The "Micro Hand S" Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Right Colectomy: Short-Term Outcomes at a Single Center

Comparison of different surgical techniques and anastomosis methods in short-term outcomes of right colon cancer: a network meta-analysis of open surgery, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis

With the rapid development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, there remains considerable controversy regarding the choice of surgical approach and anastomosis method for patients with right-sded colon cancer (RSCC). This meta-analysis compared the short-term outcomes of open right colectomies (ORC), laparoscopic right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (LRC-IA and LRC-EA), as well as robot right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (RRC-IA and RRC-EA). A systematic search was conducted across PubMed (n = 549), Web of Science (n = 821), Embase (n = 591), and the Cochrane Central Register (n = 86) from January 2000 to August 2024. Studies comparing at least two of the surgical techniques for RSCC were included. The primary outcomes evaluated were overall complications, wound infection, ileus, and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, time to resume diet, and conversion rates. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. A total of 39 studies comprising 6098 patients were included. The results indicated that LRC-IA had the lowest overall complication rate (OR 0.65; 95% CI [0.41, 1.07]), while ORC had the highest. RRC-IA was most effective in reducing wound infection (OR 0.77; 95% CI [0.39, 1.35]), blood loss (MD 18.01; 95% CI [4.62, 40.87]), and hospital stay (MD 0.93; 95% CI [0.67, 1.31]), while also demonstrating advantages in preventing postoperative ileus (OR 0.47; 95% CI [0.05, 1.31]) and ensuring faster bowel function recovery (OR 0.80; 95% CI [0.44, 1.53]). The analysis demonstrates that for patients with RSCC, RRC shows better short-term outcomes compared to LRC and ORC, while IA also surpasses EA.

Emerging multi-port soft tissue robotic systems: a systematic review of clinical outcomes

Multiple novel multi-port robotic surgical systems have been introduced into clinical practice. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of these novel robotic systems to conventional laparoscopic technique and established da Vinci robotic surgical platforms. A literature search of Embase, Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines from 2012 to May 2023. Studies comparing clinical outcomes of novel multi-port robotic surgical systems with laparoscopic or the da Vinci platforms were included. Case series with no comparison groups were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used to report patient and outcome data. A systematic narrative review was provided for each outcome. Twelve studies comprised of 1142 patients were included. A total of 6 novel multi-port robotic systems: Micro Hand S, Senhance, Revo-i MSR-5000, KangDuo, Versius, and Hugo™ RAS were compared against the laparoscopic or the da Vinci robotic platforms. Clinical outcomes of these novel robotic platforms were comparable to the established da Vinci platforms. When compared against conventional laparoscopic approaches, the robotic platforms demonstrated lower volume of blood loss, shorter length of stay but longer operative time. This systematic review highlighted the safe implementation and efficacy of 6 new robotic systems. The clinical outcomes achieved by these new robotic systems are comparable to the established da Vinci robotic system in simple to moderate case complexities. There is emerging evidence that these new robotic systems provide a viable alternative to currently available robotic platforms.

Evaluation status of current and emerging minimally invasive robotic surgical platforms

BACKGROUND

The rapid adoption of robotics within minimally invasive surgical specialties has also seen an explosion of new technology including multi- and single port, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), endoluminal and "on-demand" platforms. This review aims to evaluate the validation status of current and emerging MIS robotic platforms, using the IDEAL Framework.

METHODS

A scoping review exploring robotic minimally invasive surgical devices, technology and systems in use or being developed was performed, including general surgery, gynaecology, urology and cardiothoracics. Systems operating purely outside the abdomen or thorax and endoluminal or natural orifice platforms were excluded. PubMed, Google Scholar, journal reports and information from the public domain were collected. Each company was approached via email for a virtual interview to discover more about the systems and to quality check data. The IDEAL Framework is an internationally accepted tool to evaluate novel surgical technology, consisting of four stages: idea, development/exploration, assessment, and surveillance. An IDEAL stage, synonymous with validation status in this review, was assigned by reviewing the published literature.

RESULTS

21 companies with 23 different robotic platforms were identified for data collection, 13 with national and/or international regulatory approval. Of the 17 multiport systems, 1 is fully evaluated at stage 4, 2 are stage 3, 6 stage 2b, 2 at stage 2a, 2 stage 1, and 4 at the pre-IDEAL stage 0. Of the 6 single-port systems none have been fully evaluated with 1 at stage 3, 3 at stage 1 and 2 at stage 0.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of existing robotic platforms are currently at the preclinical to developmental and exploratory stage of evaluation. Using the IDEAL framework will ensure that emerging robotic platforms are fully evaluated with long-term data, to inform the surgical workforce and ensure patient safety.

New Robotic Platforms in General Surgery: What's the Current Clinical Scenario?

Background and Objectives: Robotic surgery has been widely adopted in general surgery worldwide but access to this technology is still limited to a few hospitals. With the recent introduction of new robotic platforms, several studies reported the feasibility of different surgical procedures. The aim of this systematic review is to highlight the current clinical practice with the new robotic platforms in general surgery. Materials and Methods: A grey literature search was performed on the Internet to identify the available robotic systems. A PRISMA compliant systematic review was conducted for all English articles up to 10 February 2023 searching the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Clinical outcomes, training process, operating surgeon background, cost-analysis, and specific registries were evaluated. Results: A total of 103 studies were included for qualitative synthesis after the full-text screening. Of the fifteen robotic platforms identified, only seven were adopted in a clinical environment. Out of 4053 patients, 2819 were operated on with a new robotic device. Hepatopancreatobiliary surgery specialty performed the majority of procedures, and the most performed procedure was cholecystectomy. Globally, 109 emergency surgeries were reported. Concerning the training process, only 45 papers reported the background of the operating surgeon, and only 28 papers described the training process on the surgical platform. Only one cost-analysis compared a new robot to the existing reference. Two manufacturers promoted a specific registry to collect clinical outcomes. Conclusions: This systematic review highlights the feasibility of most surgical procedures in general surgery using the new robotic platforms. Adoption of these new devices in general surgery is constantly growing with the extension of regulatory approvals. Standardization of the training process and the assessment of skills' transferability is still lacking. Further studies are required to better understand the real clinical and economical benefit.

Comparison of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For right colon surgery, there is an increasing body of literature comparing the safety of robotic right colectomy (RRC) with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the safety and efficacy of RRC versus LRC, including homogeneous subgroup analyses for extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and January 2022. Length of hospital stay, operation time, rate of conversion to laparotomy, time to first flatus, number of harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, rate of overall complication, ileus, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, and total costs were measured.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies (RRC: 2772 patients; LRC: 12,469 patients) were evaluated. Regardless of the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter length of hospital stay, lower rate of conversion to laparotomy, shorter time to first flatus, lower rate of overall complications, and a higher number of harvested lymph nodes compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the IA subgroup, RRC had a shorter length of hospital stay, longer operative time, and lower rate of conversion to laparotomy compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes. In the EA subgroup, RRC had a longer operative time, lower estimated blood loss, lower rate of overall complications, and higher total costs compared with LRC, with the other outcomes being similar.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of RRC is superior to LRC, especially when an intracorporeal anastomosis is performed. Most included articles were retrospective, offering low-quality evidence and limited conclusions.

Robotics in laparoscopic surgery - A review

Because of the increasing use of laparoscopic surgeries, robotic technologies have been developed to overcome the challenges these surgeries impose on surgeons. This paper presents an overview of the current state of surgical robots used in laparoscopic surgeries. Four main categories were discussed: handheld laparoscopic devices, laparoscope positioning robots, master–slave teleoperated systems with dedicated consoles, and robotic training systems. A generalized control block diagram is developed to demonstrate the general control scheme for each category of surgical robots. In order to review these robotic technologies, related published works were investigated and discussed. Detailed discussions and comparison tables are presented to compare their effectiveness in laparoscopic surgeries. Each of these technologies has proved to be beneficial in laparoscopic surgeries.

The Micro Hand S vs. da Vinci Surgical Robot-Assisted Surgery on Total Mesorectal Excision: Short-Term Outcomes Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Objective: To compare the operation mode and clinical short-term outcomes of the Micro Hand S and the da Vinci surgical robot, we chose total mesorectal excision (TME) as the standard procedure for its good reflection of robot-assisted surgery advantages. Methods: We collected a total of 54 consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted TME by two surgical robots from January 2016 to October 2020. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to create balanced cohorts of Micro Hand S group (n = 14) and da Vinci group (n = 14). Robotic installation and operation time, hospital and surgery costs, and intraoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes were compared. Results: In terms of robotic installation time, the Micro Hand S robot took longer than the da Vinci robot (24.2 ± 9.4 min vs. 17.1 ± 5.1 min, P < 0.05). As for the costs, the Micro Hand S group had lower total hospital costs (87,040.1 ± 24,676.9 yuan vs. 125,292.3 ± 17,706.7 yuan, P < 0.05) and surgery costs (25,772.3 ± 4,117.0 yuan vs. 46,940.9 ± 10,199.7 yuan, P < 0.05) than the da Vinci group. There were no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in other indicators, including total operation time, robotic operation time, blood loss, time to first liquid diet, time of getting out of bed, and hospital stay. Conclusion: The Micro Hand S enables patients with rectal cancer to enjoy lower medical costs of robotic surgery. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT02752698].