total of 3485 robotic operations were performed. Yearly case volume nearly quadrupled. There have been 37 robotic-trained surgeons in 5 specialties performing 53 different operations. Rate of conversion to open was 4.2%. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class increased over time, with ASA class 3 increasing from 20% of patients to 45% of patients.

Average case time in 2005 was 453 min, but decreased by 46% to 246 min by 2007, then remained relatively stable (range 226–247). Operating efficiency improved, with room time and case time decreasing by 9% in the past 4 years.

Average cost for robotic supplies was $1519 per case. Additional costs per case related to equipment and contracts totaled an average of $11,822.

Average length of stay (LOS) for robotic cases was 3.3 days, compared to 3.0 days for laparoscopic and 7.0 for open. Cost per day for admission after robotic surgery was 1.7 times greater than the cost of open or laparoscopic surgery. Total admission costs of robotic operations were 1.5 times those of laparoscopic surgery, but less than open operations. Readmissions following robotic cases were lower than open (15% v 26%, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Over 10 years, the use of robotic technology has grown significantly at our institution, with good fiscal and clinical outcomes. Operating room costs are high; however, efficiency has improved, LOS is shorter, admission costs are lower than open operations, and readmission rates are lower.

The risk of ergonomic injury across surgical specialties

Lack of ergonomic training and poor ergonomic habits during the operation leads to musculoskeletal pain and affects the surgeon’s life outside of work. The objective of the study was to evaluate the severity of ergonomic hazards in the surgical profession across a wide range of surgical subspecialties. We conducted intraoperative observations using Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) score system to identify ergonomic hazards. Additionally, each of the ten surgical subspecialty departments were sent an optional 14 question survey which evaluated ergonomic practice, environmental infrastructure, and prior ergonomic training or education. A total of 91 surgeons received intraoperative observation and were evaluated on the REBA scale with a minimum score of 0 (low ergonomic risk <3) and a maximum score of 10 (high ergonomic risk 8–10). And a total of 389 surgeons received the survey and 167 (43%) surgeons responded. Of the respondents, 69.7% reported suffering from musculoskeletal pain. Furthermore, 54.9% of the surgeons reported suffering from the highest level of pain when standing during surgery, while only 14.4% experienced pain when sitting. Importantly, 47.7% stated the pain impacted their work, while 59.5% reported pain affecting quality of life outside of work. Only 23.8% of surgeons had any prior ergonomic education. Both our subjective and objective data suggest that pain and disability induced by poor ergonomics are widespread among the surgical community and confirm that surgeons rarely receive ergonomic training. Intraoperative observational findings identified that the majority of observed surgeons displayed poor posture, particularly a poor cervical angle and use of ergonomic setups, both of which increase ergonomic risk hazards. This data supports the need for a comprehensive ergonomic interventional program for the surgical team and offers potential targets for future intervention.

Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute

Surgical techniques have evolved over the past few decades, and minimally invasive surgery has been rapidly adapted to become a preferred operative approach for treating colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain a technical challenge for surgeons to perform laparoscopically, which has prompted the development of robotic platforms. Robotic surgery has been introduced as the latest advance in minimally invasive surgery. The present article provides an overview of robotic rectal surgery and describes many advances that have been made in the field over the past two decades. More specifically, the introduction of the robotic platform and its benefits, and the limitations of current robotic technology, are discussed. Although the main advantages of robotic surgery over conventional laparoscopy appear to be lower conversion rates and better surgical specimen quality, oncological and functional outcomes appear to be similar to those of other alternatives. Other potential benefits include earlier recovery of voiding and sexual function after robotic total mesorectal excision. Nevertheless, the costs and lack of haptic feedback remain the primary limitations to the widespread use of robotic technology in the field.

Effect of structured training in improving the ergonomic stress in laparoscopic surgery among general surgery residents

BACKGROUND

Minimal access surgery has fast become the standard of care for many operative procedures, but is associated with lot of ergonomic stress to the surgeons performing these procedures, which may result in reduction in surgeon's performance and work capacity. In this study, we evaluated the impact of structured training program in improving the ergonomic stress in trainee laparoscopic surgeons.

METHODS

Laparoscopic surgeons were divided in 2 groups: trainee surgeons (ten) and expert surgeons (three). Baseline surface electromyography (sEMG) data were collected from bilateral deltoid, biceps brachii, forearm extensors, and pronator teres during a predefined suturing task on Tuebingen trainer with integrated porcine organs in both the groups. Trainee surgeons underwent 20 h of laparoscopic intra-corporeal suturing training and surface electromyography data were recorded at the end of training again and compared with baseline.

RESULTS

Experts were found to have lower muscle activation (p < 0.05) and muscle work (p < 0.05) and better bimanual dexterity than the trainee surgeons at baseline. After training, the trainee surgeons showed significant improvement (p = 0.01), but still did not reach the values of the expert surgeons (p = 0.01). Right deltoid and pronator teres muscles were found to have maximal activity while performing intra-corporeal suturing.

CONCLUSION

Structured and focused training outside operation theater can significantly reduce unnecessary muscle activation of trainee laparoscopic surgeons and better dexterity leading on to lesser ergonomic stress and thus possibly may reduce the risk of development of future musculo-skeletal disorders.

A systematic review of the true benefit of robotic surgery: Ergonomics

BACKGROUND

Ergonomics, as defined by the optimization of one's physical environment to enhance work performance, is an important consideration in surgery. While there have been reviews on the ergonomics of laparoscopy, this has not been the case for robotic surgery despite the rising number of publications.

METHODS

This study was performed in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was performed on main databases to identify relevant articles.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles were included, comprising 3074 participants. Studies employing objective measurement tools showed that robotics conferred superior ergonomic benefits and reduced work load compared to laparoscopy, for both surgeons and trainees. Survey studies also demonstrated that self-reported discomfort was lower in robotic procedures compared to laparoscopy and open surgery. Compared to other subspecialities, gynecological procedures seem to be associated with greater surgeon-reported strain.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is ergonomically superior to open and laparoscopic surgery. However, rates of physical strain remain significant and should be addressed by formal ergonomic training and adequate console familiarization.

Ergonomics in gynecologic surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are prevalent among surgeons and result in significant disability. We aimed to review the English-language literature regarding ergonomic risk, prevalence of WMSDs, and unique ergonomic considerations of gynecologic surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Surgeon WMSDs are prevalent, with rates ranging from 66 to 94% for open surgery, 73-100% for conventional laparoscopy, 54-87% for vaginal surgery, and 23-80% for robotic-assisted surgery. Risk factors for injury in open surgery include use of loupes, headlamps, and microscopes. Unique risks in laparoscopic surgery include table and monitor position, long-shafted instruments, and poor instrument handle design. In vaginal surgery, improper table height and twisted trunk position create injury risk. Although robotic surgery offers some advantages in neck and shoulder strain, it remains associated with trunk, wrist, and finger strain.

SUMMARY

WMSDs are prevalent among surgeons but have received little attention because of under-reporting of injury and logistical constraints of studying surgical ergonomics. Future research must aim to develop objective surgical ergonomics instruments and guidelines and to correlate ergonomics assessments with pain and tissue-level damage in surgeons with WMSDs. Ergonomics training should be developed and implemented in order to protect surgeons from preventable, potentially career-altering injuries.

Robotic Curriculum Enhances Minimally Invasive General Surgery Residents' Education

OBJECTIVE

Resident education is evolving as more cases move from open to minimally invasive. Many programs struggle to incorporate minimally invasive surgery education due to increased operative time and higher cost when residents participate. The aim of this paper is to examine if the implementation of a robotics curriculum enhances minimally invasive surgical training.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of all ventral and inguinal hernia cases performed from March 2013 to November 2017 was conducted to determine operative technique utilized (open, laparoscopic, or robotic) and resident involvement. The study cohorts surrounded the introduction of a robotic curriculum in July 2014, and the time frames examined were labeled as Before-robotic, After-robotic, and re-visited examination was done labeled Long-term.

SETTING

The study was performed at a large quaternary care referral center.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were all patients who underwent ventral and inguinal hernia repairs on the general surgery, transplant, or colorectal service.

RESULTS

Before-robotic had 739 hernia cases performed: 642 (87%) open, 93 (13%) laparoscopic, and 4 (0.5%) robotic. After-robotic had 682 hernia cases performed: 529 (78%) open, 54 (8%) laparoscopic, and 99 (15%) robotic. Long-term had 792 hernia cases performed: 603 (76%) open, 25 (3%) laparoscopic, and 164 (21%) robotic. The general trend was towards an institutional decrease in open cases and an increase in robotic hernia cases. Resident participation in the robotics cases across all levels increased after the implementation of the robotic curriculum.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a robotic curriculum can enhance minimally invasive surgical training experience for general surgery resident education.

Long-Term Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology has been proven to be a safe alternative to conventional laparoscopy with regards to the peri- and postoperative clinical outcomes. Oncological outcomes have been scarcely examined. The purpose of this study was to examine the disease-free survival in relation to the two surgical approaches: robot-assisted surgery and conventional laparoscopy. In addition, all-cause mortality and recurrence-free survival were investigated.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2015, patients, undergoing either laparoscopic or robot-assisted elective, curative-intended surgery for colorectal cancer were included.

RESULTS

A total of 9184 patients underwent surgery in the study period: 5978 patients for colon cancer and 3206 patients for rectal cancer. Among patients with colon cancer, 331 patients (5.5%) underwent robot-assisted surgery, and 449 patients (14.0%) underwent robot-assisted surgery in the rectal cancer group. In the adjusted analyses, the hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival, for patients with colon cancer was 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.18]. For patients with rectal cancer, the adjusted HR was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.06). No difference in all-cause mortality and recurrence-free survival were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated comparable rates of disease-free survival, all-cause mortality, and recurrence-free survival when comparing robot-assisted surgery with conventional laparoscopy in patients with colorectal cancer.

Ergonomics in Surgery: A Review

OBJECTIVE

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) are prevalent among surgeons and may result in practice modification. We aimed to perform a comprehensive review of the English-language literature regarding ergonomic risk, prevalence of WMSDs, and unique ergonomic considerations by route of surgery.

METHODS

Multiple searches were performed of PubMed and University library resources to access English-language publications related to surgeon ergonomics. Combinations of keywords were used for each mode of surgery, including the following: "ergonomics," "guidelines," "injury," "operating room," "safety," "surgeon," and "work-related musculoskeletal disorders." Each citation was read in detail, and references were reviewed.

RESULTS

Surgeon WMSDs are prevalent, with rates ranging from 66% to 94% for open surgery, 73% to 100% for conventional laparoscopy, 54% to 87% for vaginal surgery, and 23% to 80% for robotic-assisted surgery. Risk factors for injury in open surgery include use of loupes, headlamps, and microscopes. Unique risks in laparoscopic surgery include table and monitor position, long-shafted instruments, and poor instrument handle design. In vaginal surgery, improper table height and twisted trunk position create injury risk. Although robotic surgery offers some advantages, it remains associated with trunk, wrist, and finger strain. Surgeon WMSDs often result in disability but are under-reported to institutions. Additionally, existing research tools face limitations in the operating room environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are prevalent among surgeons but have received little attention owing to under-reporting of injury and logistical constraints of studying surgical ergonomics. Future research must aim to develop objective surgical ergonomics instruments and guidelines and to correlate ergonomics assessments with pain and tissue-level damage in surgeons with WMSDs. Ergonomics training should be developed to protect surgeons from preventable, potentially career-altering injuries.

Building a Single-Site Robotic Cholecystectomy Program in a Public Teaching Hospital: Is It Safe for Patients and Feasible for Residents to Participate?

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) accounts for most of the robotic surgery cases performed by general surgeons at our institution since acquiring the da Vinci Si Surgical SystemTM (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) in 2014. We sought to determine whether a SSRC program is safe to start in a public teaching hospital and to determine whether resident participation in this procedure is feasible. Data on age, gender, race, BMI, total operative time, length of stay, comorbidities, and conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery were examined for elective SSRC and laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LCs) performed by two faculty surgeons between February 2015 and August 2015. Thirty-eight patients underwent elective SSRC, whereas 27 patients underwent LC. Residents participated as operating surgeons for some portion of the case in 15 SSRC cases and in all LC cases. There were no significant differences in operative time, length of stay, or 30-day readmission rates, regardless of resident involvement. Patients in the SSRC group had a significantly lower BMI (25.8 vs 33.7, P = 0.008). This study suggests that resident participation does not increase complications or total operative time and that SSRC is a safe procedure to start in a public teaching hospital after proper faculty and resident training.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of various parameters related to the patient, the disease, and the needed surgical maneuvers to develop guidance for preoperative selection of the appropriate and the best approach for a given patient. Rapid advances in minimally invasive surgical technology are fascinating and challenging alike. It can be difficult for surgeons to keep up with new modalities that come on to the market place and to assess their true value, i.e., distinguish between fashionable trends versus scientific evidence. Laparoscopy established minimally invasive surgery and has revolutionized surgical concepts and approaches to diseases since its advent in the early 1990s. Now, with robotic surgery rapidly gaining traction in this high-tech surgical landscape, it remains to be seen how the long-term surgical landscape will be affected.

METHODS

Review of the surgical evolution, published data and cost factors to reflect on advantages and disadvantages in order to develop a broader perspective on the role of various technology platforms.

RESULTS

Advocates for robotic technology tout its advantages of 3D views, articulating wrists, lack of hand tremor, and surgeon comfort, which may extend the scope of minimally invasive surgery by allowing for operations in places that are more difficult to access for laparoscopic surgery (e.g., the deep pelvis), for complex tasks (e.g., intracorporeal suturing), and by decreasing the learning curve. But conventional laparoscopy has also evolved and offers high-definition 3D vision to all team members. It remains to be seen whether all together the robot features outweigh the downsides of higher cost, operative times, lack of tactile feedback, possibly unusual complications, inability to move the operative table with ease, and the difficulty to work in different quadrants.

CONCLUSIONS

While technical and design developments will likely address some shortcomings, the value-based impact of the various approaches will have to be examined in general and on a case-by-case basis. Value as the ratio of quality over cost depends on numerous parameters (disease, complications, patient, efficiency, finances).

Limited Evidence for Robot-assisted Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate available evidence on robot-assisted surgery compared with open and laparoscopic surgery.

METHOD

The databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing robot-assisted surgery with open and laparoscopic surgery regardless of surgical procedure. Meta-analyses were performed on each outcome with appropriate data material available. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate risk of bias on a study level. The GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence of the meta-analyses.

RESULTS

This review included 20 studies comprising 981 patients. The meta-analyses found no significant differences between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery regarding blood loss, complication rates, and hospital stay. A significantly longer operative time was found for robot-assisted surgery. Open versus robot-assisted surgery was investigated in 3 studies. A lower blood loss and a longer operative time were found after robot-assisted surgery. No other difference was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

At this point there is not enough evidence to support the significantly higher costs with the implementation of robot-assisted surgery.

Recent surgical advances in colorectal cancer excision: toward optimal outcomes

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer affecting both males and females in the western world. Despite all the developments in the current treatment of colorectal cancer, it is still continuing to be an important factor of patient morbidity and mortality worldwide. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for colorectal cancer. Over the last decade, there have been major changes and developments in the surgical treatment. Understanding the importance of the anatomy, technological advances in minimally invasive surgery and effects of chemoradiotherapy have changed the approaches to colorectal cancer treatment. Today, novel treatment strategies must be targeted not only minimally invasive approaches, but also aiming to increase patients’ quality of life without compromising the oncological principles.

Future of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery is slowly taking over as the preferred operative approach for colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain technically difficult. This article will give an overview of the state of minimally invasive surgery and the many advances that have been made over the last two decades. Specifically, we discuss the introduction of the robotic platform and some of its benefits and limitations. We also describe some newer techniques related to robotics.

Assessing Technical Skill in Surgery and Endoscopy: A Set of Metrics and an Algorithm (C-PASS) to Assess Skills in Surgical and Endoscopic Procedures

Historically, the performance of surgeons has been assessed subjectively by senior surgical staff in both training and operating environments. In this work, the position and motion of surgical instruments are analyzed through an objective process, denoted C-PASS, to measure surgeon performance of laparoscopic, endoscopic, and image-guided procedures. To develop C-PASS, clinically relevant performance characteristics were identified. Then measurement techniques for parameters that represented each characteristic were derived, and analytic techniques were implemented to transform these parameters into explicit, robust metrics. The metrics comprise the C-PASS performance assessment method, which has been validated over the last 3 years in studies of laparoscopy and endoscopy. These studies show that C-PASS is straightforward, reproducible, and accurate. It is sufficiently powerful to assess the efficiency of these complex processes. It is likely that C-PASS and similar approaches will improve skills acquisition and learning and also enable the objective comparison of systems and techniques.

Totally robotic rectal resection: an experience of the first 100 consecutive cases

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery provides an alternative option for a minimal access approach. It provides a stable platform with high definition three-dimensional views and improved access, which enhances the capabilities for precise dissection in a narrow surgical field. These distinctive features have made it an attractive option for colorectal surgeons.

AIM

The aim of this study was to present a standardised technique for single-docking robotic rectal resection and to analyse clinical outcomes of the first 100 robotic rectal procedures performed in a single centre between May 2013 and April 2015.

METHOD

Prospectively collected data related to 100 consecutive patients who underwent single-docking robotic rectal surgery was analysed for surgical and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were male, the median age was 67 years (range-24-92). Eighteen patients had neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy whilst 23 patients had BMI >30. Procedures performed included anterior resection (n = 74), abdominoperineal resection (n = 10), completion proctectomy (n = 9), restorative proctectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) (n = 5) and Hartmann's procedure (n = 2). The median operating time was 240 min (range-135-456), and median blood loss was 10 ml (range 0-200). There was no conversion or intra-operative complication. Median length of stay was 7 days (range, 3-48) and readmission rate was 12 %. Thirty-day mortality was zero. Postoperatively, two patients had an anastomotic leak whilst two had small bowel obstruction. The median lymph node harvest was 18 (range, 6-43).

CONCLUSION

The single-docking robotic technique should be considered as an alternative option for rectal surgery. This approach is safe and feasible and in our study it has demonstrated favourable clinical outcomes.

Robotic-assisted fertility-sparing surgery for early ovarian cancer

Objective:

To show the feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted laparoscopic fertility-sparing surgery for early-stage ovarian cancer in women of reproductive age.

Methods and Design:

The first patient was a 29-year-old para 0 woman with well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinoma of the ovary and complex endometrial hyperplasia with marked atypia. The second patient was a 31-year-old para 0 woman with an immature grade 1 teratoma. Both patients underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgical staging.

Results:

In the first patient, there were no intra- or postoperative complications. Operative time was 5 hours 43 minutes and estimated blood loss was 100 mL. She was discharged home on postoperative day 1. She received 3 cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel, as well as medroxyprogesterone acetate for the duration of chemotherapy. She conceived twice spontaneously since surgery and had two successful deliveries. She currently has no evidence of disease.

In the second patient, there were no intra- or postoperative complications. Operative time was 2 hours 52 minutes and estimated blood loss was 200 mL. She was discharged home on postoperative day 1. She declined adjuvant chemotherapy with bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin. She conceived spontaneously 4 months later and had a normal vaginal delivery. She currently has no evidence of disease.

Conclusions:

Because fertility-sparing surgery is now accepted as a viable option in young women with early-stage ovarian cancer, less invasive techniques are being used. With the advent of robotic-assisted surgery and its advantages over conventional laparoscopy, we show that it is a safe and feasible approach in select patients. This is the first reported series on robotic fertility-sparing surgery, but more research is needed.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy surgery for advanced-stage endometriosis

Background and Objectives:

To determine perioperative outcome differences in patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for advanced-stage endometriosis.

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study at a minimally invasive gynecologic surgery center at 2 academically affiliated, urban, nonprofit hospitals included all patients treated by either robotic-assisted or conventional laparoscopic surgery for stage III or IV endometriosis (American Society for Reproductive Medicine criteria) between July 2009 and October 2012 by 1 surgeon experienced in both techniques. The main outcome measures were extent of surgery, estimated blood loss, operating room time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of stay, with medians for continuous measures and distributions for categorical measures, stratified by body mass index values. Robotically assisted laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy were then compared by use of the Wilcoxon rank sum, χ², or Fisher exact test, as appropriate.

Results:

Among 86 conventional laparoscopic and 32 robotically assisted cases, the latter had a higher body mass index (27.36 kg/m² [range, 23.90–34.09 kg/m²] versus 24.53 kg/m² [range, 22.27–26.96 kg/m²]; P < .0079) and operating room time (250.50 minutes [range, 176–328.50 minutes] versus 173.50 minutes [range, 123–237 minutes]; P < .0005) than did conventional laparoscopy patients. After body mass index stratification, obese patients varied in operating room time (282.5 minutes [range, 224–342 minutes] for robotic-assisted laparoscopy versus 174 minutes [range, 130–270 minutes] for conventional laparoscopy; P < .05). No other significant differences were noted between the robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopy groups.

Conclusion:

Despite a higher operating room time, robotic-assisted laparoscopy appears to be a safe minimally invasive approach for patients, with all other perioperative outcomes, including intraoperative and postoperative complications, comparable with those in patients undergoing conventional laparoscopy.

Robot assisted adrenalectomy: a handy tool or glorified obsession?

Robotic surgery has recently expanded its horizon in urology apart from radical prostatectomy, one of them being adrenalectomy. Till now, laparoscopic adrenalectomy has established itself as the procedure of choice for benign adrenal disorders. Brandao et al. have recently accomplished a thorough systematic review and meta-analysis of nine trials comparing laparoscopic and robotic adrenalectomy. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of conversion rate [odds ratio (OR): 0.82; 95% CI, 0.39-1.75; P=0.61] and operative time (WMD: 5.88; 95% CI, -6.02 to 17.79; P=0.33). There was a significantly longer hospital stay in the conventional laparoscopic group (WMD: -0.43; 95% CI, -0.56 to -0.30; P<0.00001), as well as a higher estimated blood loss (WMD: -18.21; 95% CI, -29.11 to -7.32; P=0.001). There was also no statistically significant difference in terms of postoperative complication rate. The authors seem to support the use of robot for adrenalectomy. However, robotic surgery suffers from cost issues and some technical drawbacks that limit its use in routine practice. Larger and appropriately powered randomized controlled trials are needed to establish and justify its use for performing adrenalectomy.

Ocular Complications in Laparoscopic Surgery: Review of Existing Literature and Possible Prevention and Treatment

During laparoscopic surgery, ocular complications are possible, sometimes leading to devastating visual losses, hardly susceptible to recovery, although rare. Principal ocular adverse events are represented by corneal abrasions and the perioperative visual loss (POVL). POVL onset is related to intraocular pressure elevations (particularly after patient positioning in Trendelenburg or prone decubitus, depending on the surgical procedure), anesthesiologic factors and patients' characteristics. In the light of evidence from the existing literature, the authors suggest surgical and anesthesiologic measures to prevent and manage ocular complications in laparoscopic surgery. Apart from general recommendations, this article indicates practical guidelines specific for robot-assisted laparoscopic interventions and spinal surgery, as well as laparoscopic colorectal resection, radical prostatectomy, and gynecologic surgery. In conclusion, in order to better manage these complications, it is advisable to develop an interdisciplinary collaboration between surgeons, anesthesiologists, and ophthalmologists, on a procedural and medico-legal level, with the intent of mutual training.

Passing from open to robotic surgery for dismembered pyeloplasty: a single centre experience

BACKGROUND

The treatment of symptomatic uretropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) has evolved towards minimal invasive endourologic and laparoscopic techniques. Robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty has achieved outcomes comparable to those corresponding to open and laparoscopic techniques. The objective of this work is to demonstrate that the transition between open to robotic surgeries is straightforward. We analysed retrospectively "our initial results" in robotic assisted UPJ reconstruction procedures. Technical and convalescence aspects for 17 reconstructive robotic procedures performed by 2 surgeons in a 5 years period have been evaluated. Success consisted of no postoperative symptoms, no evidence of obstruction on mercaptoacetyltriglycine-3 diuretic renal scan or computed tomography (CT) and non-further treatment.

STATISTICS

mean ± standard deviation, median and range.

FINDINGS

From 17 patients who underwent Da Vinci Robot procedure, 15 followed the complete treatment (2 were converted to laparotomy). Two patients had post-operative urine leakage; the stent was changed under sedation without further sequelae. The mean operative time was 189 minutes. The average hospital stay was 4 days. The average follow-up was 25 months. There was only one patient with UPJ stenosis at 6 months and he was treated by balloon dilation. All patients were followed with MAG 3 lasix renal scan, CT or urography. Except the patient with recurrent stenosis, all patients were asymptomatic without objective evidence of obstruction at the present time.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic pyeloplasty technique is feasible and gives good results without previous laparoscopic experience.

Ergonomics in endourology and laparoscopy: an overview of musculoskeletal problems in urology

PURPOSE

This study aims to provide an overview of type and frequency of musculoskeletal complaints among urologists. In addition, the urologists' knowledge about ergonomic conditions during minimally invasive urology was assessed, and they were asked how they would prefer to gain knowledge about this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online and hard copy version questionnaire was administered to urologists from different countries, mainly from Europe, performing endourology and laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Of the 285 respondents, 245 (86.0%) urologists experienced musculoskeletal complaints in the past 12 months and 62.1% were considered to be work related. Most common areas for chronic complaints were neck, back, and shoulders. Almost 50% of the urologists experienced chronic musculoskeletal complaints, for which endourology (odds ratio [OR] 3.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-6.80) and laparoscopy (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.27-2.28) were significant risk factors. One third of the urologists considered their knowledge about ergonomics minimal, and 8% stated that they had no knowledge about these topics. Fifty percent of the respondents preferred to integrate information about ergonomic rules into hands-on training of urologic skills.

CONCLUSION

High prevalence of experienced musculoskeletal complaints was found among urologists predominantly related to endourology and laparoscopy. Urologists indicate that they have a lack of knowledge about ergonomics in the operating room. Hence, we recommend integration of ergonomics in hands-on training programs early in the residency curriculum to gain knowledge and awareness and hopefully to offer possibilities to prevent these complaints in the future.

Robotic colorectal surgery: summary of the current evidence

BACKGROUND

Several studies have confirmed that laparoscopic colorectal surgery results in improved early post-operative outcomes. Nevertheless, conventional laparoscopic approach and instruments have several limitations. Robotic approach could potentially address of many of these limitations.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to present a summary of the current evidence on the role of robotic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases (Pubmed, Science Direct and Google scholar) using the key words "rectal surgery", "laparoscopic", "colonic" and "robotic." Evidence from these data was critically analysed and summarised to produce this article.

RESULTS

Robotic colorectal surgery is both safe and feasible. However, it has no clear advantages over standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery in terms of early postoperative outcomes or complications profile. It has shorter learning curve but increased operative time and cost. It could offer potential advantage in resection of rectal cancer as it has a lower conversion rates even in obese individuals, distal rectal tumours and patients who had preoperative chemoradiotherpy. There is also a trend towards better outcome in anastomotic leak rates, circumferential margin positivity and perseveration of autonomic function, but there was no clear statistical significance to support this from the currently available data.

CONCLUSION

The use of robotic approach seems to be capable of addressing most of the shortcomings of the standard laparoscopic surgery. The technique has proved its safety profile in both colonic and rectal surgery. However, the cost involved may restrict its use to patients with challenging rectal cancer and in specialist centres.

Present and future advanced laparoscopic surgery

Modern laparoscopy, starting with Kurt Semm's insufflators and the first successful appendectomies, has only been around for approximately 30 years. Since those early successes, the technology has grown from the inception of basic laparoscopy to endoscopic surgery through natural orifices, and it continues to evolve by leaps and bounds with computer-assisted surgery and improved robotics in surgery. Without question, laparoscopy has revolutionized the way we perform standard surgery, especially relative to the techniques that had been used for hundreds of years. Despite the development of multiple novel technologies since the 1980s, very little has changed with regard to basic conceptualizations and practice of laparoscopy. In this review article, we will describe the highlights of recent advanced laparoscopic surgery procedures, their potential applications within the field of surgery, and how these advances may impact and improve future quality and patient outcomes.

Does robotic rectal cancer surgery offer improved early postoperative outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic rectal surgery continues to be challenging, especially in low rectal cancers, because the technique has several limitations. Robotic rectal surgery could potentially address these limitations. However, it still remains unclear whether robotic surgery should be accepted as the new standard treatment in rectal cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive and critical analysis of the available literature to assess if robotic rectal surgery offers improved early postoperative outcomes in comparison with standard laparoscopic rectal surgery.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic review was conducted following the search of electronic databases (PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar) for the period 2007 to 2011 by using the key words "rectal surgery," "laparoscopic," "robotic."

STUDY SELECTION

All studies reporting outcomes on laparoscopic and robotic resection for extraperitoneal and intraperitoneal rectal cancer were included in the review process; all studies on colonic cancer and benign disease were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

A comparison was conducted of robotic vs standard laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measured was the assessment of whether robotic rectal cancer surgery provides improved short-term outcomes in comparison with standard laparoscopic rectal surgery.

RESULTS

Robotic rectal surgery was associated with increased cost and operating time, but lower conversion rates, even in obese individuals, distal rectal tumors, and patients who had preoperative chemoradiotherapy regardless of the experience of the surgeon. There is also marginally better outcome in anastomotic leak rates, circumferential resection margin positivity, and perseveration of autonomic function, but this did not reach statistical significance.

LIMITATIONS

This review has some limitations because it relies on the analysis of data collected from various nonrandomized controlled trials with variable quality and different methodology.

CONCLUSION

The current evidence suggests that robotic rectal surgery could potentially offer better short-term outcomes especially when applied in selected patients. Obesity, male sex, preoperative radiotherapy, and tumors in the lower two-thirds of the rectum may represent selection criteria for robotic surgery to justify its increased cost.