Comparison of antegrade robotic assisted VS laparoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy for penile cancer.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive modifications of inguinal lymphadenectomy (IL), including laparoscopic IL (LIL) and robotic-assisted IL (RAIL), have been utilized for penile cancer. Comparative study is necessary to guide the decision about which minimally invasive technique to select for IL. Therefore we compared RAIL with LIL performed via an antegrade approach in terms of perioperative outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 43 patients who underwent RAIL (n = 20) or LIL (n = 23) for penile cancer from 2016 to 2020. The key surgical procedures and techniques are described. Complications were graded by the Clavien-Dindo classification, and operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), lymph nodal yield, nodal positivity, postoperative drain duration, and disease recurrence during follow-up were assessed. Categorical variables were compared using chi-squared whereas continuous variables were compared by t-tests. RESULTS: The operative time for RAIL was significantly shorter than that of LIL (median 83 vs 95 min). Significantly less blood loss was reported with RAIL than with LIL (median 10 vs 35 ml). Lymph node yield, pathological positive nodes, the hospital stay, postoperative drain duration, postoperative complications and recurrence were similar for RAIL and LIL. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with penile cancer, perioperative outcomes of RAIL and LIL were similar, but there was less blood loss, a shorter operative time for robotic cases.

Development and Validation of a Homemade and Low-Cost Three-Dimensional Laparoscopic Simulator for Novices.

Background: The aim of this study was to design a low-cost three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic simulator and validate its training effectiveness. Materials and Methods: We designed a low-cost 3D laparoscopic simulator using magnifying glass and cardboard box. Thirty-two laparoscopic novices were randomly divided into 3D group and two-dimensional (2D) group. The 3D group was trained on 3D simulator four times with 24 hours interval, and the 2D group was trained on 2D simulator. Five standardized laparoscopic tasks were performed by novices in each training. In the second part, subjects were transferred to the opposite simulator for one test after 24 hours of the fourth training. The completing time and errors for each task were recorded to assess the construct validity of simulator. Finally, the face validity and the content validity were evaluated through a closed-ended questionnaire. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in demographic or psychometric variables (P > .05). Compared with the 2D group, novices using 3D simulator had a better performance in five laparoscopic tasks, including a faster completing time (P < .001) and lower errors during training (P < .05). Additionally, the increased laparoscopic skill involved with our 3D simulator could be transferred to subsequent performance in 2D simulator (P < .05). Meanwhile, the score of face validity and content validity in our 3D simulator was significantly higher than that in 2D simulator (P < .05). Conclusion: Our 3D laparoscopic simulator effectively improved laparoscopic skills of novice surgeons, suggesting that the low-cost 3D simulator had satisfactory performance to satisfy requirement for novice training.