Three-arm robotic cholecystectomy: a novel, cost-effective method of delivering and learning robotic surgery in upper GI surgery.

Cholecystectomy is one of the commonest performed surgeries worldwide. With the introduction of robotic surgery, the numbers of robot-assisted cholecystectomies has risen over the past decade. Despite the proven use of this procedure as a training operation for those surgeons adopting robotics, the consumable cost of routine robotic cholecystectomy can be difficult to justify in the absence of evidence favouring or disputing this approach. Here, we describe a novel method for performing a robot-assisted cholecystectomy using a "three-arm" technique on the newer, 4th generation, da Vinci system. Whilst maintaining the ability to perform precision dissection, this method reduces the consumable cost by 46%. The initial series of 109 procedures proves this procedure to be safe, feasible, trainable and time efficient.

A meta-analysis between robotic hepatectomy and conventional open hepatectomy.

Current meta-analysis was performed to compare robotic hepatectomy (RH) with conventional open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were all searched up for comparative studies between RH and OH. RevMan5.3 software and Stata 13.0 software were used for statistical analysis. Nineteen studies with 1747 patients who received RH and 23,633 patients who received OH were included. Pooled results indicated that patients who received RH were generally younger than those received OH (P < 0.00001). Moreover, RH was associated with longer operative time (P = 0.0002), less intraoperative hemorrhage (P < 0.0001), lower incidence of intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.003), lower incidence of postoperative any morbidity (P < 0.00001), postoperative major morbidity (P = 0.0001), mortalities with 90 days after surgery (P < 0.0001), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.00001). Comparable total hospital costs were acquired between RH and OH groups (P = 0.46). However, even at the premise of comparable R0 rate (P = 0.86), RH was associated with smaller resected tumor size (P < 0.00001). Major hepatectomy (P = 0.02) and right posterior hepatectomy (P = 0.0003) were less frequently performed in RH group. Finally, we concluded that RH was superior to OH in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. RH could lead to less intraoperative hemorrhage, less postoperative complications and an enhanced postoperative recovery. However, major hepatectomy and right posterior hepatectomy were still less frequently performed via robotic approach. Future more powerful well-designed studies are required for further exploration.

Clinical outcomes and costs of retromuscular and intraperitoneal onlay mesh techniques in robotic incisional hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and financial cost of intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus retromuscular (RM) repairs in robotic incisional hernia repairs (rIHR). METHODS: Patients who underwent either IPOM or RM elective rIHR from 2012 to 2022 were included. Demographics, operative details, postoperative outcomes, and hospital costs were directly compared. RESULTS: Sixty-nine IPOM and 55 RM were included. Age and body mass index (BMI) did not differ between both groups (IPOM vs RM: 59.3 ± 11.2 years vs. 57.5 ± 14 years, p = 0.423; BMI 34.1 ± 6.3 vs. BMI 33.2 ± 6.9, p = 0.435, respectively). Comorbidities and hernia characteristics were comparable. Extensive lysis of adhesions (> 30 min) was required more often in IPOM (18 vs. 6 in RM, p = 0.034). Defect closure was achieved in 100% of RM vs. 81.2% in IPOM (p < 0.001). Median (interquartile range) postoperative pain score was higher in RM than in IPOM [5(3-7) vs. 4(3-5), respectively, p = 0.006]. Median length of stay (0 day) and same-day discharge rate did not differ between groups (p = 0.598, p = 0.669, respectively). Six (8.7%) patients in the IPOM group versus one (1.8%) patient in the RM group were readmitted to hospital within 30 days postoperatively (p = 0.099). Perioperative complications were higher in IPOM (p = 0.011; 34.8% vs. 14.5% in RM) with higher Comprehensive Complication Index® morbidity scores [0(0-12.2) vs 0(0-0) in RM, p = 0.008)], Clavien-Dindo grade-II complications (8 vs 0 in RM, p = 0.009), and surgical site events (17 vs. 5 in RM, p = 0.024). Within a follow-up period of 57(± 28) months, recurrence rates were similar between both groups. Hospital costs did not differ between groups [IPOM: $9978 (7031-12,926) vs. RM: $8961(6701-11,222), p = 0.300]. Although postoperative complication costs were higher in IPOM ($2436 vs RM: $161, p = 0.020), total costs were comparable [IPOM: $12,415(8700-16,130) vs. RM: $9123(6789-11,457), p = 0.080]. CONCLUSION: Despite retromuscular repairs having lower postoperative complications than intraperitoneal onlay mesh repairs, both techniques offered encouraging results in robotic incisional hernia repair at a comparable total cost.

Postoperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) has established advantages over the open approach. The costs associated with robotic DP (RDP) versus laparoscopic DP (LDP) make the robotic approach controversial. We sought to compare outcomes and cost of LDP and RDP using propensity matching analysis at our institution. METHODS: Patients undergoing LDP or RDP between 2000 and 2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were optimally matched using age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, body mass index, and tumor size. Between-group differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for continuous data, and the McNemar's test for categorical data. Outcomes included operative duration, conversion to open surgery, postoperative length of stay, pancreatic fistula rate, pseudocyst requiring intervention, and costs. RESULTS: 298 patients underwent MIDP, 180 (60%) were laparoscopic and 118 (40%) were robotic. All RDPs were matched 1:1 to a laparoscopic case with absolute standardized mean differences for all matching covariates below 0.10, except for tumor type (0.16). RDP had longer operative times (268 vs 178 min, p < 0.01), shorter length of stay (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.01), fewer biochemical pancreatic leaks (11.9% vs 34.7%, p < 0.01), and fewer interventional radiological drainage (0% vs 5.9%, p = 0.01). The number of pancreatic fistulas (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), collections requiring antibiotics or intervention (11.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.12), and conversion rates (3.4% vs 5.1%, p = 0.72) were comparable between the two groups. The total direct index admission costs for RDP were 1.01 times higher than for LDP for FY16-19 (p = 0.372), and 1.33 times higher for FY20-22 (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Although RDP required longer operative times than LDP, postoperative stays were shorter. The procedure cost of RDP was modestly more expensive than LDP, though this was partially offset by reduced hospital stay and reintervention rate.

Single incision robotic myomectomy: selection criteria, learning curve and cost.

The article "Comparison of operative and fertility outcomes of single-incision robotic myomectomy: a retrospective single-center analysis of 286 cases" by Kim et al. compares the effectiveness of robotic single-port myomectomy against the traditional multiport approach. The study finds similar operating outcomes, complication rates, and pregnancy rates in expert hands for both methods. Our systematic review supports these findings, revealing no significant differences in operative time, blood loss, or complication rates. Recent meta-analysis further emphasizes the benefits of the single-port approach in reducing morcellation time, overall operative duration, and blood loss. Our letter seeks insights on patient selection criteria to minimize conversion rates between surgical approaches and inquiries on learning curve differences. Additionally, we seek cost analysis details for both techniques. We appreciate the authors' valuable contributions to this field.

Outcomes and costs with the introduction of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery in public hospitals.

Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) is an effective treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but the effects of its implementation in university hospital networks has not been described. We analyzed the early clinical outcomes, estimated costs, and revenues associated with three robotic systems implemented in the Paris Public Hospital network. A retrospective study included patients who underwent RATS for NSCLC in 2019 and 2020. Ninety-day morbidity, mortality, hospital costs, and hospital revenues were described. Economic analyses were conducted either from the hospital center or from the French health insurance system perspectives. Cost drivers were tested using univariate and multivariable analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty over in-hospital length of stay (LOS), number of robotic surgeries per year, investment cost, operating room occupancy time, maintenance cost, and commercial discount. The study included 188 patients (65.8 ± 9.3 years; Charlson 4.1 ± 1.4; stage I 76.6%). Median in-hospital LOS was 6 days [5-9.5], 90-day mortality was 1.6%. Mean hospital expenses and revenues were €12,732 ± 4914 and €11,983 ± 5708 per patient, respectively. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with hospital costs were body mass index, DLCO, major complications, and transfer to intensive care unit. Sensitivity analyses showed that in-hospital LOS (€11,802-€15,010) and commercial discounts on the list price (€11,458-€12,732) had an important impact on costs. During the first 2 years following the installation of three robotic systems in Paris Public Hospitals, the clinical outcomes of RATS for NSCLC have been satisfactory. Without commercial discount, hospital expenses would have exceeded hospital revenues.Clinical registration number CNIL, N°2221601, CERC-SFCTCV-2021-07-20-Num17_MOPI_robolution.

Understanding economic analysis and cost-effectiveness of CT scan-guided, 3-dimensional, robotic-arm assisted lower extremity arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Aim: The overall goal of this review was to examine the cost-utility of robotic-arm assisted surgery versus manual surgery. Methods: We performed a systematic review of all health economic studies that compared CT-based robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty with manual techniques. The papers selected focused on various cost-utility measures. In addition, where appropriate, secondary aims encompassed various clinical outcomes (e.g., readmissions, discharges to subacute care, etc.). Only articles directly comparing CT-based robotic-arm assisted joint arthroplasty with manual joint arthroplasty were included, for a resulting total of 21 reports. Results: Almost all twenty-one studies demonstrated a positive effect of CT scan-guided robotic-assisted joint arthroplasty on health economic outcomes. For studies reporting on 90-day episodes of costs, 10 out of 12 found lower costs in the robotic-arm assisted groups. Conclusion: Robotic-arm assisted joint arthroplasty patients had shorter lengths of stay and cost savings based on their 90-day episodes of care, among other metrics. Payors would likely benefit from encouraging the use of this CT-based robotic technology.

Design and utilisation of a novel, high-fidelity, low-cost, hybrid-tissue simulation model to facilitate training in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has rapidly evolved as the standard of care for appropriately selected renal tumours, offering key patient benefits over radical nephrectomy or open surgical approaches. Accordingly, RAPN is a key competency that urology trainees wishing to treat kidney cancer must master. Training in robotic surgery is subject to numerous challenges, and simulation has been established as valuable step in the robotic learning curve. However, simulation models are often both expensive and suboptimal in fidelity. This means that the number of practice repetitions for a trainee may limited by cost restraints, and that trainees may struggle to reconcile the skills obtained in the simulation laboratory with real-world practice in the operating room. We have developed a high-fidelity, low-cost, customizable model for RAPN simulation based on porcine tissue. The model has been utilised in teaching courses at our institution, confirming both feasibility of use and high user acceptability. We share the design of our model in this proof-of-concept report.

Training and assessment for colorectal surgery and appendicectomy- a systematic review.

AIM: There is currently an increased focus on competency-based training, in which training and assessment play a crucial role. The aim of this systematic review is to create an overview of hands-on training methods and assessment tools for appendicectomy and colon and rectal surgery procedures using either an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach. METHOD: A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. We conducted the last search on 9 March 2023. All published papers describing hands-on training, evaluation of performance data and development of assessment tools were eligible. The quality of studies and the validity evidence of assessment tools are reported. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were identified. Laparoscopic assessment tools are abundant, but the literature still lacks good-quality assessment tools for open appendicectomy, robotic colectomy and open rectal surgery. Overall, there is a lack of discussion regarding the establishment of pass/fail standards and the consequences of assessment. Virtual reality simulation is used more for appendicectomy than colorectal procedures. Only a few of the studies investigating training were of acceptable quality. There is a need for high-quality studies in open and robotic-assisted colon surgery and all approaches to rectal surgery. CONCLUSION: This review provides an overview of current training methods and assessment tools and identifies where more research is needed based on the quality of the studies and the current validity evidence.

Development and preliminary validation of a new task-based objective procedure-specific assessment of inguinal hernia repair procedural safety.

BACKGROUND: Surgical videos coupled with structured assessments enable surgical training programs to provide independent competency evaluations and align with the American Board of Surgery's entrustable professional activities initiative. Existing assessment instruments for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair (IHR) have limitations with regards to reliability, validity, and usability. A cross-sectional study of six surgeons using a novel objective, procedure-specific, 8-item competency assessment for minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair (IHR-OPSA) was performed to assess inter-rater reliability using a "safe" vs. "unsafe" scoring rubric. METHODS: The IHR-OPSA was developed by three expert IHR surgeons, field tested with five IHR surgeons, and revised based upon feedback. The final instrument included: (1) incision/port placement; (2) dissection of peritoneal flap (TAPP) or dissection of peritoneal flap (TEP); (3) exposure; (4) reducing the sac; (5) full dissection of the myopectineal orifice; (6) mesh insertion; (7) mesh fixation; and (8) operation flow. The IHR-OPSA was applied by six expert IHR surgeons to 20 IHR surgical videos selected to include a spectrum of hernia procedures (15 laparoscopic, 5 robotic), anatomy (14 indirect, 5 direct, 1 femoral), and Global Case Difficulty (easy, average, hard). Inter-rater reliability was assessed against Gwet's AC2. RESULTS: The IHR-OPSA inter-rater reliability was good to excellent, ranging from 0.65 to 0.97 across the eight items. Assessments of robotic procedures had higher reliability with near perfect agreement for 7 of 8 items. In general, assessments of easier cases had higher levels of agreement than harder cases. CONCLUSIONS: A novel 8-item minimally invasive IHR assessment tool was developed and tested for inter-rater reliability using a "safe" vs. "unsafe" rating system with promising results. To promote instrument validity the IHR-OPSA was designed and evaluated within the context of intended use with iterative engagement with experts and testing of constructs against real-world operative videos.

Effect of insurance status on perioperative outcomes after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy: a propensity-score matched analysis.

The influence of Medicaid or being uninsured is prevailingly thought to negatively impact a patient's socioeconomic and postoperative course, yet little has been published to support this claim specifically in reference to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study was undertaken to determine impact of health insurance type on perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 364 patients who underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy. Patients were stratified by insurance status (i.e., Private, Medicare, and Medicaid/Uninsured); 100 patients were 2:2:1 propensity-score matched by age, BMI, ASA class, pathology, 8th edition AJCC staging, and tumor size. Perioperative variables were compared utilizing contingency testing and ANOVA. Statistical significance was accepted at a p-value ≤ 0.05 and data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The 100 patients undergoing propensity-score matching were 64 (65 ± 9.1) years old with a BMI of 27 (27 ± 4.9) kg/m2 and ASA class of 3 (3 ± 0.5). Operative duration was 421 (428 ± 105.9) minutes and estimated blood loss was 200 (385 ± 795.0) mL. There were 4 in-hospital deaths and 8 readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Total hospital cost was $32,064 (38,014 ± 22,205.94). After matching, no differences were found in pre-, intra-, and short-term postoperative variables among patients with different insurances, including hospital cost and time to initiate adjuvant treatment, which was 8 (9 ± 7.9) weeks for patients with malignant disease. In our hepatopancreaticobiliary program, health insurance status did not impact perioperative outcomes or hospital costs. These findings highlight that financial coverage does not influence quality of perioperative care, reinforcing the equity of robotic surgery.

Assessment of the quality of online patient-oriented information on robotic colorectal surgery.

With advances in modern medicine, there is a constant need for accurate and up-to-date readily available information online to ensure patients are well-equipped for informed decision making. This study sets out to analyze websites that provide patient-centered information on robotic colorectal surgery. Three search engines (Google, Yahoo and Firefox) were used with search terms 'robotic colorectal surgery' and the first 20 results on each platform assessed. After screening sites using predetermined criteria, further analysis was performed with the DISCERN questionnaire and Cohen Kappa analysis. Out of the 60 websites identified from the initial search, only 14 websites contained patient information on robotic colorectal surgery. Of these, only three (21%) sites had been updated in the past year and one site was last updated 10 years ago. Ten (71%) websites were affiliated with hospitals and the majority (12, 86%) were based in the United States of America (USA). Approximately half of the websites explored alternative surgical techniques, only three (21%) discussed the risks, a similar number had details on post-operative experience, and none mentioned cost implications, ongoing research or the waiting list involved. Overall, no website had a perfect score of 5 to be classified as good or excellent. There was at least a fair level of agreement (reliability score of > 0.2) in 12 DISCERN criteria (80%), 4 of which were statistically significant. Despite the huge volume of generic information on colorectal surgery, there is still a paucity of comprehensive patient-centered information on robotics as a modality of treatment.

The downtrending cost of robotic bariatric surgery: a cost analysis of 47,788 bariatric patients.

The surgical robot is assumed to be a fixed, indirect cost. We hypothesized rising volume of robotic bariatric procedures would decrease cost per patient over time. Patients who underwent elective, initial gastric bypass (GB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for morbid obesity were selected from Florida Agency for Health Care Administration database from 2017 to 2021. Inflation-adjusted cost per patient was collected. Cost-over-time ($/patient year) and change in cost-over-time were calculated for open, laparoscopic, and robotic cases. Linear regression on cost generated predictive parameters. Density plots utilizing area under the curve demonstrated cost overlap. Among 76 hospitals, 11,472 bypasses (223 open, 6885 laparoscopic, 4364 robotic) and 36,316 sleeves (26,596 laparoscopic, 9724 robotic) were included. Total cost for robotic was approximately 1.5-fold higher (p < 0.001) than laparoscopic for both procedures. For GB, laparoscopic had lower total ($15,520) and operative ($6497) average cost compared to open (total $17,779; operative $9273) and robotic (total $21,756; operative $10,896). For SG, laparoscopic total cost was significantly less than robotic ($10,691 vs. $16,393). Robotic GB cost-over-time increased until 2021, when there was a large decrease in cost (-$944, compared with 2020). Robotic SG total cost-over time fluctuated, but decreased significantly in 2021 (-$490 compared with 2020). While surgical costs rose significantly in 2020 for bariatric procedures, our study suggests a possible downward trend in robotic bariatric surgery as total and operative costs are decreasing at a higher rate than laparoscopic costs.

[Technological development of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy].

The surgical outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy have shown remarkable improvement over the last two decades since its advent, due to advances in surgical concepts, techniques, and equipment. Today, ongoing research aims to compare the benefits and drawbacks of various surgical approaches, such as anterior, posterior, lateral, transvesical, and transperineal approaches, in terms of tumor control, functional recovery, and complication reduction in order to achieve the goal of pentafecta (no postoperative complications and negative surgical margins in addition to trifecta) to the maximum extent. It is imperative to explore and integrate novel technologies such as 5G remote surgery and artificial intelligence into the clinical practice of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy while ensuring patient safety, which has immense potential for substantial benefits to patients with prostate cancer.

Intersphincteric resection following robotic-assisted versus laparoscopy-assisted total mesorectal excision for middle and low rectal cancer: a multicentre propensity score analysis of 1571 patients.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (RaTME) may be associated with reduced conversion to an open approach and a higher rate of complete total mesorectal excision (TME); however, studies on its advantages in intersphincteric resection (ISR) are inadequate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter cohort study enroled consecutive patients who underwent RaTME and laparoscopy-assisted total mesorectal excision (LaTME) at four medical centres between January 2020 and March 2023. Propensity score matching (PSM), inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW), and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. The primary outcome was the ISR rate. Secondary outcomes were coloanal anastomosis (CAA), conversion to open surgery, conversion to transanal TME, abdominoperineal resection, postoperative morbidity and mortality within 30 days, and pathological outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 1571 patients, 1211 and 450 underwent LaTME and RaTME, respectively, with corresponding ISR incidences of 5.3% and 8.4% ( P =0.024). After PSM and IPTW, RaTME remained associated with higher ISR rates (4.5% versus 9.4%, P =0.022 after PSM; 4.9% versus 9.2, P =0.005 after IPTW). This association remained in multivariate analysis after adjusting for other confounding factors. RaTME was further associated with a higher CAA rate, longer operating time, and higher hospitalization expenses. CONCLUSIONS: RaTME may facilitate ISR in middle and low rectal cancers, showing an independent association with a higher ISR incidence, with pathological outcomes and complications comparable to those of LaTME. However, it may also require a longer operating time and incur higher hospitalization expenses.

Robotic versus Electromagnetic bronchoscopy for pulmonary LesIon AssessmeNT: the RELIANT pragmatic randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy has recently emerged as an alternative to electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy for the evaluation of peripheral pulmonary lesions. While robotic-assisted bronchoscopy is proposed to have several advantages, such as an easier learning curve, it is unclear if it has comparable diagnostic utility as electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy. METHODS: Robotic versus Electromagnetic bronchoscopy for pulmonary LesIon AssessmeNT (RELIANT) is an investigator-initiated, single-center, open label, noninferiority, cluster randomized controlled trial conducted in two operating rooms at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Each operating room (OR) is assigned to either robotic-assisted or electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy each morning, with each OR day considered one cluster. All patients undergoing diagnostic bronchoscopy for evaluation of a peripheral pulmonary lesion in one of the two operating rooms are eligible. Schedulers, patients, and proceduralists are blinded to daily group allocations until randomization is revealed for each operating room each morning. The primary endpoint is the diagnostic yield defined as the proportion of cases yielding lesional tissue. Secondary and safety endpoints include procedure duration and procedural complications. Enrolment began on March 6, 2023, and will continue until 202 clusters have been accrued, with expected enrolment of approximately 400 patients by the time of completion in March of 2024. DISCUSSION: RELIANT is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial that will compare the diagnostic yield of the two most commonly used bronchoscopic approaches for sampling peripheral pulmonary lesions. This will be the first known cluster randomized pragmatic trial in the interventional pulmonology field and the first randomized controlled trial of robotic-assisted bronchoscopy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT05705544) on January 30, 2023.

Comparative study of operative expenses: robotic vs. laparoscopic vs. open liver resections at a university hospital in the UK.

Robotic liver resections (RLR) are increasingly being performed and has previously been considered more costly. The aim is to explore the cost of RLR compared with laparoscopic and open liver resection in a single National Health Service (NHS) hospital. A retrospective review of patients who underwent RLR, LLR, and OLR from April 2014 to December 2022 was conducted. The primary outcomes were the cost of consumables and median income, and the secondary outcomes were the overall length of stay and mortality at 90 days. Overall, 332 patients underwent liver resections. There were 204 males (61.4%) and 128 females (38.6%), with a median age of 62 years (IQR: 51-77 years). Of these, 60 patients (18.1%) underwent RLR, 21 patients (6.3%) underwent LLR, and 251 patients (75.6%) underwent OLR. Median consumables cost per case was £3863 (IQR: £3458-£5061) for RLR, £4326 (IQR: £4273-£4473) for LLR, and £4,084 (IQR: £3799-£5549) for the OLR cohort (p = 0.140). Median income per case was £7999 (IQR: £4509-£10,777) for RLR, £7497 (IQR: £2407-£14,576) for LLR, and £7493 (IQR: £2542-£14,121) for OLR. The median length of stay (LOS) for RLR was 3 days (IQR: 2-4.7 days) compared to 5 days for LLR (IQR: 4.5-7 days) and 6 days for OLR (IQR: 5-8 days, p < 0.001). Within the NHS, RLR has consumable costs comparable to OLR and LLR. It is also linked with a shorter LOS and generates similar income for patients undergoing OLR and LLR.

An evaluation of factors influencing the adoption and usage of robotic surgery in lower limb arthroplasty amongst orthopaedic trainees: a clinical survey.

BACKGROUND: The rise of robotics in orthopaedic training, driven by the demand for better training outcomes and patient care, presents specific challenges for junior trainees due to its novelty and steep learning curve. This paper explores how orthopaedic trainees perceive and adopt robotic-assisted lower limb arthroplasty. METHODS: The study utilised the UTUAT model questionnaire as the primary data collection tool, employing targeted questions on a five-point Likert scale to efficiently gather responses from a large number of participants. Data analysis was conducted using partial least squares (PLS), a well-established method in previous technology acceptance research. RESULT: The findings indicate a favourable attitude amongst trainees towards adopting robotic technology in orthopaedic training. They acknowledge the potential advantages of improved surgical precision and patient outcomes through roboticassisted procedures. Social factors, including the views of peers and mentors, notably influence trainees' decision-making. However, the availability of resources and expert mentors did not appear to have a significant impact on trainees' intention to use robotic technology. CONCLUSION: The study contributes to the understanding of factors influencing trainees' interest in robotic surgery and emphasises the importance of creating a supportive environment for its adoption.

Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic bariatric procedures in super-obese patients: clinical and economic outcomes.

The increased operative time and costs represent the main limitations of robotic technology application to bariatric surgery. Robotic platforms may help the surgeon to overcome the technical difficulties in super-obese (SO, BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2) patients, in which multi-quadrant operations could be challenging. We aimed to evaluate the effect of robot-assisted (R) versus laparoscopic (L) approaches in Single Anastomosis Duodeno-Ileal Bypass with Sleeve Gastrectomy (SADI-S) and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) in SO and Super-Super Obese (SSO, BMI ≥ 60 kg/m2) patients in terms of outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Bariatric procedures performed from 2012 to 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2, primary SADI-S or RYGB. Operative time (OT), early complications, post-operative stay (POS), overall costs and follow-up data were analyzed. A subgroup analysis for surgical procedures and SSO patients was also performed. Among 4596 patients, 174 RYGB and 91 SADI-S in BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2 patients were selected. After Propensity Score Matching analysis, two groups of patients were identified (laparoscopic and robot-assisted), each one composed of 18 RYGB and 26 SADI-S. Intraoperative and post-operative complication rates and POS were comparable. Mean OT was longer in robotic procedures compared with laparoscopy (199.1 ± 65.7 and 109.5 ± 39.1 min, respectively, p < 0.001). The difference in OT was eliminated after only SSO patients were included in the analysis (172.7 ± 24.1 vs 152.6 ± 26.2 min for R-SADI-S and L-SADI-S, respectively, p = 0.107). Robotic surgeries were associated with higher costs (8134.6 ± 1886.7 and 2386.7 ± 388.2 € in R-RYGB and L-RYGB, respectively; 7996.6 ± 873.1 and 3954.6 ± 631.1 € in R-SADI-S and L-SADI-S). Despite increased costs, robotic approach may represent an added value in more complex cases such as SSO patients.