Complications Of Robotic Surgery Research Articles

Incisional hernias following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: does the extraction site matter?

The incidence of incisional hernia (IH) following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) varies widely within the literature (0.4-9.7%). Whilst small hernias may go unnoticed, the potential exists for bowel strangulation and subsequent emergency surgery. We suggest that the extraction site may influence the rate of IH. A retrospective chart review of a single surgeon RALP series was undertaken. One hundred charts were sampled, of which 69 had sufficient data to be analysed. Prior to July 2017, specimen extraction had been via the supra-umbilical port site. After this time, specimens were extracted via a Pfannenstiel incision. Of the 69 patients, 24 underwent RALP prior to July 2017. Three patients developed IH at the supra-umbilical port extended for extraction site in the pre-2017 group and three patients developed IH at the supra-umbilical port (not extraction) site in the post-2017 group. The rate of IH was almost double in the pre-July 2017 group (12.5% vs. 6.7%). No patient developed an incisional hernia at the Pfannenstiel site in the post-2017 group. In our series, no patient developed a hernia at the Pfannenstiel site. This is in keeping with the reported < 1% IH rate following Pfannenstiel specimen extraction. Given that incisional hernias are a known complication of robotic surgery, thought should be given to changing the site of specimen extraction site to lower the rate of incisional hernias and the morbidity associated with such.

Evaluating body mass index's impact on Da Vinci Robotic rectal cancer surgery, a retrospective study.

Robotic surgery addresses laparoscopic shortcomings and yields comparable results for low and high body mass index (BMI) patients. However, the impact of BMI on postoperative complications in robotic colorectal surgery remains debated. This study assessed the implications of BMI on short outcomes and postoperative complications, highlighting its unique role in the outcomes. Retrospective analysis of 119 patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer (January 2022 to March 2023). Patients grouped by BMI: normal weight (BMI < 23.9kg/m2), overweight (BMI ≥ 23.9kg/m2 and BMI < 27.9kg/m2), and obese (BMI ≥ 27.9kg/m2). Investigated BMI's impact on surgical outcomes and postoperative complications. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) in Clavien-Dindo, ASA scores. The obese group had a longer time to flatus (P = 0.002) and a higher re-operation rate than other groups (P = 0.01). The overweight group had a higher anastomotic fistula rate than the obese group. Overall complications showed no significant differences among BMI cohorts (P = 0.0295). There were no significant differences in TNM stages and comorbidities. BMI had no significant impact on overall postoperative complications in robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, higher BMI correlated with a longer time to flatus and increased re-operation rate.

42. Do no harm: a retrospective analysis of the initial risk of complications in robotic spine surgery

<h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3> Incorporation of open and MIS robotic techniques in spine surgery has been growing over the past decade, resulting in altered surgical techniques and the need for newly developed skills. With the initial learning curve involved in using this new technology, the upfront risk of complications and poor outcomes during the learning process has been understudied in the literature. <h3>PURPOSE</h3> To evaluate the initial risk of complications with the incorporation of robotic assisted spine surgery. <h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3> Retrospective review of a national patient database between 2007-2016. <h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3> A total of 3,759,824 elective spine surgery patients. <h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3> Comorbidity burden, perioperative complication rates, year-to-year complications, mechanical complications. <h3>METHODS</h3> Inclusion criteria: elective spine surgery procedures from 2007-2016 as defined by ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes. Exclusion criteria: emergency, trauma or nonelective surgery. Descriptive statistics assessed demographic information. Rates of open and MIS robot-assisted procedures were assessed, as well as trends in postoperative complications and length of stay. Logistic regressions were performed to see if robotic use was independently predictive of a postoperative complication. <h3>RESULTS</h3> The study included 3,759,824 elective spine surgery patients. Overall, 4,185 patients underwent robotic spine surgery (0.1%). There was a significant increase from in robotic surgery cases from 2010 to 2016 with 11 patients in 2010 to 1,535 patients in 2016 (p<0.001). During this time, 93% of robotic spine cases were open compared to 7% MIS (p<0.001). Relative to nonrobotic patients, robotic-spine patients presented with higher rates of anemia, rheumatoid arthritis, uncomplicated diabetes, hypertension, hypothyroidism, fluid and electrolyte disorders (all p<0.001). Overall, robotic-spine patients had higher overall perioperative complication rates, including cardiac, urinary and anemia (all p<0.001). Postoperatively, year-to-year overall complications in robotic surgery patients increased from 25% in 2011 to 29.6% in 2016 (p <0.001), with a high of 31.8% in 2015. Robotic-open cases compared to robotic-MIS cases were shown to have significantly higher overall complications (28.2 vs 13.6%, p<0.001), including complications associated with anemia and mechanical complications (both p<0.001). <h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3> The rise of robotic assisted spine surgery has yielded a concurrent rise in perioperative complications as surgeons adjust to this new technology. Until the learning curve lessens for incorporation of robotic techniques in spine surgery, providers should weigh MIS or open robotic procedures with an eye towards perioperative complications. <h3>FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS</h3> This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Risk factors for complications after robotic adrenalectomy: a review

The application of adrenal surgery has been spreading steadily in recent years. With the increased use of robotics in surgery, robotic adrenalectomy (RA), especially for the posterior retroperitoneoscopic approach, has been taken on by many high-volume institutions as a good option over the standard laparoscopic approach (LA). This paper reviews the recent literature from May 2010 up to November 2019 with the aim of analyzing RA complications in order to identify risk factors for complications after RA. We analyzed 7 principal risk factors for complication: body mass index (BMI), age, tumor size, tumor side, pathology, previous surgery, and surgeon experience. In the review, some studies identified tumor size, malignancy type, completion of learning curve and, and less clearly, previous ipsilateral upper mesocolic or retroperitoneal surgery, as risk factors for postoperative complications and failure of robotic surgery. Whether RA is meaningfully superior to the standard minimally invasive approach is still a subject of discussion. RA appears safer by virtue of its reduction in hospital stay, lower blood loss, and equivalent complication rates, and surgeons should prefer adrenalectomy over the LA. Despite these advantages, the operative time and the overall cost of the robotic procedure are higher than the LA. Further high-quality trials, especially those analyzing the specific risk factors for complications in robotic surgery, should be conducted in order to optimize the stratification of patients eligible for robotic surgery.

Complications of Robotic Surgery in Oncological Gynecology: The Experience of the Brazilian National Institute of Cancer

The number of surgeries performed with robotic equipment has increased ever since its release by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2005 [1]. Robotic surgery is well accepted and seems to be as effective as laparoscopy in the treatment of endometrial and cervix cancers [2,3]. Some of the advantages of using this method over the traditional laparoscopic technique include 3D visualization, tremor filtration, greater dexterity, better ergonomics, lower blood loss and lower post-operative pain index [4].

Robotic Urologic Surgery in Infants: Results and Complications.

Over the last 30 years, robotic surgery has evolved into the preferred surgical approach for many operative cases. Robotics has been associated with lower pain scales, shorter hospitalizations, and improved cosmesis (1, 2). However, its acceptance in pediatrics have been hampered by longer operative times, smaller working space, and limited fine surgical instruments. Many find these challenges even more pronounced when performing robotic surgery in infants (i.e., children <1 year old). Although the data in infants is less robust, many studies have shown benefits similar to the adult population. Specifically, multiple reports of robotic surgery in infants have shown lower postoperative analgesic use. Additionally, hospital stays are shorter, which may lead to quicker return to work for parents and guardians. Multiple reports have shown low complication rates of robotic surgery in infants. When complications have occurred, they are usually Clavien Grade 1 and 2, with occasional grade 3. Often the complications are not from the robotic technique, but are linked to other factors such as the ureteral stents (3, 4). Most importantly, the success rates of surgery are comparable to open surgery. This chapter will review indications for the most common urologic robotic surgeries performed in infants. Also, we will review reported results and complications of robotic surgery in children, with specific attention to the infant population. However, data focused only on infants is limited. Many studies have some infant patients, but their results are often mixed with all pediatric patients.

Complications of robotic surgery in urological diseases: are we using standardized methodology to report complications?

The current data on complications reporting related to robot-assisted procedures (RAPs) in the urology literature are not comparable and do not use a validated classification. In this review, findings from various studies reporting positive and negative outcomes will be outlined. Robotic procedures have outcomes similar to open and laparoscopic techniques but generally cause fewer adverse events. However, the lack of standards for presenting surgical morbidity related to RAP leads to underreporting of surgical complications, makes comparisons of surgical outcomes difficult and prevents adequate knowledge about the outcomes of procedures. Although a reasonable number of positive outcomes of RAP have been reported in the literature, the extent of underreporting with this process is unknown. Further research and the development of a validated classification for reporting surgical complications will facilitate a better understanding of the actual outcomes.

Complications of Robotic Surgery in Urology: Our Experience of 342 Procedures Including the Learning Curve

Complications of Robotic Surgery in Urology: Our Experience of 342 Procedures Including the Learning Curve

Ocular complications in robotic surgery.

The penetration of robotic technology in various surgical fields may increase ocular complications. A systematic search was performed in both PubMed and Scopus databases. Eight articles were retrieved by the literature search. In total, 142 patients were included in the study. The most frequent complication was increased intra-ocular pressure. Corneal abrasion, ischaemic optic neuropathy and postoperative visual loss were also reported. The duration of operations was 1.7-9.9 h; mean intra-ocular pressure was 3.6-13.3 mmHg; estimated blood loss was 29.7-1200 ml; and administered intravenous fluids were 1.600-4.300 ml. Meticulous preoperative ophthalmological assessment, restriction of intravenous fluids, 'rest stops', eyelid taping and ocular dressings are the major protective measures suggested by the literature. Collaboration between the surgical team and the anaesthetist is also essential. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abdominal wall haemorrhage after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: Is it a complication of robotic surgery?

ObjectiveRobotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is the minimally invasive surgical treatment for patients with localized prostate cancer. Perioperative or postoperative complications following RARP have been reported in some studies and severe postoperative bleeding after RARP is rare, but haemodynamic instability may necessitate open surgical exploration and be associated with considerable morbidity. We reported postoperative bleeding cases, which is a kind of complication associated with robotic surgery and requiring massive transfusion after RARP. Patients and methodsFrom August 2009 to May 2012, 317 consecutive patients who underwent RARP performed at our institution were analyzed. Patients with serious postoperative bleeding that caused haemodynamic instability after surgery were enrolled. ResultsA total of 5 among 317 (1.6%) patients had bleeding requiring postoperative transfusion. In these cases, mean operative time was 114min. The mean estimated blood loss was 110ml during operation. In these patients, hematocrit (Hct) levels gradually fell after surgery and ecchymosis was detected on the side and posterior walls of the abdomen on the second day. The mean preoperative Hct was 44.3% and mean lowest Hct was 23.1%. All patients were successfully treated without surgical exploration. ConclusionsRobotic radical prostatectomy has proven to be a safe surgical treatment with low morbidity. However, postoperative bleeding can reach serious problems. This is the first study to explain haemorrhage, associated with possible risk of robotic surgery.

Complications of Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology: A Single Institution Experience

To report our analysis of complications on pediatric robotic urologic procedures. A retrospective review was performed for all robotic surgeries by pediatric urologists at a single pediatric institution, from the start of the robotic surgery program in February 2009 through February 2013. Data included patient demographics, intraoperative details, outcomes, and complications (Clavien system). The analysis included 136 patients. There were 10 different types of procedures performed by 3pediatric urologists. There were no intraoperative complications, robotic malfunctions, conversions to open or laparoscopic surgery, or mortalities. There were 11 total complications (8.1%): 2grade I (1.5%), 7 grade II (5.1%), and 2 grade IIIb (1.5%). Complications included ileus in 2 patients (1.5%), port site infection in 2 (1.5%), urinary leak in 2 (1.5%), urinary retention in 2 (1.5%), urinary tract infection in 2 (1.5%), and stent migration in 1 (0.7%). The complication rate was in 3 of 10 infants (30%) and 8 of 126 noninfants (6.3%), P= .035. However, grade I, II, and IIIb complication rates were not significantly higher in infants vs noninfants, P= 1, .084, and .142, respectively. There was no difference in complication rates between the 3 surgeons. Pediatric robotic urologic procedures are safely performed with a relatively low complication rate and a low incidence of additional interventions owing to complications. Ongoing use of robotic technology in the pediatric population can be supported. Further reports are needed to validate our findings.

Editorial Comment

It has been 10 years since the adoption of robotic technology for urologic surgery. The initial published reports consisted of case reports and uncontrolled case series. Now that it has been demonstrated that robotic surgery can be a valuable tool in pediatric reconstructive surgery, it is time for well-designed studies to look at outcomes. The study by Noh et al provides an excellent analysis of a single institution's experience using robotic technology for pediatric urologic surgery. Complications of Robotic Surgery in Pediatric Urology: A Single Institution ExperienceUrologyVol. 82Issue 4PreviewTo report our analysis of complications on pediatric robotic urologic procedures. Full-Text PDF

Robotic Versus Vaginal Urogynecologic Surgery

The primary objective was to compare perioperative complications after robotic surgery (RS) versus vaginal surgery (VS) for apical prolapse repair in elderly women. The secondary objectives were to (1) assess whether tools designed to predict surgical morbidity, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), are useful in the elderly urogynecologic population and (2) to classify complications during urogynecologic apical procedures using the Dindo classification system. We reviewed medical records of women 65 years or older who underwent RS or VS between March 2006 and April 2011. Procedures included robotic sacrocolpopexy and sacrocervicopexy, vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension, sacrospinous ligament suspension, colpocleisis, and Uphold vaginal mesh placement. We assessed preoperative risks using ASA and CCI classification and complications using Dindo grade. There were 136 eligible cases (RS, 70; and VS, 66) during the 5-year study period. Women who underwent RS were younger (70 vs 74 years; P < 0.001). Vaginal surgery had more severe comorbidities as measured by the CCI (P = 0.012) but similar ASA profiles (P = 0.10). Robotic surgery had longer operative times (P < 0.001) but a lower estimated blood loss (P < 0.001). There were fewer postoperative complications in RS (P = 0.005). However, complication severity based on Dindo grade was similar between RS and VS, with most surgeries having no complications. In the elderly women, RS was associated with fewer postoperative complications than VS. Overall, all procedures were associated with few complications, and either route may be reasonable in the elderly population.

Case Report for Uretero-Vaginal Fistula: A Delayed Complication of Robotic Surgery

Case Report for Uretero-Vaginal Fistula: A Delayed Complication of Robotic Surgery