Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted cholecystectomy: a systematic review

Comparative Outcomes of Robotic Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Subtotal Cholecystectomy: A Retrospective Analysis of Surgical Efficacy and Postoperative Intervention

Background

Subtotal cholecystectomy is employed when the hepatocystic triangle cannot be visualized, a surgical maneuver reserved for difficult gallbladders. The current literature compares an open versus laparoscopic approach with little discussion of robotic-assisted procedures. Although the robotic approach offers enhanced visualization and dexterity, its application in subtotal cholecystectomy remains underexplored. This study aims to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomies, focusing on postoperative complications and the learning curve associated with robotic surgery.

Methods

This study population included patients from July 2021 to June 2024 who underwent a subtotal cholecystectomy either laparoscopically or robotically with either fenestrated or reconstituted closure of the remaining biliary structures. A subtotal cholecystectomy was defined as a cholecystectomy with failure to control the cystic duct or view of the hepatocystic triangle of safety leading to at least 50% removal of the gallbladder body. Patients were categorized by their operative techniques: robotic or laparoscopic. The study variables included indication, age, gender, weight, operative variables, closure type, subsequent interventions, and other outcome data.

Results

In a retrospective analysis of 48 subtotal cholecystectomy cases performed between July 2021 and June 2024, 37.5% were robotic, and 62.5% were laparoscopic. Robotic procedures were more often associated with reconstituted closure (72.22%) compared to laparoscopic procedures, which used fenestrated closure (100%). Postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was significantly less frequent in the robotic group (11.1%) compared to the laparoscopic group (27.1%, P = .03). No patients in the reconstituted group needed postoperative ERCP, while 31.25% of fenestrated cases did (P = .004). Surgical duration and length of stay were comparable between the 2 techniques, challenging the notion of a steep learning curve for robotic surgery.

Conclusions

Robotic-assisted subtotal cholecystectomy is a practical and potentially superior alternative to laparoscopic methods, particularly in reducing the need for postoperative interventions like ERCP. The findings support the broader adoption of robotics in challenging gallbladder surgeries. Further multicenter studies with larger cohorts are recommended to confirm these findings.

Patient and hospital factors influence surgical approach in treatment of acute cholecystitis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive (MIS) cholecystectomies have become standard due to patient and hospital advantages; however, this approach is not always achievable. Acute and gangrenous cholecystitis increase the likelihood of conversion from MIS to open cholecystectomy. This study aims to examine patient and hospital factors underlying differential utilization of MIS vs open cholecystectomies indicated for acute cholecystitis.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, observational cohort study of patients with acute cholecystitis who underwent a cholecystectomy between 2016 and 2018 identified from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database. Univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyze patient, geographic, and hospital variables as well as surgical approach.

RESULTS

Our total cohort included 53,503 patients of which 98.4% (n = 52,673) underwent an initial minimally invasive approach and with a conversion rate of 3.3% (n = 1,759). On multivariable analysis advancing age increased the likelihood of either primary open (age 40 to < 65 aOR 2.17; ≥ 65 aOR 3.00) or conversion to open cholecystectomy (age 40 to < 65 aOR 2.20; ≥ 65 aOR 3.15). Similarly, male sex had higher odds of either primary open (aOR 1.70) or conversion to open cholecystectomy (aOR 1.84). Hospital characteristics increasing the likelihood of either primary open or conversion to open cholecystectomy included teaching hospitals (aOR 1.37 and 1.28, respectively) and safety-net hospitals (aOR 1.46 and 1.33, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to cholecystectomy, it is well-established that a minimally invasive surgical approach is associated with superior patient outcomes. Our study focused on the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis and identified increasing age as well as male sex as significant factors associated with open surgery. Teaching and safety-net hospital status were also associated with differential utilization of open, conversion-to-open, and MIS. These findings suggest the potential to create and apply strategies to further minimize open surgery in the setting of acute cholecystitis.

Single-port robotic versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Previous studies have compared single-port robotic cholecystectomy (SPRC) to single-incision laparoscopic (SILC). However, there is not a systematic review and meta-analysis in patient with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 even though higher BMI is a risk factor for gallstone disease, a common indication for cholecystectomy. PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched for related literature. Studies and data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Inverse variances weighted mean differences (WMD) with random effects model were used for continues values and odds ratios (OR) with random effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel's formula were used for dichotomous value. Heterogeneity using Higgins I2 and p values were calculated. Sensitivity analysis was performed for operative duration and intraoperative complications. In this meta-analysis, six studies involving a total of 734 patients examined SPRC and SILC. The analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in operative duration for SPRC compared to SILC, with a weighted mean difference of 26.67 min (95% CI 14.99, 38.34; I2 = 93%; Pheterogeneity < 0.00001; Poverall < 0.00001). Regarding conversion to multi-port cholecystectomy (MC), no statistically significant difference was found, yielding an odds ratio of 0.94 (95% CI 0.36, 2.45; I2 = 0%; Pheterogeneity = 0.78; Poverall = 0.89). Intra-operative blood loss showed non-significant differences, with a weighted mean difference of - 16.76 ml (95% CI - 48.56, 15.03; I2 = 78%; Pheterogeneity = 0.03; Poverall = 0.30). Length of hospitalization was significantly reduced by approximately half a day for SPRC compared to SILC, with a weighted mean difference of - 0.52 days (95% CI - 0.89, - 0.14; I2 = 0%; Pheterogeneity = 0.52; Poverall = 0.007). Intra-operative complications did not differ significantly between the techniques, resulting in an odds ratio of 0.59 (95% CI 0.19, 1.81; I2 = 70%; Pheterogeneity = 0.04; Poverall = 0.36). Finally, two studies evaluated bile leak rates, concluding no significant difference with an odds ratio of 0.86 (95% CI 0.39, 1.88; I2 = 23%; Pheterogeneity = 0.25; Poverall = 0.70). Sensitivity analyses indicated that no single study unduly influenced the results for operative duration, while one study was identified as a source of heterogeneity in intra-operative complications. SPRC is associated with longer operative duration, but shorter length of hospitalization in patients with BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2, compared to laparoscopic. Future studies should aim to examine incisional hernias rates as well as determine the long-term outcomes. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024602514.

Perioperative and Patient-Reported Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background

There is a lack of clinical evidence from India that compare robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods

This prospective, single-center study compares the short-term perioperative outcomes of RAC against LC. Consecutive patients who were 18 years or older, provided informed consent, and were found to be eligible for multiport RAC or multiport LC were included in the study.

Results

A total of 120 patients were enrolled in this study (n = 80, LC group; n = 40, RAC group). The most common preoperative indication was symptomatic cholelithiasis (80% in the LC group and 52.5% in the RAC group). The mean length of hospital stay was comparable for the RAC and LC groups (1.08 ± 0.26 vs 1.13 ± 0.33 days, P = .406). The mean operative time was also similar between the groups (38.06 ± 9.23 minutes in the LC group vs 40 ± 9.78 minutes in the RAC group, P = .290). Within each group, there were no conversions, intraoperative complications, bile duct injuries, surgical site infections, or mortality at day 30 postsurgery. There was just one postoperative complication in the study population (in the LC group). On postoperative days 4 and 7, the RAC group reported significantly lower pain than the LC group (P = .0000 and P = .0122, respectively). In addition, the RAC group returned to work faster than the LC group (P = .0000).

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that RAC and LC have comparable perioperative outcomes. There are advantages to the RAC approach in terms of postoperative pain and resumption of work.

Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review

Robot-assisted general surgery, an advanced technology in minimally invasive procedures, is increasingly employed in elective general surgery, showing benefits over laparoscopy in specific cases. Although laparoscopy remains a standard approach for common acute abdominal conditions, the role of robotic surgery in emergency general surgery remains uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare outcomes in acute general surgery settings for robotic versus laparoscopic surgeries. A PRISMA-compliant systematic search across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. The literature review focused on articles comparing perioperative outcomes of emergency general surgery managed laparoscopically versus robot-assisted. A descriptive analysis was performed, and outcome measures were recorded. Six articles, involving 1,063 patients, compared outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Two articles covered cholecystectomies, while the others addressed ileocaecal resection, subtotal colectomy, hiatal hernia and repair of perforated gastrojejunal ulcers. The level of evidence was low. Laparoscopic bowel resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) had higher complications; no significant differences were found in complications for other operations. Operative time showed no differences for cholecystectomies, but robotic approaches took longer for other procedures. Robotic cases had shorter hospital length of stay, although the associated costs were significantly higher. Perioperative outcomes for emergency robotic surgery in selected general surgery conditions are comparable to laparoscopic surgery. However, recommending robotic surgery in the acute setting necessitates a well-powered large population study for stronger evidence.

ROBOtic Care Outcomes Project for acute gallbladder pathology

BACKGROUND

Robotic cholecystectomy is being increasingly used for patients with acute gallbladder disease who present to the emergency department, but clinical evidence is limited. We aimed to compare the outcomes of emergent laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomies in a large real-world database.

METHODS

Patients who received emergent laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomies from 2020 to 2022 were identified from the Intuitive Custom Hospital Analytics database, based on deidentified extraction of electronic health record data from US hospitals. Conversion to open or subtotal cholecystectomy and complications were defined using ICD10 and/or CPT codes. Multivariate logistic regression with inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to compare clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic approach after balancing covariates. Cost analysis was performed with activity-based costing and adjustment for inflation.

RESULTS

Of 26,786 laparoscopic and 3,151 robotic emergent cholecystectomy patients being included, 64% were female, 60% were ≥45 years, and 24% were obese. Approximately 5.5% patients presented with pancreatitis, and 4% each presenting with sepsis and biliary obstruction. After IPTW, distributions of all baseline covariates were balanced. Robotic cholecystectomy decreased odds of conversion to open (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.93; p = 0.035), but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.60; p = 0.037). Surgical site infection, readmission, length of stay, hospital acquired conditions, bile duct injury or leak, and hospital mortality were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in hospital cost.

CONCLUSION

Robotic cholecystectomy has reduced odds of conversion to open and comparable complications, but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute gallbladder diseases. Further work is required to assess the long-term implications of these differences.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Feasibility of robotic cholecystectomy at an academic center with a young robotic surgery program: a retrospective cohort study with umbrella review

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has been standard of care for surgical treatment of benign gallbladder pathology for decades. With the advent of robotic surgical technology, robotic cholecystectomy (RC) has gained attention as an alternative to conventional laparoscopy. This study introduces a single-surgeon experience with laparoscopic versus robotic cholecystectomy and an umbrella systematic review of the outcomes of both approaches. A retrospective chart review was performed at a single institution on a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder pathology. An umbrella systematic review was conducted using PRISMA methodology. A total of 103 patients were identified; 61 patients underwent LC and 42 underwent RC. In the RC cohort, 17 cases were completed using a four-port technique while 25 were completed using a three-port technique. Patients undergoing RC were older compared to the LC group (44.78 vs 57.02 years old; p < 0.001) and exhibited lower body mass index (29.37 vs 32.37 kg/m2, p = 0.040). No statistically significant difference in operative time or need for postoperative ERCP was noted. Neither this series nor the umbrella systematic review revealed significant differences in conversion to open surgery or readmissions between the LC and RC cohorts. Three-port RC was associated with reduced operative time compared to four-port RC (101.28 vs 150.76 min; p < 0.001). Robotic cholecystectomy is feasible and safe at a young robotic surgery program in an academic center setting and comparable to laparoscopic cholecystectomy clinical outcomes.

A retrospective study of laparoscopic, robotic-assisted, and open emergent/urgent cholecystectomy based on the PINC AI Healthcare Database 2017-2020

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is becoming increasingly common, but the outcomes of emergent/urgent robotic-assisted cholecystectomies compared to emergent laparoscopic (LC) and open cholecystectomies (OC) remain understudied.

METHODS

The PINC AI Healthcare Database was queried to identify adults who underwent emergent or urgent (Em-Ur) cholecystectomy between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020. Immediate postoperative and 30-day outcomes were identified including intraoperative complications, transfusion, conversion, postoperative complication, and hospital length of stay. Propensity score matching was done to compare outcomes between Em-Ur robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open cholecystectomies Subgroup analyses were performed comparing RAC done with and without fluorescent imaging as well as comparing RAC and LC performed for patients with class 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2).

RESULTS

RAC Em-Ur cholecystectomies are being performed with increasing frequency and is the most utilized modality for patients with class 3 obesity. There was no difference in intraoperative complications (0.3%), bile duct injury (0.2%), or postoperative outcomes between RAC and LC. LC had significantly shorter operating room times (96 min (75,128)) compared to RAC (120 min (90,150)). There was a significant lower rate of conversion to open in RAC (1.9%) relative to LC (3.2%) in both the overall population and the class 3 obesity sub-analysis (RAC-2.6% vs. LC-4.4%). There was no difference in outcomes in robotic-assisted cholecystectomies done with and without fluorescent imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

A comparison of propensity score-matched cohorts of emergent/urgent robotic-assisted and laparoscopic cholecystectomy indicates that robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is a safe alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and that both have superior outcomes to open cholecystectomies.

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The possibilities of minimally invasive cholecystectomy have emerged since the beginning of single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SILC) and single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC). This study aimed to compare the feasibility, safety, and pain scores between SSRC and SILC.

Methods

The authors searched randomized or non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies in PubMed, EuroPMC, and ClinicalTrials.gov from April 2012 until April 2022. The authors analyzed the operation time, hospital stay, blood loss volume, conversion rate, intraoperative complication rates, postoperative complications, visual analog scale (VAS) immediately after surgery, and VAS at hospital discharge. This study aligned with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.

Results

Thirteen studies were selected with 817 and 757 patients who underwent SSRC and SILC. Thus, this study demonstrated a lower incidence of intraoperative complication rates [relative risk (RR) 0.57 (95% CI 0.34-0.96), p = 0.03] and lesser VAS score at hospital discharge [Std. Mean Difference (SMD) -0.23 (95% CI -0.46, -0.01), p = 0.04] in the SSRC group. Regarding operation time and cost, SSRC revealed a longer time [SMD 1.02 (95% CI 0.45, 1.59), p = 0.0004] and higher cost [SMD 4.18 (95% CI 1.77, 6.58), p < 0.00001], respectively. Meanwhile, SSRC did not differ from SILC during a hospital stay, blood loss volume, conversion rate, postoperative complication rates, and VAS immediately after surgery.

Conclusions

Concerning intraoperative complication rates and VAS score at hospital discharge, SSRC was superior to SILC. Thus, SSRC is considered a feasible and safe procedure.

Safety and Feasibility of Cholecystectomy with the HugoTM RAS: Proof of Setup Guides and First-In-Human German Experience

Introduction

The Hugo RAS robotic platform by Medtronic was recently certified for human use in Europe. Several centers have gained initial experience with this system in urology and gynecology. However, few data about its feasibility and safety in general surgery have been published.

Methods

The first-in-human surgical procedures with the Hugo RAS in Germany were performed at our hospital in February 2023. We report our early experience with robotic cholecystectomy using this new platform. The primary aim was to test the setup guides of the manufacturer and to evaluate the safety and feasibility of Hugo RAS for this procedure.

Results

A modified setup with two 11-mm ports and two 8-mm ports without an assistant port was used in 14 consecutive cases. A 30° or a 0° camera, a bipolar grasper or a Maryland on the left arm, a monopolar scissors on the right arm, and a double-fenestrated grasper on the additional arm were mounted. Clip application and gallbladder extraction were performed by the bedside assistant through the right arm 11-mm port. There were no complications, no adverse events, and no conversions. Arm collisions were reduced through slight corrections in trocar positions.

Conclusion

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy with the Hugo RAS was safe and feasible. The modularity of robotic arms allows individual setup modifications which may be of advantage for patients and surgeons.

Innovation in gastrointestinal surgery: the evolution of minimally invasive surgery-a narrative review

Background

Minimally invasive (MI) surgery has revolutionised surgery, becoming the standard of care in many countries around the globe. Observed benefits over traditional open surgery include reduced pain, shorter hospital stay, and decreased recovery time. Gastrointestinal surgery in particular was an early adaptor to both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Within this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution of minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery and a critical outlook on the evidence surrounding its effectiveness and safety.

Methods

A literature review was conducted to identify relevant articles for the topic of this review. The literature search was performed using Medical Subject Heading terms on PubMed. The methodology for evidence synthesis was in line with the four steps for narrative reviews outlined in current literature. The key words used were minimally invasive, robotic, laparoscopic colorectal, colon, rectal surgery.

Conclusion

The introduction of minimally surgery has revolutionised patient care. Despite the evidence supporting this technique in gastrointestinal surgery, several controversies remain. Here we discuss some of them; the lack of high level evidence regarding the oncological outcomes of TaTME and lack of supporting evidence for robotic colorectalrectal surgery and upper GI surgery. These controversies open pathways for future research opportunities with RCTs focusing on comparing robotic to laparoscopic with different primary outcomes including ergonomics and surgeon comfort.

Our initial single port robotic cholecystectomy experience: A feasible and safe option for benign gallbladder diseases

BACKGROUND

Although single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed for over 25 years, it is still not popular. The narrow working space used in this surgery limits the movement of instruments and causes ergonomic challenges. Robotic surgery not only resolves the ergonomic challenges of single-port laparoscopic surgery but is also considered a good option with its additional technical advantages, like a three-dimensional display and not being affected by tremors. However, the extent to which these technical and ergonomic advantages positively affect the surgical outcomes and how safe the single-port robotic surgeries need to be assessed for each particular surgery.

AIM

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of single-port robotic cholecystectomy for patients with cholelithiasis.

METHODS

The electronic records of the first 40 consecutive patients with gallbladder lithiasis who underwent single-port robotic cholecystectomy from 2013 to 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. In addition to the demographic characteristics of the patients, we analyzed American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores and body mass index. The presence of an accompanying umbilical hernia was also noted. The amount of blood loss during the operation, the necessity to place a drain in the subhepatic area, and the need to use grafts during the closure of the fascia of the port site were determined. Hospital stay, readmission rates, perioperative and postoperative complications, the Clavien-Dindo complication scores and postoperative analgesia requirements were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 40 patients included in the study was 49.5 ± 11.6 years, and 26 were female (65.0%). The umbilical hernia was present in 24 (60.0%) patients, with a body mass index median of 29.3 kg/m2 and a mean of 29.7 ± 5.2 kg/m2. Fifteen (37.5%) of the patients were evaluated as ASA I, 18 (45.0%) as ASA II, and 7 (17.5%) as ASA III. The mean bleeding amount during the operation was 58.4 ± 55.8 mL, and drain placement was required in 12 patients (30.0%). After port removal, graft reinforcement during fascia closure was preferred in 14 patients (35.0%). The median operation time was 93.5 min and the mean was 101.2 ± 27.0 min. The mean hospital stay was 1.4 ± 0.6 d, and 1 patient was readmitted to the hospital due to pain (2.5%). Clavien-Dindo I complications were seen in 14 patients (35.0%), and five (12.5%) complications were wound site problems.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the technological and ergonomic advantages robotic surgery provides surgeons, our study strongly supports that single-port robotic cholecystectomy is a feasible and safe option for treating patients with gallstones.

Trends in Robot-Assisted Procedures for General Surgery in the Veterans Health Administration

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of robot-assisted procedures is growing. Utilization within the country's largest healthcare network, the Veterans Health Administration, is unclear.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using data from the Department of Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse from January 2015 through December 2019. Trends in robot utilization for cholecystectomy, ventral hernia repair, and inguinal hernia repair were characterized nationally and regionally by Veterans Integrated Services Network. Patients, who underwent laparoscopic repairs for these procedures and open hernia repairs, were included to determine proportion performed robotically.

RESULTS

We identified 119,191 patients, of which 5689 (4.77%) received a robotic operation. The proportion of operations performed robotically increased from 1.49% to 10.55% (7.08-fold change; slope, 2.14% per year; 95% confidence interval [0.79%, 3.49%]). Ventral hernia repair had the largest growth in robotic procedures (1.51% to 13.94%; 9.23-fold change; slope, 2.86% per year; 95% confidence interval [1.04%, 4.68%]). Regions with the largest increase in robotic utilization were primarily along the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot utilization in general surgery is increasing at different rates across the United States in the Veterans Health Administration. Future studies should investigate the regional disparities and drivers of this approach.

Robot-Assisted General Surgery Procedures at the Veterans Health Administration: A Comparison of Surgical Techniques

INTRODUCTION

The use of the robot in general surgery has exploded in the last decade. The Veterans Health Administration presents a unique opportunity to study differences between surgical approaches due to the ability to control for health system and insurance variability. This study compares clinical outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic or open techniques for three general surgery procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study using the Veterans Affair Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Operative time, length of stay, and complications were compared for cholecystectomy (robot-assisted versus laparoscopic), ventral, and inguinal hernia repair (robot-assisted versus laparoscopic or open) from 2015 to 2019.

RESULTS

More than 80,000 cases were analyzed (21,652 cholecystectomy, 9214 ventral hernia repairs, and 51,324 inguinal hernia repairs). Median operative time was longer for all robot-assisted approaches as compared to laparoscopic or open techniques with the largest difference seen between open and robot-assisted primary ventral hernia repair (unadjusted difference of 93 min, P < 0.001). Median length of stay was between 1 and 4 d and significantly for robot-assisted ventral hernia repairs (versus open, P < 0.01; versus lap for recurrent hernia, P < 0.05). Specific postoperative outcomes of interest were overall low with few differences between techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

While the robotic platform was associated with longer operative time, these findings must be interpreted in the context of a learning curve and indications for use (i.e., use of the robot for technically challenging cases). Our findings suggest that at the Veterans Health Administration, the robot is as safe a platform for common general surgery procedures as traditional approaches. Future studies should focus on patient-centered outcomes including pain and cosmesis.

EGFR-targeted fluorescent imaging using the da Vinci® Firefly™ camera for gallbladder cancer

Background

Fluorescent imaging may aid with the precise diagnosis and treatment of patients with gallbladder cancer. In this study, we sought to demonstrate whether the da Vinci® surgical system and Firefly™ camera could detect EGFR-targeted fluorescent images in orthotopic mouse models of gallbladder cancer.

Methods

An orthotopic mouse model of gallbladder cancer was created by injecting NOZ gallbladder cancer cells mixed with Matrigel into the gallbladder. In vivo imaging of subcutaneous and orthotopic gallbladder tumors was performed after the injection of DyLight 650- or 800-conjugated EGFR antibody.

Results

Western blotting, flow cytometry, and confocal microscopy showed the presence of EGFR in NOZ cells, but not in HEK293 cells. Subcutaneous NOZ cell tumors fluoresced after injection with fluorescent EGFR antibody, but subcutaneous HEK293 tumors did not. Fluorescent EGFR antibody made orthotopic NOZ tumors fluoresce, with an intensity stronger than that in the surrounding normal tissues. Histochemical examination confirmed the location of the tumors inside the gallbladder and adjacent liver parenchyma. Fluorescent signal was also detected in orthotopic gallbladder tumors with Firefly™ camera.

Conclusion

Our study showed that fluorescent EGFR antibodies and the Firefly camera in the da Vinci system can detect fluorescing gallbladder tumors, which demonstrates their potential use for molecular imaging-based prevision surgery in the near future.

[Clinical value of alternative technologies to standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy - single port, reduced port, robotics, NOTES]

Surgical interventions should ideally treat an existing disease curatively and achieve this with a low complication rate and minimal trauma. In this sense, laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become established as the recognized standard for the treatment of cholecystolithiasis. Newer procedures, such as single-port surgery or natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) have recently emerged to reduce the already low interventional trauma even further and to provide a better cosmetic outcome. With all new methods the main aim is the reduction of the transabdominal access points. Based on published results and diagnosis-related groups (DRG) data, this article examines whether this goal has been achieved, also with respect to the overall quality of treatment and the complication rates. In this context and in addition to the already mentioned approaches, robotic cholecystectomy and the reduced port approach are also considered.

Clinical outcomes and cost of robotic ventral hernia repair: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Robotic ventral hernia repair (VHR) has seen rapid adoption, but with limited data assessing clinical outcome or cost. This systematic review compared robotic VHR with laparoscopic and open approaches.

METHODS

This systematic review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles with terms relating to 'robot-assisted', 'cost effectiveness', and 'ventral hernia' or 'incisional hernia' from 1 January 2010 to 10 November 2020. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, pain, recurrence, and cost data were extracted for narrative analysis.

RESULTS

Of 25 studies that met the inclusion criteria, three were RCTs and 22 observational studies. Robotic VHR was associated with a longer duration of operation than open and laparoscopic repairs, but with fewer transfusions, shorter hospital stay, and lower complication rates than open repair. Robotic VHR was more expensive than laparoscopic repair, but not significantly different from open surgery in terms of cost. There were no significant differences in rates of intraoperative complication, conversion to open surgery, surgical-site infection, readmission, mortality, pain, or recurrence between the three approaches.

CONCLUSION

Robotic VHR was associated with a longer duration of operation, fewer transfusions, a shorter hospital stay, and fewer complications compared with open surgery. Robotic VHR had higher costs and a longer operating time than laparoscopic repair. Randomized or matched data with standardized reporting, long-term outcomes, and cost-effectiveness analyses are still required to weigh the clinical benefits against the cost of robotic VHR.