Efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted versus median sternotomy for cardiac surgery: results from a university affiliated hospital

Zhuang Liu,Chengxin Zhang,Shenglin Ge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-23-197

2023-04-29

Journal of Thoracic Disease

Abstract:Keywords: Robot; cardiac surgery; minimally invasive

respiratory system

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery: Robot-Assisted Versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery

Liping Zeng,Tianyu He,Jian Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2023.128714

2023-01-01

Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques

Abstract:Minimally invasive techniques have been widely applied in general thoracic surgery. Compared with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), due to its theoretic superiority, robotic surgery is challenging the traditional position of VATS. With its unique advantages, including 3D vision and a high-freedom endowrist, it leads to easier lymph node dissection, more convenient blood vessel dissection, a shorter learning curve and competence for the completion of complex surgery. However, as a new surgical technology, the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) still need to be further verified. Thus, in this article, we review and summarize the application of RATS versus VATS in general thoracic surgery.
Initial Experience of Da Vinci Robotic Thoracic Surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University.

Zhehao He,Liping Zeng,Chong Zhang,Luming Wang,Zhitian Wang,Azmat Rustam,Chengli Du,Wang Lv,Jian Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jovs.2017.09.11

2017-01-01

Journal of Visualized Surgery

Abstract:Robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) is a relatively new but rapidly adopted technique, pioneered by the urological and gynecological departments. The primary objective of this study is to present the current status, a series of improvement and innovation of Da Vinci robotic surgery in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University. In addition, we discuss the prospect of robotic surgical technology.
Comparative analysis of robotically-assisted versus conventional sternotomy approach in left atrial-myxoma resection: A single-center retrospective observational study

Yanyi Liu,Shenglin Ge,Xin Li,Chenghao Lu,Chengxin Zhang,Zhuang Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2024.02.112

Abstract:Background: Minimally invasive surgery has emerged as a favorable alternative to conventional surgery for various cardiac conditions. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes and follow-up results of the robotic approach versus the sternotomy approach for left atrial myxoma (LAM) resection. Method: We retrospectively analyzed the perioperative outcomes and follow-up results of 94 patients who underwent left atrial myxoma resection using either the sternotomy approach (n = 64) or the robotic approach (n = 30) at our center between January 2017 and April 2023. Multiple linear regressions were employed to examine the actual impact of the surgical approach on perioperative outcomes while controlling for potential confounding factors. Results: There were no in-hospital deaths or follow-up deaths in the robotic group. Univariate analyses revealed that robotic LAM resection had a longer cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (99.93 ± 22.30 vs. 76.28 ± 24.92, P < 0.001), longer aortic clamping time (57.80 ± 20.27 vs. 47.89 ± 18.10, P = 0.019), reduced postoperative drainage (P < 0.001), shorter mechanical ventilation time (P = 0.005), shorter postoperative bed-stay time (P < 0.001), shorter postoperative hospitalization time (P = 0.040), and higher hospital costs (P = 0.001) compared to the sternotomy group. After adjusting for baseline characteristics in a multiple regression model, a longer CPB time (B = 28.328; CI, 18.609-38.047; P < 0.001), longer aortic clamping time (B = 11.856; CI, 4.069-19.644; P = 0.003), reduced postoperative drainage (B = -200.224; CI, -254.962- -145.486; P < 0.001), shorter mechanical ventilation time (B = -3.429; CI, -6.562- -0.295; P = 0.032), shorter postoperative bed-stay time (B = -2.230; CI, -3.267- -1.193; P < 0.001), shorter postoperative hospitalization time (B = -1.998; CI, -3.747- -0.250; P = 0.026), and higher hospital costs (B = 2096.866, P = 0.002) were found in the robotic group. Furthermore, the robotic group exhibited a faster return to exercise compared to the sternotomy group (Log-Rank χ2 = 34.527, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Both the robotic and sternotomy approaches are viable and safe options for LAM resection. However, despite the higher costs, longer CPB time, and longer aortic clamping time associated with robotic LAM resection, this technique was correlated with reduced postoperative drainage and faster postoperative recovery compared to the sternotomy technique.
Application of da Vinci system for cardiac surgery in 51 patients

Lai WEI,Jin-qiang SHEN,Li-min XIA,Kai SONG,Huan LIU,Jia-si ZHU,Chun-sheng WANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-8467.2013.06.012

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the safty and efficacy of robotic cardiac surgery using da Vinci surgical system. Methods: From Aug. 2009 to Oct. 2012, 51 cases of robotic cardiac surgery have been completed in Zhongshan hospital of Fudan University using da Vinci surgical system. There were 39 male and 12 female patients, aging from 15 to 80 years with a mean age of 58.8 years, including 24 cases of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB), 20 cases of mitral valvuloplasty, 5 cases of atrial septal defect repair and 2 cases of left atrial myxoma resection. Results: The operations were successfully performed on 50 patients except one conversion to sternotomy because of uncontrollable proximal bleeding of left internal mammary artery (LIMA). There were no operative mortality. The median for LIMA harvesting time was 78.3 min in 23 cases. Mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic clamping time were 139.1 minutes and 84.5 minutes in 27 cases. Mean duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay and postoperative hospital stay were 4.2 h, 15.1 h and 4.2 d. The mean drainage was 188.4 mL. 90% of the patients did not receive any transfusion. The mean time of follow-up was 3 to 25 months; a good recovery was obtained in all patients except one who died of heart failure 9 months after coronary artery bypass grafting. Conclusions: Robotic cardiac surgery without sternotomy is safe and effective using the da Vinci surgical system with shortened length of ICU and postoperative hospital stay and reduction tranfusion during hospitalization, and is worth applying to selective clinical application for treatment of single or dual-vessel coronary artery disease, mitral valve regurgitation, atrial septal defect and atrial myxoma.
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic major liver resection: analysis of outcomes from a single center

Mike Fruscione,Ryan Pickens,Erin H. Baker,Allyson Cochran,Adeel Khan,Lee Ocuin,David A. Iannitti,Dionisios Vrochides,John B. Martinie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2018.11.011

IF: 3.842

2019-07-01

HPB

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Debate exists regarding outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. We reviewed and analyzed major hepatectomies (resection of ≥3 Couinaud liver segments) performed in a minimally invasive fashion at a single institution.METHODS: From 2011 to 2016, 473 major hepatectomy procedures were performed, of which 173 (37%) were performed in a minimally invasive fashion (57 robot-assisted and 116 laparoscopic). Patient demographics, operating statistics and outcomes were analyzed retrospectively.RESULTS: Patients undergoing robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy were older (58.1 vs 53.2 years, respectively; p = 0.030), admitted to ICU postoperatively less frequently (43.9% vs 61.2%, respectively; p = 0.043), and readmitted less often within 90 days (7.0% vs 28.5%, respectively; p = 0.001). No significant differences were identified in relation to complications, blood loss, operative times, and length of stay.CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted is an effective alternative to laparoscopic major hepatectomy for resection of malignant and benign liver lesions. Robotic-assisted offers technical advantages compared to laparoscopic surgery including improved optic visualization, operative dexterity, and ease of dissection and suturing. This experience suggested that the robotic platform was associated with improved outcomes including reduced postoperative ICU admission and 90-day readmission.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Safety and Effectiveness Assessment of Surgical Robot Technology

CHEN Yingyao,LI Chuanlin,GE Zhixin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13912/j.cnki.chqm.2010.06.039

2010-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of surgical robotics to provide recommendations for the allocation of surgical robot according to our country's conditions.Method We used rapid assessment tools to evaluate foreign-based technology, conbining with English literature review of recent 4 years.Result Since the inception of surgical robot, it has shown some advantages. However, compared with controlled studies on conventional laparoscopic surgery, the conclusion was not very sure. To data, there was insufficient evidence on the safety and efficacy to distinguish surgical robot from the traditional open surgery and laparoscopic surgery.Conclusion Surgical robot should be classified as the clinical high-technology, which belongs to scientific clinical equipments. It should be strict controlled, and be moderate developed. Furthermore, the process of supervision should be strengthened and adverse event reporting system should be established.
Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Breast Surgery: Recent Evidence with Comparative Clinical Outcomes

Kuo Chen,Jin Zhang,Narasimha M. Beeraka,Mikhail Y. Sinelnikov,Xinliang Zhang,Yu Cao,Pengwei Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11071827

IF: 3.9

2022-03-25

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:In recent times, robot-assisted surgery has been prominently gaining pace to minimize overall postsurgical complications with minimal traumatization, due to technical advancements in telerobotics and ergonomics. The aim of this review is to explore the efficiency of robot-assisted systems for executing breast surgeries, including microsurgeries, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, deep inferior epigastric perforators-based surgery, latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction, and nipple-sparing mastectomy. Robot-assisted surgery systems are efficient due to 3D-based visualization, dexterity, and range of motion while executing breast surgery. The review describes the comparative efficiency of robot-assisted surgery in relation to conventional or open surgery, in terms of clinical outcomes, morbidity rates, and overall postsurgical complication rates. Potential cost-effective barriers and technical skills were also delineated as the major limitations associated with these systems in the clinical sector. Furthermore, instrument articulation of robot-assisted surgical systems (for example, da Vinci systems) can enable high accuracy and precision surgery due to its promising ability to mitigate tremors at the time of surgery, and shortened learning curve, making it more beneficial than other open surgery procedures.

medicine, general & internal
Robotic compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program comparative analysis

Felipe B Maegawa,Jamil Stetler,Dipan Patel,Snehal Patel,Federico J Serrot,Edward Lin,Ankit D Patel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2024.08.006

IF: 4.348

2024-09-13

Surgery

Abstract:Background: Data demonstrating the clinical benefit of robotic cholecystectomy over the laparoscopic approach are lacking. Herein, we aim to evaluate whether robotic cholecystectomy is associated with improved surgical outcomes compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Study design: This is a retrospective cohort study that used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign indications in 2022. Results: Of the 59,216 patients identified, 53,746 underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 5,470 robotic. Compared with the robotic cohort, the patients in the laparoscopic cholecystectomy group were older (50.4 vs 49.7 years), were of the male sex (32.7% vs 29.7%), and comprised a greater percentage of other races than White, African American, and Asian (28.6% vs 14.8%). Multivariable logistic regression revealed that robotic cholecystectomy compared with the laparoscopic approach was independently associated with a lower risk of Clavien-Dindo complications grade 3 or 4 (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.98), a lower rate of conversion to open (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.61), and lower odds of requiring hospitalization ≥24 hours (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.81). There were no significant differences between the 2 approaches in terms of reoperation (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-1.00) and readmission (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.10). Conclusion: Robotic cholecystectomy was independently associated with a lower risk of serious complications, lower rate conversion to open, and hospitalization ≥24 hours compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. These findings suggest that new technologies might enhance the safety of minimally invasive surgery.
Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis

Ruoyu Guan,Yongjun Chen,Kui Yang,Di Ma,Xiaoyong Gong,Baiyong Shen,Chenghong Peng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.05.008

IF: 2.808

2019-01-01

Asian Journal of Surgery

Abstract:To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) by the means of meta-analytical techniques. We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and Web of Science databases, collecting randomized or non-randomized studies about robotic-assisted and laparoscopic liver resections. The searching cutoff date was 2017/6/30, all the data obtained were statistically analyzed using RevMan5.3 software recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. A total of thirteen articles, involving 938 patients were enrolled in meta-analysis. Among them, 435 cases underwent RLR, and 503 cases underwent LLR. Compared with LLR, the RLR had longer operative time [MD=65.49, 95%CI (42.00, 88.98) P<0.00001=more intraoperative blood loss [MD=69.88, 95%CI (27.11, 112.65) P=0.001] and a higher cost [MD=4.24, 95%CI (3.08, 5.39) P<0.00001=. There were no significant differences between the two groups in transfusion rate, complication rate, conversion rate, the R1 resection rate and hospital stay. In the subgroup analysis of surgery after 2010, a lower conversion rate was observed in RLR, other clinical outcomes are comparable between RLR and LLR. In the subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy, RLR is still associated with longer operative time, but there is no difference in other outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of left hemihepatectomy or left lateral hepatectomy, RLR is associated with more blood loss. Although RLR associated with Longer operative time and more intraoperative blood loss, it displays the same safety and effectiveness as LLR for hepatectomies. And the high cost is still a major hindrance for the widely application of robotic surgery.

surgery
Patient body image, self-esteem, and cosmetic results of minimally invasive robotic cardiac surgery

Taner İyigün,Mehmet Kaya,Sevil Özgül Gülbeyaz,Nurhan Fıstıkçı,Gözde Uyanık,Bilge Yılmaz,Burak Onan,Korhan Erkanlı

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.01.105

Abstract:Background: Patient-reported outcome measures reveal the quality of surgical care from the patient's perspective. We aimed to compare body image, self-esteem, hospital anxiety and depression, and cosmetic outcomes by using validated tools between patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery and those undergoing conventional open surgery. Materials and methods: This single-center, multidisciplinary, randomized, prospective study of 62 patients who underwent cardiac surgery was conducted at Hospital from May 2013 to January 2015. The patients were divided into two groups: the robotic group (n = 33) and the open group (n = 29). The study employed five different tools to assess body image, self-esteem, and overall patient-rated scar satisfaction. Results: There were statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of self-esteem scores (p = 0.038), body image scores (p = 0.026), overall Observer Scar Assessment Scale (p = 0.013), and overall Patient Scar Assessment Scale (p = 0.036) scores in favor of the robotic group during the postoperative period. Robot-assisted surgery protected the patient's body image and self-esteem, while conventional open surgery decreased these levels but without causing pathologies. Preoperative depression and anxiety level was reduced by both robot-assisted surgery and conventional open surgery. The groups did not significantly differ on Patient Satisfaction Scores and depression/anxiety scores. Conclusion: The results of this study clearly demonstrated that a minimally invasive approach using robotic-assisted surgery has advantages in terms of body image, self-esteem, and cosmetic outcomes over the conventional approach in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
The Safety and Efficacy of Approaches to Liver Resection: A Meta-Analysis

Nicole R. Jackson,Adam Hauch,Tian Hu,Joseph F. Buell,Douglas P. Slakey,Emad Kandil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4293/jsls.2014.00186

2015-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional laparotomy with those of robotic and laparoscopic approaches to hepatectomy.DATABASE: Independent reviewers conducted a systematic review of publications in PubMed and Embase, with searches limited to comparative articles of laparoscopic hepatectomy with either conventional or robotic liver approaches. Outcomes included total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, resection margins, postoperative complications, perioperative mortality rates, and cost measures. Outcome comparisons were calculated using random-effects models to pool estimates of mean net differences or of the relative risk between group outcomes. Forty-nine articles, representing 3702 patients, comprise this analysis: 1901 (51.35%) underwent a laparoscopic approach, 1741 (47.03%) underwent an open approach, and 60 (1.62%) underwent a robotic approach. There was no difference in total operative times, surgical margins, or perioperative mortality rates among groups. Across all outcome measures, laparoscopic and robotic approaches showed no difference. As compared with the minimally invasive groups, patients undergoing laparotomy had a greater estimated blood loss (pooled mean net change, 152.0 mL; 95% confidence interval, 103.3-200.8 mL), a longer length of hospital stay (pooled mean difference, 2.22 days; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-2.66 days), and a higher total complication rate (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.57).CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection are as safe as conventional laparotomy, affording less estimated blood loss, shorter lengths of hospitalization, lower perioperative complication rates, and equitable oncologic integrity and postoperative mortality rates. There was no proven advantage of robotic approaches compared with laparoscopic approaches.
Robotic liver surgery for minor hepatic resections: a comparison with laparoscopic and open standard procedures

Roland S. Croner,Aristotiles Perrakis,Werner Hohenberger,Maximillian Brunner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1440-1

2016-05-20

Abstract:BackgroundMinimally invasive liver surgery is increasing worldwide. The benefit of the robot in this scenario is currently controversially discussed. We compared our robotic cases vs. laparoscopic and open minor hepatic resections and share the experience.Material and methodsFrom 2011 to 2015, ten patients underwent robotic and 19 patients underwent laparoscopic minor liver resections in the Department of Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen. These patients were compared to a case-matched control group of 53 patients. The perioperative prospectively collected data were analyzed retrospectively.ResultsBlood loss was significantly decreased in the robotic (306 ml) and laparoscopic (356 ml) vs. the open (903 ml) surgery group (p = 0.001). Mean tumor size was 4.1–4.8 cm in all groups (p = 0.571). Negative surgical margins were present in 94 % of the open and 100 % of the laparoscopic and robotic group (p = 0.882). Time for surgery was enlarged for robotic (321 min) vs. laparoscopic (242 min) and open (186 min) surgery (p = 0.001). Postoperative hospitalization was decreased after robotic (7 days) and laparoscopic (8 days) vs. open (10 days) surgery (p = 0.004). Total morbidity was 17 % for open, 16 % for laparoscopic, and 1 % for robotic cases (p = 0.345). Postoperative pain medication and elevation of liver enzymes were remarkably lower after minimally invasive vs. open procedures.ConclusionMinimally invasive liver surgery can be performed safely for minor hepatic resections and should be considered whenever possible. Minor liver resections can be performed by standard laparoscopy equivalent to robotic procedures. Nevertheless, the robot adds a technical upgrade which may have benefits for challenging cases and major liver surgery.

surgery
Nursing Cooperation for Robotic Surgery in Thoracic Surgery

Gongxian Wang,Yu Zeng,Xia Sheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0510-9_16

2021-01-01

Abstract:In the 1990s, the introduction of thoracoscopy revolutionized minimally invasive thoracic surgery. At present, almost all thoracic surgeries (except lung transplantation) can be performed using thoracoscopy (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, VATS). However, VATS has limitations, including inconvenience of straight instruments (chopstick operation), two-dimensional surgical field, image instability, and unergonomic postures and angles for surgeons. In recent years, the emergence of robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery has provided a solution to the limitations of conventional VATS. The robotic system can provide three-dimensional images, allowing surgical procedures to achieve unprecedented precision. In addition, the robotic instruments have a range of motion close to that of human hands and can move more than 360° in a very small space (EndoWrist technology). At present, robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery has been widely performed in hospitals with robotic systems in China.
Efficacy and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis

Zhen Dai,Fuqiang Qin,Yuxing Yang,Weiming Liang,Xiao Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2024.1303165

IF: 4.7

2024-05-16

Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract:Introduction: Robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) is a newly developed minimally invasive surgery that has been suggested as a substitute for laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH). This meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical hysterectomy (RRH) for cervical cancer. Materials and methods: A systematic search was conducted in four databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL) for studies comparing the utilization of RRH and LRH in the treatment of cervical cancer. The search included articles published from the inception of the databases up until July 18, 2023. Meta-analyses were conducted to assess several surgical outcomes, including operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, pelvic lymph nodes, positive surgical margin, total complications, one-year recurrence rate, one-year mortality, and one-year disease-free survival rate. Results: Six studies were included for meta-analysis. In total, 234 patients were in the RRH group and 174 patients were in the LRH group. RRH had significantly longer operative time (MD=14.23,95% CI:5.27~23.20, P=0.002),shorter hospital stay (MD= -1.10,95% CI:-1.43~0.76, P <0.00001),more dissected pelvic lymph nodes(MD=0.89,95%CI:0.18~1.60, P =0.01) and less blood loss(WMD = -27.78,95%CI:-58.69 ~ -3.14, P=0.08, I 2 = 80%) compared with LRH. No significant difference was observed between two groups regarding positive surgical margin (OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.18~2.76, P=0.61), over complications (OR = 0.77, 95% CI, 0.46-1.28, P=0.31), one-year recurrence rate (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.03-1.15, P=0.13), one-year mortality rate (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.03-1.15, P=0.07) and disease-free survival at one year (OR = 1.92, 95% CI 0.32-11.50, P=0.48). Conclusion: RRH is an increasingly popular surgical method known for its high level of security and efficiency. It has many benefits in comparison to LRH, such as decreased blood loss, a higher quantity of dissected pelvic lymph nodes, and a shorter duration of hospitalization. Further multicenter, randomized controlled trials with extended follow-up durations are necessary to conclusively determine the safety and efficacy of RRH, as no significant differences were observed in terms of positive surgical margin, postoperative complications, 1-year recurrence, 1-year mortality, and 1-year disease-free survival. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023446653

oncology
Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis

Lilong Zhang,Qihang Yuan,Yao Xu,Weixing Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240593

IF: 3.7

2020-10-13

PLoS ONE

Abstract:As an emerging technology, robot-assisted surgical system has some potential merits in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted liver resection is still a controversial problem on its advantages compared with laparoscopic liver resection. We aimed to perform the meta-analysis to assess and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection.We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase databases, Clinicaltrials, and Opengrey through March 24, 2020, including references of qualifying articles. English-language, original investigations in humans about robot-assisted and laparoscopic hepatectomy were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers. Continuous and dichotomous variables were compared by the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR), respectively.Of 936 titles identified in our original search, 28 articles met our criteria, involving 3544 patients. Compared with laparoscopy, the robot-assisted groups had longer operative time (WMD: 36.93; 95% CI, 19.74–54.12; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (OR: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46–0.87; P = 0.005), higher transfusion rate (WMD: 2.39; 95% CI, 1.51–3.76; P < 0.001) and higher total cost (WMD:0.49; 95% CI, 0.42–0.55; P < 0.001). In addition, the baseline characteristics of patients about largest tumor size was larger (WMD: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16–0.56; P < 0.001) and malignant lesions rate was higher (WMD: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21–1.86; P < 0.001) in the robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. The subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 36.00; 95% CI, 12.59–59.41; P = 0.003), longer length of stay (WMD: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.02–1.01; p = 0.04) and higher total cost (WMD: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25–0.72; P < 0.001) (<a href="#pone-0240593-t003">Table 3</a>); while the subgroup analysis of major hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with lower estimated blood loss (WMD: -122.43; 95% CI, -151.78–-93.08; P < 0.001).Our meta-analysis revealed that robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time, lower conversion rate, higher transfusion rate and total cost, and robot-assisted has certain advantages in major hepatectomy compared with laparoscopic hepatectomy.

multidisciplinary sciences
National trends and outcomes of robotic emergency general surgery in the United States

Nicole Charland,Joseph Hadaya,Saad Mallick,Zachary Tran,Nam Yong Cho,Nguyen Le,Shineui Kim,Kaushik Mukherjee,Peyman Benharash

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2024.05.002

IF: 4.348

2024-06-26

Surgery

Abstract:Background Robot-assisted surgery has seen exponential adoption over the last decade. Although the safety and efficacy of robotic surgery in the elective setting have been demonstrated, data regarding robotic emergency general surgery remains sparse. Methods All adults undergoing non-elective appendectomy, cholecystectomy, small or large bowel resection, perforated ulcer repair, or lysis of adhesions were identified in the 2008 to 2020 National Inpatient Sample. Temporal trends were analyzed using a rank-based, non-parametric test developed by Cuzick (nptrend). Using laparoscopy as a reference, multivariable regressions were used to evaluate the association between robotic techniques and in-hospital mortality, major complications, and resource use for each emergency general surgery operation. Results Of an estimated 4,040,555 patients undergoing emergency general surgery, 65,853 (1.6%) were performed using robotic techniques. The robotic proportion of minimally invasive emergency general surgery increased significantly overall, with the largest growth seen in robot-assisted large bowel resections and perforated ulcer repairs. After adjustment for various patient and hospital-level factors, robot-assisted large bowel resection (adjusted odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.58–0.91) and cholecystectomy (adjusted odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.55–0.81) were associated with significantly reduced odds of perioperative blood transfusion compared to traditional laparoscopy. Although robotic techniques were associated with modest reductions in postoperative length of stay, costs were uniformly higher by increments of up to $4,900. Conclusion Robotic surgery appears to be a safe and effective adjunct to laparoscopy in minimally invasive emergency general surgery, although comparable cost-effectiveness has yet to be realized. Increasing use of robotic techniques in emergency general surgery may be attributable in part to reduced complications, including blood loss, in certain operative contexts.

surgery
Study on robot-assisted minimally invasive neurosurgery and its clinical application

Liu, D.,Tianmiao Wang,Zigang Wang,Zesheng Tang,Zengmin Tian,Jixiang Du,Quanjun Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2001.932902

2001-01-01

Abstract:This paper introduces the research project of robot assisted minimally invasive neurosurgery. Using visualization technology, the system reconstructs and displays the 3D model of the patient's inner structure in the computer. Thus the surgeons can plan the surgery on the model in the computer. Marker registration is used to create the mapping between the patient's head and the 3D-brain model. Robot arm is used as a navigator to direct the surgery planning and as an instrument platform to assist surgeons to accomplish the operation. The results of the clinical application are given to show that the robotic system is effective.
Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Compared to Conventional Surgical Approaches (Laparoscopic or Open)

Hala Muaddi,Melanie El Hafid,Woo Jin Choi,Erin Lillie,Charles de Mestral,Avery Nathens,Therese A Stukel,Paul J Karanicolas,Therese A. Stukel,Paul J. Karanicolas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003915

IF: 13.787

2020-05-08

Annals of Surgery

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: Describe clinical outcomes (eg, postoperative complications, survival) after robotic surgery compared to open or laparoscopic surgery.BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery utilization has increased over the years across a wide range of surgical procedures. However, evidence supporting improved clinical outcomes after robotic surgery is limited.METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of systematic reviews from inception to January 2019 for systematic reviews describing postoperative outcomes after robotic surgery. We qualitatively described patient outcomes of commonly performed robotic procedures: radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, lobectomy, thymectomy, rectal resection, partial nephrectomy, distal gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, hepatectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and cholecystectomy.RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four systematic reviews included 336 studies and 18 randomized controlled trials reporting on patient outcomes after robotic compared to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data from the randomized controlled trials demonstrate that robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy offered fewer biochemical recurrence and improvement in quality of recovery and pain scores only up to 6 weeks postoperatively compared to open radical prostatectomy. When compared to laparoscopic prostatectomy, robotic surgery offered improved urinary and sexual functions. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer had fewer conversion to open compared to laparoscopic. Otherwise, robotic surgery outcomes were similar to conventional surgical approaches for other procedures except for radical hysterectomy where minimally invasive approaches may result in patient harm compared to open approach.CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery has been widely incorporated into practise despite limited supporting evidence. More rigorous research focused on patient-important benefits is needed before further expansion of robotic surgery.

surgery
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ji-Ming Wang,Jiang-Fa Li,Guan-Dou Yuan,Song-Qing He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000025648

2021-04-30

Abstract:Background: Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery are the most minimally invasive surgical approaches for the removal of liver lesions. Minor hepatectomy is a common surgical procedure. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH). Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies on robot-assisted vs. laparoscopicminor hepatectomy up to February, 2020. The odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model. Results: A total of 12 studies involving 751 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 297 patients were in the robot-assisted minor hepatectomy (RMH) group and 454 patients were in the LMH group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P = .43), transfusion rates (P = .14), length of hospital stay (P > .64), conversion rate (P = .62), R0 resection rate (P = .56), complications (P = .92), or mortaliy (P = .37) between the 2 groups. However, the RMH group was associated with a longer operative time (P = .0003), and higher cost (P < .00001) compared to the LMH group. No significant differences in overall survival or disease free survival between the 2 groups were observed. In the subgroup analysis of left lateral sectionectomies, RMH was still associated with a longer operative time, but no other differences in clinical outcomes were observed. Conclusions: Although RMH is associated with longer operation times and higher costs, it exhibits the same safety and effectiveness as LMH. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials should now be considered to obtain better evidence for clinical consensus.
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

Efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted versus median sternotomy for cardiac surgery: results from a university affiliated hospital

Minimally Invasive Thoracic Surgery: Robot-Assisted Versus Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery

Initial Experience of Da Vinci Robotic Thoracic Surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University.

Comparative analysis of robotically-assisted versus conventional sternotomy approach in left atrial-myxoma resection: A single-center retrospective observational study

Application of da Vinci system for cardiac surgery in 51 patients

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic major liver resection: analysis of outcomes from a single center

Safety and Effectiveness Assessment of Surgical Robot Technology

Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Breast Surgery: Recent Evidence with Comparative Clinical Outcomes

Robotic compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program comparative analysis

Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis

Patient body image, self-esteem, and cosmetic results of minimally invasive robotic cardiac surgery

The Safety and Efficacy of Approaches to Liver Resection: A Meta-Analysis

Robotic liver surgery for minor hepatic resections: a comparison with laparoscopic and open standard procedures

Nursing Cooperation for Robotic Surgery in Thoracic Surgery

Efficacy and safety of robotic radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer compared with laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: a meta-analysis

Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis

National trends and outcomes of robotic emergency general surgery in the United States

Study on robot-assisted minimally invasive neurosurgery and its clinical application

Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Compared to Conventional Surgical Approaches (Laparoscopic or Open)

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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