Robotics and surgery: a long-term relationship?

Learning curves in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery: a systematic review

Background

The learning curve of new surgical procedures has implications for the education, evaluation and subsequent adoption. There is currently no standardised surgical training for those willing to make their first attempts at minimally invasive pancreatic surgery. This study aims to ascertain the learning curve in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was performed up to March 2021. Studies investigating the number of cases needed to achieve author-declared competency in minimally invasive pancreatic surgery were included.

Results

In total, 31 original studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria with 2682 patient outcomes being analysed. From these studies, the median learning curve for distal pancreatectomy was reported to have been achieved in 17 cases (10–30) and 23.5 cases (7–40) for laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. The median learning curve for pancreaticoduodenectomy was reported to have been achieved at 30 cases (4–60) and 36.5 cases (20–80) for a laparoscopic and robotic approach respectively. Mean operative times and estimated blood loss improved in all four surgical procedural groups. Heterogeneity was demonstrated when factoring in the level of surgeon’s experience and patient’s demographic.

Conclusions

There is currently no gold standard in the evaluation of a learning curve. As a result, derivations are difficult to utilise clinically. Existing literature can serve as a guide for current trainees. More work needs to be done to standardise learning curve assessment in a patient-centred manner.

Propensity-Score Matched Analyses Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomies: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is being adopted increasingly worldwide. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent MIDP versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent a DP in our institution between 2005 and 2019 was performed. Propensity score matching based on relevant baseline factors was used to match patients in the ODP and MIDP groups in a 1:1 manner. Outcomes reported include operative duration, blood loss, postoperative length of stay, morbidity, mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, reoperation and readmission.

RESULTS

In total, 444 patients were included in this study. Of 122 MIDP patients, 112 (91.8%) could be matched. After matching, the median operating time for MIDP was significantly longer than ODP [260 min (200-346.3) vs 180 (135-232.5), p < 0.001], while postoperative stay for MIDP was significantly shorter [median 6 days (5-8) versus 7 days (6-9), p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences noted in any of the other outcomes measured. Over time, we observed a decrease in the operation times of MIDP performed at our institution.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of MIDP offers advantages over ODP in terms of a shorter postoperative hospital stay, without an increase in morbidity and/or mortality but at the expense of a longer operation time.

Robotic abdominal wall repair: adoption and early outcomes in a large academic medical center

Robotic-assisted abdominal wall repair (RAWR) has seen an exponential adoption over the last 5 years. Skepticism surrounding the safety, efficacy, and cost continues to limit a more widespread adoption of the platform. We describe our initial experience of 312 patients undergoing RAWR at a large academic center. A retrospective review of all patients undergoing any RAWR from July 1, 2016 to March 18, 2020 was completed. Patient specific, operation specific, and 30-day outcomes specific data were collected. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were used to assess factors associated with 30-day complications. There was a steady adoption of RAWR over the study period. A total of 312 patient were included, 138 (44%) were abdominal wall repairs and 174 (56%) were inguinal repairs. The mean age of the cohort was 54.2 years (SD 16), 69% were males, and the mean BMI was 29 kg/m² (SD 4.8). There were two reported intraoperative events and nine operative conversions. 60 patients had at least one complication at 30-days. These include: 52 seromas, 4 hematomas, 2 surgical-site infections, 1 deep venous thrombus, and 1 recurrence at 30-days. BMI, type of hernia, and sex were not associated with complications at 30-days. The use of absorbable mesh, longer hospital stay, operative conversion, previous repair, and expert hernia surgeon were significant predictors of 30-day complications. Age, operative conversion, and previous repair were the only predictors of 30-day complications on multivariate regression. Our initial experience of 312 patients demonstrates the adoption and comparable short-term outcomes for a wide variety of robotic-assisted hernia repairs.

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study

Background

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) potentially reduces workload and shortens the surgical learning curve compared to conventional laparoscopy (CL). The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the initial learning phase for novices.

Methods

In a randomized crossover study, medical students (n = 40) in their clinical years performed both LC and RAC on a cadaveric porcine model. After standardized instructions and basic skill training, group 1 started with RAC and then performed LC, while group 2 started with LC and then performed RAC. The primary endpoint was surgical performance measured with Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) score, secondary endpoints included operating time, complications (liver damage, gallbladder perforations, vessel damage), force applied to tissue, and subjective workload assessment.

Results

Surgical performance was better for RAC than for LC for total OSATS (RAC = 77.4 ± 7.9 vs. LC = 73.8 ± 9.4; p = 0.025, global OSATS (RAC = 27.2 ± 1.0 vs. LC = 26.5 ± 1.6; p = 0.012, and task specific OSATS score (RAC = 50.5 ± 7.5 vs. LC = 47.1 ± 8.5; p = 0.037). There were less complications with RAC than with LC (10 (25.6%) vs. 26 (65.0%), p = 0.006) but no difference in operating times (RAC = 77.0 ± 15.3 vs. LC = 75.5 ± 15.3 min; p = 0.517). Force applied to tissue was similar. Students found RAC less physical demanding and less frustrating than LC.

Conclusions

Novices performed their first cholecystectomies with better performance and less complications with RAS than with CL, while operating time showed no differences. Students perceived less subjective workload for RAS than for CL. Unlike our expectations, the lack of haptic feedback on the robotic system did not lead to higher force application during RAC than LC and did not increase tissue damage. These results show potential advantages for RAS over CL for surgical novices while performing their first RAC and LC using an ex vivo cadaveric porcine model.

Registration number

researchregistry6029

Graphic abstract

Training Skills in Minimally Invasive, Robotic and Open Surgery: Brain Activation as an Opportunity for Learning

INTRODUCTION

The advantages of the robotic approach in surgery are undisputed. However, during surgical training, how this technique influences the learning curve has not been described. We provide a tentative model for analyzing the learning curves associated with observation and active participation in learning different surgical techniques, using functional imaging.

METHODS

Forty medical students were enrolled and assigned to 4 groups who underwent training in robotic (ROB), laparoscopic (LAP), or open (OPEN) surgery, and a control group that performed motor training without surgical instruments. Surgical/motor training included six 1-h sessions completed over 6 days of the same week. All subjects underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanning sessions, before and after surgical training during.

RESULTS

Twenty-three participants completed the study. The 3 surgical groups exhibited different learning curves during training. The main effects of the day of training (p < 0.01) and the group (p < 0.01) as well as a significant interaction of day of training group (p < 0.01) were observed. The performance increased in the first 4 days, reaching a peak at day 4, when all groups were considered together. The OPEN group showed the best performance compared to all other groups (p < 0.04). The OPEN group showed a rapid improvement in performance, which peaked at day 4 and decreased on the last day. Similarly, the LAP group showed a steady increase in the number of exercises they completed, which continued for the entire training period and reached a peak on the last day. However, the participants training in ROB surgery, after a performance initially indistinguishable from that of the LAP group, had a dip in their performance, quickly followed by an improvement and reaching a plateau on day 4. fMRI analysis documented the different involvement of the cortical and subcortical areas based on the type of training. Surgical training modified the activation of some brain regions during both observation and the execution of tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in the learning curves of the 3 surgical groups were noted. Functional brain activity represents an interesting starting point to guide training programs.

Patient positioning during minimally invasive surgery: what is current best practice?

Introduction

Positioning injuries are a known surgical complication and can result in significant patient morbidity. Studies have shown a small but significant number of neurovascular injuries associated with minimally invasive surgery, due to both patient and case-specific factors. We sought to review the available literature in regards to pathophysiological and practical recommendations.

Methods

A literature search was conducted and categorized by level of evidence, with emphasis on prospective studies. The result comprised 14 studies, which were summarized and analyzed with respect to our study objectives.

Results

While incidence of positioning injury has been identified in up to one-third of prospective populations, its true prevalence after surgery is likely 2%-5%. The mechanism is thought to be intraneural disruption from stretching or pressure, which results in decreased perfusion. On a larger scale, this vascular compromise can lead to ischemia and rhabdomyolysis. Prevention hinges on addressing patient modifiable factors such as body mass index, judicious positioning with appropriate devices, and intraoperative team awareness consisting of recurrent extremity checks and time management.

Conclusion

The risk for positioning injuries is underappreciated. Surgeons who perform minimally invasive surgery should discuss the potential for these complications with their patients, and operative teams should take steps to minimize risk factors.

Robotics and surgery: A sustainable relationship?

Robotic surgery is increasingly being employed to overcome the disadvantages associated with use of conventional techniques such as laparoscopy. However, despite significant promise, there are some clear disadvantages and robust evidence base supporting the use of robotic assistance remains lacking. In this paper, the advantages and drivers for robotics will be discussed, its drawbacks and its future role in surgery.

Robotic vs. Standard Laparoscopic Technique - What is Better?

Introduction: Laparoscopic surgery is subject to certain limitations that can be a problem when performing complex minimally invasive operations. Robotic surgery was developed precisely to overcome such technical limitations. The question therefore arises whether robotic surgery leads to significantly better results compared with standard laparoscopic surgery.

Methods: Based on comparative systematic reviews and meta-analyses, this paper examines whether the robotic technique when used for abdominal and visceral surgery procedures confers advantages on the patient compared with the standard laparoscopic technique.

Results: Even for demanding visceral surgery procedures, the perioperative complication rate for robotic surgery is not higher than for open or laparoscopic surgical procedures. In cancer cases, the oncological accuracy of robotic resection for gastric, pancreatic, and rectal resection is seen to be adequate. Only the operating time is generally longer than for standard laparoscopic and open procedures. But, on the other hand, in some procedures blood loss is less, conversion rates are lower and hospital stay shorter.

Conclusion: To evaluate the future role of the robotic technique for visceral surgery, high-quality prospective randomized trials are urgently needed.

Protocol for evaluation of robotic technology in orthopedic surgery

In recent years, robots have become commonplace in surgical procedures due to their high accuracy and repeatability. The Acrobot Sculptor is an example of such a robot that can assist with unicompartmental knee replacement. In this study, we aim to evaluate the accuracy of the robot (software and hardware) in a clinical setting. We looked at (1) segmentation by comparing the segmented data from Sculptor software to other commercial software, (2) registration by checking the inter- and intraobserver repeatability of selecting set points, and finally (3) sculpting (n = 9 cases) by evaluating the achieved implant position and orientation relative to that planned. The results from segmentation and registration were found to be accurate. The highest error was observed in flexion extension orientation of femoral implant (0.4 ± 3.7°). Mean compound rotational and translational errors for both components were 2.1 ± 0.6 mm and 3 ± 0.8° for tibia and 2.4 ± 1.2 mm and 4.3 ± 1.4° for the femur. The results from all processes used in Acrobot were small. Validation of robot in clinical settings is highly vital to ensure a good outcome for patients. It is therefore recommended to follow the protocol used here on other available similar products.