Robotic-assisted Surgery Group Research Articles

Clinical Application of a Neurosurgical Robot in Intracranial Ommaya Reservoir Implantation.

Background: The Ommaya reservoir implantation technique allows for bypass of the blood-brain barrier. It can be continuously administered locally and be used to repeatedly flush the intracranial cavity to achieve the purpose of treatment. Accurate, fast, and minimally invasive placement of the drainage tube is essential during the Ommaya reservoir implantation technique, which can be achieved with the assistance of robots.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a total of 100 patients undergoing Ommaya reservoir implantation, of which 50 were implanted using a robot, and the remaining 50 were implanted using conventional surgical methods. We then compared the data related to surgery between the two groups and calculated the accuracy of the drainage tube of the robot-assisted group.Results: The average operation time of robot-assisted surgery groups was 41.17 ± 11.09 min, the bone hole diameter was 4.1 ± 0.5 mm, the intraoperative blood loss was 11.1 ± 3.08 ml, and the average hospitalization time was 3.9 ± 1.2 days. All of the Ommaya reservoirs were successful in one pass, and there were no complications such as infection or incorrect placement of the tube. In the conventional Ommaya reservoir implantation group, the average operation time was 65 ± 14.32 min, the bone hole diameter was 11.3 ± 0.3 mm, the intraoperative blood loss was 19.9 ± 3.98 ml, and the average hospitalization time was 4.1 ± 0.5 days. In the robot-assisted surgery group, the radial error was 2.14 ± 0.99 mm and the axial error was 1.69 ± 1.24 mm.Conclusions: Robot-assisted stereotactic Ommaya reservoir implantation is quick, effective, and minimally invasive. The technique effectively negates the inefficiencies of craniotomy and provides a novel treatment for intracranial lesions.

The Prospective, Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial: Assessment of Craniofacial Robot-Assisted Surgery in Comparison With Traditional Surgery

Background: The clinical research reports on robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in mandibular contouring surgery are lacking. Our objective was to follow up on the effectiveness and safety of RAS for craniofacial bone surgery over a long period of time. Methods: This small sample early phase prospective randomized controlled study included patients diagnosed with mandibular deformity requiring mandibular contouring surgery. Patients of both genders aged 18-30 years who did not have complicated craniofacial repair defects were enrolled and were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by a permuted-block randomized assignments list that was generated by the study statistician. The control group was treated with traditional mandibular contouring surgery, while the experimental group was treated with robot-assisted mandibular contouring surgery. This was an open trial, but patients and evaluators did not know the grouping of patients. The primary outcomes were the position accuracy and angle accuracy of the osteotomy plane. We conducted third-party measurement and evaluation on the accuracy of outcomes 1 week after surgery. Surgical auxiliary measurement index, patient satisfaction scale, surgical pain scale, perioperative period, and complications at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months after surgery were also analyzed. Findings: From July 11, 2017 to August 20, 2019, 30 patients, 15 in the RAS group and 15 in the traditional surgery group, were enrolled in the study. One patient was lost to follow-up in the final experiment (controlled group), resulting in a total of 14 patients in the traditional surgery group and 15 in the robot-assisted group, whose data were used for statistical analysis. Among the primary outcomes, there was a significant difference in the position accuracy and angle accuracy between the preoperative design and the actual postoperative osteotomy CT between the traditional surgery group and the robot-assisted group. Among the secondary outcomes, apart from the deviation distance of inferior alveolar nerve to the mandibular cutting plane and bone cutting volume compared with the surgical simulation, there was no significant difference in terms of other surgical auxiliary measurement index, patient satisfaction scale, surgical pain scale, perioperative period, and complications. Interpretation: Compared to traditional surgery, robot-assisted mandibular contouring surgery showed obviously improved precision in bone cutting. What’s more, this technology did not increase the risk of patients. However, this technology needs further clinic trial for effectiveness and safety with more cases according to the findings of this early-phase trial. Trial Registration: The Trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry with the registration number chicTR-Inr17011795. Funding Statement: This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 61672341，61973211，51911540479); The project of Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (No. 17441903800, 18DZ2201900, 19441912300); The project of Science and Technology Commission of Fujian Province (No. 2018H0032); The project Science and Technology Department of Hainan Province (ZDYF2018022); The project of Science and Technology Commission of Quanzhou municipality (No. 2018Z028); The project of SJTU Medical and Engineering Cross Fund (No. YG2017ZD03); the project of Interdisciplinary Program of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (ZH2018QNB31)；and the project of Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Two-hundred Talent (No. 20161420). Declaration of Interests: All authors declare no competing interests. Ethics Approval Statement: This study was approved by the Independent Ethics Committee of Shanghai Ninth People’ s Hospital affiliated with the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine. The clinical study was conducted according to the requirements of the ethics committee.

Prospective, multicenter, pairwise analysis of robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair with open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: early results from the Prospective Hernia Study.

To evaluate and compare peri-operative outcomes through 30days, including pain and quality of life (QOL) through 3months across three cohorts of inguinal hernia repair (IHR) patients (robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open IHR). The Prospective Hernia Study is an ongoing, multicenter, comparative, open-label analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes from robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) versus open and RAS versus laparoscopic IHR procedures. Patient responses to the Carolinas Comfort Scale (CCS) questionnaire provided QOL outcomes. 504 enrolled patients underwent unilateral or bilateral IHR (RAS, n = 159; open, n = 190; laparoscopic, n = 155) at 17 medical institutions from May 2016 through December 2018. Propensity score matching provided a balanced comparison: RAS versus open (n = 112 each) and RAS versus laparoscopic (n = 80 each). Overall, operative times were significantly different between the RAS and laparoscopic cases (83 vs. 65min; p < 0.001). Fewer RAS patients required prescription pain medication than either open (49.5% vs. 80.0%; p < 0.001) or laparoscopic patients (45.3% vs. 65.4%; p = 0.013). Median number of prescription pain pills taken differed for RAS vs. open (0.5 vs. 15.5; p = 0.001) and were comparable for RAS vs laparoscopic (7.0 vs. 6.0; p = 0.482) among patients taking prescribed pain medication. Time to return to normal activities differed for RAS vs. open (3 vs. 4days; p = 0.005) and were comparable for RAS vs. laparoscopic (4 vs. 4days; p = 0.657). Median CCS scores through 3months were comparable for the three approaches. Postoperative complication rates for the three groups also were comparable. One laparoscopic case was converted to open. This study demonstrates that IHR can be performed effectively with the robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, or open approaches. There was no difference in the median number of prescription pain medication pills taken between the RAS and laparoscopic groups. A difference was observed in the overall number of patients reporting the need to take prescription pain medication. Comparable operative times were observed for RAS unilateral IHR patients compared to open unilateral IHR patients; however, operative times for RAS overall and bilateral subjects were longer than for open patients. Operative times were longer overall for RAS patients compared to laparoscopic patients; however, there was no difference in conversion and complication rate in the RAS vs. laparoscopic groups or the complication rate in the RAS vs. open group. Time to return to normal activities for RAS IHR patients was comparable to that of laparoscopically repaired patients and significantly sooner compared to open IHR patients.

Short‐term outcomes of robot‐assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for early‐stage endometrial cancer: A retrospective, single‐center study

We compared the short-term outcomes between conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) and robot-assisted surgery (RAS) to assess the technical feasibility of the latter for early-stage endometrial cancer. We retrospectively compared the perioperative outcomes between two groups of 223 patients (CLS group, n = 102; RAS group, n = 121) with early-stage endometrial cancer. Surgical procedures included hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy. We analyzed the data from intrapelvic surgery alone because para-aortic lymphadenectomy was performed via conventional endoscopic extraperitoneal approach without robot for both groups. No differences were identified in patients' age and body mass index. The mean operative time was 133 ± 28 versus 178 ± 41 min (P < 0.01), mean blood loss was 196 ± 153 versus 237 ± 146 mL (P = 0.047), mean length of postoperative hospital stay was 9 ± 4 versus 8 ± 3 days (P = 0.01) and mean rate of perioperative complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher was 2.0 versus 3.4% (P = 0.53) for the CLS versus RAS groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in the number of resected lymph nodes. The operative time was significantly longer and blood loss was significantly greater in the RAS group than in the CLS group, without a significant difference in the number of resected lymph nodes. These differences are within an acceptable clinical range, showing that RAS is feasible and safe for early-stage endometrial cancer, providing short-term outcomes comparable to those of conventional surgery. Future studies are warranted to compare the long-term oncological outcomes by extending the observation period and including para-aortic lymphadenectomy data.

Accuracy and Safety of Robot‐Assisted Drilling Decompression for Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head

ObjectiveTo investigate the safety and superiority of robot‐assisted femoral head drilling decompression in the treatment of femoral head necrosis.MethodsA total of 63 patients who underwent borehole decompression of the femoral head in our hospital from January 2016 to March 2019 were recruited. Patients were divided into two groups for comparison according to surgical methods. In the robot‐assisted surgery group, there were 30 cases with 41 femoral heads. The conventional group had 33 cases and 46 femoral heads. All patients signed the consent form before the operation. The follow‐up time was 6 months. The incision lengths, operation times, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopies, guide needle punctures, postoperative Harris scores, and postoperative complications of the two groups were compared.ResultsThe incision length of the robot surgery group was 5.16 ± 0.41 cm, while that of the traditional surgery group was 7.42 ± 0.50 cm. The operation time of the robot surgery group was 46.99 ± 4.94 min, while that of the traditional surgery group was 55.01 ± 6.19 min. The fluoroscopy frequency of the robot surgery group was 10.50 ± 1.78 times, while that of the traditional surgery group was 17.91 ± 2.20 times. The intraoperative blood loss in the robotic surgery group was 20.62 ± 2.52 mL, while that in the conventional surgery group was 52.72 ± 3.39 mL. In the robot operation group, each femoral head guide needle was punctured three times, and the puncture was successful one time. The number of guided needle punctures in the traditional group was 8.02 ± 1.73. The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The Harris score was 69.53 ± 7.51 in the robot surgery group and 68.38 ± 7.26 in the traditional surgery group one month after surgery, 78.52 ± 6.49 in the robot surgery group and 76.41 ± 7.95 in the traditional surgery group three months after surgery, and 83.32 ± 8.62 in the robot surgery group and 81.74 ± 6.20 in the traditional surgery group six months after surgery. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). In the traditional group, there was one case of incision infection and one case of femoral head collapse during follow‐up. In the robot group, there were no complications, such as incision infection and deep vein thrombosis. No collapse of the femoral head was found in the robot group during follow‐up.ConclusionThe positioning system of the orthopaedic robot is an ideal method for the treatment of femoral head necrosis. This method has the advantages of simple operation, accurate drilling, a short operation time, less surgical trauma, less radioactivity, and good recovery of hip joint function.

Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Urachal Excision Using Hidden Incision Endoscopic Surgery Technique in Pediatric Patients.

Introduction: Although laparoscopic urachal excision in children has been well reported, there are limited data on a robot-assisted surgery (RAS) approach. The hidden incision endoscopic surgery (HIdES) technique is an established method of eliminating visible scars following a number of RAS urologic procedures. We report our experience of using a robotic approach to treat urachal anomalies in children, and we present the first description of utilizing the HIdES port configuration for this procedure. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed pediatric patients who underwent resection of a urachal remnant at our institution from 2013 to 2018. Surgical techniques were either the traditional open approach (OA) or RAS. HIdES trocar placement configuration was employed in all robotic cases. Patient demographics, perioperative data, pathology reports, and outcomes were abstracted and compared. Results: Twenty-three patients underwent a urachal remnant resection in the study period (RAS: 14 patients vs OA: 9 patients). RAS patients were older (8.5 vs 2.0 years, p = 0.031) and weighed more than OA patients (36.1 vs 13.9 kg, p = 0.063). Median operative time for RAS was longer than OA operative time (136 vs 33 minutes, p < 0.01). Fewer RAS patients were outpatient compared with OA (7.1% vs 66.7%, p < 0.01), but with a median length of stay of 1 day (0-1 day). Two patients (14.3%) in the RAS group experienced postoperative complications within 1 week of the procedure compared with 1 (11.1%) in the OA group. There was no significant difference in blood loss, postoperative narcotic requirements, or duration of follow-up between both groups. Conclusion: RAS is a safe and feasible alternative to open surgery for urachal anomalies. Complete excision can be achieved by using HIdES port configuration, allowing for excellent cosmetic outcomes that are superior to traditional surgical scars without limitation to essential surgical ergonomics.

Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection surgery: Short-term outcomes and complications: A retrospective comparative study

BackgroundThe safety of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) remains a concern. This study aimed to compare the complications after RAS versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS) for rectal cancer using the Clavien–Dindo classification and to identify risk factors related to the complications. MethodBetween March 2010 and June 2016, 556 rectal cancer patients who underwent successful RAS and 1029 patients who received LAS were enrolled in this study. The complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and the possible risk factors related to the complications were analyzed. ResultsThe overall postoperative complication rate was 14.9%, with a 5% rate of severe complications that were classified as grade III or above in RAS group compared with 17.1% and 4.4% in LAS group. However, no significant difference was found (P = 0.608). A high ASA score was identified as an independent risk factor for overall and severe complications in both groups. The use of more than 3 staples in each operation and the anastomotic site of the anal verge at less than 5 cm were independent risk factors for complications. ConclusionsRAS for rectal cancer is technically safe and it does not significantly improve the complication rate. The incidence of overall complications is still related to tumor location, the general condition of the patients, and the surgical approach.

Erectile Function and Oncologic Outcomes Following Open Retropubic and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Results from the LAParoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open Trial

BackgroundWhether surgeons perform better utilising a robot-assisted laparoscopic technique compared with an open approach during prostate cancer surgery is debatable. ObjectiveTo report erectile function and early oncologic outcomes for both surgical modalities, stratified by prostate cancer risk grouping. Design, setting, and participantsIn a prospective nonrandomised trial, we recruited 2545 men with prostate cancer from seven open (n=753) and seven robot-assisted (n=1792) Swedish centres (2008–2011). Outcome measurements and statistical analysisClinometrically-validated questionnaire-based patient-reported erectile function was collected before, 3 mo, 12 mo, and 24 mo after surgery. Surgeon-reported degree of neurovascular-bundle preservation, pathologist-reported positive surgical margin (PSM) rates, and 2-yr prostate-specific antigen-relapse rates were measured. Results and limitationsAmong 1702 preoperatively potent men, we found enhanced erectile function recovery for low/intermediate-risk patients in the robot-assisted group at 3 mo. For patients with high-risk tumours, point estimates for erectile function recovery at 24 mo favoured the open surgery group. The degree of neurovascular bundle preservation and erectile function recovery were greater correlated for robot-assisted surgery. In pT2 tumours, 10% versus 17% PSM rates were observed for open and robot-assisted surgery, respectively; corresponding rates for pT3 tumours were 48% and 33%. These differences were associated with biochemical recurrence in pT3 but not pT2 disease. The study is limited by its nonrandomised design and relatively short follow-up. ConclusionsEarlier recovery of erectile function in the robot-assisted surgery group in lower-risk patients is counterbalanced by lower PSM rates for open surgeons in organ-confined disease; thus, both open and robotic surgeons need to consider this trade-off when determining the plane of surgical dissection. Robot-assisted surgery also facilitates easier identification of nerve preservation planes during radical prostatectomy as well as wider dissection for pT3 cases. Patient summaryFor prostate cancer surgery, an open operation reduces erection problems in high-risk cancers but has higher relapse rates than robotic surgery. Relapse rates appear similar in low/intermediate-risk cancers and the robot appears better at preserving erections in these cases.

Introduction of robot-assisted radical cystectomy within an established enhanced recovery programme.

To describe the implementation phase of a robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) programme including side-effect profiles and impact on length of stay (LOS). In all, 114 consecutive patients (82% male) underwent RARC and urinary diversion between April 2013 and December 2015 [ileal conduit (97 patients) and orthotopic neobladder (17)]. Surgery was performed by two surgeons within a designated regional cancer centre. No exclusion criteria were applied. All patients were managed on the Exeter Enhanced Recovery Pathway (ERP) in a unit where embedded enhanced recovery practice was already established. Data were collected prospectively on the national cystectomy registry - the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Complex Operations Dataset. RARC was technically feasible in all but one case. The mean operating time was 3-5 h with an overall transfusion rate of 8.8%. There were higher-grade complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV) in 18.4% of patients, with a 30-day mortality rate of 0.9%. The median (range) LOS after RARC was 7 (3-68) days, with a re-admission rate of 18.4%. The present series shows that RARC can be safely implemented in a unit experienced in robot-assisted surgery (RAS). Case-selection in this setting is not deemed necessary. There are benefits in terms of lower transfusion rates and reduced LOS. The side-effect profile appears to differ from that of open RC, and despite the fact that complication rate is equivalent; 'technical' complications are over-represented in the RAS group. As such, they should improve with experience, recognition, and modification of surgical technique. ERPs can be safely applied to all patients undergoing RARC to maximise the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

Short-term Results after Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Compared to Open Radical Prostatectomy

BackgroundRobot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has become a widespread technique despite a lack of randomised trials showing its superiority over open radical prostatectomy. ObjectiveTo compare in-hospital characteristics and patient-reported outcomes at 3 mo between robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Design, setting, and participantsA prospective, controlled trial was performed of all men who underwent radical prostatectomy at 14 participating centres. Validated patient questionnaires were collected at baseline and after 3 mo by independent health-care researchers. Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe difference in outcome between the two treatment groups were analysed using logistic regression analysis, with adjustment for identified confounders. Results and limitationsQuestionnaires were received from 2506 (95%) patients. The robot-assisted surgery group had less perioperative bleeding (185 vs 683ml, p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (3.3 vs 4.1 d, p < 0.001) than the open surgery group. Operating time was shorter with the open technique (103 vs 175min, p < 0.001) compared with the robot-assisted technique. Reoperation during initial hospital stay was more frequent after open surgery after adjusting for tumour characteristics and lymph node dissection (1.6% vs 0.7%, odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI 95%] 0.11–0.90). Men who underwent open surgery were more likely to seek healthcare (for one or more of 22 specified disorders identified prestudy) compared to men in the robot-assisted surgery group (p=0.03). It was more common to seek healthcare for cardiovascular reasons in the open surgery group than in the robot-assisted surgery group, after adjusting for nontumour and tumour-specific confounders, (7.9% vs 5.8%, OR 0.63, CI 95% 0.42–0.94). The readmittance rate was not statistically different between the groups. A limitation of the study is the lack of a standardised tool for the assessment of the adverse events. ConclusionsThis large prospective study confirms previous findings that robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a safe procedure with some short-term advantages compared to open surgery. Whether these advantages also include long-term morbidity and are related to acceptable costs remain to be studied. Patient summaryWe compare patient-reported outcomes between two commonly used surgical techniques. Our results show that the choice of surgical technique may influence short-term outcomes.

Transrectal robotic natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) applied to intestinal anastomosis in a porcine intestine model

Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a minimally invasive operation using devices such as flexible endoscopes and linear or circular staplers. Nevertheless, hand-sewn anastomosis in NOTES remains challenging. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of transrectal robotic NOTES requiring intracorporeal small intestinal anastomosis and closure of the rectal anterior wall incision in a relevant human model. The authors developed a flexible rectal proctoscope with a diameter of 43 mm for transrectal robotic NOTES. Small intestinal anastomosis was performed in a porcine intestinal transrectal NOTES model using two robotic arms and a camera inserted through the proctoscope and a rectal anterior wall incision. The quality of transrectal small intestinal anastomosis using the da Vinci surgical system (transrectal robotic NOTES group) was compared with that of transabdominal anastomosis using the da Vinci surgical system (transabdominal robot-assisted surgery group) and transrectal anastomosis using traditional transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) instruments (TEM NOTES group). The quality of transrectal rectal anterior wall suturing in the transrectal robotic NOTES group was compared with that of the TEM NOTES group and the open surgical instruments group (open group). Robotic intracorporeal suturing was performed successfully in the porcine intestine model. During small intestinal anastomosis, burst pressure in the transrectal robotic NOTES group (67.7 ± 29.3 mmHg) was similar to that in the transabdominal robot-assisted surgery group (73.3 ± 18.2 mmHg) but significantly higher than in the TEM NOTES group (20.3 ± 24.0 mmHg; p < 0.01). During rectal anterior wall suturing, the burst pressure did not differ significantly between the transrectal robotic NOTES group (149.9 ± 81.1 mmHg) and the open group (195.0 ± 60.5 mmHg). The preliminary safety and efficacy of transrectal robotic NOTES was established. Further studies are required to determine the practical feasibility of this procedure.

Long-term survival following robot-assisted surgical treatment of early cervical cancer.

5607 Background: To determine progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for patients with early stage cervical cancer surgically treated using robotic-assisted laparoscopy compared to open radical hysterectomy. Methods: A retrospective analysis of women that underwent a robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for early stage cervical cancer was performed. Surgical procedures included radical hysterectomy, parametrectomy, and trachelectomy from 2005 to May 2012. Patient demographics, clinicopathologic data, and disease status were analyzed. Comparison was made to open radical hysterectomies (ORH) from 2000 to May 2012. Survival statistics were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 147 patients underwent RAS; 97 patients underwent ORH in our comparison group. Surgery was aborted in 8 RAS and 5 ORH due to extent of disease. The robotic surgical treatments included 121 (82.3%) radical hysterectomies, 14 (9.5%) trachelectomies, and 12 (8.2%) parametrectomies. In the RAS, the mean age was 44.3 (range 17-75); the mean body mass index (BMI) was 27.7 (range 16-50). Most patients presented with clinical stage IBI disease (79.9%). Squamous cell histology was most common (55.4%) followed by adenosquamous (36.7%). No significant differences were found between the RAS and ORH with regards age, BMI, surgical stage, grade, short and long-term complications, and comorbidities. The mean follow up time was 24.7 (range 0-82.1) months. Recurrence was documented in 3 patients after RAS and 11 patients after ORH; 3 deaths were recorded in the RAS group and 10 in the ORH. One patient had persistent adenocarcinoma in situ after robotic trachelectomy. Compared to ORH, there was a significantly better PFS in RAS (HR .312, CI 0 .099-0.98, p = 0.046) while no difference was seen in OS (p = 0.172). Conclusions: The results demonstrate that RAS is associated with lower rates of recurrence and no difference in overall survival. These findings provide further evidence that robotic-assisted surgical treatment is not associated with inferior results when compared to laparotomy or traditional laparoscopy. As robotic-assisted surgery is associated with a less steep learning curve, it may become the surgical approach of choice.

Robotic-assisted paraesophageal hernia repair—a case–control study

The da Vinci® telemanipulation system offers a wide range of precise movements and 3D visualization with depth perception and magnification effect. Such a system could be useful for improving minimally invasive procedures-as in the case of large hiatal hernia with paraesophageal involvement (PEH) repair. Studies reporting on the robotic-assisted PEH repair are scarce, and a comparison to the standard operation techniques is lacking. Therefore, we decided to investigate the feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) compared to conventional laparoscopic (CLS) and open surgery (OS) for the first time. We investigated 42 patients for the perioperative outcome after PEH repair. Twelve patients were operated on with RAS, 17 with CLS, and 13 with OS. Operating time, intraoperative blood loss, intra- and postoperative complications, mortality, and duration of hospital stay were analyzed in each method. On average, operating time in the RAS group was 38 min longer, and the intraoperative blood was loss 217 ml lower compared to OS. Both results were similar to the CLS group. The intraoperative complication rate was similar in all groups. The postoperative complication rate in the RAS group was significantly lower than the OS group, though again similar to the CLS group. The hospital stay was 5 days shorter in the RAS group than the OS group and once again similar to the CLS group. The results show that RAS is feasible and safe. It appears to be an alternative to OS due to lower intraoperative blood loss and potentially fewer postoperative complications, as well as shorter hospital stay. Though, RAS is not superior to CLS.

Comparison of robotic-assisted surgery outcomes with laparotomy for endometrial cancer staging in Turkey

To compare the results of patients on whom staging was applied by robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery and laparotomy for endometrial cancer. The study included 10 patients who had undergone robotic-assisted endometrial staging (group 1) and 12 patients staged by open surgery (group 2). Demographical characteristics and operative outcomes of all patients were compared. Body mass index, age, previous abdominal surgeries, histopathologic characteristics, performed operative procedure, operation time, complications, hospitalization duration, estimated blood loss and number of resected lymph nodes were recorded for all patients. Mean age of the patients in the robotic surgery group was 55.7 years (37-66) and in the laparotomy group 56.4 years (47-75). Body mass index was calculated as 32.7 kg/m² (24.5-40.3) in group 1 and 30.3 kg/m² (25.9-35.8) in group 2. Total duration of operation was 234.6 min (137-300) and 168.5 min (102-232) in group 1 and 2, respectively. Mean duration of hospitalization in group 1 was 2.8 days (2-5) and in group 2 was 8.8 days (6-13). Estimates of blood loss were 95 ml (20-210 ml) in the robotic surgery group and 255 ml (80-420) in the other group. The mean number of resected lymph nodes was 42 (13-86) and 46.5 (26-107) in the robotic-assisted surgery group and laparotomy group, respectively. None of the cases in the robotic-assisted endometrial staging group required transition to laparotomy. Robotic surgery may be preferred over laparotomy with respect to the advantages observed in the duration of hospitalization, estimated amount of blood loss and complications. There was no significant difference between the two methods in terms of number of resected lymph nodes. Despite the limited number of patients in this study, these results are important as they represent the first data on robotic surgery in Turkey.