Analysis of procedure time in robot-assisted surgery: comparative study in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Telesurgery and the importance of context

Telesurgery has the potential to overcome geographical barriers in surgical care, encouraging its deployment in areas with sparse surgical expertise. Despite successful in-human experiments and substantial technological progress, the adoption of telesurgery remains slow. In this Review, we analyze the reasons for this slow adoption. First, we identify various contexts for telesurgery and highlight the vastly different requirements for their realization. We then discuss why procedures with high urgency and skill sparsity are particularly suitable for telesurgery. Last, we summarize key research areas essential for further progress. The goal of this Review is to provide the reader with a comprehensive analysis of the current state of telesurgery research and to provide guidance for faster adoption of this exciting technology.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Emergency and Acute Care Surgery: Redefining Novelty (RLEARN): feasibility and benefit of robotic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis at a level 1 trauma center

Background

This study aims to compare outcomes of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the setting of a level 1 trauma center.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of our hospital data (2021-2024) on patients who underwent LC or RC. Using a previously validated intraoperative grading system, four grades of cholecystitis were defined as mild (A), moderate (B), severe (C), and extreme (D). Outcomes were operative times and rates of conversion to open surgery.

Results

In total, 260 patients (n=130 RC and n=130 LC) were included. Patients were primarily female (69.2%), with mean age of 47±18.3 years. The majority of cases had grade B cholecystitis (41.2%). Patients undergoing RC had lower operative times compared with LC in grade B (101.87±17.54 vs 114.96±29.44 min, p=0.003) and grade C (134.68±26.97 vs 152.06±31.3 min, p=0.038). Conversion rate to open cholecystectomy were similar in both groups (p=0.19).

Conclusion

RC had similar results as LC in terms of operative time and in fact has significantly lower operative time in patients with grade B and grade C cholecystitis.

Level of evidence

Level III-retrospective study.

Assistance by adaptative damping on a complex bimanual task in laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery has improved outcomes in abdominal surgery, but presents kinematic restrictions for surgeons. Robotic comanipulation with adaptative damping has been investigated in simple laparoscopic tasks. The present protocol aimed to determine the contribution of adaptive damping in complex bimanual tasks approaching clinical setting.

METHODS

Fourteen residents in general surgery performed three exercises, and for each three repetitions without (classic repetitions) and three with robotic assistance (robotic repetitions) in a randomised order. The exercises chosen were trajectory, modified Pea on a Peg and intracorporeal suture. Task performance, gesture performance, workload and impression were measured. Also, a semi-directed interview was performed to collect the participants' feeling about companipulated robots and their potential application in clinical practice.

RESULTS

Adaptative damping assistance did not impact task performance, but allowed an economy of movement in the non-dominant hand during suture exercise (distance 916 ± 500 mm in classic vs. 563 ± 261 mm in robotic, p < 0.001). Perceived workload (p = 0.12) and user's impression were not different between classic and robotic repetitions, except novelty (p < 0.001). Participants' interviews revealed their interest for the robotic devices, particularly the gravity compensation, and were ready to use the adaptative damping provided an intermittent use, for example to dissect dangerous areas.

CONCLUSION

Adaptative damping applied by comanipulated robots does not influence the performance of the task, but improves the performance of the gesture itself, particularly for the non-dominant hand, and during the realisation of a complex task like suturing. For residents in digestive surgery, this assistance does increase workload, and they would use this help in the operating room under certain conditions.

Systematic review: robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic multiport cholecystectomy

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the standard of care for the treatment of symptomatic gallstone disease. In the context of the increasing uptake of robotic surgery, robotic cholecystectomy has seen a substantial growth over the past decades. Despite this, a formal assessment of the evidence for this practice remains elusive and a randomised controlled trial is yet to be performed. This paper reviews the evidence to date for robotic multiport cholecystectomy compared to conventional multiport cholecystectomy. This systematic review was performed conducted using the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases; in line with the PRISMA guideline. All articles that compared robotic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included. The studies were assessed with regards to operative outcomes, postoperative recovery and complications. Fourteen studies were included, describing a total of 3002 patients. There was no difference in operative blood loss, complication rates, incidence of bile duct injury or length of hospital stay between the robotic and laparoscopic groups. The operative time for robotic cholecystectomy was longer, whereas the risk of conversion to open surgery was lower. There was marked variation in definitions of measured outcomes, and most studies lacked data on training and quality assessment, leading to substantial heterogeneity of the data. Available evidence on multiport robotic cholecystectomy compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy is scarce and the quality of the available studies is generally poor. Results suggest longer operating time for robotic cholecystectomy, although many studies included the learning curve period. Postoperative recovery and complications were similar in both groups.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis of Intra- and Post-Operative Complications

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic surgery is attracting ever-growing interest for its potential advantages such as small incisions, fine movements, and magnification of the operating field. Only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have explored the differences in perioperative outcomes between the two approaches.

METHODS

We screened the main online databases from inception to May 2023. We included studies in English enrolling adult patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery. We used the following exclusion criteria: surgery with the involvement of thoracic esophagus, and patients affected by severe heart, pulmonary and end-stage renal disease. We compared intra- and post-operative complications, length of hospitalization, and costs between laparoscopic and robotic approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs were included. We found no differences in the rate of anastomotic leakage, cardiovascular complications, estimated blood loss, readmission, deep vein thrombosis, length of hospitalization, mortality, and post-operative pain between robotic and laparoscopic surgery; post-operative pneumonia was less frequent in the robotic approach. The conversion to open surgery was less frequent in the robotic approach, which was characterized by shorter time to first flatus but higher operative time and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic gastrointestinal surgery has some advantages compared to the laparoscopic technique such as lower conversion rate, faster recovery of bowel movement, but it has higher economic costs.

Adaptative damping assistance in bimanual laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery has demonstrated various advantages for the patients' care, but also presents some difficulties for the surgeons, such as kinematic restrictions. Robotic comanipulation, in which control of instruments is shared between the robot and the surgeon, can provide adaptative damping assistance which allows stabilisation of movements. The objective of the present study was to determine the contribution of this assistance on a bimanual laparoscopic task.

METHODS

Adaptative damping was studied on Peg Transfer task, performed by eighteen surgery-naive subjects. This exercise was repeated seven times without (Classic repetitions) and seven times with comanipulated robots (Robot repetitions), in a randomised order. We measured task performance, using Peg Transfer score; gesture performance, using hand oscillations and travelled distance; eye-tracking movements as an indicator of emergence of expertise. Participants' perceived workload was assessed by NASA TLX questionnaire, and difference in impression between the two conditions by UEQ questionnaire.

RESULTS

Adaptative damping improved gesture performance (oscillations F(1,17) = 23.473, p < 0.001, η² = 0.580), with a statistically significant simple effect on the tool oscillation for both non-dominant (p < 0.001) and dominant hands (p = 0.005), without influencing task performance (mean Peg Transfer score t(17) = 0.920, p = 0.382, d = 0.29), but deteriorating eye-tracking movements associated with emergence of expertise (mean fixation rate per second F(1,17) = 6.318, p = 0.022, η² = 0.271), at the cost of a high perceived workload (NASA TLX score 59.78/100).

CONCLUSION

Assistance by adaptative damping applied by comanipulated robots improved gesture performance during a laparoscopic bimanual task, without impacting task's performance without allowing the emergence of comportments associated with an expertise, and at the cost of a high perceived workload. Further research should investigate this assistance on more precise and clinical tasks performed by professionals.

Robotic surgery in comparison to the open and laparoscopic approaches in the field of urology: a systematic review

To establish the feasibility of robotic surgical procedures in urology in terms of the applications, merits, and demerits as well as the postoperative and oncological outcomes while comparing it with the conventional approaches. A systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort studies on Robot-Assisted urological surgical procedures in comparison with the conventional methods. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the revised Cochrane "Risk of Bias" tool. A qualitative narrative synthesis of the data extracted from the studies was performed and presented in tabulated form. After screening, 39 studies were included in our review (7 Randomized Controlled Trials and 32 Cohort studies). Robot-Assisted Prostatectomy appears to be associated with lower estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay. For Robot-Assisted Cystectomy, the results suggest longer operative time and fewer complications. Robot-Assisted Radical Nephrectomy was found to be associated with fewer perioperative complications and longer mean operative time while Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy was associated with less positive surgical margins and reduced need for postoperative analgesia. The mean operative time was longer while the length of stay was shorter for the robotic approach in inguinal lymphadenectomy and ureteral reimplantation. The feasibility of Robot-Assisted surgery varied for different outcome measures as well as for different procedures. Some common advantages were a shorter length of stay, lesser blood loss, and fewer complications while the drawbacks included longer operative time.Study protocol PROSPERO database (Registration Number: CRD42021256623).

A systematic review of robot-assisted cholecystectomy to examine the quality of reporting in relation to the IDEAL recommendations: systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Robotic cholecystectomy (RC) is a recent innovation in minimally invasive gallbladder surgery. The IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment, long-term study) framework aims to provide a safe method for evaluating innovative procedures. This study aimed to understand how RC was introduced, in accordance with IDEAL guidelines.

METHODS

Systematic searches were used to identify studies reporting RC. Eligible studies were classified according to IDEAL stage and data were collected on general study characteristics, patient selection, governance procedures, surgeon/centre expertise, and outcome reporting.

RESULTS

Of 1425 abstracts screened, 90 studies were included (5 case reports, 38 case series, 44 non-randomized comparative studies, and 3 randomized clinical trials). Sixty-four were single-centre and 15 were prospective. No authors described their work in the context of IDEAL. One study was classified as IDEAL stage 1, 43 as IDEAL 2a, 43 as IDEAL 2b, and three as IDEAL 3. Sixty-four and 51 provided inclusion and exclusion criteria respectively. Ethical approval was reported in 51 and conflicts of interest in 34. Only 21 reported provision of training for surgeons in RC. A total of 864 outcomes were reported; 198 were used in only one study. Only 30 reported a follow-up interval which, in 13, was 1 month or less.

CONCLUSION

The IDEAL framework was not followed during the adoption of RC. Few studies were conducted within a research setting, many were retrospective, and outcomes were heterogeneous. There is a need to implement appropriate tools to facilitate the incremental evaluation and reporting of surgical innovation.

Feasibility and Efficacy of Single-Port Robotic Cholecystectomy Using the da Vinci SP® Platform

Background

Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy, first introduced in 1995, features acceptable cosmetic outcomes and postoperative pain control. The outcomes of single-port cholecystectomy by laparoscopy and robots were recently examined in many studies owing to surgeon and patient preference for minimally invasive surgery. A next-level da Vinci robotic platform was recently released. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) using the da Vinci SP® system.

Methods

In this retrospective observational single-center study, we analyzed the medical records of 304 patients who underwent RC between March 1, 2017 and May 31, 2021.

Results

Of the 304 patients, the da Vinci Xi® (Xi) was used in 159 and the da Vinci SP® (SP) was used in 145. The mean operation time was 45.7 mins in the SP group versus 49.8 mins in the Xi group. The mean docking time of the SP group was shorter than that of the Xi group (5.7 min vs 8.8 min; p = 0.024). The mean immediate postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) score was 4.0 in the SP group and 4.3 in the Xi group, showing a significant difference (p = 0.003). A separate analysis of only patients with acute cholecystitis treated with the da Vinci SP® showed that the immediate postoperative NRS score in the acute group was higher than that in the nonacute group.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated acceptable results of single-site cholecystectomy using da Vinci SP®. Thus, pure single-port RC using the da Vinci SP® for various benign gallbladder diseases may be an excellent treatment option.

Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment

Rectal prolapse is a condition that can cause significant social impairment and negatively affects quality of life. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, with the aim of restoring the anatomy and correcting the associated functional disorders. During recent decades, laparoscopic abdominal procedures have emerged as effective tools for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with the advantages of faster recovery, lower morbidity, and shorter length of stay. Robotic surgery represents the latest evolution in the field of minimally invasive surgery, with the benefits of enhanced dexterity in deep narrow fields such as the pelvis, and may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal prolapse is feasible and safe. It could reduce complication rates and length of hospital stay, as well as shorten the learning curve, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required on long-term functional outcomes and recurrence rates.

The TransEnterix European Patient Registry for Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Procedures in Urology, Abdominal, Thoracic, and Gynecologic Surgery ("TRUST")

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery was first introduced in the mid-1980s, and at the end of the '90s, the da Vinci® System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, California) was introduced in Europe and held a monopoly for years afterward. In 2016, Senhance™ digital laparoscopic platform (TransEnterix Inc., Morrisville, North Carolina) came to the market. This new platform is based on laparoscopic movements and is designed for laparoscopic surgeons. This study shows the surgical outcomes of patients after different visceral, colorectal, gynecological, and urological surgical procedures done with the Senhance™ digital laparoscopic platform with a focus on safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study population consists of 871 patients who underwent robotic surgery with the Senhance™ platform. The most common procedures were hernia repairs (unilateral and bilateral), cholecystectomies, and prostatectomies. The procedures were performed in five centers in Europe between February 2017 and July 2020 by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

RESULTS

220 (25.3 %) out of 871 patients had a unilateral hernia repair, 70 (8.0%) a bilateral hernia repair, 159 (18.3%) underwent a cholecystectomy, and 168 (19.3%) a prostatectomy. The other procedures included visceral, colorectal, and gynecological surgery procedures. The median docking time was 7.46 minutes for the four most common procedures. The duration of surgery varied from 32 to 313 minutes, the average time was 114.31 minutes. Adverse events were rare overall. There were 48 (5.5 %) adverse events out of 871 patients, 24 of them (2.8 % of all cases) were severe. Out of all 24 severe adverse events, five events (20.8%) were likely related to the robot, 17 events (70.8%) were unlikely related to the robot, and two events (8.3%) could not be categorized. Regarding complications following unilateral hernia repairs, data from 212 patients was available. Thirteen (6.1%) complications occurred, and six of those (2.8%) were serious. Out of 68 patients with a bilateral hernia repair, six patients (8.8%) developed complications, three of which were severe (4.4%). The complication rate was 2.8% in the patients following a cholecystectomy (4/144); two of them serious. After prostatectomy, six out of 141 patients (4.3 %) had complications; one serious (0.7%) No mortality was observed. Data about unplanned conversions to laparoscopic surgery could be collected from 761 patients which is a rate of 3.7%. There were 12 conversions out of 760 procedures to open surgery (1.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our series shows these procedures are safe and reproducible. The findings suggest that the surgical results after robotic surgery with the Senhance™ system are promising. Long-term data regarding complication rates should be the subject of future studies.

Next-generation robotics in gastrointestinal surgery

The global numbers of robotic gastrointestinal surgeries are increasing. However, the evidence base for robotic gastrointestinal surgery does not yet support its widespread adoption or justify its cost. The reasons for its continued popularity are complex, but a notable driver is the push for innovation - robotic surgery is seen as a compelling solution for delivering on the promise of minimally invasive precision surgery - and a changing commercial landscape delivers the promise of increased affordability. Novel systems will leverage the robot as a data-driven platform, integrating advances in imaging, artificial intelligence and machine learning for decision support. However, if this vision is to be realized, lessons must be heeded from current clinical trials and translational strategies, which have failed to demonstrate patient benefit. In this Perspective, we critically appraise current research to define the principles on which the next generation of gastrointestinal robotics trials should be based. We also discuss the emerging commercial landscape and define existing and new technologies.

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist II®): retrospective comparative study with human assistant

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (Soloassist II®) in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

Among 182 inguinal hernia patients treated by laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair, 82 cases were completed with a human scope assistant, while Soloassist was used in 100 cases. We retrospectively compared perioperative results of Soloassist group and human scope assistant group. In 139 unilateral cases, we also used logistic regression of perioperative factors for the propensity score calculation to balance the bias.

RESULTS

All operations with Soloassist were carried out laparoscopically as solo-surgery without any system-specific complications. A statistically significant decrease in operation time was observed in Soloassist group compared with human assistant group (93.6 vs 85.9 min, p = 0.05). There was no prolongation of preoperative time or difference in the amount of intraoperative blood loss. Operation time was also significantly shorter in Soloassist group, when analyzing unilateral cases (85.5 vs 76.3 min, p = 0.02) and bilateral cases (126.9 vs 111.8 min, p = 0.01), independently. However, after propensity score matching in unilateral cases, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (83.8 vs 77.2 min, p = 0.23).

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility of Soloassist in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was demonstrated with no adverse device-related events. All surgeries could be completed as solo-surgery, while no additional time for preoperative setting was required. The mean operation time tends to be shorter in Soloassist group compared with human assistant group. Soloassist could be an effective device in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery, an emerging technology, has some potential advantages in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) is still a controversial issue on its comparative merit compared with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RAC compared with LC for benign gallbladder disease.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases (from their inception to December 2017) to obtain comparative studies assessing the safety and efficacy between RAC and LC. The quality of the literature was assessed, and the data analyzed using R software, random effects models were applied.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies, including 5 RCTs and 21 NRCSs (3 prospective plus 18 retrospective), were included. A total of 4004 patients were included, of which 1833 patients (46%) underwent RAC and 2171 patients (54%) underwent LC. No significant differences were found in intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, readmission rate, hospital stay, estimated blood loss, and conversion rate between RAC and LC groups. However, RAC was related to longer operative time compared with LC (MD = 12.04 min, 95% CI 7.26-16.82) in RCT group, which was consistent with NRCS group; RAC also had a higher rate of incisional hernia in NRCS group (RR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.42-6.57), and one RCT reported that RAC was similar to LC (RR = 7.00, 95% CI 0.38-129.84).

CONCLUSIONS

The RAC was not found to be more effective or safer than LC for benign gallbladder diseases, which indicated that RAC is a developing procedure instead of replacing LC at once. Given the higher costs, the current evidence is in favor of LC in cholecystectomy.

Feasibility and Usefulness of a Joystick-Guided Robotic Scope Holder (Soloassist) in Laparoscopic Surgery

Introduction

The Soloassist® system is a joystick-guided robotic scope holder. We evaluated the efficacy of Soloassist in laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

We investigated operative time, blood loss, set-up time, length of hospital stay, and the number of participating surgeons in laparoscopic cholecystectomy cases before and after the introduction of Soloassist. Furthermore, we evaluated these factors in each group of 20 elective and emergency cholecystectomy cases by single surgeon after matching their background. To evaluate the performance level of operating Soloassist, we divided the operative field into three areas. Then we counted the frequency of energy device activation in initially 10 cases by a single surgical resident and observed its change.

Results

The number of participating surgeons was significantly less and postoperative hospital days were fewer in the Soloassist group. There was no significant difference between set-up time and blood loss both in elective and emergency cases. The total number of energy device activations and that in the dangerous area decreased in accordance with the experience.

Conclusion

Considering our results and previous reports, the combination use of an ideal active scope holder and a commercially available 3D scope is currently considered the best approach in laparoscopic surgery. In the near future, development of active scope holders might play an important role in laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic cholecystectomy versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic cholecystectomy is a novel approach that offers the surgeon improved high-definition, 3-dimensional views and enhanced instrument ergonomics, which represent a technical development from previous operative platforms that include conventional and single-incision laparoscopy. This review compares its short-term outcomes with conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy by a meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases (January 1990-October 2015). Studies identified were appraised with standard selection criteria. Data were extracted and a meta-analysis performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies, 12 retrospective trials and one randomized controlled trial comprising 1,589 patients (laparoscopic cholecystectomy, n = 921; robotic cholecystectomy, n = 668) were examined. There was a trend of a greater median total operative time (115.3 min vs 128.0 min; pooled MD = 31.22, 95% confidence interval = -2.48 to 59.96; Z = 2.13; P = .03) and preoperative time (32.4 min vs 53.4 min; pooled MD = 20.98, 95% confidence interval = 15.74 to 26.23; Z = 7.84; P < .001) in the robotic cholecystectomy group. Intraoperative complications (P = .52), conversion rate (P = .06), estimated blood loss (P = .55), postoperative complications (P = .28), duration of hospital stay (P = .36), and readmission rate (P = .85) were similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic cholecystectomy is associated with greater operative times related primarily to the preparatory phase of the operation but with similar safety and perioperative outcome as conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. For it to gain acceptance, future studies are required to define specific measures to quantify equipment benefits to the surgeon and to evaluate the potential advantage of its use in the acute setting.

Robotic Single-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Is Safe but Faces Technical Challenges

BACKGROUND

For cholecystectomy, multiport laparoscopy is the recommended surgical approach. Single-port laparoscopy (SPL) was introduced to reduce postoperative pain and provide better cosmetic results, but has technical disadvantages. Robotic SPL (RSPL) was developed to overcome these disadvantages. In this prospective study, we aim to describe intraoperative results and postoperative outcomes of RSPL cholecystectomies and evaluate technical aspects of the technique.

METHODS

A prospective database of all patients who underwent a RSPL cholecystectomy between January 2012 and December 2014 was analyzed. Intraoperative results and postoperative complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients underwent RSPL cholecystectomy. Median age was 59 (20-78) years and median body mass index was 25 (19-35) kg/m². The majority of patients had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) II classification (67%) and 89% underwent surgery for cholecystolithiasis or cholecystitis. The median operating time was 81 (41-115) minutes. Conversion to a multiport procedure occurred in 2; one due to insufficient length of the robotic instruments. In the second and third patients, conversion to an open procedure was necessary due to inadequate exposure caused by liver cirrhosis and purulent ascites, respectively. In seven procedures, spill occurred due to rupture of the gallbladder. Postoperative complications occurred in 4 patients, including 1 bleeding (no reintervention), 1 peritonitis, and 2 wound infections. After a median follow-up of 33 (10-44) months, 5 (19%) trocar-site hernias were seen.

CONCLUSION

RSPL cholecystectomy is feasible, however, encountered by technical challenges due to inadequate length of the nonwristed robotic instruments. A high incidence of gallbladder rupture and trocar-site hernias may limit its application.

Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years

Background

Robotic surgery has been in existence for 30 years. This study aimed to evaluate the overall perioperative outcomes of robotic surgery compared with open surgery (OS) and conventional minimally invasive surgery (MIS) across various surgical procedures.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from 1990 up to October 2013 with no language restriction. Relevant review articles were hand-searched for remaining studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies (PROs) on perioperative outcomes, regardless of patient age and sex, were included. Primary outcomes were blood loss, blood transfusion rate, operative time, length of hospital stay, and 30-day overall complication rate.

Results

We identified 99 relevant articles (108 studies, 14,448 patients). For robotic versus OS, 50 studies (11 RCTs, 39 PROs) demonstrated reduction in blood loss [ratio of means (RoM) 0.505, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.408–0.602], transfusion rate [risk ratio (RR) 0.272, 95 % CI 0.165–0.449], length of hospital stay (RoM 0.695, 0.615–0.774), and 30-day overall complication rate (RR 0.637, 0.483–0.838) in favour of robotic surgery. For robotic versus MIS, 58 studies (21 RCTs, 37 PROs) demonstrated reduced blood loss (RoM 0.853, 0.736–0.969) and transfusion rate (RR 0.621, 0.390–0.988) in favour of robotic surgery but similar length of hospital stay (RoM 0.982, 0.936–1.027) and 30-day overall complication rate (RR 0.988, 0.822–1.188). In both comparisons, robotic surgery prolonged operative time (OS: RoM 1.073, 1.022–1.124; MIS: RoM 1.135, 1.096–1.173). The benefits of robotic surgery lacked robustness on RCT-sensitivity analyses. However, many studies, including the relatively few available RCTs, suffered from high risk of bias and inadequate statistical power.

Conclusions

Our results showed that robotic surgery contributed positively to some perioperative outcomes but longer operative times remained a shortcoming. Better quality evidence is needed to guide surgical decision making regarding the precise clinical targets of this innovation in the next generation of its use.

Surgical management of rectal prolapse: The role of robotic surgery

The robotic technique as a safe approach in treatment of rectal prolapse has been widely reported during the last decade. Although there is limited clinical data regarding the benefits of robotic surgery, the safety of robotic surgery in rectal prolapse treatment has been cited by several authors. Also, the robotic approach helps overcome some of the laparoscopic approach challenges with purported advantages including improved visualization, more precise dissection, easier suturing, accurate identification of anatomic structures and fewer conversions to open surgery which can facilitate the conduct of technically challenging cases. These advantages can make robotic surgery ideally suited for minimally invasive ventral rectopexy. Currently, with greater surgeon experience in robotic surgery, the length of the procedure and the recurrence rate with the robotic approach are decreasing and short term outcomes for robotic rectal prolapse seem on par with laparoscopic and open techniques in recent studies. However, the high cost of robotic procedures is still an important issue. The benefits of a robotic approach must be weighed against the higher cost. More research is needed to better understand if the increased cost is justified by an improvement in outcomes. Also, published articles comparing long term outcomes of the robotic approach with other approaches are very limited at this time and further clinical trials are indicated to affirm the role of robotic surgery in the treatment of rectal prolapse.

Robotic general surgery: current practice, evidence, and perspective

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology commenced to be adopted for the field of general surgery in the 1990s. Since then, the da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has remained by far the most commonly used system in this domain. The da Vinci surgical system is a master-slave machine that offers three-dimensional vision, articulated instruments with seven degrees of freedom, and additional software features such as motion scaling and tremor filtration. The specific design allows hand-eye alignment with intuitive control of the minimally invasive instruments. As such, robotic surgery appears technologically superior when compared with laparoscopy by overcoming some of the technical limitations that are imposed on the surgeon by the conventional approach.

PURPOSE

This article reviews the current literature and the perspective of robotic general surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

While robotics has been applied to a wide range of general surgery procedures, its precise role in this field remains a subject of further research. Until now, only limited clinical evidence that could establish the use of robotics as the gold standard for procedures of general surgery has been created. While surgical robotics is still in its infancy with multiple novel systems currently under development and clinical trials in progress, the opportunities for this technology appear endless, and robotics should have a lasting impact to the field of general surgery.

Survey on surgical instrument handle design: ergonomics and acceptance

Minimally invasive surgical approaches have revolutionized surgical care and considerably improved surgical outcomes. The instrumentation has changed significantly from open to laparoscopic and robotic surgery with various usability and ergonomics qualities. To establish guidelines for future designing of surgical instruments, this study assesses the effects of current surgical approaches and instruments on the surgeon. Furthermore, an analysis of surgeons' preferences with respect to instrument handles was performed to identify the main acceptance criteria. In all, 49 surgeons (24 with robotic surgery experience, 25 without) completed the survey about physical discomfort and working conditions. The respondents evaluated comfort, intuitiveness, precision, and stability of 7 instrument handles. Robotic surgery procedures generally take a longer time than conventional procedures but result in less back, shoulder, and wrist pain; 28% of surgeons complained about finger and neck pain during robotic surgery. Three handles (conventional needle holder, da Vinci wrist, and joystick-like handle) received significantly higher scores for most of the proposed criteria. The handle preference is best explained by a regression model related only to comfort and precision (R(2) = 0.91) and is significantly affected by the surgeon's background (P < .001). Although robotic surgery seems to alleviate physical discomfort during and after surgery, the results of this study show that there is room for improvement in the sitting posture and in the ergonomics of the handles. Comfort and precision have been found to be the most important aspects for the surgeon's choice of an instrument handle. Furthermore, surgeons' professional background should be considered when designing novel surgical instruments.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy in China: initial experience

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND

The development of minimally invasive surgery has led to an increase in the use of laparoscopic hepatectomy. However, laparoscopic hepatectomy remains technically challenging and is not widely developed. Robotic surgery represents a recent evolution in minimally invasive surgery that is being used increasingly for complex minimally invasive surgical procedures. Herein, we report our initial experience with robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy in 13 consecutive patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between April and July 2009, 13 consecutive patients underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomies for benign and malignant hepatic diseases. Major hepatectomies were performed in 9 patients, left lateral sectionectomies in 4 patients. Eight major hepatectomies were for malignant diseases and 5 hepatectomies (1 left hepatectomy and 4 left lateral sectionectomies) were for benign diseases. All the robotic-assisted hepatectomy procedures were performed anatomically with hilum dissection. Prior to starting the parenchymal transaction, vascular control of the portal vessels was carried out whenever possible. These robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomies were compared with 20 traditional laparoscopic hepatectomies and 32 open resections that were contemporaneous and cohort-matched.

RESULTS

All 13 robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomies were performed successfully in the manner of pure laparoscopic resection. No conversion to laparotomy or hand-assisted laparoscopic resection occurred. Despite its longer operative time (338 minutes) and higher hospital cost ($12,046), robotic liver surgery compared favorably with traditional laparoscopic hepatectomy and open resection in blood loss (280 vs. 350, 470 mL), transfusion requirement (0 vs. 3 of 20, 4 of 32), use of the Pringle maneuver (0 vs. 3 of 20, 6 of 32) and overall operative complications (7.8% vs. 10%,12.5%). Neither ascites nor transient hepatic decompensation occurred in the robotic group. The surgical margins in all 8 patients with malignant lesions were negative and as yet, no intrahepatic recurrences or metastases have been observed in the robotic group. The mean postoperative stay was shorter with the traditional laparoscopic procedure (5.2 days) than with robotic (6.7 days)or open surgery (9.6 days). Conversions from traditional laparoscopic to open and hand-assisted laparoscopic resection occurred in 2 patients (10.0%) who underwent right hemihepatectomy and left hepatectomy, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary results show that robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy is safe and feasible with a much lower complication and conversion rate than traditional laparoscopic hepatectomy or open resection. The robotic surgical system may broaden the indications for laparoscopic hepatactomy, and it enabled the surgeon to perform precise laparoscopic liver resection which required hylum dissection, hepatocaval dissection, endoscopic suturing, and microanastamosis. However, more long-term, evidence-based outcomes will be necessary to prove its efficacy, and further research on its cost-effectiveness is still required.

Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The main aim of this review was to compare the safety and efficacy of the Da Vinci Surgical System (DVSS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in different types of abdominal intervention.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

DVSS is an emerging laparoscopic technology. The surgeon directs the robotic arms of the system through a console by means of hand controls and pedals, making use of a stereoscopic viewing system. DVSS is currently being used in general, urological, gynecologic, and cardiothoracic surgery.

METHODS

This systematic review analyses the best scientific evidence available regarding the safety and efficacy of DVSS in abdominal surgery. The results found were subjected to meta-analysis whenever possible.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies, 6 of them randomized control trials, involving 2166 patients that compared DVSS and CLS were examined. The procedures undertaken were fundoplication (9 studies, one also examining cholecystectomy), Heller myotomy (3 studies), gastric bypass (4), gastrectomy (2), bariatric surgery (1), cholecystectomy (4), splenectomy (1), colorectal resection (7), and rectopexy (1). DVSS was found to be associated with fewer Heller myotomy-related perforations, a more rapid intestinal recovery time after gastrectomy-and therefore a shorter hospital stay, a shorter hospital stay following cholecystectomy (although the duration of surgery was longer), longer colorectal resection surgery times, and a larger number of conversions to open surgery during gastric bypass.

CONCLUSIONS

The publications reviewed revealed DVSS to offer certain advantages with respect to Heller myotomy, gastrectomy, and cholecystectomy. However, these results should be interpreted with caution until randomized clinical trials are performed and, with respect to oncologic indications, studies include variables such as survival.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy for rectal prolapse: a prospective cohort study on feasibility and safety

Robotic systems may be particularly supportive for procedures requiring careful pelvic dissection and suturing in the Douglas pouch, as in surgery for rectal prolapse. Studies reporting robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy for rectal prolapse, however, are scarce. This prospective cohort study evaluated the outcome of this technique up to one year after surgery. From January 2005 to June 2006, 15 consecutive patients with a rectal prolapse, either with or without a concomitant rectocele or enterocele, underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy with support of the da Vinci robotic system. A prospective cohort study was performed on operating times, blood loss, intra-operative and post-operative complications, and outcome at a minimum of one year after surgery. Median age at time of operation was 62 years (33-72) and median body mass index 24.9 (20.9-33.9). Median robot set-up time was 10 min (3-15) and median skin-to-skin operating time was 160 min (120-180). No conversions to open surgery were necessary. No in-hospital complications occurred and there was no mortality. Median hospital stay was four days (2-9). During one year follow-up, two patients needed surgical reintervention. One patient was operated for recurrent enterocele and rectocele one week after surgery. In another patient an incisional hernia at the camera port occurred three months after surgery. At one year after surgery, 87% of patients claimed to be satisfied with their postoperative result. Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy proved to be an effective technique with favourable outcomes in most patients in this prospective series. The operating team experienced the support of the robotic system as beneficial, especially during the dissection of the rectovaginal plane and suturing in the Douglas pouch.

Learning curves of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery: an experimental study evaluating skill acquisition of robot-assisted laparoscopic tasks compared with conventional laparoscopic tasks in inexperienced users

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery can be demanding, resulting in longer operating time and a longer time before reaching proficiency compared with open surgery. Robotic assistance allows stereoscopic vision and improves dexterity, potentially leading to faster and safer laparoscopic surgery and a shortening of the learning curve.

METHODS

Duration and accuracy were measured in inexperienced participants, performing basic and advanced laparoscopic tasks using both conventional laparoscopy and the daVinci Surgical System.

RESULTS

Eight participants performed 176 laparoscopic tasks. Robotic assistance resulted in faster and more accurate performance of laparoscopic tasks. However, conventional laparoscopy showed faster skill acquisition.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic assistance resulted in faster and more accurate performance of laparoscopic tasks. However, learning curves favored conventional laparoscopy. These data suggest robotic assistance might be most beneficial in inexperienced subjects. The relatively flat learning curve in robot-assisted laparoscopy suggests robotic assistance might be less (or marginally) beneficial in experienced surgeons. This could explain why robotic assistance has failed to show clear benefit in several clinical studies. Extensive conventional laparoscopic training might lead to faster, safer, and less expensive surgery, further marginalizing the role for robotic assistance in laparoscopic surgery.

Postural ergonomics during robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery: a pilot project

We hypothesized that a laparoscopic technique for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery is associated with more musculoskeletal discomfort and ergonomic strain than a robotic technique. This pilot project studied one surgeon while he performed four laparoscopic and four robotic (da Vinci system) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures. We measured musculoskeletal discomfort with body part discomfort score (BPD) and ergonomic positioning with the rapid upper-limb assessment tool (RULA). At the end of the case, the robotic cases were associated with more discomfort in the neck (median BPD scores 2.5 versus 1.0, P = 0.028), while the laparoscopic cases were associated with more discomfort in the upper back (median BPD scores 2.0 versus 1.0, P = 0.028). Both the right and left shoulders demonstrated more discomfort with the laparoscopic group (median BPD scores 3.0 versus 1.5, P = 0.057). The RULA analysis demonstrated that the upper arm (1.0 versus 2.25), lower arm (1.125 versus 2.125), wrist (2.5 versus 3.5) and wrist twist (1.25 versus 2) were held in less ergonomically correct positioning (higher score) in the laparoscopic group compared to the robotic group (P = 0.029). In contrast, the trunk (1.5 versus 1.0) had a worse RULA score in the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic cases. These pilot data suggest that robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery may result in less musculoskeletal stress to the upper extremities than standard laparoscopic technique. In contrast, robotic surgery seems to offer both postural advantages and disadvantages for the neck and back region. More-detailed studies are needed to fully assess the potential postural advantages of robotic surgical techniques over standard laparoscopy.

Telerobotic gastrointestinal surgery: phase 2--safety and efficacy

BACKGROUND

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved the da Vinci surgical system for all abdominal operations in July 2000. In the past 6 years, virtually all gastrointestinal operations have been accomplished using telerobotic techniques. The purpose of this review is to summarize the short-term outcomes achieved with telerobotic gastrointestinal operations.

METHODS

All case series of telerobotic gastrointestinal operations identified by PubMed searches are included in this review.

RESULTS

Case series document the safety and efficacy of telerobotic cholecystectomy, fundoplication, Heller myotomy, gastric bypass, colectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy. The procedures were accomplished with low rates of conversion to laparoscopic operations, mortality, and morbidity. When comparison groups were available, the analysis shows that telerobotic operations required more time than the laparoscopic operations, although for telerobotic cholecystectomy and telerobotic fundoplication, this difference disappeared in 10 to 20 operations. Specific patient advantages were not identified for telerobotic operations compared with laparoscopic operations, except for a decreased esophageal perforation rate during telerobotic Heller myotomy. Surgeons benefited from the three-dimensional imaging, the handlike motions of the robotic instruments, and an ergonomically comfortable position.

CONCLUSION

All telerobotic gastrointestinal operations are feasible and can be performed with safety and efficacy. It is difficult to demonstrate patient-specific advantages of telerobotic surgery over laparoscopic operations. Nonetheless, telerobotic surgical systems offer distinct advantages to surgeons and may facilitate an increase in the number of surgeons performing advanced laparoscopic gastrointestinal operations. In addition, telerobotics offer a digital information platform that enables surgical simulation and augmented-reality surgery.

An Ergonomic Comparison of Robotic and Laparoscopic Technique: The Influence of Surgeon Experience and Task Complexity

BACKGROUND

This study compares the mental and physical workload of laparoscopic and robotic technique while performing simulated surgical tasks in a laboratory setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten volunteer surgeons performed two tasks in a laparoscopic trainer using laparoscopic (LAP) and robotic (ROB) techniques. Outcome measures included: Task time, task-error, vertical/horizontal arm displacement, percent maximum electromyographic signal from the thenar, forearm flexor, and deltoid muscle compartments, skin conductance, and perceived difficulty and discomfort levels. A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA compared surgical technique and laparoscopic experience level (E = expert, N = novice).

RESULTS

For the simple task, ROB technique was slower and had higher errors, and the surgeon's arm was more elevated. For the complex task, ROB electromyographic signal was lower. Stress was lower in both tasks for ROB, but the decrease was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic technique appears slower and less precise than laparoscopic technique for simple tasks, but equally fast and possibly less stressful for complex tasks. Previous laparoscopic experience has a complex influence on the physical and mental adaptation to robotic surgery.

Prospective study comparing standard and robotically assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Laparoscopic surgery has become the treatment of choice for cholecystectomy. Many studies showed that while this approach benefits the patient, the surgeon faces such distinct disadvantages as a poor ergonomic situation and limited degrees of freedom with limited motion as a consequence. Robots have the potential to overcome these problems. To evaluate the efficiency and feasibility of robotically assisted surgery (RAC), we designed a prospective study to compare it with standard laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2001 and 2003, 26 patients underwent SLC and 20 patients underwent RAC using the ZEUS system. The feasibility, safety, and possible advantages were evaluated. To assess the efficacy, the total time in the operating room was divided into preoperative, operative, and postoperative time frames.

RESULTS

For RAC in comparison with SLC, the preoperative phase including equipment setup was significantly longer. In the intraoperative phase, the cut-closure time and camera and trocar insertion times were significantly longer. It is interesting to note that the net dissection time for the cystic artery, duct, and the gall bladder was not different from SLC.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates the feasibility of robotically assisted cholecystectomy without system-specific morbidity. There is time loss in several phases of robotic surgery due to equipment setup and deinstallation and therefore, presents no benefit in using the robot in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Long-Term Follow-up after Robotic Cholecystectomy

Most surgeons gain their first clinical experience with surgical robots when performing cholecystectomies. Although this procedure is rather easily applicable for the da Vinci surgical system, the long-term outcome after this operation has not yet been clarified. This study follows up our institutional first series of robotic cholecystectomies (June to November 2001). Patients were assessed on the basis of standardized management including a quality-of-life questionnaire, clinical examination, blood tests, and abdominal sonogram. The follow-up rate for 23 patients after robotic cholecystectomy was 100 per cent and the median follow-up time 33 (30–35) months. There was one (4%) recurrence of gallstone disease in a patient who suffered from solitary choledocholithiasis 29 months after robotic cholecystectomy. Abdominal sonogram, clinical examinations, and blood tests revealed no post-cholecystectomy-specific pathological findings. The main long-term symptoms were bloating (57%), heartburn (43%) and nausea (30%). Of the patients, 96 per cent (22 patients) felt that the operation had cured or significantly improved their specific preoperative symptoms. Long-term results after robotic laparoscopic cholecystectomy are excellent and comparable to those for the conventional laparoscopic procedure. The advanced vision control and instrument maneuverability of robotic surgery might open minimally invasive surgery also for complicated gallstone disease and bile duct surgery.