PURPOSE: To systematically update evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, KMbase, and others, were searched, collecting data from January 1980 to August 2013. The quality of selected systematic reviews was assessed using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews and the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for non-randomized studies. RESULTS: A total of 61 studies were included, including 38 from two previous systematic reviews rated as best available evidence and 23 additional studies that were more recent. There were no randomized controlled trials. Regarding safety, the risk of complications was lower for RARP than for RRP. Among functional outcomes, the risk of urinary incontinence was lower and potency rate was significantly higher for RARP than for RRP. Regarding oncologic outcomes, positive margin rates were comparable between groups, and although biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were lower for RARP than for RRP, recurrence-free survival was similar after long-term follow up. CONCLUSION: RARP might be favorable to RRP in regards to post-operative complications, peri-operative outcomes, and functional outcomes. Positive margin and BCR rates were comparable between the two procedures. As most of studies were of low quality, the results presented should be interpreted with caution, and further high quality studies controlling for selection, confounding, and selective reporting biases with longer-term follow-up are needed to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of RARP.
Humans ; Male ; Postoperative Complications/*etiology ; Prostatectomy/*adverse effects/methods ; Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/*adverse effects ; Treatment Outcome ; Urinary Incontinence/etiology

Objective: To methodically assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted total rectal mesenteric resection (RTME), laparoscopic-assisted total rectal mesenteric resection (laTME), and transanal total rectal mesenteric resection (taTME). Methods: A computer search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases to identify English-language reports published between January 2017 and January 2022 that compared the clinical efficacy of the three surgical procedures of RTME, laTME, and taTME. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the NOS and JADAD scales for retrospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. Direct meta-analysis and reticulated meta-analysis were performed using Review Manager software and R software, respectively. Results: Twenty-nine publications comprising 8,339 patients with rectal cancer were ultimately included. The direct meta-analysis indicated that the length of hospital stay was longer after RTME than after taTME, whereas according to the reticulated meta-analysis the length of hospital stay was shorter after taTME than after laTME (MD=-0.86, 95%CI: -1.70 to -0.096, P=0.036). Moreover, the incidence of anastomotic leak was lower after taTME than after RTME (OR=0.60, 95%CI: 0.39 to 0.91, P=0.018). The incidence of intestinal obstruction was also lower after taTME than after RTME (OR=0.55, 95%CI: 0.31 to 0.94, P=0.037). All of these differences were statistically significant (all P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the three surgical procedures regarding the number of lymph nodes cleared, length of the inferior rectal margin, or rate of positive circumferential margins (all P>0.05). An inconsistency test using nodal analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between the results of direct and indirect comparisons of the six outcome indicators (all P>0.05). Furthermore, we detected no significant overall inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. Conclusion: taTME has advantages over RTME and laTME, in terms of radical and surgical short-term outcomes in patients with rectal cancer.
Humans ; Robotics ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects* ; Network Meta-Analysis ; Retrospective Studies ; Postoperative Complications/etiology* ; Transanal Endoscopic Surgery/methods* ; Rectum/surgery* ; Rectal Neoplasms/pathology* ; Laparoscopy/methods* ; Treatment Outcome

PURPOSE: To compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) and robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) for moderately or highly complex tumors (RENAL nephrometry score> or =7). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for 127 consecutive patients who underwent either LPN (n=38) or RPN (n=89) between 2007 and 2013. Perioperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to patient gender, laterality, RENAL nephrometry score, or body mass index. The RPN group had a slightly higher RENAL nephrometry score (7.8 vs. 7.5, p=0.061) and larger tumor size (3.0 cm vs. 2.5 cm, p=0.044) but had a lower Charlson comorbidity index (3.7 vs. 4.4, p=0.017) than did the LPN group. There were no significant differences with respect to warm ischemia time, estimated blood loss, intraoperative complications, or operative time. Only one patient who underwent LPN had a positive surgical margin. There were statistically significant differences in surgical marginal width between the LPN and RPN groups (0.6 cm vs. 0.4 cm, p=0.001). No significant differences in postoperative complications were found between the two groups. Owing to potential baseline differences between the two groups, we performed a propensity-based matching analysis, in which differences in surgical margin width between the LPN and RPN groups remained statistically significant (0.6 cm vs. 0.4 cm, p=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: RPN provides perioperative outcomes comparable to those of LPN and has the advantage of healthy parenchymal preservation for complex renal tumors (RENAL score> or =7).
Adult ; Aged ; Carcinoma, Renal Cell/*surgery ; Female ; Glomerular Filtration Rate ; Humans ; Kidney Neoplasms/*surgery ; Laparoscopy/adverse effects/*methods ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Nephrectomy/adverse effects/*methods ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects/*methods ; Severity of Illness Index ; Treatment Outcome

With the rapid advancement of minimally invasive new technology, laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery are now regarded as the main direction in surgical treatment for stomach cancers. Recent evidence has confirmed the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for early gastric cancer and advanced gastric cancer. However, gastrointestinal surgeons should pay more attention to complications after laparoscopic gastrectomy because of rich blood supply, complex tissue layers and lymph node metastasis. Common complications related to laparoscopic surgery are associated with laparoscopic instruments and operating, intra-abdominal bleeding, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic bleeding, pancreatic leakage, duodenal stump leakage, lymphatic leakage and so on. This article mainly focuses on the causes, prevention and treatment of the complications after laparoscopic gastrectomy.
Anastomotic Leak ; Duodenal Diseases ; Female ; Gastrectomy ; adverse effects ; instrumentation ; methods ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; adverse effects ; instrumentation ; methods ; Lymphatic Metastasis ; Male ; Postoperative Complications ; etiology ; prevention & control ; therapy ; Robotic Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; instrumentation ; methods ; Stomach Neoplasms ; complications ; surgery

PURPOSE: To compare surgical outcomes of robotic radical hysterectomy (RRH) using 3 robotic arms with those of conventional laparoscopy in patients with early cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study included 102 patients with stage 1A1-IIA2 cervical carcinoma, of whom 60 underwent robotic and 42 underwent laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) with pelvic lymph node dissection performed between December 2009 and May 2013. Perioperative outcomes were compared between two surgical groups. RESULTS: Robotic approach consisted of 3 robotic arms including the camera arm and 1 conventional assistant port. Laparoscopic approach consisted of four trocar insertions with conventional instruments. There were no conversions to laparotomy. Mean age, body mass index, tumor size, cell type, and clinical stage were not significantly different between two cohorts. RRH showed favorable outcomes over LRH in terms of estimated blood loss (100 mL vs. 145 mL, p=0.037), early postoperative complication rates (16.7% vs. 30.9%, p=0.028), and postoperative complications necessitating intervention by Clavien-Dindo classification. Total operative time (200.5+/-61.1 minutes vs. 215.6+/-83.1 minutes, p=0.319), mean number of lymph node yield (23.3+/-9.3 vs. 21.7+/-9.8, p=0.248), and median length of postoperative hospital stay (11 days vs. 10 days, p=0.129) were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic group, respectively. The median follow-up time was 44 months with 2 recurrences in the robotic and 3 in the laparoscopic cohort. CONCLUSION: Surgical outcomes of RRH and pelvic lymphadenectomy were comparable to that of laparoscopic approach, with significantly less blood loss and early postoperative complications.
Adult ; Blood Loss, Surgical ; Female ; Humans ; Hysterectomy/*adverse effects/methods ; Laparoscopy/*adverse effects ; Length of Stay ; Middle Aged ; Postoperative Complications/*epidemiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/*adverse effects ; Treatment Outcome ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/*surgery

Objective: To compare the clinical effects of transperitoneal (Tp) versus extraperitoneal (Ep) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, CNKI, and CBM for the articles comparing the clinical effect Tp-RARP with that of Ep-RARP in the treatment of localized prostate cancer published from January 2000 to November 2016. All the articles must meet the inclusion criteria, that is, dealing with at least one of the following aspects: operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative catheterization time, length of bed confinement, perioperative complications, positive surgical margins, bowel-related complications, postoperative anastomotic leakage, and postoperative urinary continence. We subjected the data obtained to statistical analysis using the RevMan5.3 software. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials and six case-control studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving 451 cases of Tp-RARP and 676 cases of Ep-RARP. Compared with Tp-RARP, Ep-RARP showed significantly shorter operation time (WMD = 21.39, 95% CI: 7.54－35.24, P = 0.002), shorter length of bed confinement (WMD = 0.85, 95% CI: 0.61－1.09, P <0.001), and lower rate of bowel-related complications (RR = 9.74, 95% CI: 3.26－29.07, P <0.001). However, no statistically significant differences were found between the two strategies in intraoperative blood loss (WMD = －8.12, 95% CI: －27.86－11.63, P = 0.42), postoperative catheterization time (WMD = 0.17, 95% CI: －0.55－0.21, P = 0.38), or the rates of perioperative complications (RR = 1.34, 95% CI: －0.97－1.87, P = 0.08), positive surgical margins (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 0.95－1.61, P = 0.12), anastomotic leakage (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.46－2.10, P = 0.95), urinary continence at 3 months (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91－1.00, P = 0.05) and urinary continence at 6 months (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97－1.02, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Ep-RARP has the advantages of shorter operation time, shorter length of bed confinement and lower rate of bowel-related complications over Tp-RARP, and therefore may be a better option for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. However, more multi-centered randomized controlled clinical trials are needed for further evaluation of these two approaches.
Blood Loss, Surgical ; Case-Control Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Margins of Excision ; Operative Time ; Postoperative Complications ; Prostatectomy ; adverse effects ; methods ; Prostatic Neoplasms ; pathology ; surgery ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Robotic Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; methods ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the feasibility, safety and short-term clinical outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE).

METHODSClinical data of 17 patients with esophageal cancer who received RAMIE between April 2016 and July 2016 were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTSThe age of the patients ranged from 44 to 83. Six patients received neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy while 11 patients underwent surgery alone. All patients were performed by the robot-assisted thoraco-laparoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy. In-hospital mortality was 0%. None was converted to open transthoracic or laparotomy approach. In the neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy group, 3 patients received pathological complete response while 2 patients were stage II(A and 1 patient was stage II(B. In the surgery alone group, 1 patient was stage I(A, 3 patients were stage II(A, 5 patients were stage II(B, 1 patient was stage III(A and 1 patient was stage III(B. The mean operation time was 195 minutes (range 145 to 305 minutes). The mean blood loss was 60 ml (range 30 to 200 ml). Mean lymph node harvest was 28 nodes. The rate of radical resection was 100%. Median ICU stay was 4.5 days (range 1 to 36 days), and median overall postoperative hospital stay was 15.2 days(range 9 to 45 days). Postoperative complication occurred in 4 (23.5%) patients, including 3 (17.6%) of lung lesion, 2 (11.8%) of hoarseness, 1 (5.9%) of chylothorax, while no anastomotic leakage and arrhythmia was observed.

CONCLUSIONRAMIE for esophageal cancer is feasible and safe with favorable early outcomes.

Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Blood Loss, Surgical ; statistics & numerical data ; Chemoradiotherapy, Adjuvant ; Esophageal Neoplasms ; surgery ; therapy ; Esophagectomy ; adverse effects ; methods ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Length of Stay ; Lymph Node Excision ; Lymph Nodes ; surgery ; Middle Aged ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; methods ; Neoadjuvant Therapy ; Operative Time ; Postoperative Complications ; etiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures ; adverse effects ; methods ; Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted ; adverse effects ; methods ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes and cost of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) versus robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in early stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study, comparing perioperative outcomes and costs of RSSH and RMPH in early stage endometrial cancer patients. RSSH were matched 1:2 according to age, body mass index, comorbidity, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric (FIGO) stage, type of radical surgery, histologic type, and grading. Mean hospital cost per discharge was calculated summarizing the cost of daily hospital room charges, operating room, cost of supplies and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 23 women who underwent RSSH were matched with 46 historic controls treated by RMPH in the same institute, with the same surgical team. No significant differences were found in terms of age, histologic type, stage, and grading. Operative time was similar: 102.5 minutes in RMPH and 110 in RSSH (p=0.889). Blood loss was lower in RSSH than in RMPH (respectively, 50 mL vs. 100 mL, p=0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in RMPH and 2 days in RSSH (p=0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups. Early postoperative complications were 2.2% in RMPH and 4.3% in RSSH. Overall cost was higher in RMPH than in RSSH (respectively, $7,772.15 vs. $5,181.06). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study suggests the safety and feasibility of RSSH for staging early endometrial cancer without major differences from the RMPH in terms of surgical outcomes, but with lower hospital costs. Certainly, further studies are eagerly warranted to confirm our findings.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Case-Control Studies ; Endometrial Neoplasms/economics/*surgery ; Female ; Health Care Costs ; Humans ; Hysterectomy/adverse effects/*methods ; Middle Aged ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects/economics/*methods

OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes and cost of robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) versus robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) in early stage endometrial cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective case-control study, comparing perioperative outcomes and costs of RSSH and RMPH in early stage endometrial cancer patients. RSSH were matched 1:2 according to age, body mass index, comorbidity, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric (FIGO) stage, type of radical surgery, histologic type, and grading. Mean hospital cost per discharge was calculated summarizing the cost of daily hospital room charges, operating room, cost of supplies and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 23 women who underwent RSSH were matched with 46 historic controls treated by RMPH in the same institute, with the same surgical team. No significant differences were found in terms of age, histologic type, stage, and grading. Operative time was similar: 102.5 minutes in RMPH and 110 in RSSH (p=0.889). Blood loss was lower in RSSH than in RMPH (respectively, 50 mL vs. 100 mL, p=0.001). Hospital stay was 3 days in RMPH and 2 days in RSSH (p=0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred in both groups. Early postoperative complications were 2.2% in RMPH and 4.3% in RSSH. Overall cost was higher in RMPH than in RSSH (respectively, $7,772.15 vs. $5,181.06). CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study suggests the safety and feasibility of RSSH for staging early endometrial cancer without major differences from the RMPH in terms of surgical outcomes, but with lower hospital costs. Certainly, further studies are eagerly warranted to confirm our findings.
Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Case-Control Studies ; Endometrial Neoplasms/economics/*surgery ; Female ; Health Care Costs ; Humans ; Hysterectomy/adverse effects/*methods ; Middle Aged ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects/economics/*methods

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the feasibility and safety of open or robotic radical prostatectomy (RP) after rectum, sigmoid, or colon surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients with a median age of 65 years (range, 46-73 years) who underwent RP after previous pelvic surgery were included. Twenty-four patients (38%) underwent robotic RP and 40 patients (62%) underwent open RP. Bilateral lymph node dissection and nerve preservation were performed in 50 patients (78%) and 35 patients (55%), respectively. Variables evaluated included demographic characteristics, perioperative complications, and functional and oncological outcomes. The median hospitalization and follow-up periods were 2 days (range, 1-12 days) and 21 months (range, 1-108 months), respectively. RESULTS: No conversions from robotic to open surgery were performed and there were no intraoperative complications. Surgical margins were positive in 13 patients (20%), seminal vesicle involvement was detected in 6 patients (9%), and lymph node involvement was found in 2 patients (3%). Postoperative complications included lymphocele in 1 patient, urethral stricture in 1 patient, and bowel obstruction and persistent bladder leakage in 2 patients. Eighty-eight percent of the patients were continent at 7 months and 80% of patients were able to achieve erection with or without medical aid. CONCLUSIONS: Open or robotic RP can be done safely and effectively in patients who have previously undergone pelvic surgery. Although prior pelvic surgery of the large intestine was associated with increased morbidity, it should not be considered a contraindication for robotic or open RP.
Aged ; Feasibility Studies ; Humans ; Intestine, Large/*surgery ; Lymph Node Excision ; Lymphatic Metastasis ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prostatectomy/adverse effects/*methods ; Prostatic Neoplasms/*surgery ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects/*methods ; Treatment Outcome