Laparoscopic vs robotic inguinal hernia repair: a comparison of learning curves and skill transference in general surgery residents.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on whether laparoscopic experience should be a prerequisite for robotic training. Further, there is limited information on skill transference between laparoscopic and robotic techniques. This study focused on the general surgery residents' learning curve and skill transference within the two minimally invasive platforms. METHODS: General surgery residents were observed during the performance of laparoscopic and robotic inguinal hernia repairs. The recorded data included objective measures (operative time, resident participation indicated by percent active time on console or laparoscopy relative to total case time, number of handoffs between the resident and attending), and subjective evaluations (preceptor and trainee assessments of operative performance) while controlling for case complexity, patient comorbidities, and residents' prior operative experience. Wilcoxon two-sample tests and Pearson Correlation coefficients were used for analysis. RESULTS: Twenty laparoscopic and forty-four robotic cases were observed. Mean operative times were 90 min for robotic and 95 min for laparoscopic cases (P = 0.4590). Residents' active participation time was 66% on the robotic platform and 37% for laparoscopic (P = < 0.0001). On average, hand-offs occurred 9.7 times during robotic cases and 6.3 times during laparoscopic cases (P = 0.0131). The mean number of cases per resident was 5.86 robotic and 1.67 laparoscopic (P = 0.0312). For robotic cases, there was a strong correlation between percent active resident participation and their prior robotic experience (r = 0.78) while there was a weaker correlation with prior laparoscopic experience (r = 0.47). On the other hand, prior robotic experience had minimal correlation with the percent active resident participation in laparoscopic cases (r = 0.12) and a weak correlation with prior laparoscopic experience (r = 0.37). CONCLUSION: The robotic platform may be a more effective teaching tool with a higher degree of entrustability indicated by the higher mean resident participation. We observed a greater degree of skill transference from laparoscopy to the robot, indicated by a higher degree of correlation between the resident's prior laparoscopic experience and the percent console time in robotic cases. There was minimal correlation between residents' prior robotic experience and their participation in laparoscopic cases. Our findings suggest that the learning curve for the robot may be shorter as prior robotic experience had a much stronger association with future robotic performance compared to the association observed in laparoscopy.

Robotic eTEP versus IPOM evaluation: the REVEAL multicenter randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: For small to medium-sized ventral hernias, robotic intraperitoneal onlay mesh (rIPOM) and enhanced-view totally extraperitoneal (eTEP) repair have emerged as acceptable approaches that each takes advantage of robotic instrumentation. We hypothesized that avoiding mesh fixation in a robotic eTEP repair offers an advantage in early postoperative pain compared to rIPOM. METHODS: This is a multi-center, randomized clinical trial for patients with midline ventral hernias ≤ 7 cm, who were randomized to rIPOM or robotic eTEP. The primary outcome was pain (0-10) on the first postoperative day. Secondary outcomes included same-day discharge, length of stay, opioid consumption, quality of life, surgeon workload, and cost. RESULTS: Between November 2019 and November 2021, 100 patients were randomized (49 rIPOM, 51 eTEP) among 5 surgeons. Pain on the first postoperative day [median (IQR): 5 (4-6) vs. 5 (3.5-7), p = 0.66] was similar for rIPOM and eTEP, respectively, a difference maintained following adjustments for surgeon, operative time, baseline pain, and patient co-morbidities (difference 0.28, 95% CI - 0.63 to 1.19, p = 0.56). No differences in pain on the day of surgery, 7, and 30 days after surgery were identified. Same-day discharge, length of stay, opioid consumption, and 30-day quality of life were also comparable, though rIPOM required less surgeon workload (p < 0.001), shorter operative time [107 (86-139) vs. 165 (129-212) min, p < 0.001], and resulted in fewer surgical site occurrences (0 vs. 8, p = 0.004). The total direct costs for rIPOM and eTEP were comparable [$8282 (6979-11835) vs. $8680 (7550-10282), p = 0.52] as the cost savings for eTEP attributable to mesh use [$442 (434-485) vs. $69 (62-76), p = < 0.0001] were offset by increased expenses for operative time [$669 (579-861) vs. $1075 (787-1367), p < 0.0001] and use of more robotic equipment [$760 (615-933) vs. $946 (798-1203), p = 0.001]. CONCLUSION: The avoidance of fixation in a robotic eTEP repair did not reveal a benefit in postoperative pain to offset the shorter operative time and surgeon workload offered by rIPOM.

Perioperative core body temperatures effect on outcome after colorectal resections.

The World Health Organization has set a standard of maintaining a core body temperature above 36°C in the perioperative period. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between both intraoperative temperature (IOT) and immediate postop core body temperature as it relates to postop complications. A retrospective analysis of a prospective database of patients who underwent an elective segmental colectomy without a stoma, for 3 diagnoses was performed. Six postoperative outcomes were examined: length of stay (LOS), placement of a nasogastric tube, return to the operating room, placement of an interventional drain, diagnosed leak, and surgical site infection (SSI). Statistics were calculated using a two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test. Seventy-nine patients met the inclusion criteria and there were no preoperative differences between the groups (those with a postop complication vs without). LOS > 9 days (36.64°C vs 35.98°C; P = 0.011) and clinical leak (37.06°C vs 35.99°C; P = 0.005) both had a statistically higher average IOT than those who did not. Patients with SSI trended to a higher IOT (36.44°C vs 35.99°C; P = 0.062). When the last IOT recorded was compared with the six outcomes, again length of stay and leak both were statistically significant (P = 0.018, P = 0.012) showing a higher temperature related to a higher complication rate. No other complications were related to IOT, nor did postop temperature relate to complication. In our data, relatively lower IOTs were protective for LOS and clinical leaks, with a trend of lower SSI rates. Further research is needed to fully endorse or refute the absolute recommendations for core body temperature.