The control of nucleotide biosynthesis.

Raymond L. Blakley,E. Vitols

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV.BI.37.070168.001221

IF: 27.258

Annual Review of Biochemistry

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Robotic versus laparoscopic Gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Ke Chen,Yu Pan,Bin Zhang,Hendi Maher,Xian-fa Wang,Xiu-jun Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-017-0290-2

2017-01-01

BMC Surgery

Abstract:Background Advanced minimally invasive techniques including robotic surgery are being employed with increasing frequency around the world, primarily in order to improve the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG). Methods Studies, which compared surgical outcomes between LG and RG, were retrieved from medical databases before May 2017. Outcomes of interest were estimated as weighted mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio (RR) using the random-effects model. The software Review Manage version 5.1 was used for all calculations. Results Nineteen comparative studies with 5953 patients were included in this analysis. Compared with LG, RG was associated with longer operation time (WMD = −49.05 min; 95% CI: -58.18 ~ −39.91, P < 0.01), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = 24.38 ml; 95% CI: 12.32 ~ 36.43, P < 0.01), earlier time to oral intake (WMD = 0.23 days; 95% CI: 0.13 ~ 0.34, P < 0.01), and a higher expense (WMD = −3944.8 USD; 95% CI: -4943.5 ~ −2946.2, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between RG and LG regarding time to flatus, hospitalization, morbidity, mortality, harvested lymph nodes, and cancer recurrence. Conclusions RG can be performed as safely as LG. However, it will take more effort to decrease operation time and expense.
Evidence for alpha-1-acid glycoprotein populations of different pI values after concanavalin A affinity chromatography. Study of their evolution during inflammation in man.

I. Nicollet,J. Lebreton,M. Fontaine,M. Hiron

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2795(81)90031-3

1981-04-28

Biochimica et Biophysica Acta

Abstract:
ROBOtic Care Outcomes Project for acute gallbladder pathology

Shannon Greenberg,Marc Abou Assali,Yanli Li,Hannah Bossie,Chris Neighorn,Esther Wu,Kaushik Mukherjee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000004240

2024-06-01

Abstract: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.
Epithelial ovarian cancer: the role of radiotherapy.

A. Dembo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(92)90777-F

Abstract:
[The electroencephalogram in a normal population. II. The effect of physiological changes on the EEG].

M. Matousek,J. Volavka,J. Roubicek

1967-04-01

Abstract:
Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Xiaowei Wang,Gaoyang Cao,Weifang Mao,Weifeng Lao,Chao He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_533_18

2020-01-01

Abstract:This study aimed to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.We searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Yahoo, and Google Scholar databases for relevant articles published up to 2017. Studies based on comparability between robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were designated. Clinical outcomes included operative time, conversion to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), bowel function recovery time, length of hospital stay (LOS), anastomosis leak, and postoperative complications. Oncological outcomes comprised the number of lymph nodes extracted, the positive circumferential margin (PCRM), and the distal resection margin (DRM).Twenty studies were designated totaling 5496 patients, comprising a robot-assisted surgery patient group (n = 2168, 39.4%) and a laparoscopic surgery patient group (n = 3328, 60.6%). The robot-assisted surgery group was associated with longer operative time (odds ratio [OR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.14, 0.82), lower conversion to open surgery rate (OR 0.55, 95% CI; 0.44, 0.69), shorter LOS (OR - 0.15, 95% CI; -0.30, 0.00), faster bowel function recovery (OR - 0.38, 95% CI; -0.74, -0.02), and lower postoperative complications (OR 0.79, 95% CI; 0.65, 0.97). EBL, anastomosis leak rate, and oncological outcomes including the number of lymph nodes extracted, the DRM, and the PCRM showed no significant differences between groups.Robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer showed longer operative time, lower conversion, faster bowel function recovery rates, and shorter hospital stay, and similar oncological outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery.
Feasibility of robotic cholecystectomy at an academic center with a young robotic surgery program: a retrospective cohort study with umbrella review

Maria Paula Corzo,Daniel Tomey,Alessandro Martinino,Roberto Secchi,Steven Elzein,Yoon Kyung Lee,Adel Abou-Mrad,Rodolfo J. Oviedo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-01824-x

2024-02-29

Journal of Robotic Surgery

Abstract: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/m 2 , 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.
Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic liver resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sivesh Kathir Kamarajah,James Bundred,Derek Manas,Long Jiao,Mohammad Abu Hilal,S. A. White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1457496920925637

2020-08-07

Scandinavian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Background: Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model. Result: Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005). Conclusions: Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.

surgery
ROBOtic Care Outcomes Project (ROBOCOP) for Acute Gallbladder Pathology

Shannon Greenberg,Marc Abou Assali,Yanli Li,Hannah Bossie,Chris Neighorn,Esther Wu,Kaushik Mukherjee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0000000000004240

2024-01-09

Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

Abstract:Robotic cholecystectomy is being increasingly used for patients with acute gallbladder disease who present to 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.

surgery,critical care medicine
A Current Status Between Laparoscopic and Robotic Resection of Pancreatic Malignant: A Systematic Review

Maher Hendi,Bin Zhang,Yu Pan,Yiping Mou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33425/2639-9334.1002

2018-01-01

Abstract:Background: Laparoscopic and Robotic approaches have become increasingly used for pancreatic surgery.The aim of this study is to evaluate compile and evaluate existing literature on the comparison of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery and robotic pancreatic surgery in the resection of Pancreatic neoplasms.The outcomes of each technique were quantified using meta-analysis.Study Design: A systematic review of articles in both PubMed and Embase comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures was performed.Approaches were evaluated in terms of operative time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, conversion, number of lymph nodes harvested, and mobidity and mortality and pancreatic fistula.Mean net differences and effect of each group.Results: 232 were full-text articles were identified, and 47 met the inclusion criteria, representing 2753 patients: 690 patients who underwent robotic pancreatic surgery procedures and 2063 patients who underwent laparoscopic pancreatic surgery procedure.Operative time for the robotic approach was 20-45 minutes longer.The robotic group had lower estimated blood loss (57 ml), and patients were 1.85 times more likely to be converted procedure and average length of stay in hospital (14,395 vs 11.85) laparoscopic group was longer then robotic.But there was no real difference between the 2 groups in terms of number of day.There was no much real difference between groups with respect to number of lymph nodes harvested, mortality, or morbidity rate. Conclusions:The laparoscopic and robotic approach to pancreatic surgery is as safe and similar outcomes for both procedures.Further the robotic approach tended to have longer operating times, less blood loss, and a higher rate of conversion to an open procedure compared with laparoscopic procedure.On the basis of the findings of this meta-analysis, there does not appear to be any clear advantage of a robotic approach over a laparoscopic one for pancreatic surgery.
Innovations in surgery for gallbladder cancer: A review of robotic surgery as a feasible and safe option

Sebastian Mellado,Ariana M. Chirban,Emanuel Shapera,Belen Rivera,Elena Panettieri,Marcelo Vivanco,Claudius Conrad,Iswanto Sucandy,Eduardo A. Vega

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.02.022

IF: 3.125

2024-02-29

The American Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Background This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted surgical techniques in the treatment of gallbladder cancer, comparing it with traditional open and laparoscopic methods. Methods A systematic review of the literature searched for comparative analyses of patient outcomes following robotic, open, and laparoscopic surgeries, focusing on oncological results and perioperative benefits. Results Five total studies published between 2019 and 2023 were identified. Findings indicate that robotic-assisted surgery for gallbladder cancer is as effective as traditional methods in terms of oncological outcomes, with potential advantages in precision and perioperative recovery. Conclusions Robotic surgery offers a viable and potentially advantageous alternative for gallbladder cancer treatment, warranting further research to confirm its benefits and establish comprehensive surgical guidelines.

surgery
Comparative Analysis of Learning Curves in Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review

Md Rezaul Karim,Amos E Kong,Noor Mohammad,Riddhi N Shah,Bijendra Patel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.67468

2024-08-22

Cureus

Abstract:Robotic surgery has undergone much development and increased use over the years; it has offered many benefits for the operating surgeon compared to the more restrictive nature of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) which is the current standard of care. However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have attempted to draw a comparison between the two in terms of the cases required for the learning curve to be achieved. The systematic review was performed at Barts Cancer Institute. A search of Cochrane, PubMed and Embase was made on 15 March 2024. Screening and risk of bias were done by two reviewers. Screening was done via the eligibility criteria by two reviewers. Data collection was done using Excel (Microsoft® Corp., Redmond, USA) and information was double-checked by another reviewer and transferred into a tabulated format. Seventeen studies were included, with the learning curve reported in 14 studies. The cases required to achieve the learning curve for multiport robotic cholecystectomy (MRC) ranged from 16 to 134 and for single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC), it ranged from 10 to over 102 cases. Conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC) was from 7 to 200. The improvement in operating times was measured in very different ways and was reported in 10 of the 17 studies. The studies that were available had a high level of heterogeneity making it difficult for comparisons to be made between studies. Several studies included only one surgeon resulting in the sample size of surgeons being too small and vulnerable to bias. As robotic surgery is still relatively novel, higher-quality studies have to be made in order for more conclusive conclusions to be made on the benefits of the learning curve of MRC and SSRC.
Lymphoproliferative response to phytohemagglutinin in the burn patient--no paradigm in vitro.

J. Teodorczyk-Injeyan,B. G. Sparkes,W. Peters,R. Falk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00004630-198603000-00007

1986-03-01

Abstract:
A Retrospective Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Indian Tertiary Care Comparative Experience

Udipta Ray,Rahul Dhar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.69295

2024-09-12

Cureus

Abstract:Background There has been a gradual adoption of general surgery robotic programs in India. However, we still do not have a single comparative study reporting the initial experience of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) compared to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This retrospective study is aimed at addressing this clinical data gap. Methods This is a retrospective medical chart review where data related to patient demographics, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected. All patients underwent either RC or LC for gallstone disease, performed by a single surgeon from January 2020 to September 2023. The surgeon had passed the learning curve for RC and this data collection reflects his post-learning curve experience. Results A total of 100 cases (RC: 50; LC: 50) were collected. Baseline parameters such as age, sex, BMI, and comorbidities were comparable. There were no conversions from the planned procedure in either of the groups (0% vs 0%). There were no intraoperative complications such as bleeding or common bile duct injury (0% vs 0%). The rates of surgical site infections (SSIs) were numerically lower in the robotic group, 2% vs 6% (p = 0.3099). There were no postoperative complications in the robotic group, whereas one patient in the laparoscopic group experienced port side bleeding (0% vs 2%, p = 0.3173). The mean length of hospital stay was one day in both groups. The mean pain score 24- hours after the surgery was 1.78 ± 0.68 in the robotic group and 3.3 ± 1.2 in the laparoscopic group (p = <0.001). None of the patients required opioid analgesics in the robotic group, whereas 20% of patients in the laparoscopic group needed at least one dose of opioid analgesics (p = 0.0009). There were no reoperations reported in the robotic group, whereas the laparoscopic group reported 1 case. The 30-day mortality was nil in both groups. Conclusion RC is feasible in Indian settings. Compared to LC, it does not increase morbidity. The improvement in acute postoperative pain can potentially allow early ambulation and recovery. A larger multicentric study, comparing RC to LC in India will validate our initial experience.
excellence in medical research – can we make it in india?

S. C. Lakhotia,A. Anand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5214/ans.0972.7531.220201

2015-04-01

Annals of Neurosciences

Abstract:The health-care system across the world has witnessed a phenomenal improvement so that the life expectancy in almost every country has increased significantly. Besides improvements in public hygiene, the newer non-invasive methods of diagnosis, newer drugs and unprecedented technological advances in treatment and patient-care have all contributed to the longer life span. This puts further demands on applied research for developing new drugs, tests, imaging techniques, surgical modalities etc, especially because the increasing population burden and longer lifespan has generated novel health issues that were not so critical even a few decades ago.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic cholecystectomy in the treatment of benign gallbladder disease

Adityabikram Singh,Vishnu Prasath,Simran Arjani,Neal S. Panse,Ravi J. Chokshi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2023.01.017

IF: 4.348

2023-03-13

Surgery

Abstract:Background Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the current standard of care treatment for benign gallbladder disease. Robotic cholecystectomy is another approach for performing cholecystectomy that offers a surgeon better dexterity and visualization. However, robotic cholecystectomy may increase cost without sufficient evidence to suggest an improvement in clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to construct a decision tree model to compare cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and robotic cholecystectomy. Methods Complication rates and effectiveness associated with robotic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy over a 1-year time frame were compared using a decision tree model populated with data from the published literature. Cost was calculated using Medicare data. Effectiveness was represented by quality-adjusted life-years. The primary outcome of the study was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which compares the cost per quality-adjusted life-year of the 2 interventions. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year. Results were confirmed with 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses varying branch-point probabilities. Results The studies used in our analysis included 3,498 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 1,833 patients who underwent robotic cholecystectomy, and 392 patients who required conversion to open cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy produced 0.9722 quality-adjusted life-years, costing 3,013.64. These results equate to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $1,795,735.21/quality-adjusted life-year. This exceeds the willingness-to-pay threshold, making laparoscopic cholecystectomy the more cost-effective strategy. Sensitivity analyses did not alter results. Conclusion Traditional laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the more cost-effective treatment modality for benign gallbladder disease. At present, robotic cholecystectomy is not able to improve clinical outcomes enough to justify its added cost.

surgery
Safety of robotic cholecystectomy as index training procedure: the UK experience

Irena Stefanova,Omar Alkhatib,Andrea Sheel,Edward Alabraba,Mohammad Alibrahim,Ali Arshad,Altaf Awan,Ryan Baron,Imran Bhatti,Ricky Bhogal,Vijayanand Dhakshinamoorthy,Rafael Diaz-Nieto,Declan Dunne,Adam E Frampton,Alexander Green,Shahin Hajibandeh,Zaed Hamady,Liam Horgan,Eleanor Kissane,Sailakshmi Krishnan,Rajesh Kumar,Rajiv Lahiri,Shi Lam,Siong-Seng Liau,Gabriele Marangoni,Shyam Moudhgalya,Georgios Papadopoulos,Tim Pencavel,Sarah Picker,Jason Ramsingh,Angela Riga,Michael Silva,Zahir Soonawalla,Daren Subar,Vikas Sud,Vivek Upasani,Vincent Wong,Tim Worthington,Kai Tai Derek Yeung,Jawad Ahmad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-11006-3

Abstract:Aims: To evaluate the safety profile of robotic cholecystectomy performed within the United Kingdom (UK) Robotic Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) training programme. Methods: A retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data from eleven centres participating in the UK Robotic HPB training programme was conducted. All adult patients undergoing robotic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstone disease or gallbladder polyp were considered. Bile duct injury, conversion to open procedure, conversion to subtotal cholecystectomy, length of hospital stay, 30-day re-admission, and post-operative complications were the evaluated outcome parameters. Results: A total of 600 patients were included. The median age was 53 (IQR 65-41) years and the majority (72.7%; 436/600) were female. The main indications for robotic cholecystectomy were biliary colic (55.5%, 333/600), cholecystitis (18.8%, 113/600), gallbladder polyps (7.7%, 46/600), and pancreatitis (6.2%, 37/600). The median length of stay was 0 (IQR 0-1) days. Of the included patients, 88.5% (531/600) were discharged on the day of procedure with 30-day re-admission rate of 5.5% (33/600). There were no bile duct injuries and the rate of conversion to open was 0.8% (5/600) with subtotal cholecystectomy rate of 0.8% (5/600). Conclusion: The current study confirms that robotic cholecystectomy can be safely implemented to routine practice with a low risk of bile duct injury, low bile leak rate, low conversion to open surgery, and low need for subtotal cholecystectomy.
Cholecystectomy using a novel Single-Site® robotic platform: early experience from 45 consecutive cases

Konstantinos M. Konstantinidis,Petros Hirides,Savas Hirides,Pericles Chrysocheris,Michael Georgiou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2227-2

2012-04-05

Surgical Endoscopy

Abstract:BackgroundThe aim of this work was to study the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of single-incision robotic cholecystectomy using a novel platform from Intuitive Surgical.MethodsAll operations were performed by the same surgeon. Parameters assessed included patient history, indication for surgery, operation time, complication rate, conversion rate, robot-related issues, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and time to return to work. All patients were followed for a 2-month period postoperatively.ResultsForty-five patients (22 women, 23 men) underwent single-incision robotic cholecystectomy from March 1 to July 15, 2011. There were no conversions to either conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy, although in three cases a second trocar was used. There were no major complications apart from a single case of postoperative hemorrhage. Average patient age was 47 ± 12 years (range = 27–80 years) and average BMI was 30 kg/m2 (mean = 28.8 ± 4 kg/m2, range = 18.4–46.7 kg/m2). The primary indication for surgery was gallstones. The mean operation time (skin-to-skin) was 84.5 ± 25.5 min (range = 51–175 min), docking time was 5.8 ± 1.5 min (range = 4–11 min), and console time (net surgical time) was 43 ± 21.9 min (range = 21–121 min). Intraoperative blood loss was negligible. There were no collisions between the robotic arms and no other robot-related problems. Average postoperative length of stay was less than 24 h. The mean Visual Analog Pain Scale Score 6 h after the operation was 2.2 ± 1.51 (range = 0–6) and patients returned to normal activities in 4.48 ± 2.3 days (range = 1–9 days).ConclusionsSingle-Site® is a new platform offering a potentially more stable and reliable environment to perform single-port cholecystectomy. Both simple and complicated cholecystectomies can be performed with safety. The technique is possible in patients with a high BMI. The induction of pneumoperitoneum using the new port and the docking process require additional training.
Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review

Theophilus T K Anyomih,Alok Mehta,Dorcas Sackey,Caroline A Woo,Emmanuel Y Gyabaah,Marigold Jabulo,Alan Askari

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-02016-3

2024-07-05

Abstract: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 surgery for gallbladder cancer: Operative technique and early outcomes

Mahesh Goel,Krunal Khobragade,Shraddha Patkar,Amol Kanetkar,Sagar Kurunkar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.25422

Abstract:Background: The objective was to elucidate the operative technique of robotic radical cholecystectomy (RRC) and to compare the early outcomes of RRC with open radical cholecystectomy (ORC) for gallbladder cancer (GBC). Methods: Patients who underwent RRC for suspected or incidental GBC between July 2015 and August 2018 were analyzed. Patients who underwent ORC during the same period and fulfilled the study criteria formed the control group. Results: During the study period, 27 patients who underwent RRC formed the study group (group A) and 70 matched patients who underwent ORC formed the control group (group B). Median surgical time was higher in group A (295 vs 200 minutes, P < 0.001). However, median blood loss (200 vs 600 mL, P < 0.001), postoperative hospital stay (4 vs 5 days, P = 0.046) and postoperative morbidity (1 vs 15 patients, P = 0.035) were lower in group A. Median lymph node yield was 10 (range = 2-21) for group A and 9 (range = 2-25) for group B, and was comparable (P = 0.408). During a median follow up of 9 (1-46) months, two patients in group A developed recurrence (no port site recurrence). Conclusion: RRC is safe and feasible and the short-term results are compared with ORC.

The control of nucleotide biosynthesis.

Robotic versus laparoscopic Gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Evidence for alpha-1-acid glycoprotein populations of different pI values after concanavalin A affinity chromatography. Study of their evolution during inflammation in man.

ROBOtic Care Outcomes Project for acute gallbladder pathology

Epithelial ovarian cancer: the role of radiotherapy.

[The electroencephalogram in a normal population. II. The effect of physiological changes on the EEG].

Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

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

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic liver resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ROBOtic Care Outcomes Project (ROBOCOP) for Acute Gallbladder Pathology

A Current Status Between Laparoscopic and Robotic Resection of Pancreatic Malignant: A Systematic Review

Innovations in surgery for gallbladder cancer: A review of robotic surgery as a feasible and safe option

Comparative Analysis of Learning Curves in Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review

Lymphoproliferative response to phytohemagglutinin in the burn patient--no paradigm in vitro.

A Retrospective Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Indian Tertiary Care Comparative Experience

excellence in medical research – can we make it in india?

Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic cholecystectomy in the treatment of benign gallbladder disease

Safety of robotic cholecystectomy as index training procedure: the UK experience

Cholecystectomy using a novel Single-Site® robotic platform: early experience from 45 consecutive cases

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

Robotic surgery for gallbladder cancer: Operative technique and early outcomes