Current status of robot-assisted gastric surgery

Artificial intelligence: revolutionizing robotic surgery: review

Robotic surgery, known for its minimally invasive techniques and computer-controlled robotic arms, has revolutionized modern medicine by providing improved dexterity, visualization, and tremor reduction compared to traditional methods. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into robotic surgery has further advanced surgical precision, efficiency, and accessibility. This paper examines the current landscape of AI-driven robotic surgical systems, detailing their benefits, limitations, and future prospects. Initially, AI applications in robotic surgery focused on automating tasks like suturing and tissue dissection to enhance consistency and reduce surgeon workload. Present AI-driven systems incorporate functionalities such as image recognition, motion control, and haptic feedback, allowing real-time analysis of surgical field images and optimizing instrument movements for surgeons. The advantages of AI integration include enhanced precision, reduced surgeon fatigue, and improved safety. However, challenges such as high development costs, reliance on data quality, and ethical concerns about autonomy and liability hinder widespread adoption. Regulatory hurdles and workflow integration also present obstacles. Future directions for AI integration in robotic surgery include enhancing autonomy, personalizing surgical approaches, and refining surgical training through AI-powered simulations and virtual reality. Overall, AI integration holds promise for advancing surgical care, with potential benefits including improved patient outcomes and increased access to specialized expertise. Addressing challenges and promoting responsible adoption are essential for realizing the full potential of AI-driven robotic surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

An umbrella review was performed to summarize literature data and to investigate benefits and harm of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to laparoscopic (LG) approach. To overcome the intrinsic limitations of laparoscopy, the robotic approach is claimed to facilitate lymph-node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all meta-analyses published up to December 2019. The search strategy was previously published in a protocol. We selected fourteen meta-analyses comparing outcomes between LG and RG with curative intent in patients with diagnosis of resectable gastric cancer. We highlight that RG has a longer operation time, inferior blood loss, reduction in hospital stay and a more rapid recovery of bowel function. In meta-analyses with statistical significance the number of nodes removed in RG is higher than LG and the distal margin of resection is higher. There is no difference in terms of total complication rate, mortality, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction and in conversion rate to open technique. The safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy are not clearly supported by strong evidence, suggesting that the outcomes reported for each surgical technique need to be interpreted with caution, in particular for the meta-analyses in which the heterogeneity is large. Certainly, robotic gastrectomy is associated with shorter time to oral intake, lesser intraoperative bleeding and longer operation time with an acceptable level of evidence. On the other hand, the data regarding other outcomes are insufficient as well as non-significant, from an evidence point of view, to draw any robust conclusion.

Outcomes of Gastric Resection in the Establishment of a Comprehensive Oncologic Robotic Program

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy is increasingly utilized for the treatment of gastric malignancies. However, the benefits of robotic surgery have been questioned. This study describes short-term outcomes in the establishment of a comprehensive robotic program for gastric malignancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic-assisted gastric resections between 2013 and 2018 were studied. Preoperative measures and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Finally we studied and analyzed robotic and open gastrectomy for the management of gastric adenocarcinoma (GC) at the same institution between 2000 and 2018 for quality benchmarking.

RESULTS

Forty six patients (pts.) underwent robotic-assisted gastric resections. 26 (56.5%) were male, with a median age of 62 y (range: 29-87). Pathology included GC, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, neuroendocrine tumors, metastatic lesions, and benign processes. 19 pts. underwent total gastrectomy, 16 distal gastrectomy, four subtotal gastrectomy, and seven wedge resection. Pts. undergoing distal gastrectomy and wedge resection experienced shorter operative times and length of stay than total gastrectomy (P < 0.01; P < 0.01). Four operations (8.8%) were converted to open and 13 pts (28.3%) had postoperative complications, including an 8.7% readmission rate. Median lymph nodes retrieved during total, subtotal, and distal gastrectomy were 20 (13-46), 12.5 (0-26), and 16.5 (0-34), respectively. All pts. underwent margin negative resection. Median follow-up for GC was 21 mo, and 60% of pts. received adjuvant therapy at a median of 59d (range: 23-106).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic gastrectomy is a feasible alternative to open gastrectomy. Our results will help establish benchmarks to improve perioperative outcomes, especially length of stay and time to initiation of therapy.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: protocol for umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery has been adopted in some parts of the world as an innovative approach to the resection of gastric cancers. However, in the modern era of surgical oncology, to overcome intrinsic limitations of the traditional laparoscopy, the robotic approach is advocated as able to facilitate the lymph node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer patients. Previous meta-analyses highlighted a lower complication rate as well as bleeding in the robotic approach group when compared with the laparoscopic one. This potential benefit must be balanced against an increased time of intervention. The aim of this umbrella review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature for surgeons and policymakers in order to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared with the laparoscopic approach for gastric cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all articles published up to May 2019 and reference list of relevant publications for systematic review and meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Studies will be selected by two independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria and the quality will be assessed according to AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist. All information will be collected using piloted and standardised data-extraction forms in DistillerSR developed following the Joanna Briggs Institute's recommended extraction items.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This umbrella review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the benefits and harms of RG for treating gastric cancer. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and the popular press. Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019139906.

The impact of body mass index on perioperative outcomes after robotic liver resection

High body mass index (BMI) is associated with other multiple comorbidities such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, steatohepatitis, liver cirrhosis, and cardiopulmonary diseases, which can impact the perioperative outcomes following liver resection. We aimed to study the impact of BMI on perioperative outcomes after robotic liver resection. All the patients undergoing robotic liver resection between 2013 and 2017 were prospectively followed. The patients were divided into three groups (BMI < 25, BMI 25-35, BMI > 35 kg/m²) for illustrative purposes. Demographic and perioperative outcome data were compared. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Thirty-eight patients underwent robotic hepatectomy, 73% were women, age was 58 (57 ± 17.6) years, and ASA class was 3 (3 ± 0.5). Indications for surgery were neoplastic lesions in 34 patients (89%), hemangioma in two patients (6%), fibrous mass in one patient (2.5%), and focal nodular hyperplasia in one patient (2.5%). 32% of the patients underwent right or left hemihepatectomy, 21% underwent sectionectomy, 5% underwent central hepatectomy and the reminder underwent non-anatomical liver resection. Operative time was 261 (254.6 ± 94.3) min. Estimated blood loss was 175 (276 ± 294.8) ml. Length of hospital stay was 3 (5 ± 4.9) days. By regression analysis of the three BMI groups, estimated blood loss, rate of postoperative complication, rate of conversion, need for transfusion, length of ICU stay, and length of hospital stay did not have a significant relationship with BMI. A total of five patients (13%) experience complications. Four patients had complications that were nonspecific to liver resection, including acute renal injury, respiratory failure, and enterocutaneous fistula. One patient had bile leak, treated with ERCP stenting. No mortality was seen in this study. Obesity should not dissuade surgeons from utilizing minimally invasive robotic approach for liver resection. Robotic technique is a safe and feasible in patients with high BMI. The impact of BMI on outcomes is insignificant.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Phase III evidence in the shape of a series of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses has shown that laparoscopic gastrectomy is safe and gives better short-term results with respect to the traditional open technique for early-stage gastric cancer. In fact, in the East laparoscopic gastrectomy has become routine for early-stage gastric cancer. In contrast, the treatment of advanced gastric cancer through a minimally invasive way is still a debated issue, mostly due to worries about its oncological efficacy and the difficulty of carrying out an extended lymphadenectomy and intestinal reconstruction after total gastrectomy laparoscopically. Over the last ten years the introduction of robotic surgery has implied overcoming some intrinsic drawbacks found to be present in the conventional laparoscopic procedure. Robot-assisted gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy has been shown to be safe and feasible for the treatment of gastric cancer patients. But unfortunately, most available studies investigating the robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer compared to laparoscopic and open technique are so far retrospective and there have not been phase III trials. In the present review we looked at scientific evidence available today regarding the new high-tech surgical robotic approach, and we attempted to bring to light the real advantages of robot-assisted gastrectomy compared to the traditional laparoscopic and open technique for the treatment of gastric cancer.

Robot-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: current status and technical considerations

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gastrectomy has been reported as a safe alternative to the conventional laparoscopy or open approach for treating early gastric carcinoma. To date, however, there are a limited number of published reports available in the literature.

METHODS

We assess the current status of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, focusing on the technical details and oncological considerations.

RESULTS

In gastric surgery, the biggest advantage of robotic surgery is the ease and reproducibility of D2-lymphadenectomy. Reports show that even the intracorporeal digestive restoration is facilitated by use of the robotic approach, particularly following total gastrectomy. Additionally, the accuracy of robotic dissection is confirmed by decreased blood loss, as reported in series comparing robot-assisted with laparoscopic gastrectomy. The learning curve and technical reproducibility also appear to be shorter with robotic surgery and, consequently, robotics can help to standardize and diffuse minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, even in the later stages. This is important because the application of minimally invasive surgery is limited by the complexity of performing a D2-lymphadenectomy. The potential to reproduce D2-lymphadenectomy, enlarged resections, and complex reconstructions provides robotic surgery with an important role in the therapeutic strategy of advanced gastric cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

While published reports have shown no significant differences in surgical morbidity, mortality, or oncological adequacy between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic gastrectomy, more studies are needed to assess the indications and oncological effectiveness of robotic use in the treatment of gastric carcinoma. Herein, the authors assess the current status of robotic surgery in the treatment of gastric cancer, focusing on the technical details and oncological considerations.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Minimally invasive surgery for gastric cancer treatment: current status and future perspectives

Minimally invasive surgery, which has been extensively used to treat gastric adenocarcinoma, is now regarded as one of the standard treatments for early gastric cancer, and its suitability for advanced gastric cancer is being investigated. The use of cutting-edge techniques for minimally invasive surgery enables surgeons to deliver various treatment options to minimize a patient's distress and to maintain oncologic safety. Ongoing multicenter prospective studies aim to validate the efficacy of these surgical techniques and to expand the indications of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of gastric cancer. In this review, we summarize the current status and issues regarding minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of gastric cancer.

Robotics in general surgery: an evidence-based review

Since its introduction, robotic surgery has been rapidly adopted to the extent that it has already assumed an important position in the field of general surgery. This rapid progress is quantitative as well as qualitative. In this review, we focus on the relatively common procedures to which robotic surgery has been applied in several fields of general surgery, including gastric, colorectal, hepato-biliary-pancreatic, and endocrine surgery, and we discuss the results to date and future possibilities. In addition, the advantages and limitations of the current robotic system are reviewed, and the advanced technologies and instruments to be applied in the near future are introduced. Such progress is expected to facilitate the widespread introduction of robotic surgery in additional fields and to solve existing problems.

Robotically-enhanced surgical anatomy enables surgeons to perform distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer using electric cautery devices alone

BACKGROUND

Despite recent advances in robotic urological surgery, the feasibility and clinical merit of robotic gastric surgery have not yet been fully documented. Therefore, we designed a prospective, non-randomized study to determine the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted distal gastrectomy (RADG) for gastric cancer using electric cautery devices, which are more familiar to open surgery.

METHODS

Between April 2010 and December 2012, 181 patients treated by distal gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma were eligible for this study. According to their intent to undergo uninsured robotic surgery, 21 patients were treated with RADG (RADG group) while 160 patients were treated by conventional laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG group). Under a basic working hypothesis that the superior visualization and unique movement of the robotic arms during dissection would be closely associated with reduced amount of blood loss, even though an equivalent extension of lymph node dissection was carried out, we prospectively collected data from patients in the RADG and LDG groups.

RESULTS

All patients were successfully treated without conversion except for one patient in the RADG group who underwent conversion to laparoscopic total gastrectomy. In comparison with the patient groups, the estimated blood loss in patients in the RADG group treated with electric cautery devices only was smaller, but not significantly, than patients in the LDG group treated with ultrasonic-activated devices, although the same extent of lymph node dissection was achieved. In contrast, there were four patients (2.5 %) in the LDG group who developed a pancreas fistula or intra-abdominal abscess, while no patients treated with RADG developed such complications.

CONCLUSIONS

RADG using electric cautery instruments without ultrasonic-activated devices is feasible and safe. The robot enables particular surgical views, called robotically-enhanced surgical anatomy, and may contribute to reducing blood loss despite the fact that only electric cautery was used.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic versus Open Gastrectomy: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To define the role of robotic gastrectomy for the treatment of gastric cancer, the present systematic review with meta-analysis was performed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search up to July 2012 was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. All eligible studies comparing robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy or open gastrectomy were included.

RESULTS

Included in our meta-analysis were seven studies of 1,967 patients that compared robotic (n=404) with open (n=718) or laparoscopic (n=845) gastrectomy. In the complete analysis, a shorter hospital stay was noted with robotic gastrectomy than with open gastrectomy (weighted mean difference: -2.92, 95% confidence interval: -4.94 to -0.89, P=0.005). Additionally, there was a significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss with robotic gastrectomy compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy (weighted mean difference: -35.53, 95% confidence interval: -66.98 to -4.09, P=0.03). These advantages were at the price of a significantly prolonged operative time for both robotic gastrectomy versus laparoscopic gastrectomy (weighted mean difference: 63.70, 95% confidence interval: 44.22 to 83.17, P<0.00001) and robotic gastrectomy versus open gastrectomy (weighted mean difference: 95.83, 95% confidence interval: 54.48 to 137.18, P<0.00001). Analysis of the number of lymph nodes retrieved and overall complication rates revealed that these outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic gastrectomy for gastric cancer reduces intraoperative blood loss and the postoperative hospital length of stay compared with laparoscopic gastrectomy and open gastrectomy at a cost of a longer operating time. Robotic gastrectomy also provides an oncologically adequate lymphadenectomy. Additional high-quality prospective studies are recommended to better evaluate both short and long-term outcomes.

[Robotic hepatobiliary and gastric surgery]

Hepatobiliary surgery is a challenging surgical subspecialty that requires highly specialized training and an adequate level of experience in order to be performed safely. As a result, minimally invasive hepatobiliary surgery has been met with slower acceptance as compared to other subspecialties, with many surgeons in the field still reluctant about the approach. On the other hand, gastric surgery is a very popular field of surgery with an extensive amount of literature especially regarding open and laparoscopic surgery but not much about the robotic approach especially for oncological disease. Recent development of the robotic platform has provided a tool able to overcome many of the limitations of conventional laparoscopic hepatobiliary surgery. Augmented dexterity enabled by the endowristed movements, software filtration of the surgeon's movements, and high-definition three-dimensional vision provided by the stereoscopic camera, allow for steady and careful dissection of the liver hilum structures, as well as prompt and precise endosuturing in cases of intraoperative bleeding. These advantages have fostered many centers to widen the indications for minimally invasive hepatobiliary and gastric surgery, with encouraging initial results. As one of the surgical groups that has performed the largest number of robot-assisted procedures worldwide, we provide a review of the state of the art in minimally invasive robot-assisted hepatobiliary and gastric surgery.The English full-text version of this article is available at SpringerLink (under supplemental).

Laparoscopic and robotic distal gastrectomy for gastrointestinal stromal tumour: case report

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumours of the digestive tract. The most frequent site of occurrence is the stomach. Due to the high potential for malignancy of GIST, resection should be the first-line treatment. Minimally invasive surgery may be used for surgical resection of GISTs.

METHODS

We describe a case of laparoscopic and robotic distal gastrectomy in a patient with diagnosis of GIST in the gastric antrum. Laparoscopy was useful for dissection and a da Vinci robot was used for Roux-en-Y reconstruction.

RESULTS

The postoperative course was uneventful.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery offers benefits compared to open surgery, and laparoscopic and robot-assisted gastrectomy for the treatment of GIST could be technically feasible and safe because of the advantageous movements provided by the robotic arms.

Robotic gastrectomy: the current state of the art

Since the first laparoscopic gastrectomy for cancer was reported in 1994, minimally invasive surgery is enjoying its wide acceptance. Numerous procedures of this approach have developed, and many patients have benefited from its effectiveness, which has been recently demonstrated for early gastric cancer. However, since laparoscopic surgery is not exempt from some limitations, the robotic surgery system was introduced as a solution by the late 1990's. Many experienced surgeons have embraced this new emerging method that provides undoubted technical and minimally invasive advantages. To date, several studies have concentrated to this new system, and have compared it with open and laparoscopic approach. Most of them have reported satisfactory results concerning the post-operative short-term outcomes, but almost all believe that the role of robotic gastrectomy is still out of focus, especially because long-term outcomes that can prove robotic oncologic equivalency are lacking, and operative costs and time are higher in comparison to the open and laparoscopic ones. This article is a review about the current status of robotic surgery for the treatment of gastric cancer, especially, focusing on the technical aspects, comparisons to other approaches and future prospects.