New robotic surgical systems in urology: an update

State of the Art and Development Trend of Laparoscopic Surgical Robot and Master Manipulator

BACKGROUND

In recent years, laparoscopic surgical robots have rapidly developed. However, most focus on the overall robotic systems, with few summaries on the laparoscopic surgical robots and the master manipulators.

METHODS

This paper provides a summary and analysis of typical laparoscopic surgical robots, including the strengths and limitations of existing laparoscopic surgical robots. Additionally, the master manipulators are analysed and summarised from four aspects: structural design and optimization, time-varying delays, tremor suppression and force feedback. Further classification and summary are made based on the different methods used in each study.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic surgical robots and the master manipulators still have some limitations. Therefore, the development trends of the laparoscopic surgical robots and the master manipulators are discussed from four aspects: structural materials, remote surgery, intelligence and human-machine interaction.

CONCLUSION

With the continuous advancement of technology, laparoscopic surgical robots will play an increasingly important role in the field of surgery.

Revolutionizing urology: the advancements and applications of robotic platforms

Robot-assisted surgery is developing as an acme of minimally invasive surgery, given its utmost dominance over laparoscopic surgery. The objective was to review the status of robotic surgery in urological practice with its advantages and disadvantages in current scenario. We conducted a literature search using MEDLINE and identified 72 articles which were relevant to urology. Single-port and various multiport robotic platforms like Da Vinci, Versius, Hugo RAS, Revo-I, Senhance, Mantra, Avatera, Hinotori, and MicroSurge are described with pros and cons. With a surge in different medical surgical robots purging into the market and a race to become the next standard of care in robotic surgery, it is only a matter of time when robotic surgery becomes financially comparable to laparoscopic surgeries.

Intermediate-term oncological and functional outcomes in prostate cancer patients treated with perineal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A single center analysis

Objective

In the last 10 years, robotic platforms allowed to resume of some alternative surgical approaches, including perineal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (p-RARP). Herein, we present in detail the oncological and functional outcomes of patients who underwent p-RARP with a median follow-up of 30 months.

Methods

Patients presenting low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer and prostate volume up to 60 mL who underwent p-RARP between November 2018 and November 2022 were selected. Baseline, intraoperative, pathological, and postoperative data were collected and then analyzed.

Results

Thirty-seven p-RARP cases were included. Such patients presented mean age of 62 years and a mean Charlson comorbidity index of 4. Body mass index of ≥25 kg/m2 was reported by 24 (64.9%) patients, as well as 7 (18.9%) patients reported a past surgical history. Mean prostate volume and median prostate-specific antigen were 41 mL and 6.2 ng/mL, respectively. The median operative time was 242 min. The positive surgical margin rate was 45.9%. In terms of postoperative complications, 10 patients reported complications with any grade; however, a single case (2.7%) of major (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) complication was observed. No patient with biochemical recurrence or distant metastasis was reported at 2 years of follow-up. Recovery of continence rates were 67.6%, 75.7%, and 92.9%, at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months after surgery, respectively.

Conclusion

p-RARP is a challenging but safe minimally invasive approach for selected patients with prostate cancer suitable for radical prostatectomy, showing outstanding functional recovery. Despite positive surgical margin rates being relatively high, no cases of biochemical recurrence or distant metastasis were reported after a median follow-up of 30 months.

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.

New multiport robotic surgical systems: a comprehensive literature review of clinical outcomes in urology

Over the past 20 years, the field of robotic surgery has largely been dominated by the da Vinci robotic platform. Nevertheless, numerous novel multiport robotic surgical systems have been developed over the past decade, and some have recently been introduced into clinical practice. This nonsystematic review aims to describe novel surgical robotic systems, their individual designs, and their reported uses and clinical outcomes within the field of urologic surgery. Specifically, we performed a comprehensive review of the literature regarding the use of the Senhance robotic system, the CMR-Versius robotic system, and the Hugo RAS in urologic procedures. Systems with fewer published uses are also described, including the Avatera, Hintori, and Dexter. Notable features of each system are compared, with a particular emphasis on factors differentiating each system from the da Vinci robotic system.

Single-port robotic partial nephrectomy: impact on perioperative outcomes and hospital stay

Single-port (SP) robotic surgery is a novel technology and is at the beginning of its adoption curve in urology. The goal of this narrative review is to provide an overview of SP-robotic partial nephrectomy (PN) 4 years after the introduction of the da Vinci SP dedicated platform, focusing on perioperative outcomes, length of stay, and surgical technique. A nonsystematic review of the literature was conducted. The research included the most updated articles that referred to SP robotic PN. Since its commercial release in 2018, several institutions have reproduced robotic PN by using the SP platform, both via a transperitoneal and a retroperitoneal approach. The published SP-robotic PN series are generally based on preliminary experiences by surgeons who had previous experience with conventional multi-arms robotic platforms. The reported outcomes are encouraging. Overall, three studies reported that SP-robotic PN cases had nonsignificantly different operative time, estimated blood loss, overall complications rate, and length of stay compared to the conventional 'multi-arms' robotic PN. However, in all these series, renal masses treated by SP had overall lower complexity. Moreover, two studies underlined decreased postoperative pain as a major pro of adopting the SP system. This should reduce/avoid the need for opioids after surgery. No study compared SP-robotic versus multi-arms robotic PN in cost-effectiveness. Published experience with SP-robotic PN has reported the feasibility and safety of the approach. Preliminary results are encouraging and at least noninferior with respect to those from the multi-arms series. Prospective comparative studies with long-term oncologic and functional results are awaited to draw more definitive conclusions and better establish the more appropriate indications of SP robotics in the field of PN.

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.

Xi Nerve-sparing Robotic Radical Perineal Prostatectomy: European Single-center Technique and Outcomes

Background

Radical prostatectomy (RP) represents the standard of care for the treatment of patients with organ-confined prostatic cancer. Historically, perineal RP has been described as the first surgical approach for the complete removal of the prostatic gland. In the past years, robotic techniques provided some technical advantages that allow resuming alternative approaches, such as robotic radical perineal prostatectomy (r-RPP).

Objective

To present in detail the technique of Xi nerve-sparing r-RPP and to report perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes from a European tertiary center.

Design setting and participants

Patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostatic cancer not suitable for active surveillance and prostate volume up to 60 ml who underwent r-RPP between November 2018 and December 2020 were identified.

Surgical procedure

All patients underwent Xi nerve-sparing r-RPP.

Measurements

Baseline characteristics and intraoperative, pathological, and postoperative data were collected and analyzed. The complications were reported according to the standardized methodology to report complications proposed by European Association of Urology guidelines.

Results and limitations

Overall, our series included 26 patients who underwent r-RPP. Patients' median age was 62.5 yr. Thirteen (50%) and eight (30.7%) patients showed a body mass index (BMI) of 25-30 and >30, respectively. A history of past surgical procedures was present in seven (26.8%) patients. The median prostate volume was 40 (interquartile range [IQR]: 28-52) ml. The median operative time and blood lost were 246 (IQR: 230-268) min and 275 (IQR: 200-400) ml, respectively. Overall, four (15.4%) patients reported intraoperative complications and five (19.2%) reported postoperative complications, with one (3.8%) reporting major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3). No patient with biochemical recurrence (BCR) was reported at 1 yr of follow-up. Continence rates were 73.0%, 84.6%, and 92.3%, respectively, at 3, 6, and 12 mo after surgery. Erectile potency recovery rates were 57.1%, 66.6%, and 80.9% at 3, 6, and 12 mo of follow-up, respectively.

Conclusions

Xi r-RPP is a challenging but safe minimally invasive approach for selected patients. No patient reported BCR at 12 mo. The choice of the surgical approach for RP is likely to be based on the patient's characteristics as well as the surgeon's preferences.

Patient summary

Our study suggests that Xi radical perineal prostatectomy is a safe minimally invasive approach for patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostatic cancer, and complex abdominal surgical history or comorbidities.

Transition from da Vinci to Versius robotic surgical system: initial experience and outcomes of over 100 consecutive procedures

We sought to describe the development of the robotic urology program at Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT) and the feasibility of transitioning from the da Vinci to Versius robotic systems. The SIUT robotics program began in 2017 utilizing the da Vinci Si robotic system, transitioning to the Versius system in 2021. Retrospective review of our quality assurance database was performed. All procedures performed utilizing the two systems were identified, analyzed, and compared. Data were described with descriptive statistics. Matched procedures (by type of procedure) performed by the same surgeons utilizing the da Vinci and Versius were compared. All tests were double-sided with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.106 cases were performed by the Versius robotic surgical system in 2021. Median age was 42 years (IQR 26-56), and 69 (65%) were males. Procedures included both benign (83%) and malignant disorders (17%), several upper tract (75%), and pelvic/lower tract (25%). No major intraoperative complications were observed. Conversion to open occurred in six procedures. Malfunction of the robotic arms occurred in two procedures: the erroneous bedside units (BSU) were replaced. Eight patients developed postoperative high-grade complications. Matched analysis of various procedures (pyeloplasty, stone surgery, radical, partial, and simple nephrectomy) showed no significant difference in perioperative outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first and largest series of urologic procedures performed by the Versius robotic surgical system.

Current strategies to diagnose and manage of positive surgical margins and local recurrence after partial nephrectomy

Objective

No standard strategy for diagnosis and management of positive surgical margin (PSM) and local recurrence after partial nephrectomy (PN) are reported in literature. This review aims to provide an overview of the current strategies and further perspectives on this patient setting.

Methods

A non-systematic review of the literature was completed. The research included the most updated articles (about the last 10 years).

Results

Techniques for diagnosing PSMs during PN include intraoperative frozen section, imprinting cytology, and other specific tools. No clear evidence is reported about these methods. Regarding PSM management, active surveillance with a combination of imaging and laboratory evaluation is the first option line followed by surgery. Regarding local recurrence management, surgery is the primary curative approach when possible but it may be technically difficult due to anatomy resultant from previous PN. In this scenario, thermal ablation (TA) may have the potential to circumvent these limitations representing a less invasive alternative. Salvage surgery represents a valid option; six studies analyzed the outcomes of nephrectomy on local recurrence after PN with three of these focused on robotic approach. Overall, complication rates of salvage surgery are higher compared to TA but ablation presents a higher recurrence rate up to 25% of cases that can often be managed with repeat ablation.

Conclusion

Controversy still exists surrounding the best strategy for management and diagnosis of patients with PSMs or local recurrence after PN. Active surveillance is likely to be the optimal first-line management option for most patients with PSMs. Ablation and salvage surgery both represent valid options in patients with local recurrence after PN. Conversely, salvage PN and radical nephrectomy have fewer recurrences but are associated with a higher complication rate compared to TA. In this scenario, robotic surgery plays an important role in improving salvage PN and radical nephrectomy outcomes.

Retroperitoneal Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Comparative Outcomes

Context

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has gained increasing popularity as primary minimally invasive surgical treatment for localized renal tumors, and it has preferably been performed with a transperitoneal approach. However, the retroperitoneal approach represents an alternative approach given potential advantages.

Objective

To provide an updated analysis of the comparative outcomes of retroperitoneal RAPN (R-RAPN) versus transperitoneal RAPN (T-RAPN).

Evidence acquisition

A systematic review of the literature was performed up to September 2021 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. A sensitivity analysis was performed considering only matched-pair studies.

Evidence synthesis

Seventeen studies, which were published between 2013 and 2021, were retrieved. None of them was a randomized clinical trial. Among the 6,266 patients included in the meta-analysis, 2261 (36.1%) and 4,005 (63.9%) underwent R-RAPN and T-RAPN, respectively. No significant difference was found in terms of baseline features. The T-RAPN group presented a higher rate of male patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.86, p = 0.03) and larger tumor size (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 0.2 cm; p = 0.003). The R-RAPN group reported more frequent posterior renal masses (OR: 0.23; p < 0.0001). The retroperitoneal approach presented lower estimated blood loss (WMD: 30.41 ml; p = 0.001), shorter operative time (OT; WMD: 20.36 min; p = 0.0001), and shorter length of stay (LOS; WMD: 0.35 d; p = 0.002). Overall complication rates were 13.7% and 16.05% in the R-RAPN and T-RAPN groups, respectively (OR: 1.32; p = 0.008). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding major (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥3 grade) complication rate, “pentafecta” achievement, as well as positive margin rates. When considering only matched-pair studies, no difference between groups was found in terms of baseline characteristics. Posterior renal masses were more frequent in the R-RAPN group (OR: 0.6; p = 0.03). Similar to the analysis of the entire cohort, R-RAPN reported lower EBL (WMD: 35.56 ml; p < 0.0001) and a shorter OT (WMD: 18.31 min; p = 0.03). Overall and major complication rates were similar between the two groups. The LOS was significantly lower for R-RAPN (WMD: 0.46 d; p = 0.02). No statistically significant difference was found between groups in terms of overall PSM rates.

Conclusions

R-RAPN offers similar surgical outcomes to T-RAPN, and it carries potential advantages in terms of shorter OT and LOS. Available evidence remains limited by the lack of randomized clinical trials.

Patient summary

In this review of the literature, we looked at comparative outcomes of two surgical approaches to robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. We found that the retroperitoneal technique offers similar surgical outcomes to the transperitoneal one, with potential advantages in terms of shorter operative time and length of hospital stay.

Robotic ureteral reimplantation: systematic review and pooled analysis of comparative outcomes in adults

INTRODUCTION

The surgical treatment of ureteral strictures in adults represents a challenging procedure for the variability of location, extension, and etiology of the disease. Open ureteral reimplantation (OUR) offered high success rates even when considering complex ureteral disease. The debate for defining the role of robotic in the treatment of adult ureteral disease is still ongoing. The aim of the current systematic review is to provide an updated analysis of the comparative outcomes of robot-assisted UR (RAUR) versus OUR based on the available literature.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

An independent systematic review of the literature was performed from 2010 to 2021. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations were followed to design search strategies, selection criteria, and evidence reports. The quality of the included studies was determined using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for nonrandomized controlled trials. Pooled analysis of demographics and clinical characteristics, as well as surgical and postoperative outcomes, was performed.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

After an initial screening and full-text review, 5 studies published between 2002 and 2021 were identified and included in the analysis. All the studies were observational retrospective case-control studies. Among the 225 patients included in the pooled analysis, 94 (41.8%) and 131 (58.2%) were RAUR and OUR, respectively. There was no difference between groups in terms of baseline characteristics. No differences in surgical approach and operative time were reported among the groups. Estimated blood loss was lower for robotic approach (WMD: -121.71ml; p=0.0006). There were no significant differences between groups in overall (OR: 0.85; p=0.69) and major (OR:0.69; p=0.52) complication. RAUR group reported shorter length of stay (WMD: -2.39day; p<0.00001), catheter (WMD: -5.26day; p=0.004) and stent (WMD: -11.9day; p=0.001) time.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence shows that RAUR offers similar surgical outcomes if compared to OUR, and potential advantages in terms of lower blood loss, shorter hospital stay, catheter, and stent time. The adoption of one approach over the other is likely to be mainly dictated by the surgeon's preference and expertise.

A Review of Robotic-Assisted Bronchoscopy Platforms in the Sampling of Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions

Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy is one of the newest additions to clinicians’ armamentarium for the biopsy of peripheral pulmonary lesions in light of the suboptimal yields and sensitivities of conventional bronchoscopic platforms. In this article, we review the existing literature pertaining to the feasibility as well as sensitivity of available robotic-assisted bronchoscopic platforms.

Partial nephrectomy through retroperitoneal approach with a new surgical robot system, KD-SR-01

BACKGROUND

To present our experiences with partial nephrectomy (PN) through retroperitoneal approach (RP) with the Kangduo robotic system.

METHODS

From December 2020 to February 2021, the perioperative data of 11 patients underwent PN through RP with the Kangduo robotic system were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

For the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score, 72.7% of patients had a low score (4-6) and 27.3% of patients had a medium score (7-9). Seven tumours were posterior (P), four tumours were on the midline (X). All procedures were completed successfully. The median warm ischemia time was 18.5 (IQR, 13.7-21.0) min. None of the patients had positive surgical margins at definitive histology (all pT1a). No high-grade perioperative complications or device-related adverse events occurred. At a mean follow-up of 8 ± 0.8 months, no complications occurred in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

RPPN using the novel Kangduo robotic system is a safe and effective option for managing posterior and lateral renal tumours with R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores ≤9.

ROBOT-ASSISTED URETERAL REIMPLANTATION: A SINGLE CENTER COMPARATIVE STUDY

BACKGROUND

To report a single-center experience with robot-assisted ureteral reimplantation (RAUR) and to compare its outcomes with those of open ureteral reimplantation (OUR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent RAUR or OUR for ureteral disease between 2016 and 2020 were identified. Data collected included baseline, pathological, perioperative and postoperative features. The RAUR outcomes were compared with those of OUR.

RESULTS

Overall, twenty-one (42.8%) patients underwent RAUR, and 28 (57.2%) underwent OUR. The two groups were similar in terms of baseline and pathological characteristics. There was a statistically significant difference in favor of RAUR for median operative time (216 vs. 317min, p=0.01) and median blood loss (35 vs. 175ml, p=0.001). No difference was observed in overall complication rate (33.3 vs. 46.4%, p=0.9), as well as major complications (Clavien-Dindo≥III grade) rate between RAUR and OUR groups. Median LOS was shorter for RAUR (2 vs. 6 days; p=0.001), as well as median catheterization time (16 vs. 28 days; p=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

RAUR is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical procedure for the management of mid to distal ureteral strictures. It can recapitulate the success rate of the gold standard OUR while offering a benefit in terms of lower surgical morbidity and faster postoperative recovery.