Initial clinical outcomes of robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: Is it safe and effective?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe our outcomes of robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, the largest single institutional series in the Western hemisphere to date. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2022, we prospectively followed all patients who underwent robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. RESULTS: In total, 23 patients underwent robotic resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, 18 receiving concomitant hepatectomy. The median age was 73 years. Operative time was 470 min with an estimated blood loss of 150 mL. No intraoperative conversions to open or other intraoperative complications occurred. Median length of stay was 5 days. Four postoperative complications occurred. Three readmissions occurred within 30 days with one 90-day mortality. R0 resection was achieved in 87% of patients and R1 in 13% of patients. At a median follow-up of 27 months, 15 patients were alive without evidence of disease, two patients with local recurrence at 1 year, and six were deceased. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of the robotic platform for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is safe and feasible with excellent perioperative outcomes. Further studies are needed to determine the long-term oncological outcomes.

Contemporary morbidity and mortality of open versus robotic cystectomy for bladder cancer: An analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) procedure targeted cystectomy database.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between surgical modality (RARC vs. ORC) and the risk of 30-day complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Cystectomy-Targeted database from 2019 to 2021. The primary outcome was a composite of major complications including 30-day mortality, reoperation, cardiac events, and stroke. Secondary outcomes included individual major and cystectomy-specific complications. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to minimize inherent differences within our cohort. We performed logistic regression to assess the association between outcomes of interest and operative modality. RESULTS: We found no difference between operative modality and the primary outcome, however, RARC was associated with a 70% lower risk of 30-day mortality (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13-0.70) and had favorable outcomes with respect to respiratory, deep venous thrombosis, wound complications, and length of stay. Limitations are related to residual confounding given the observational methodology. CONCLUSIONS: RARC was associated with reduced risk of multiple 30-day complications, including mortality, as well as organ system and cystectomy-specific outcomes. These data support the clinical benefit of increased adoption of RARC.

Upfront laparotomy versus conversion from minimally invasive surgery to open surgery in colon cancer: Is there a difference in outcomes?

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether conversion from minimally invasive surgery to laparotomy in patients with colon cancer contributes to worse outcomes compared with those operated by laparotomy. In this study, we aimed to assess the implications of transitioning from minimally invasive surgery to laparotomy in patients with colon cancer compared with patients undergoing upfront laparotomy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database, including patients with stages I to III colon cancer (2010-2019). Patients who underwent either upfront laparotomy (Open Surgery Group) or minimally invasive surgery converted to open surgery (Converted Surgery Group) were included. Groups were balanced using propensity-score matching. Primary outcome was overall survival, and secondary outcomes included 30- and 90-day mortality and 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS: The study included 65,083 operated patients with stage I to III colon cancer; 57,091 patients (87.7%) were included in the Open Surgery group and 7,992 (12.3%) in the Converted Surgery group. 93.5% were converted from laparoscopy, and 6.5% were converted from robotic surgery. After propensity-score matching, 7,058 patients were included in each group. Median overall survival was significantly higher in the Converted Surgery group (107.3 months) than in the Open Surgery group (101.5 months; P = .006). A survival benefit was seen in patients >65 years of age (79.5 vs 71.9 months; P = .001), left-sided disease (129.4 vs 114.5 months; P < .001), and with a high Charlson comorbidity index score (=3; 58.9 vs 42.3 months; P = .03). Positive margin rates were similar between the groups (6.3% vs 5.6%; P = .07). Converted patients had a higher 30-day readmission rate (6.7% vs 5.6%, P = .006) and shorter duration of stay (median, 5 vs 6 days, P < .001) than patients in the Open Surgery group. In addition, 30-day mortality was comparable between the groups (2.9% vs 3.5%; P = .07). CONCLUSION: Conversion to open surgery from minimally invasive surgery was associated with better overall survival compared with upfront open surgery. A survival benefit was mainly seen in patients >65 years of age, with significant comorbidities, and with left-sided tumors. We believe these data suggest that, in the absence of an absolute contraindication to minimally invasive surgery, it should be the preferred approach in patients with colon cancer.

Open versus minimally invasive nephroureterectomy in octogenarians: An analysis of surgical approach trends, outcomes, and survival analysis with propensity matching.

INTRODUCTION: Upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is a rare disease accounting only for 5%-10% of urothelial carcinoma (UC). For localized high-risk disease, radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) is the standard of care. While minimally invasive (MIS) RNU has not been shown to decisively improve overall survival (OS) compared to open surgery, MIS RNU has been associated with reduced hospital length of stay (LOS), blood transfusion requirements and improved recovery, which are important considerations when treating older patients. The purpose of this study is to examine trends in surgical approach selection and outcomes of open vs. MIS RNU in patients aged ≥80 years. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), patients aged ≥80 years who underwent open or MIS (either robotic or laparoscopic) RNU were identified from 2010 to 2019. Demographic, patient-related, and disease-specific factors associated with either open or MIS RNU were assessed using multivariate logistic regression models. Survival analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox-proportional hazard regression. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was utilized to adjust for confounding variables. Survival analysis was also conducted on the IPTW adjusted cohort using Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox-proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: 5,687 patients were identified, with 1,431 (25.2%) and 4,256 (74.8%) patients undergoing open and MIS RNU respectively. The proportion of RNU performed robotically has increased from 12.5% in 2010 to 50.4% in 2019. MIS was associated with a shorter hospital LOS (4.7 days versus 5.9 days, SMD 23.7%). Multivariate analysis revealed that MIS was associated with a significant reduction in 90-day mortality (OR: 0.571; 95%CI: 0.34-0.96, P = 0.033) and improved median OS (53.8 months [95%CI: 50.9-56.9] vs 42.35 months [95%CI: 38.6-46.8], P < 0.001) compared to open surgery. IPTW-adjusted survival analysis revealed improved median OS with MIS when compared to open surgery, with a survival benefit of 46.1 months (95%CI: 40.2-52.4 months) versus 37.7 months (95%CI: 32.6-46.5 months, P = 0.0034) respectively. IPTW-adjusted cox proportional hazard analysis demonstrated that MIS was significantly associated with reduced mortality (HR 0.76, 95%CI: 0.66-0.87, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In octogenarians undergoing RNU, MIS is associated with improved median OS and 90-day mortality.

Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. RESULTS: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% ( P <0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P <0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P <0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P =0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P =0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m 2 , previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. CONCLUSION: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.

Long-term survival outcomes of robotic total gastrectomy for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Robotic gastrectomy is a safe and feasible approach for gastric cancer (GC); however, its long-term oncological efficacy remains unclear. The authors evaluated the long-term survival outcomes and recurrence patterns of patients with locally advanced proximal GC who underwent robotic total gastrectomy (RTG). METHODS: This prospective study (FUGES-014 study) enrolled 48 patients with locally advanced proximal GC who underwent RTG between March 2018 and February 2020 at a tertiary referral teaching hospital. Patients who underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) in the FUGES-002 study were enrolled in a 2:1 ratio to compare the survival outcomes between RTG and LTG. The primary endpoint of the FUGES-014 study was postoperative 30-day morbidity and has been previously reported. Here, the authors reported the results of 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), 3-year overall survival (OS), and recurrence patterns. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 48 patients in the RTG and 96 patients in the LTG groups were included. The 3-year DFS rates were 77.1% (95% CI: 66.1-89.9%) for the RTG and 68.8% (95% CI: 60.1-78.7%) for the LTG groups ( P =0.261). The 3-year OS rates were not significantly different between the groups (85.4 vs. 74.0%, P =0.122). Recurrence occurred in nine patients (18.8%) in the RTG and 27 (28.1%) patients in the LTG groups ( P =0.234). Recurrence patterns and causes of death were similar between the groups ( P >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The oncological outcome of RTG was noninferior to that of LTG. Thus, RTG might be an alternative surgical treatment for locally advanced proximal GC.

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.

Effect of Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy With Intracorporeal Urinary Diversion vs Open Radical Cystectomy on 90-Day Morbidity and Mortality Among Patients With Bladder Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Robot-assisted radical cystectomy is being performed with increasing frequency, but it is unclear whether total intracorporeal surgery improves recovery compared with open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Objectives: To compare recovery and morbidity after robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal reconstruction vs open radical cystectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of patients with nonmetastatic bladder cancer recruited at 9 sites in the UK, from March 2017-March 2020. Follow-up was conducted at 90 days, 6 months, and 12 months, with final follow-up on September 23, 2021. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal reconstruction (n = 169) or open radical cystectomy (n = 169). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital within 90 days of surgery. There were 20 secondary outcomes, including complications, quality of life, disability, stamina, activity levels, and survival. Analyses were adjusted for the type of diversion and center. Results: Among 338 randomized participants, 317 underwent radical cystectomy (mean age, 69 years; 67 women [21%]; 107 [34%] received neoadjuvant chemotherapy; 282 [89%] underwent ileal conduit reconstruction); the primary outcome was analyzed in 305 (96%). The median number of days alive and out of the hospital within 90 days of surgery was 82 (IQR, 76-84) for patients undergoing robotic surgery vs 80 (IQR, 72-83) for open surgery (adjusted difference, 2.2 days [95% CI, 0.50-3.85]; P = .01). Thromboembolic complications (1.9% vs 8.3%; difference, -6.5% [95% CI, -11.4% to -1.4%]) and wound complications (5.6% vs 16.0%; difference, -11.7% [95% CI, -18.6% to -4.6%]) were less common with robotic surgery than open surgery. Participants undergoing open surgery reported worse quality of life vs robotic surgery at 5 weeks (difference in mean European Quality of Life 5-Dimension, 5-Level instrument scores, -0.07 [95% CI, -0.11 to -0.03]; P = .003) and greater disability at 5 weeks (difference in World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 scores, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.15-0.73]; P = .003) and at 12 weeks (difference in WHODAS 2.0 scores, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.09-0.68]; P = .01); the differences were not significant after 12 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences in cancer recurrence (29/161 [18%] vs 25/156 [16%] after robotic and open surgery, respectively) and overall mortality (23/161 [14.3%] vs 23/156 [14.7%]), respectively) at median follow-up of 18.4 months (IQR, 12.8-21.1). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with nonmetastatic bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy, treatment with robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion vs open radical cystectomy resulted in a statistically significant increase in days alive and out of the hospital over 90 days. However, the clinical importance of these findings remains uncertain. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN13680280; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03049410.

Surgical Issues for Operable Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Surgical care for early stage non-small-cell lung cancer continuously evolves with new procedures, techniques and care pathways. The most obvious recent change was the transition to minimally invasive procedures, but numerous other aspects of care have also been refined to improve safety and tolerability. These care advancements are essential as we move into an era with increased early detection as a result of screening and greater indications for the use of adjuvant and neoadjuvant strategies.

Percutaneous microwave ablation versus robot-assisted hepatectomy for early hepatocellular carcinoma: A real-world single-center study.

BACKGROUND: Both microwave ablation and robot-assisted hepatectomy are representative minimally invasive treatments for early hepatocellular carcinoma. Our study compares the practicability and medium-term therapeutic efficacy between them. METHODS: Patients with early HCC treated by MWA or RH from 2013 to 2019 were included. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW) were used to minimize baseline imbalance. Operation trauma, postoperative recovery, complications, cost and oncological efficacy were compared. RESULTS: 401 patients with a median follow-up of 28 months were included (MWA n = 240; RH n = 161). After PSM, 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of MWA group and RH group were 52.2% vs 65.8%, 91.5% vs 91.3% and 91.5% vs 91.3%, respectively. OS and CSS were comparable (p = 0.44 and 0.96), while RFS of MWA was slightly lower but not significant (p = 0.097). The above results after IPTW followed the same trend. After PSM, MWA showed advantages in operation time and blood loss, while RH performed better in postoperative liver function. There was no significant difference in incidence of severe complications between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: For early HCC parents, both treatments can achieve good, safe and comparable medium-term therapeutic effects. MWA is more minimally invasive, while RH has better accuracy and causes less damage to liver parenchyma.

Comparison between robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery and traditional laparoscopic low anterior resection for middle and low rectal cancer: A propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to find the advantages of robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for middle and low rectal cancer, compared with traditional laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR). METHODS: Patients receiving robotic NOSES or traditional laparoscopic LAR were retrospectively enrolled from 2013-10 to 2019-06, with middle and low rectal cancer, maximum diameter ≤ 5 cm, pT1-3 or ypT1-3 stage, no distant metastases. The baseline of the two groups was balanced using the propensity score matching method. Surgical quality, postoperative recovery, and long-term oncological outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Totally 137 eligible patients with robotic NOSES and 137 matched patients with traditional laparoscopic LAR were enrolled. Robotic NOSES had a significantly lower open conversion rate (0 vs. 4.4%, p = .030), less intraoperative hemorrhage (50 ml vs. 80 ml, p < .001) and longer distance from distal resection margin of low rectal cancer (1.5 cm vs. 1.0 cm, p = .030). Robotic NOSES significantly reduced the 30-day postoperative complication rate of Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher (17.5% vs. 31.4%, p = .008), promoted gastrointestinal and urinary function recovery, reduced postoperative pain and hospital stay (6.0 vs. 7.0 d, p = .022). The two groups were similar in long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with traditional laparoscopic LAR, robotic NOSES had significant advantages in improving surgical quality and promoting postoperative recovery.

Robot-assisted versus open radical nephroureterectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: A retrospective cohort study across ten years.

PURPOSE: Radical nephroureterectomy is the gold standard of treatment for high-risk non-metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. However, the optimal surgical approach remains a controversial debate. This study compared the perioperative and oncological outcomes of open and robot-assisted radical nephroureterectomies. METHODS: 131 consecutive radical nephroureterectomies (66 robot-assisted nephroureterectomies vs. 65 open nephroureterectomies) for urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract at a single tertiary referral center were included from 2009 to 2019. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared between both surgical approaches, including logistic regression analysis, propensity score matching, Kaplan Meier analyses, and Cox regression models. RESULTS: Overall, robot-assisted surgery had less blood loss (150 ml vs. 250, p = 0.004) and less positive surgical margins (1.5% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.004) at a comparable operating time (robotic 188min vs. 178). Any grade complications were more frequent after open surgery (40.9% vs. 63.1%, p = 0.011), and the length of stay was shorter after robotic nephroureterectomy (9 days vs. 12, p < 0.001). These differences remained significant in the propensity score matched analysis, except for the complication rates, which were still lower for the robotic approach, but no longer significant. At a median follow-up of 30.9 months (range 1.4-129.5), neither the progression-free survival (PFS, 2-year: robotic 66.7% vs. open 55.3%), nor the overall survival differed significantly (OS, 2-year: robotic 76.2% vs. open 68.4%). In the Cox regression, the surgical approach did not impact the PFS or OS. Lymph node metastases (HR 3.32, p = 0.008) had the strongest impact on the PFS besides patient age (HR 1.51 per 10 years, p = 0.025) and prior cystectomy (HR 2.42, p = 0.026) in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted radical nephroureterectomy had significant perioperative advantages at comparable oncological outcomes compared to open surgery for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract at a high volume center, experienced in robotic surgery.

Partial nephrectomy in frail patients: Benefits of robot-assisted surgery.

BACKGROUND: To compare the effect of robot-assisted (RAPN) vs. open (OPN) partial nephrectomy on short-term postoperative outcomes and total hospital charges in frail patients with non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Within the National Inpatient Sample database we identified 2745 RCC patients treated with either RAPN or OPN between 2008 and 2015, who met the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups frailty-defining indicator criteria. We examined the rates of RAPN vs. OPN over time. Moreover, we compared the effect of RAPN vs. OPN on short-term postoperative outcomes and total hospital charges. Time trends and multivariable logistic, Poisson and linear regression models were applied. RESULTS: Overall, 1109 (40.4%) frail patients were treated with RAPN. Rates of RAPN increased over time, from 16.3% to 54.7% (p < 0.001). Frail RAPN patients exhibited lower rates (all p < 0.001) of overall complications (35.3 vs. 48.3%), major complications (12.4 vs. 20.4%), blood transfusions (8.0 vs. 13.5%), non-home-based discharge (9.6 vs. 15.2%), shorter length of stay (3 vs. 4 days), but higher total hospital charges ($50,060 vs. $45,699). Moreover, RAPN independently predicted (all p < 0.001) lower risk of overall complications (OR: 0.58), major complications (OR: 0.55), blood transfusions (OR: 0.60) and non-home-based discharge (OR: 0.51), as well as shorter LOS (RR: 0.77) but also higher total hospital charges (RR: +$7682), relative to OPN. CONCLUSIONS: In frail patients, RAPN is associated with lower rates of short-term postoperative complications, blood transfusions and non-home-based discharge, as well as with shorter LOS than OPN. However, RAPN use also results in higher total hospital charges.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: multicentre analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy is still unclear, and whether robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) offers benefits over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is unknown because large multicentre studies are lacking. This study compared perioperative outcomes between RDP and LDP. METHODS: A multicentre international propensity score-matched study included patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication in 21 European centres from six countries that performed at least 15 distal pancreatectomies annually (January 2011 to June 2019). Propensity score matching was based on preoperative characteristics in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was the major morbidity rate (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above). RESULTS: A total of 1551 patients (407 RDP and 1144 LDP) were included in the study. Some 402 patients who had RDP were matched with 402 who underwent LDP. After matching, there was no difference between RDP and LDP groups in rates of major morbidity (14.2 versus 16.5 per cent respectively; P = 0.378), postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (24.6 versus 26.5 per cent; P = 0.543) or 90-day mortality (0.5 versus 1.3 per cent; P = 0.268). RDP was associated with a longer duration of surgery than LDP (median 285 (i.q.r. 225-350) versus 240 (195-300) min respectively; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (6.7 versus 15.2 per cent; P < 0.001), higher spleen preservation rate (81.4 versus 62.9 per cent; P = 0.001), longer hospital stay (median 8.5 (i.q.r. 7-12) versus 7 (6-10) days; P < 0.001) and lower readmission rate (11.0 versus 18.2 per cent; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The major morbidity rate was comparable between RDP and LDP. RDP was associated with improved rates of conversion, spleen preservation and readmission, to the detriment of longer duration of surgery and hospital stay.

Long-term oncological outcome in patients with cervical cancer after 3 trimodality treatment (radiotherapy, platinum-based chemotherapy, and robotic surgery).

ABSTRACT: Cervical cancer represents a general health issue spread all over the globe, which prompts the surge of scientific survey toward the rise of survival and condition of life of these patients. American and European guidelines suggest the open surgery, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery are the main therapeutic approaches for radical hysterectomy for patients with cervical cancer. This is the first survey to analyze the long-term oncological outcome of an extensive series of subjects cared for with multimodality treatment, here comprising robotic surgery.This study intents to evaluate the long-term oncological result in patients diagnosed with cervical cancer treated with radiotherapy (±chemotherapy) and robotic surgery compared with open surgery. Medical files of 56 patients diagnosed with cervical cancer who underwent a robotic hysterectomy and radiotherapy ± chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed.The median age at diagnosis was 50.5 (range: 23-70). Eleven patients (19.6%) presented in an early stage (IB-IIA) and 80.4% advanced stage (IIB-IVA). Overall response rate after radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy was 96.2%. Pathologic complete response was obtained in 64% of patients. After a median follow-up of 60 months (range: 6-105 months), 8 patients (14.2%) presented local recurrence or distant metastases. Disease-free survival (DFS) was 92% at 2 years and 84% at 3 and 5 years. Overall survival (OS) rates at 2, 3, and 5 years for patients with robotic surgery were 91%, 78%, and 73%, median OS not reached. OS was lower in the arm of open surgery (2, 3, and 5 years 87%, 71%, and 61%, respectively; median OS was 72 months P = .054). The multivariate analysis regarding the outcome of patients revealed an advantage for complete versus partial response (P < .002), for early versus advanced stages (P = .014) and a 10% gained in DFS at 3 years for patients in whom chemoradiotherapy was administered (DFS at 3 years 75% vs 85%) in patients with advanced stages.Robotic surgery has a favorable oncological outcome when associated with multimodal therapy.

Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: Short-term outcomes at a single center.

BACKGROUND: The robotic technique has been established as an alternative approach to laparoscopy for colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer. METHODS: The cases of robot-assisted or laparoscopic colorectal resection were collected retrospectively between July 2015 and September 2018. We evaluated patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, and pathologic examinations. Short-term outcomes included time to passage of flatus and length of postoperative hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 580 patients were included in the study. There were 271 patients in the robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) group and 309 in the laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) group. The time to passage of flatus in the RCS group was 3.62 days shorter than the LCS group. The total costs were increased by 2,258.8 USD in the RCS group compared to the LCS group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that colorectal cancer robotic surgery was more beneficial to patients because of a shorter postoperative recovery time of bowel function and shorter hospital stays.

The influence of learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy on oncological outcomes in early-stage cervical cancer: an observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer and quantify impact on oncological outcomes. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral centre with one surgical team. POPULATION: All women with early-stage cervical cancer treated consecutively with robot-assisted laparoscopy between 2007 and 2017. METHODS: With multivariate risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis (RA-CUSUM), we assessed the learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy of a single surgical team based on cervical cancer recurrence. Subsequently, a survival analysis was conducted comparing oncological outcomes of women treated during different phases of the learning curve. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Surgical proficiency based on recurrence, survival rates in the different learning phases. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-five women with cervical cancer underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy, with a median follow up of 57 months (range 3-132 months). The RA-CUSUM analysis demonstrated two phases of the learning curve: a learning phase of 61 procedures (group 1) and an experienced phase representing the 104 procedures thereafter (group 2). The 5-year disease-free survival was 80.2% in group 1 and 91.1% in group 2 (P = 0.040). Both the 5-year disease-specific survival and overall survival significantly increased after the learning phase. CONCLUSION: The learning phase of robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer in this institutional cohort is at least 61 procedures, with higher survival rates in the women treated thereafter. The learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy affects oncological outcomes and warrants more attention in the design of future studies. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: The learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopy in early-stage cervical cancer affects oncological outcomes and warrants more attention.

Patient injuries and malfunctions associated with robotic prostatectomy: review of the manufacturer and user facility device experience database.

Robotic prostatectomy is the most commonly performed robotic procedure in the United States. Increasing utilization of this procedure necessitates characterization of robot malfunctions and associated patient injuries. We performed a review of adverse events reported to a publicly available database. We searched the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for reported adverse events (RAE) involving the intuitive surgical system. Reports involving prostatectomy from 2014 to 2019 were extracted and analyzed for data regarding death, patient injury, and device malfunction. Of 9109 reported adverse events (RAE), 602 were extracted for robotic prostatectomy over the study period. Seven were patient deaths (1.2%), 53 (8.8%) were patient injuries (Table 1), and 542 (90.0%) were malfunctions (Table 2). Malfunctions resulted in 25 aborted cases, 21 open conversions, and 25 laparoscopic conversions (71/542, 13.1%; Fig. 1). Instrument failures comprised the majority (76.4%) of malfunctions. Seven malfunctions (1.3%) resulted in patient injury. The most common device-related injury involved the monopolar curved scissors. No reported deaths were related to robot malfunction. Instrument failures comprise majority of the malfunctions of the Da Vinci robot during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. When malfunctions do occur they are usually recoverable and rarely lead to patient injury.