Robotic-assisted benign hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic, vaginal, and open surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The potential benefits and limitations of benign hysterectomy surgical approaches are still debated. We aimed at evaluating any differences with a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were last searched on 6/2/2021 to identify English randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort and retrospective independent database studies published between Jan 1, 2010 and Dec 31, 2020 reporting perioperative outcomes following robotic hysterectomy versus laparoscopic, open, or vaginal approach (PROSPERO #CRD42022352718). Twenty-four articles were included that reported on 110,306 robotic, 262,715 laparoscopic, 189,237 vaginal, and 554,407 open patients. The robotic approach was associated with a shorter hospital stay (p < 0.00001), less blood loss (p = 0.009), and fewer complications (OR: 0.42 [0.27, 0.66], p = 0.0001) when compared to the open approach. The main benefit compared to the laparoscopic and vaginal approaches was a shorter hospital (R/L WMD: - 0.144 [- 0.21, - 0.08], p < 0.0001; R/V WMD: - 0.39 [- 0.70, - 0.08], p = 0.01). Other benefits seen were sensitive to the inclusion of database studies. Study type differences in outcomes, a lack of RCTs for robotic vs. open comparisons, learning curve issues, and limited robotic vs. vaginal publications are limitations. While the robotic approach was mainly comparable to the laparoscopic approach, this meta-analysis confirms the classic benefits of minimally invasive surgery when comparing robotic hysterectomy to open surgery. We also reported the advantages of robotic surgery over vaginal surgery in a patient population with a higher incidence of large uterus and prior surgery.

Cost-effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer in the UK.

Importance: The cost-effectiveness of different surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy remains a subject of debate. Emergence of recent critical clinical data and changes in surgical equipment costs due to their shared use by different clinical specialties necessitate an updated cost-effectiveness analysis in a centralized, largely government-funded health care system such as the UK National Health Service (NHS). Objective: To compare robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic-assisted radical prostatectomy (LRP) using contemporary data on clinical outcomes, costs, and surgical volumes in the UK. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic analysis used a Markov model developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of RARP, LRP, and ORP to treat localized prostate cancer. The model was constructed from the perspective of the UK NHS. The model simulated 65-year-old men who underwent radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer and were followed up for a 10-year period. Data were analyzed from May 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021. Exposures: Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, LRP, and ORP. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (direct medical costs and costs outside the NHS), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: Compared with LRP, RARP cost £1785 (US $2350) less and had 0.24 more QALYs gained; thus, RARP was a dominant option compared with LRP. Compared with ORP, RARP had 0.12 more QALYs gained but cost £526 (US $693) more during the 10-year time frame, resulting in an ICER of £4293 (US $5653)/QALY. Because the ICER was below the £30 000 (US $39 503) willingness-to-pay threshold, RARP was more cost-effective than ORP in the UK. The most sensitive variable influencing the cost-effectiveness of RARP was the lower risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR). Scenario analysis indicated RARP would remain more cost-effective than ORP as long as the BCR hazard ratios comparing RARP vs ORP were less than 0.99. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that in the UK, RARP has an ICER lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold and thus is likely a cost-effective surgical treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer compared with ORP and LRP. The results were mainly driven by the lower risk of BCR for RARP. These findings may differ in other health care settings where different thresholds and costs may apply.

Docking of the da Vinci Si Surgical System® with single-site technology.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to spare operating room (OR) times are crucial to limiting the costs involved in robotic surgery. Among other factors, the pre-operative set-up and docking phases have been incriminated at first to be time consuming. The docking process on the standard multiport da Vinci Surgical System has not been shown to significantly prolong the overall OR time. This study aims to analyse whether the length of the docking process on the new da Vinci Si Surgical System with Single-Site™ technology remains acceptable. METHODS: We prospectively analysed all of the robotic single-incision cholecystectomies performed at our institution for docking and operating times during 2011-2012. The docking task load was assessed each time in a self-administered fashion by the docking surgeon using the NASA TLX visual scale. RESULTS: Sixty-four robotic single-incision cholecystectomies were included and analysed. The mean operative time was 78 min. Two surgeons with previous robotic surgery experience and a group of three less experienced robotic surgeons were responsible for docking the system. They performed 45, 10 and nine dockings, respectively. The overall mean docking time was 6.4 min with no significant difference between the groups. The docking process represented approximately 8% of the operating time. The surgeon with the most procedures showed significant progress in his docking times. The different task load parameters did not show a statistical difference between the three groups, with the exception of the frustration parameter, which was higher in the group of less experienced surgeons. There were significant correlations between docking times and the assessment of the various task load parameters. CONCLUSION: The docking process for a robotic single-incision cholecystectomy is learned rapidly and does not significantly increase the overall OR time.