Robot-assisted Cases Research Articles

Gender Differences in the Adoption and Utilization of Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Among Practicing Urologists: A Study of American Board of Urology Case Logs From 2012-2022

ObjectiveTo evaluate the differential activity in robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) by urologic surgeon gender. MethodsThis was a retrospective study of American Board of Urology surgical case logs from 2012-2022. The CPT-coded laparoscopic procedures included were: Partial Nephrectomy (50543), Radical Nephrectomy (50545, 50546, 50548), Pyeloplasty (50544), and Sacrocolpopexy (57425). Robotic-assisted cases were co-coded with CPT S2900. Univariate analysis and multiple logistic regression analyzed the roles of physician gender and other factors on RALS utilization. A separate analysis was performed for Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy (RALP) (55866). ResultsWomen performed 10.8% of all procedures and 9.02% of robotic cases. General Urology and Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery (URPS) had higher concentrations of women. Of the CPT procedures analyzed, women performed the highest percentage of sacrocolpopexies (39.2% of total), 8.09% of which were robotic. In multivariate regression, women surgeons had significantly lower odds of performing a robotic case compared to men (OR 0.803, p<0.001). Endourology, Oncology, Pediatric Urology, and URPS subspecialties were associated with RALS. Upward trends were depicted across all physicians (0.012, [0.007, 0.018], p<0.001) and for men (0.019, [0.010, 0.029], p=0.001). Women showed no significant increase in robotic usage over time (p=0.463). ConclusionsWomen have lower odds of participating in robotics, primarily specialize in URPS and their involvement in RALS is skewed toward sacrocolpopexy. As robotics continues to dominate surgical urology, ensuring equitable training opportunities is essential. Research into the roles of mentorship in residency, same gender patient-physician concordance, practice setting, and recent graduates’ referral patterns is warranted.

Robotic-Assisted Obturator Nerve Repair: A Technical Report.

Untreated obturator nerve injury may result in weakness in thigh adduction, decreased medial thigh sensation, and groin pain. A neurosurgeon may be consulted intraoperatively for repair. Although there are reports of obturator nerve injury and repair in the gynecologic surgery literature, there are few reports detailing the specific steps of nerve repair after partial transection and the underlying principles of nerve coaptation, especially in the robotic-assisted setting. A partial transection of the right obturator nerve was noted in a patient undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and lymph node dissection using the da Vinci robot. Sutures were placed in the epineurium of the cut nerves to realign the fascicles. A porcine wrap was placed around the coaptation site and covered with fibrin glue. The right lower extremity was passively ranged to ensure no tension was present across the repair site. The patient had loss of right leg adduction after surgery, but she recovered full motor function 5 months after surgery with no numbness or pain. The current report describes a repair strategy for partial-thickness obturator nerve injury in the setting of a laparoscopic surgery. Working in a multidisciplinary fashion, the tenets of nerve repair may be applied to robotic-assisted cases of obturator nerve injury, resulting in neurologic recovery.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Navigation-Assisted Posterior Lumbar Fusion : A National Database Study.

Retrospective cohort study. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative adverse events and reoperations between navigation-assisted and robotic-assisted posterior lumbar fusion. Navigation has become increasingly utilized for posterior lumbar fusion (PLF). More recently, robotic-assisted systems have been gaining traction. However, the incremental advantage of these systems has been unclear in the literature. Patients undergoing one-level to three-level PLF (with or without anterior or posterior interbody fusion) were identified from the 2015 to 2022 M161Ortho PearlDiver Database using CPT codes. Navigation assistance was identified based on CPT coding and robotic assistance was based on ICD-10 procedural coding. Navigation-assisted cases were matched 4:1 to robotic-assisted patients based on age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, number of levels fuse, and concomitant anterior fusion. Incidence of 90-day adverse outcomes were assessed and compared with multivariable logistical regression. Bonferroni correction was applied for multiple testing. Rate of reoperation was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. From 2015 to 2022, there has been a significant increase in both navigation-assisted and robotic-assisted lumbar fusions, with navigation-assisted surgery being significantly more common. After matching, there were 2401 navigation-assisted cases and 651 robotic-assisted cases. On multivariate analysis, there were no significant differences in 90-day any, severe, or minor adverse events. There was a significant increase odd of readmissions in the robotic cohort (OR: 1.77, P <0.001). There were no differences in 3-year reoperation rates between the navigation-assisted and robotic-assisted cohorts (95.8% vs. 94.0%, P =0.30). As spinal navigation has been gaining popularity and robotic assistance is starting to be further utilized, the incremental advantage of different techniques may be questioned. While further study and technique evolution are ongoing, the current study was not able to demonstrate 90-day or 3-year incremental advantages for robotics relative to navigation based on the metrics evaluated. Level III.

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted primary bariatric-metabolic surgery. Are we still expecting to overcome the learning curve? A propensity score–matched analysis of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database

BackgroundRobotic surgery is becoming increasingly popular in bariatric-metabolic surgery. However, its superiority regarding postoperative outcomes compared with conventional laparoscopy has not been clearly proven. With growing adoption of robotic surgery and improved technologies, benefits should become more evident. ObjectivesEvaluate readmission and reoperation rates after bariatric-metabolic surgery performed by conventional laparoscopy versus robotic-assisted from 2015 to 2021. SettingAcademic institution. MethodsThe Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) was reviewed for primary bariatric operations performed with conventional laparoscopy versus robotic-assisted. Postoperative outcomes were compared in a propensity score-matched sample. ResultsOf 1,059,348 cases meeting inclusion criteria, 921,322 (87%) were conventional laparoscopic bariatric-metabolic surgeries, which were matched 1:1 with robotic-assisted cases (138,026). Reoperation (odds ratio [OR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–1.15, P = .0463), postoperative morbidity (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01–1.12, P = .0193), readmission (OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.09–1.18, P < .0001), and emergency department visits (OR 1.06; 95% CI 1.03–1.09, P = .0003) at 30 days postoperatively were significantly greater for robotic-assisted cases. Robotic-assisted cases had a similar mortality rate at 30 days postoperatively and length of stay >3 days when compared with conventional laparoscopic cases. Similar results were observed in cases from 2020 to 2021, except for reoperation and emergency department visits, which showed no difference between groups and length of stay >3 days, which was greater in robotic-assisted cases. ConclusionsOur results show a greater readmission and reoperation rate and greater morbidity at 30 days postoperatively in robotic-assisted bariatric-metabolic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopy. Analyzing only cases performed between 2020 and 2021, robotic surgery also does not show superiority over conventional laparoscopy.

Comparison of a Patient-Mounted Needle-Driving Robotic System versus Single-Rotation CT Fluoroscopy to Perform CT-Guided Percutaneous Lung Biopsies

PurposeTo compare the effectiveness of percutaneous lung biopsy using a patient-mounted needle-driving robotic system with that using a manual insertion of needles under computed tomography (CT) fluoroscopy guidance. Materials and MethodsIn this institutional review board approved study, the cohort consisted of a series of patients who underwent lung biopsies following the intention-to-treat protocol from September 2022 to September 2023 using robot (n = 15) or manual insertion under single-rotation CT fluoroscopy (n = 66). Patient and procedure characteristics were recorded as well as outcomes. ResultsAlthough age, body mass index, and skin-to-target distance were not statistically different, target size varied (median, 8 mm [interquartile range, 6.5–9.5 mm] for robot vs 12 mm [8–18 mm] for single-rotation CT fluoroscopy; P = .001). No statistical differences were observed in technical success (86.7% [13/15] vs 89.4% [59/66], P = .673), Grade 3 adverse event (AE) (6.7% [1/15] vs 12.1% [8/66], P = .298), procedural time (28 minutes [22–32 minutes] vs 19 minutes [14.3–30.5 minutes], P = .086), and patient radiation dose (3.9 mSv [3.2–5.6 mSv] vs 4.6 mSv [3.3–7.5 mSv], P = .398). In robot-assisted cases, the median angle out of gantry plane was 10° (6.5°–16°), although it was null (0°–5°) for single-rotation CT fluoroscopy (P = .001). ConclusionsRobot-assisted and single-rotation CT fluoroscopy–guided percutaneous lung biopsies were similar in terms of technical success, diagnostic yield, procedural time, AEs, and radiation dose, although robot allowed for out-of-gantry plane navigation along the needle axis.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Fluoroscopic-Guided Surgery on the Accuracy of Spine Pedicle Screw Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Spinal fusion is a common method by which surgeons decrease instability and deformity of the spinal segment targeted. Pedicle screws are vital tools in fusion surgeries and advancements in technology have introduced several modalities of screw placement. Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in robot-assisted (RA) versus fluoroscopic-guided (FG) techniques. The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were systematically reviewed from January 2007 through to August 8, 2022, to identify relevant studies. The accuracy of pedicle screw placement was determined using the Gertzbein-Robbins (GR) classification system. Facet joint violation (FJV), total case radiation dosage, total case radiation time, total operating room (OR) time, and total case blood loss were collected. Twenty-one articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Successful screw accuracy (GR Grade A or B) was found to be 1.02 (95% confidence interval: 1.01 - 1.04) times more likely with the RA technique. In defining accuracy solely based on the GR Grade A criteria, screws placed with RA were 1.10 (95% confidence interval: 1.06 - 1.15) times more likely to be accurate. There was no significant difference between the two techniques with respect to blood loss (Hedges' g: 1.16, 95% confidence interval: -0.75 to 3.06)or case radiation time (Hedges' g: -0.34, 95% CI: -1.22 to 0.53). FG techniques were associated withshorter operating room times (Hedges' g: -1.03, 95% confidence interval: -1.76 to -0.31), and higher case radiation dosage (Hedges' g: 1.61, 95% confidence interval: 1.11 to 2.10).This review suggests that RA may slightly increase pedicle screw accuracy and decrease per-case radiation dosage compared to FG techniques. However, total operating times for RA cases are greater than those for FG cases.

CUSUM learning curves: what they can and can't tell us.

There has been increased interest in assessing the surgeon learning curve for new skill acquisition. While there is no consensus around the best methodology, one of the most frequently used learning curve assessments in the surgical literature is the cumulative sum curve (CUSUM) of operative time. To demonstrate the limitations of this methodology, we assessed the CUSUM of console time across cohorts of surgeons with differing case acquisition rates while varying the total number of cases used to calculate the CUSUM. We compared the CUSUM curves of the average console times of surgeons who completed their first 20 robotic-assisted (RAS) cases in 13, 26, 39, and 52weeks, respectively, for their first 50 and 100 cases, respectively. This analysis was performed for prostatectomy (1094 surgeons), malignant hysterectomy (737 surgeons), and inguinal hernia (1486 surgeons). In all procedures, the CUSUM curve of the cohort of surgeons who completed their first 20 procedures in 13weeks demonstrated a lower slope than cohorts of surgeons with slower case acquisition rates. The case number at which the peak of the CUSUM curve occurs uniformly increases when the total number of cases used in generation of the CUSUM chart changes from 50 to 100 cases. The CUSUM analyses of these three procedures suggests that surgeons with fast initial case acquisition rates have less variability in their operative times over the course of their learning curve. The peak of the CUSUM curve, which is often used in surgical learning curve literature to denote "proficiency" is predictably influenced by the total number of procedures evaluated, suggesting that defining the peak as the point at which a surgeon has overcome the learning curve is subject to routine bias. The CUSUM peak, by itself, is an insufficient measure of "conquering the learning curve."

Active control time: an objective performance metric for trainee participation in robotic surgery.

Trainee participation and progression in robotic general surgery remain poorly defined. Computer-assisted technology offers the potential to provide and track objective performance metrics. In this study, we aimed to validate the use of a novel metric-active control time (ACT)-for assessing trainee participation in robotic-assisted cases. Performance data from da Vinci Surgical Systems was retrospectively analyzed for all robotic cases involving trainees with a single minimally invasive surgeon over 10months. The primary outcome metric was percent ACT-the amount of trainee console time spent in active system manipulations over total active time from both consoles. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U statistical tests were applied in analyses. A total of 123 robotic cases with 18 general surgery residents and 1 fellow were included. Of these, 56 were categorized as complex. Median %ACT was statistically different between trainee levels for all case types taken in aggregate (PGY1s 3.0% [IQR 2-14%], PGY3s 32% [IQR 27-66%], PGY4s 42% [IQR 26-52%], PGY5s 50% [IQR 28-70%], and fellow 61% [IQR 41-85%], p = < 0.0001). When stratified by complexity, median %ACT was higher in standard versus complex cases for PGY5 (60% vs. 36%, p = 0.0002) and fellow groups (74% vs. 47%, p = 0.0045). In this study, we demonstrated an increase in %ACT with trainee level and with standard versus complex robotic cases. These findings are consistent with hypotheses, providing validity evidence for ACT as an objective measurement of trainee participation in robotic-assisted cases. Future studies will aim to define task-specific ACT to guide further robotic training and performance assessments.

Minimally invasive cytoreductive surgery in advanced ovarian cancer: A nonselected consecutive series of robotic-assisted cases

The gold standard for advanced-stage ovarian cancer surgery entails exploration via a midline vertical laparotomy. Studies have shown that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can be a safe and effective method for the surgical management of early ovarian cancer. In some cases, MIS can also be selectively used for cytoreductive surgery in cases with advanced-stage ovarian cancer. The robotic platform has the potential to provide similar outcomes to the laparotomy-based standard of care in advanced complex surgery while accelerating recovery, minimizing morbidity, and reducing perioperative complications. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate surgical and perioperative outcomes in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma who underwent robotic-assisted cytoreduction. A chart review of a nonselected consecutive series of all patients undergoing surgical management of advanced ovarian cancer between 7/1/2017 and 12/31/2021 was conducted. All patients that were diagnosed with Stage III to IV ovarian cancer between the timeframe underwent robotic-assisted cytoreductive surgery at two urban community teaching hospitals in Los Angeles. Twenty-five patients were identified and included in this study. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon. Optimal or complete CRS was achieved in 96% of the patients (24 of 25 cases). Seven (28%) underwent primary cytoreduction (PCRS) and 18 (72%) underwent interval cytoreduction (ICRS). The estimated median blood loss was 100 mL (25-500 mL), the median operative time was 5.9 hours (3.1-10.5 hours), and the conversion rate to open laparotomy was 0%. There were no intraoperative complications and the readmission rate within 30 days was 4% (1 patient) for ileus, which was managed conservatively. Currently, 64% of the patients in the case series remain alive. The median survival has not been reached. The median follow-up is 4.08 years. Results presented from this nonselected, consecutive case series illustrate how a minimally invasive robotic approach can be safely used in place of the standard exploratory laparotomy for ovarian cytoreduction.

National analysis of cost disparities in robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic abdominal operations

BackgroundAlthough the use of robotic-assisted surgery continues to expand, the cost-effectiveness of this platform remains unclear. The present study aimed to compare hospitalization costs and clinical outcomes between robotic-assisted surgery and laparoscopic approaches for major abdominal operations. MethodsAll adults receiving minimally invasive gastrectomy, cholecystectomy, colectomy (right, left, transverse, sigmoid), ventral hernia repair, hysterectomy, and abdominoperineal resection were identified in the 2012 to 2019 National Inpatient Sample. Records with concurrent operations were excluded. Multivariable linear and logistic regressions were developed to examine the association of the operative approach with costs, length of stay, and complications. An interaction term between the year and operative approach was used to analyze cost differences over time. ResultsOf an estimated 1,124,450 patients, 75.8% had laparoscopic surgery, and 24.2% had robotic-assisted surgery. Compared to laparoscopic, patients with robotic-assisted operations were younger and more commonly privately insured. The average hospitalization cost for laparoscopic cases was $16,000 ± 14,800 and robotic-assisted cases was $18,300 ± 13,900 (P < .001). Regardless of procedure type, all robotic-assisted operations had higher costs compared to laparoscopic operations. Risk-adjusted trend analysis revealed that the discrepancy in costs between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery persisted and widened over time from $1,600 in 2012 to $2,600 in 2019. Compared to laparoscopic procedures, robotic procedures had a 2.2% reduction in complications (9.4 vs 11.6%, P < .001) and a 0.7-day decrement in the length of stay (95% confidence interval −0.8 to −0.7). ConclusionDisparities in costs between robotic and laparoscopic abdominal operations have persisted over time. Given the modest decrement in adverse outcomes, further investigation into the clinical benefits of robotic surgery is warranted to justify its greater costs.

Operating room efficiency after the implementation of MAKO robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty.

The aim of this study was to examine if robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) is cost- and time-effective in terms of implant stock and perioperative parameters, as optimizing perioperative efficiency may contribute to value-based care. Four hundred thirty-two consecutive patients who received primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) from May 2017 to March 2020 in a regional hospital were included in this study. Operating room time (OR time), surgical time, number of trays, insert thickness, and length of stay (LOS) were assessed and compared for a cohort group with navigation-assisted procedures to a group with robotic-assisted procedures (MAKO, Stryker, USA). Prediction of implant size was assessed for the robotic-assisted group. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons between groups when the normality assumption was not met. Categorical variables were assessed using the Fisher's exact test. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. In the RATKA group, we noticed a significant mean reduction of 11min in total OR time (p < 0.001), the use of thinner insert (p < 0.001), and a shorter mean length of stay of 1day (p < 0.001). Compared to the navigation group, surgical time was not significantly longer, nor clinically relevant (0.238). In 76.9% of the robotic-assisted cases, the estimated implant size was equal to the final size and in all other cases, the preoperative implant size was oversized. The introduction of the MAKO robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty resulted in a gain in operating room time, a thinner and more predictable insert thickness, a shorter length of stay in hospital, and less instrumentation compared to navigation-assisted procedures. Level of evidence Level III, Retrospective cohort study.

Robot-assisted radial forearm free flap harvesting: a propensity score-matched case-control study.

Although some surgeons prefer anterolateral thigh and latissimus dorsi flap for soft tissue reconstruction in the head and neck area because it minimizes donor site complications, the radial forearm flap remains the workhorse for soft tissue reconstruction due to its reliability. To reduce donor site morbidity, the authors developed a novel technique for radial forearm flap harvesting using a robotic device. 42 radial forearm free flap reconstruction cases were studied, consisting of 31 conventional and 11 robot-assisted cases. 1:1 propensity score matching was done according to age, sex, previous and postoperative radiation therapy history and method used for vein anastomosis. There was no significant difference in flap outcome, which was 100% vitality in the robot-assisted group and 90.9% vitality in the conventional group. The robot-assisted group showed significantly longer mean harvesting time than did the conventional group, being 107.2min and 67.0min, respectively. Robot-assisted radial forearm flap harvesting can reduce donor site complications by minimizing incision. When more surgical experience is gained under appropriate case selection, we expect our robot-assisted method will yield a harvesting time similar to that of the conventional method and thus become more reliable and feasible.

Evaluation of Robotic-Assisted Carotid Artery Stenting in a Virtual Model Using Motion-Based Performance Metrics

Purpose: Robotic-assisted carotid artery stenting (CAS) cases have been demonstrated with promising results. However, no quantitative measurements have been made to compare manual with robotic-assisted CAS. This study aims to quantify surgical performance using tool tip kinematic data and metrics of precision during CAS with manual and robotic control in an ex vivo model. Materials and Methods: Transfemoral CAS cases were performed in a high-fidelity endovascular simulator. Participants completed cases with manual and robotic techniques in 2 different carotid anatomies in random order. C-arm angulations, table position, and endovascular devices were standardized. Endovascular tool tip kinematic data were extracted. We calculated the spectral arc length (SPARC), average velocity, and idle time during navigation in the common carotid artery and lesion crossing. Procedural time, fluoroscopy time, movements of the deployed filter wire, precision of stent, and balloon positioning were recorded. Data were analyzed and compared between the 2 modalities. Results: Ten participants performed 40 CAS cases with a procedural success of 100% and 0% residual stenosis. The median procedural time was significantly higher during the robotic-assisted cases (seconds, median [interquartile range, IQR]: 128 [49.5] and 161.5 [62.5], p=0.02). Fluoroscopy time differed significantly between manual and robotic-assisted procedures (seconds, median [IQR]: 81.5 [32] and 98.5 [39.5], p=0.1). Movement of the deployed filter wire did not show significant difference between manual and robotic interventions (mm, median [IQR]: 13 [10.5] and 12.5 [11], p=0.5). The postdilation balloon exceeded the margin of the stent with a median of 2 [1] mm in both groups. Navigation with robotic assistance showed significantly lower SPARC values (–5.78±3.14 and –8.63±3.98, p=0.04) and higher idle time values (8.92±8.71 and 3.47±3.9, p=0.02) than those performed manually. Conclusions: Robotic-assisted and manual CAS cases are comparable in the precision of stent and balloon positioning. Navigation in the carotid artery is associated with smoother motion and higher idle time values. These findings highlight the accuracy and the motion stabilizing capability of the endovascular robotic system. Clinical Impact Robotic assistance in the treatment of peripheral vascular disease is an emerging field and may be a tool for radiation protection and the geographic distribution of endovascular interventions in the future. This preclinical study compares the characteristics of manual and robotic-assisted carotid stenting (CAS). Our results highlight, that robotic-assisted CAS is associated with precise navigation and device positioning, and smoother navigation compared to manual CAS.

Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2-Induced COVID-19 on Fixed Operating Room Times in Urologic Operations

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, on operating room (OR) efficiency for urologic procedures using the concept of fixed OR times. Patients and MethodsOver a 24-month period, urology OR data were prospectively collected. Operations were divided into fixed and variable time points. The fixed OR times were in-roomw to anesthesia-release time, anesthesia-release to cut time, in-room to cut time, and close to wheels-out time. Data from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, were pre-COVID-19 data, and data from April 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, were post-COVID-19 data. Operations were grouped into endoscopic, implant, major open, and robotic-assisted cases. In the post-COVID-19 era, all patients had a negative polymerase chain reaction test result within 48 hours of operation. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the fixed OR times between the pre- and post-COVID-19 eras. ResultsA total of 3189 procedures were evaluated: 2058 endoscopic operations (1124 in the pre-COVID-19 era and 934 in the post-COVID-19 era), 343 implant procedures (192 in the pre-COVID-19 era and 151 in the post-COVID-19 era), 222 major open procedures (119 in the pre-COVID-19 era and 103 in the post-COVID-19 era), and 566 robotic-assisted procedures (338 in the pre-COVID-19 era and 228 in the post-COVID-19 era). There were no fixed OR times in any of the examined groups that were negatively impacted by COVID-19. The percentage of the total OR time occupied by fixed OR variables in the pre-COVID-19 era was 40.6% for endoscopic operations, 41.1% for implant procedures, 29.8% for major open procedures, and 21.8% for robotic-assisted procedures. ConclusionA substantial portion of the total OR time includes fixed time points. Furthermore, COVID-19 did not have a negative impact on fixed OR times in a negative testing environment. Urologic OR efficiency should be maintained in the post-COVID-19 era.

P-OGC81 The learning curve for robotic assisted abdominal phase in two stage oesophagectomy

Abstract Background Robotic assisted oesophagectomy (RAO) is increasingly being utilised in the management of oesophageal cancer. RAO implementation into practice has an inevitable learning curve. As oesophagectomy usually involves at least 2 stages, a staggered approach to training and introduction of RAO can be done. A major advantage of this is that the surgeon can concentrate on overcoming the learning curve in one phase of the procedure at a time, whilst the remaining phase can be completed by an established technique. This study looks at the learning curve of a robotic assisted abdominal phase for two-stage oesophagectomy compared to an open abdominal phase to achieve parity. Methods This study uses a prospectively maintained database to retrospectively analyse the abdominal phase of the first 17 RAO compared to the previous 20 open abdominal phase procedures. The cases are sequential, done by a single surgeon at a large UK oesophagogastric referral centre. Operating time, nodal count, and R0 rate were reviewed to determine the number of cases on the learning curve to reach parity with the open procedure. Results The open abdominal phase group had a similar age (65.6 vs 65.7), pre-op anaerobic threshold (13.9 vs 14.6 p = 0.3) but a higher BMI (mean 30.6 vs 24.6 p &amp;lt; 0.05) then the RAO group. All cases were T3 adenocarcinoma except for 2 cases in the robotic group (one HGD and one T2 adenocarcinoma). No RAO cases were converted to open. The mean time for the abdominal phase in the open group was 175.4 minutes with an average nodal count of 32.9. After 8 robotic assisted cases the mean operating time decreased from 267 minutes to 197 minutes, which was when a non-significant difference to the open group (p = 0.094) became apparent. The mean nodal count in the first 8 robotic assisted cases was 29.5 and increased to 38.4 in the subsequent cases. All patients had a R0 resection. Conclusions The multi-phase nature of oesophagectomy allows for modular implementation of a robotic programme. We have found that the learning curve for robotic assisted abdominal is around 8 cases. This allows for parity to open abdominal phase to be achieved regarding operative time, nodal count and R0 resection.

A prospective, multicenter trial of a long-term bioabsorbable mesh with Sepra technology in cohort of challenging laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repairs (ATLAS trial)

BackgroundThis prospective, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study evaluated P4HB-ST mesh in laparoscopic ventral or incisional hernia repair (LVIHR) in patients with Class I (clean) wounds at high risk for Surgical Site Occurrence (SSO). MethodsPrimary endpoint was SSO requiring intervention <45 days. Secondary endpoints included: surgical procedure time, length of stay, SSO >45 days, hernia recurrence, device-related adverse events, reoperation, and Quality of Life at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24-months. Results120 patients (52.5% male), mean age of 55.0 ± 14.9 years, and BMI of 33.2 ± 4.5 kg/m2 received P4HB-ST mesh. Patient-reported comorbid conditions included: obesity (86.7%), active smoker (45.0%), COPD (5.0%), diabetes (16.7%), immunosuppression (2.5%), coronary artery disease (7.5%), chronic corticosteroid use (2.5%), hypoalbuminemia (0.8%), advanced age (10.0%), and renal insufficiency (0.8%). Hernia types were primary ventral (44.2%), primary incisional (37.5%), recurrent ventral (5.8%), and recurrent incisional (12.5%). Patients underwent LVIHR in laparoscopic (55.8%) or robotic-assisted cases (44.2%), mean defect size 15.7 ± 28.3 cm2, mean procedure time 85.9 ± 43.0 min, and mean length of stay 1.0 ± 1.4 days. There were no SSOs requiring intervention beyond 45 days, n = 38 (31.7%) recurrences, n = 22 (18.3%) reoperations, and n = 2 (1.7%) device-related adverse events (excluding recurrence). ConclusionP4HB-ST mesh demonstrated low rates of SSO and device-related complications, with improved quality of life scores, and reoperation rate comparable to other published studies. Recurrence rate was higher than expected at 31.7%. However, when analyzed by hernia defect size, recurrence was disproportionately high in defects ≥7.1 cm2 (43.3%) compared to defects <7.1 cm2 (18.6%). Thus, in LVIHR, P4HB-ST may be better suited for small defects. Caution is warranted when utilizing P4HB-ST in laparoscopic IPOM repair of larger defects until additional studies can further investigate outcomes.

Propensity-Matched Comparison of 90-Day Complications in Robotic-Assisted Versus Non-Robotic Assisted Lumbar Fusion.

Retrospective single center propensity-matched observational cohort study that included patients who underwent 1- to 3-level lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. To compare 90-day complication rates between robotic-assisted and non-robotic-assisted lumbar spinal fusions in propensity-matched cohorts. A recent administrative database (PearlDiver) study reported increased 30-day complications with the utilization of robotic-assisted enabling technology. Of 146 robotic-assisted cases that met inclusion criteria, 114 were successfully propensity matched to 114 patients from 214 cases who had 1 to 3 level lumbar fusion without robotic assistance based on age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, American Society of Anesthesiologist grade, number of surgical levels, primary versus revision, and surgical approach (posterior-only or anterior-posterior). We excluded tumor, trauma, infection, or deformity cases. Outcomes included surgical and medical (major/minor) complications at intraoperative, immediately postoperative, 30- and 90-day postoperative intervals, including reoperations, and readmissions within 90 days. All cause intraoperative complication rates were similar between non-robotic-assisted (5.3%) and robotic-assisted groups (10.5%, P = 0.366). Immediate postoperative medical complication rate was also similar between non-robotic-assisted (6.1%) and robotic-assisted groups (1.8%, P = 0.089). Thirty-day complication rates, 90-day complication rates, reoperation rates, and readmission rates showed no difference between non-robotic-assisted and robotic-assisted groups. There was no difference between return to OR for infection between the cohorts (non-robotic-assisted: 6 [5%] vs. robotic-assisted: 1 [0.8%], P = 0.119). There was however improved length of stay (LOS) in the robotic-assisted group compared with non-robotic-assisted group (2.5 vs. 3.17 days, P = 0.018). In propensity-matched cohorts, patients undergoing 1- to 3-level robotic-assisted posterior lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions did not have increased 90-day complication rate, and had a shorter length of stay compared with non-robotic-assisted patients. There findings differ from a prior administrative database study as the robotic-assisted group in the current study had 0% return to OR for malpositioned screws and 0.8% return to OR for infection.Level of Evidence: 2.

Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection of a Large Cornual Ectopic Pregnancy

<h3>Study Objective</h3> To demonstrate the steps of a wedge resection of a large cornual ectopic pregnancy using a robotic assisted approach. <h3>Design</h3> A guided explanation of the surgery using video. <h3>Setting</h3> The surgery was completed at a university hospital using the Da Vinci Xi Robot. <h3>Patients or Participants</h3> A 38-yo G7P1051 with a history of chronic hypertension who was incidentally found to have a cornual ectopic pregnancy measuring 11 weeks 4 days on her initial prenatal ultrasound. <h3>Interventions</h3> Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Cornual Wedge Resection. <h3>Measurements and Main Results</h3> On initial prenatal ultrasound, the patient was found to have a cornual ectopic pregnancy on the right. Crown rump length measured 47mm corresponding with a gestational age of 11 weeks and 4 days. She was asymptomatic. She presented immediately to the hospital and underwent an urgent robotic assisted laparoscopic cornual wedge resection that evening. Estimated blood loss was 100cc. She did well postoperatively and went home the same day. <h3>Conclusion</h3> We present a case of a robot assisted wedge resection of a large cornual ectopic pregnancy as an alternative to straight stick laparoscopy or laparotomy. Although robotic assisted cases are known to have longer operating times, as with myomectomy, a robot approach can potentially help to decrease blood loss when managing large cornual ectopic pregnancies.

73. Comparison of 90-day complications in propensity matched robotic-assisted vs nonrobotic-assisted lumbar fusion: robotic assistance does not increase the complication rate

<h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3> A recent administrative database (PearlDiver) study reported increased 30-day complications with the utilization of robotic-assisted (RA) enabling technology. The authors reported increased fixation-related complications (3%) and infection rates (19%) in RA surgeries. Although there is ample evidence regarding improved pedicle screw accuracy with RA surgery, the complication profile has been called into question. <h3>PURPOSE</h3> The objective of the study is to compare 90-day complication rates between RA and nonrobotic-assisted (NRA) lumbar spinal fusions in propensity-matched cohorts. <h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3> Retrospective single center observational propensity-matched observational cohort study. <h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3> Patients who underwent 1- to 3-level lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. <h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3> Surgical and medical (major/minor) complications at intraoperative, immediately postoperative, 30- and 90-day postoperative intervals. Additionally, reoperations and readmissions within 90 days. <h3>METHODS</h3> Of 146 RA cases that met inclusion criteria, 114 were successfully propensity matched to 114 patients from 214 cases who had 1-3 level lumbar fusion without robotic assistance based on age, sex, BMI, smoking status, surgical approach (posterior-only or anterior-posterior), ASA grade, revision vs primary, number of surgical levels, and number of interbody levels. We excluded tumor, trauma, infection or deformity cases. Continuous variables were compared using unpaired t-tests and categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact test with significance set at 0.05. <h3>RESULTS</h3> Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in patient demographics and baseline characteristics between groups. Neither group had intraoperative fixation-related complications or required a return to OR for malpositioned screws. All cause intraoperative complication rates were similar between NRA (5.3%) and RA groups (10.5%, p=0.366). Immediate postoperative medical complication rate was also similar between NRA (6.1%) and RA groups (1.8%, p=0.089). Thirty-day complication rates (NRA:15.8% vs RA:12.3%, p=0.446), 90-day complication rates (NRA:15.8% vs RA:14.9%, p=0.854), reoperation rates (NRA:6.1% vs RA:3.5%, p=0.354), and readmission rates (NRA:7.0% vs RA:6.1%, p=0.789) showed no difference between NRA and RA groups. There was no difference between return to OR for infection between the cohorts (NRA:6 [5%] vs RA:1 [0.8%], p=0.119). There was, however, improved length of stay (LOS) in the RA group compared to NRA group (2.5 vs 3.17 days, p=0.018). <h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3> In propensity-matched cohorts, patients undergoing 1- to 3-level level RA posterior lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions did not have increased 90-day complication rate, and had a shorter length of stay compared to NRA patients. There findings differ from a prior administrative database study as the RA group in the current study had 0% return to OR for malpositioned screws and 0.8% return to OR for infection. <h3>FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS</h3> This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Versatility and accuracy of a novel image-free robotic-assisted system for total knee arthroplasty.

Technological advances alongside increased demand for knee replacement surgery have led to the development of a novel image-free bed rail-mounted robotic-assisted system for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The device is capable of real-time tracking to accommodate for leg motion during bone resection allowing for precise control and positioning of the bone saw in the planned resection plane. The purpose of this study is to discuss the versatility and accuracy of this novel image-free robotic-assisted technology in TKA. The novel robotic-assisted system underwent a stepwise assessment to verify its versatility and accuracy. First, functional accuracy was bench tested to evaluate predetermined surgical plans independent of user variability and anatomic variability compared to conventional instrumentation. This was followed by assessments utilizing cadaveric specimens for resection accuracy, implant positioning, and soft tissue involvement. Test bench accuracy revealed overall pooled linear positional accuracy of 0.326 ± 0.249mm and pooled angular positional accuracy of 0.365 ± 0.611°. Resection errors for both robotic and conventional cohorts ranged between 0.6° and 1.9°. Concerning coronal alignment, 33/40 robotic specimen were within ± 1° and 38/40 within ± 3° of the femoral varus-valgus target, compared with 17/40 and 37/40 with conventional instrumentation, respectively. Twenty-four of the 40 robotic specimens were within ± 1° and 40/40 within ± 3° of the tibial varus-valgus target compared with 15/40 and 32/40 with conventional instrumentation, respectively. Soft tissue structures were uncompromised in all robotic-assisted cases. Conventional instruments revealed two cases of partial cleavage of the posterior cruciate ligament and two instances of a compromised posterior medial capsule. There were no significant differences between the two techniques concerning the samples that were uncompromised and fully functional (40/40 vs. 38/40, p = 0.49). The novel image-free robotic-assisted surgical system demonstrates excellent benchtop accuracy to aid bony resection in cadaveric specimens. It offers notable improvement in coronal implant alignment compared to conventional instrumentation.