Effective division of the intersegmental plane using a robotic stapler in robotic pulmonary segmentectomy.

PURPOSES: Robot-assisted thoracoscopic (RATS) segmentectomy is becoming increasingly common because of the expanded indications for segmentectomy and the widespread adoption of robotic surgery. The precise division of the intersegmental plane is necessary to ensure oncologic margins from the tumor and to preserve the lung function. In this study, we present a strategy for accurately dividing the intersegmental plane using a robotic stapler and review the surgical outcomes. METHODS: RATS portal segmentectomy was performed using the Da Vinci Xi system and the intersegmental plane was dissected using a robotic stapler. We evaluated the perioperative outcomes in 92 patients who underwent RATS portal segmentectomy between May 2020 and January 2023. These results were compared with those of 82 patients who underwent complete video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (CVATS) during the same period. RESULTS: The operative and console times were 162 and 97 min, respectively. No intraoperative complications occurred, and postoperative complications were observed in four cases (4.3%). The operative time, blood loss, postoperative complications, and maximum incision size were significantly lower in the RATS group than in the CVATS group. However, RATS requires a significantly higher number of staplers than CVATS. CONCLUSIONS: The division of the intersegmental plane using a robotic stapler in RATS portal segmentectomy was, therefore, found to be safe and effective.

Robotic Lobectomy with a Single Robotic Stapler from One 12-mm Port: A Multi-institutional Study.

Introduction of the robotic stapler has allowed robotic lobectomy to be performed from a surgical console in complete autonomy. The robotic stapler fits a 12-mm port, which is larger than the standard 8-mm port and increases the risk of postoperative pain. However, in many cases, to cover all possible angles of approach, two 12-mm ports are preferably used. However, limiting instrument inventory and simplifying surgical procedures are also desirable to reduce costs. In a multicenter study, we assessed the feasibility of robotic lobectomy with a single type of robotic stapler [SureForm45 Curved-Tip (SF45C); Intuitive Surgical Inc.] inserted through one 12-mm port placed at the anterior tip of the lower intercostal space. We also investigated the potential cost savings of using an additional 60-mm stapler for interlobar division. A total of 135 lobectomy cases were enrolled. In all cases, all stapling procedures were completed using the SF45C inserted from the designated 12-mm port. We found that it was potentially less expensive to use the SureForm60 stapler if more than six SF45C reloads were needed for interlobar division. However, in our series, only 1 case (0.7%) met this requirement. The use of a single type of stapler from one 12-mm port in a robotic lobectomy is technically feasible. This approach may be expected to allow for surgical simplification, minimize the risk of postoperative pain, and reduce inventory costs.

Intraoperative robotic surgical system-related problems in robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Malfunctions of robotic instruments during robotic surgery are well known to occur; however, detailed reports on the inherent problems associated with robotic instruments and robotic surgical systems are scarce. The objective of this study was to retrospectively investigate the intraoperative problems associated with robotic surgical systems and robotic instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study. Between April 2012 and December 2022, 544 patients with consecutive lung malignancies and/or mediastinal tumors underwent robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Among these, 15 cases had intraoperative problems associated with the robotic surgical system. Human error was defined as a problem caused by the incorrect operation of the robotic surgical system and human factors as problems in which the robotic surgical system stopped owing to damage to the instruments of the robotic surgical system or the self-diagnosis of the robotic surgical system. We retrospectively investigated the causes of intraoperative problems in these cases. RESULTS: There were 4 cases (0.7%) with problems related to the robotic surgical system, 2 of which were human errors, and 11 (2.0%) with problems related to robotic surgical instruments, 6 of these were related to instruments and 5 were related to robotic staplers. Five of these were related to human factors. CONCLUSION: Teams performing robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery should be familiar with the features of robotic surgical systems and various robotic devices, be aware of reported problems during robot-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, and be prepared for emergencies.

A comparison between the da Vinci Xi EndoWrist Stapler and a conventional laparoscopic stapler in rectal transection: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Distal rectal transection following robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is challenging. This can be performed with either a robotic stapler (RS) or laparoscopic stapler (LS). We compared the operative outcomes and ergonomic differences between RS and LS. METHODS: Forty patients with rectal cancer who were planned for robotic rectal surgery were randomized to either RS or LS. RESULTS: The mean number of stapler cartridges expended was similar between RS and LS (1.75 vs. 2.05, p = 0.082). Significantly less stapler adjustments were required in the RS group (1.55 vs. 2.75, p = 0.014). Results from the user experience survey showed that RS scored better. CONCLUSION: The RS required less adjustments and resulted in a better user experience. While this complemented the use of robotics in rectal surgery, it did not result in a significant reduction in the number of stapler cartridges required for rectal transection.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Using Robotic Versus Hand-Held Staplers During Robotic Lobectomy.

OBJECTIVE: During robotic lobectomy (RL), the surgeon can elect to use either robotic staplers or hand-held laparoscopic staplers. It is assumed that either will result in similar outcomes, while robotic staplers increase cost. We sought to compare perioperative outcomes and costs between RL cases that utilized robotic staplers versus hand-held staplers in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Patients who underwent an elective RL between October 2015 and December 2017 were identified in the Premier Hospital Perspective Database. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to compare perioperative outcomes, healthcare resource utilization, and costs between cases using robotic staplers and hand-held staplers during RL. RESULTS: In the PSM analysis, RL cases that fully utilized robotic staplers compared to hand-held staplers were associated with significantly lower risks of developing bleeding (5.6% vs 9.8%, P = 0.03) and conversion to open surgery (0.3% vs 5.9%, P = 0.004). Additionally, in a multivariable regression analysis, robotic stapler was associated with reduced risk for air leak (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50-0.98) and overall complications (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.99). The total index hospitalization costs were comparable between the 2 groups (median [IQR], $21,667 [$16,860-$29,033] in robotic stapler vs $21,398 [$17,258-$29,406] in hand-held stapler, P = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Among RL cases, utilization of robotic staplers was associated with significantly lower risks of perioperative bleeding, conversion, and possibly air leak and overall complications compared to RL cases utilizing hand-held staplers. The choice of stapler may have an impact on outcomes and robotic staplers do not increase total costs.

Advantages of using a robotic stapler in rectal cancer surgery.

To compare short-term postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) after the use of robotic and laparoscopic staplers. Over a 5-year period, 196 patients were divided into 2 groups according to the use of laparoscopic (LS) or robotic stapler (RS). Patient demographics and postoperative complications were compared. A total of 145 (74%) robotic TME were performed using the LS and 51 (26%) the RS. No conversions to laparoscopy or laparotomy were observed, in either group. Transection of the rectum using one or two firings was achieved in a higher proportion of RS cases (91%) compared with LS cases (60%; p < 0.001). The anastomotic leakage (AL) rate was 4% in the RS group vs. 7% in the LS group (p > 0.05). However, when three or more firings were needed for the rectal transection, the risk of AL increased (3.4% with ≤ 2 firings vs. 10.7% with ≥ 3 firings, p = 0.006). Our data confirm that multiple stapler firings for rectal transection have a major impact on AL. The robotic stapler simplifies the transaction, so that rectal division requires fewer stapler firings, with a potential reduction in the incidence of AL.

The use of robotic or laparoscopic stapler in rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Minimally invasive surgery for total mesorectal excision (TME) remains technically challenging due to poor maneuverability within the pelvis, which makes extremely difficult to introduce a laparoscopic stapler (LS) for the rectal transection. We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic TME after the use of robotic stapler (RS) or LS after robotic TME. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database. Participants who underwent robotic anterior resection were considered following these criteria: (1) studies comparing RS and LS; (2) studies reporting the rate of anastomotic leakage (AL). The primary outcome was the risk of AL. Secondary outcomes included the number of firings of stapler needed. A meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement was performed. A total of 4 studies including 391 patients (LS = 251, RS = 140) were included for analysis. Regarding the number of firings, overall results suggest that the rectal stapling was achieved with less firings in the RS group, but the difference is not significant [risk difference, (95% CI) 0.42 (- 0.13, 0.97)]. There was a 56% increased odds of AL for LS compared with RS; however, this was not statistically significant (OR: 1.56; 95% CI 0.59, 4.14). With the current literature evidence, the present study could not demonstrate a clear benefit of the RS over the LS. Although the development of an AL is multifactorial and unpredictable, our data may suggest that the use of the RS could help reducing the risk of AL. There is a need of future randomized clinical trial to assess the possible benefits of the RS.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Stapler Use for Rectal Transection in Robotic Surgery for Cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare the operative and short-term postoperative outcomes of the robotic and laparoscopic staplers in patients undergoing rectal surgery for cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between December 2014 and April 2017, patients consecutively undergoing robotic rectal surgery for cancer were included in this study. Patients were grouped into two according to the type of staplers for rectal transection [Robotic (45-mm) versus Laparoscopic (60-mm) linear staplers]. Patient demographics, pathologic data, perioperative outcomes, and short-term results were compared. RESULTS: One hundred seven patients met our inclusion criteria. The number of male patients were higher in robotic stapler group than in the laparoscopic stapler group (55% versus 76%, P = .03). Age (59 versus 63 years, P = .40), body mass index (27 versus 27 kg/m2, P = .60), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (2 versus 2, P = .20), number of prior abdominal operations (31% versus 20%, P = .22) and number of patients having neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (34% versus 36%, P = .86) were comparable between the groups. The numbers of cartridges used were similar regardless of the type of staplers (2 versus 2, P = .58). The overall complication was similar between the groups (24% versus 31%, P = .32). Leak rates were 5% (n = 2) and 3% (n = 2) in the robotic and laparoscopic stapler groups, respectively (p = 1). There was no mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study evaluating the role of robotic stapler specifically for rectal transection in comparative manner. The use of robotic stapler for rectal transection was safe and feasible in rectal surgery for cancer.

Initial Experience with the Use of a Robotic Stapler for Robot-Assisted Donor Nephrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Since the first description of robot-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for living donor renal transplantation, additional studies have noted outcomes comparable to traditional laparoscopic surgery. Urologists have embraced the technical advantages of the robotic approach, including improved dissection and more accurate graft preservation. With the advent of robotic stapling, we aim to demonstrate the feasibility of the use of robotic stapling for living-donor nephrectomies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten cases of da Vinci® EndoWrist® Stapler use during robot-assisted donor nephrectomy by a single surgeon are reported. Variables examined included patient anatomy, estimated blood loss (EBL), warm ischemia time (WIT), postoperative complications, and graft function at follow-up. The costs of the laparoscopic and robotic staplers at our institution are reported. RESULTS: One right and nine left nephrectomies were performed by a single surgeon. Eight living donors had a single renal artery and vein, while two had multiple renal arteries and renal veins. A single vascular stapler load (45-mm, white cartridge) was used for vessels in all cases. WIT was <6 minutes in each case, and EBL ranged from 13 to 100 mL. Sufficient length on the renal artery and vein was obtained to execute anastomoses in all cases. Only one patient had postoperative complications that were related to anesthesia. Graft function of recipients and postoperative renal function has been adequate to date. The cost of using the robotic stapler was $705 (EndoWrist Stapler), and the cost of the laparoscopic stapler (Endo GIA™ Stapler; Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) was $494.06. CONCLUSIONS: The use of robotic stapler is feasible in terms of patient safety, technique, postoperative outcomes, and cost in both left- and right-sided living-donor robotic nephrectomies. Further research is needed to confirm the benefit and safety of EndoWrist stapler use in robotic donor nephrectomies compared to laparoscopic stapler use.

Control Comparison of the New EndoWrist and Traditional Laparoscopic Staplers for Anterior Rectal Resection with the Da Vinci Xi: A Case Study.

Background: A new robotic stapler for the da Vinci Xi® is directly controlled by the surgeon at the console and equipped with EndoWrist® technology. We evaluated operative and short-term results of the first patients who underwent anterior rectal resection for cancer with the da Vinci Xi and new staplers, and compared the results with those of a comparable group treated with traditional laparoscopic staplers. Methods: From December 2015 to December 2017, 25 patients underwent anterior rectal resection for cancer with robotic EndoWrist staplers (EndoWrist group). Using a case-control method, we compared the results with those of a similar group of patients treated with the same system and a traditional laparoscopic endostapler, controlled by a bedside assistant (Control group). Results: No conversions to laparoscopy or laparotomy were observed, in either group. The mean number of charges was 2.1 ± 0.2 in the EndoWrist group versus 2.7 ± 0.7 in the Control group (P = .0004). The other perioperative results were comparable. During follow-up, the incidence of anastomotic fistula in a contrast enema study was higher in the Control group, although the difference was not statistically significant (two leaks versus two leaks in EndoWrist group; P = .8). The interval between rectal resection and stoma closure was shorter in the EndoWrist group (3.4 ± 2.5 versus 4.2 ± 2.9 months in the Control group; P = .2), although the difference was not significant. Conclusions: Our experience suggests that the new robotic staplers simplify transection, which could reduce the average number of stapler firings used during rectal resection and could decrease the incidence of anastomotic leakage. These findings require confirmation in larger studies.