Explore the vast range of titles available.

Radical cystectomy is the surgical standard for invasive bladder cancer. Robot-assisted cystectomy has been proposed to provide similar oncological outcomes with lower morbidity. We aimed to compare progression-free survival in patients with bladder cancer treated with open cystectomy and robot-assisted cystectomy. The RAZOR study is a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial done in 15 medical centres in the USA. Eligible participants (aged ≥18 years) had biopsy-proven clinical stage T1–T4, N0–N1, M0 bladder cancer or refractory carcinoma in situ. Individuals who had previously had open abdominal or pelvic surgery, or who had any pre-existing health conditions that would preclude safe initiation or maintenance of pneumoperitoneum were excluded. Patients were centrally assigned (1:1) via a web-based system, with block randomisation by institution, stratified by type of urinary diversion, clinical T stage, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, to receive robot-assisted radical cystectomy or open radical cystectomy with extracorporeal urinary diversion. Treatment allocation was only masked from pathologists. The primary endpoint was 2-year progression-free survival, with non-inferiority established if the lower bound of the one-sided 97·5% CI for the treatment difference (robotic cystectomy minus open cystectomy) was greater than −15 percentage points. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population. Safety was assessed in the same population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01157676. Between July 1, 2011, and Nov 18, 2014, 350 participants were randomly assigned to treatment. The intended treatment was robotic cystectomy in 176 patients and open cystectomy in 174 patients. 17 (10%) of 176 patients in the robotic cystectomy group did not have surgery and nine (5%) patients had a different surgery to that they were assigned. 21 (12%) of 174 patients in the open cystectomy group did not have surgery and one (1%) patient had robotic cystectomy instead of open cystectomy. Thus, 302 patients (150 in the robotic cystectomy group and 152 in the open cystectomy group) were included in the per-protocol analysis set. 2-year progression-free survival was 72·3% (95% CI 64·3 to 78·8) in the robotic cystectomy group and 71·6% (95% CI 63·6 to 78·2) in the open cystectomy group (difference 0·7%, 95% CI −9·6% to 10·9%; pnon-inferiority=0·001), indicating non-inferiority of robotic cystectomy. Adverse events occurred in 101 (67%) of 150 patients in the robotic cystectomy group and 105 (69%) of 152 patients in the open cystectomy group. The most common adverse events were urinary tract infection (53 [35%] in the robotic cystectomy group vs 39 [26%] in the open cystectomy group) and postoperative ileus (33 [22%] in the robotic cystectomy group vs 31 [20%] in the open cystectomy group). In patients with bladder cancer, robotic cystectomy was non-inferior to open cystectomy for 2-year progression-free survival. Increased adoption of robotic surgery in clinical practice should lead to future randomised trials to assess the true value of this surgical approach in patients with other cancer types. National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute.

AbstractObjectiveTo determine whether robotic ventral hernia repair is associated with fewer days in the hospital 90 days after surgery compared with laparoscopic repair.DesignPragmatic, blinded randomized controlled trial.SettingMultidisciplinary hernia clinics in Houston, USA.Participants124 patients, deemed appropriate candidates for elective minimally invasive ventral hernia repair, consecutively presenting from April 2018 to February 2019.InterventionsRobotic ventral hernia repair (n=65) versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (n=59).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was number of days in hospital within 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, operating room time, wound complications, hernia recurrence, reoperation, abdominal wall quality of life, and costs from the healthcare system perspective. Outcomes were pre-specified before data collection began and analyzed as intention to treat.ResultsPatients from both groups were similar at baseline. Ninety day follow-up was completed in 123 (99%) patients. No evidence was seen of a difference in days in hospital between the two groups (median 0 v 0 days; relative rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 2.19; P=0.82). For secondary outcomes, no differences were noted in emergency department visits, wound complications, hernia recurrence, or reoperation. However, robotic repair had longer operative duration (141 v 77 min; mean difference 62.89, 45.75 to 80.01; P≤0.001) and increased healthcare costs ($15 865 (£12 746; €14 125) v $12 955; cost ratio 1.21, 1.07 to 1.38; adjusted absolute cost difference $2767, $910 to $4626; P=0.004). Among patients with robotic ventral hernia repair, two had an enterotomy compared none with laparoscopic repair. The median one month postoperative improvement in abdominal wall quality of life was 3 with robotic ventral hernia repair compared with 15 following laparoscopic repair.ConclusionThis study found no evidence of a difference in 90 day postoperative hospital days between robotic and laparoscopic ventral hernia repair. However, robotic repair increased operative duration and healthcare costs.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03490266.

BackgroundRadical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy represents the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. Results from a recent randomized controlled trial demonstrate that minimally invasive surgery is inferior to laparotomy with regards to disease-free and overall survival.Primary ObjectiveTo investigate the oncologic safety of robot-assisted surgery for early-stage cervical cancer as compared with standard laparotomy.Study HypothesisRobot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is non-inferior to laparotomy in regards to recurrence-free survival with the advantage of fewer post-operative complications and superior patient-reported outcomes.Trial DesignProspective, multi-institutional, international, open-label randomized clinical trial. Consecutive women with early-stage cervical cancer will be assessed for eligibility and subsequently randomized 1:1 to either robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery or laparotomy. Institutional review board approval will be required from all participating institutions. The trial is coordinated from Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaWomen over 18 with cervical cancer FIGO (2018) stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 squamous, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous will be included. Women are not eligible if they have evidence of metastatic disease, serious co-morbidity, or a secondary invasive neoplasm in the past 5 years.Primary EndpointRecurrence-free survival at 5 years between women who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus laparotomy for early-stage cervical cancer.Sample SizeThe clinical non-inferiority margin in this study is defined as a 5-year recurrence-free survival not worsened by >7.5%. With an expected recurrence-free survival of 85%, the study needs to observe 127 events with a one-sided level of significance (α) of 5% and a power (1−β) of 80%. With 5 years of recruitment and 3 years of follow-up, the necessary number of events will be reached if the study can recruit a total of 768 patients.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsTrial launch is estimated to be May 2019 and the trial is estimated to close in May 2027 with presentation of data shortly thereafter.Trial RegistrationThe trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03719547).

Background This study was a secondary analysis of the ROBOGYN-1004 trial conducted between 2010 and 2015. The study aimed to identify factors that affect postoperative morbidity after either robot-assisted laparoscopy (RL) or conventional laparoscopy (CL) in gynecologic oncology. Methods The study used two-level logistic regression analyses to evaluate the prognostic and predictive value of patient, surgery, and center characteristics in predicting severe postoperative morbidity 6 months after surgery. Results This analysis included 368 patients. Severe morbidity occurred in 49 (28 %) of 176 patients who underwent RL versus 41 (21 %) of 192 patients who underwent CL ( p = 0.15). In the multivariate analysis, after adjustment for the treatment group (RL vs CL), the risk of severe morbidity increased significantly for patients who had poorer performance status, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.62 for the 1-point difference in the WHO performance score (95 % CI 1.06–2.47; p = 0.027) and according to the type of surgery ( p < 0.001). A focus on complex surgical acts showed significant more morbidity in the RL group than in the CL group at the less experienced centers (OR, 3.31; 95 % CI 1.0–11; p = 0.05) compared with no impact at the experienced centers (OR, 0.87; 95 % CI 0.38–1.99; p = 0.75). Conclusion The findings suggest that the center’s experience may have an impact on the risk of morbidity for patients undergoing complex robot-assisted surgical procedures.

Sparing the periprostatic neurovascular bundles during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) improves postoperative erectile function and early urinary continence recovery. The NeuroSAFE technique, a standardised frozen section analysis, enables accurate real-time detection of positive surgical margins during nerve-sparing, increasing the likelihood of successful nerve preservation. However, the impact of the technique on patient outcomes remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the effect of NeuroSAFE-guided RARP versus standard RARP on erectile function and urinary continence. NeuroSAFE PROOF was a multicentre, patient-blinded, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial done at five National Health Service hospitals in the UK. Key eligibility criteria were a diagnosis of non-metastatic prostate cancer deemed suitable to undergo RARP, good erectile function (defined as a score of ≥22 on the first 5 items of the International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF]) without medical erectile function assistance, and no previous prostate cancer treatment. No age limits were applied. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to standard RARP or NeuroSAFE-guided RARP using block randomisation, stratified by site. Masking of participants to allocation was maintained throughout, but patients were informed of their nerve-sparing status after the operation. Due to the nature of the intervention, operating teams were aware of treatment group. Nerve-sparing was guided by a preoperative plan in the standard RARP group and by intraoperative NeuroSAFE assessment in the NeuroSAFE group. The primary outcome was erectile function at 12 months, assessed using the IIEF-5 score, in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned participants who had surgery. Secondary endpoints were urinary continence scores at 3 and 6 months, evaluated using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ), and the erectile function domain of the IIEF (IIEF-6) scores at 12 months. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03317990. Between Jan 6, 2019, and Dec 6, 2022, 407 patients were recruited, of whom 381 had surgery (190 participants in the NeuroSAFE group and 191 participants in the standard RARP group), and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Data for the primary outcome (IIEF-5 score at 12 months) were available for 344 participants (173 in the NeuroSAFE group and 171 participants in the standard RARP group). Median follow-up was 12·3 months (IQR 11·8–12·7). At 12 months, the mean IIEF-5 score was 12·7 (SD 8·0) in the NeuroSAFE group versus 9·7 (7·5) in the standard RARP group (adjusted mean difference 3·18 [95% CI 1·62 to 4·75]; p<0·0001). At 3 months, the ICIQ score was significantly lower in the NeuroSAFE group than the standard RARP group (adjusted mean difference –1·41 [95% CI –2·42 to –0·41]; p=0·006). At 6 months, no significant difference in ICIQ score was observed between groups (adjusted mean difference –0·37 [95% CI –1·35 to 0·62]; p=0·46). At 12 months, the mean IIEF-6 score was higher in the NeuroSAFE group than in the standard RARP group (15·3 [SD 9·7] vs 11·5 [SD 9·0]; adjusted mean difference 3·92 [95% CI 2·01 to 5·83]; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events occurred in six (3%) of 190 patients in the NeuroSAFE group, and and in five (3%) of 191 patients in the standard RARP group. All adverse events were postoperative complications; no serious adverse events or deaths were attributed to the study intervention. The use of NeuroSAFE to guide nerve-sparing during RARP improves patient-reported IIEF-5 scores at 12 months and short-term urinary continence. The erectile function benefit is enhanced in patients who would not otherwise have undergone bilateral nerve-sparing by standard practice. National Institute of Healthcare Research, JP Moulton Charitable Foundation, UCLH Charity, St Peters Trust, and Rosetrees Trust.

BackgroundPost-prostatectomy urinary incontinence is an adverse event leading to significant distress. Our aim was to evaluate immediate urinary continence (UC) recovery in a single-surgeon prospective randomized comparative study between the traditional robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (TR-RALP) and the Retzius-sparing RALP (RS-RALP), for the treatment of the clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa).Methods102 consecutive PCa patients were prospectively randomized to TR-RALP (57) or RS-RALP (45). Postoperative continence was defined as patient-reported absence of leakage or use of 0 pads/day. The immediate continence rate and 95% confidence interval (CI 95%) were calculated for each treatment. Univariable and multivariate logistic regressions were used to assess predictors of immediate continence following RALP. Continence rates from 1 to 6 months were calculated by Kaplan–Meier curves; log-rank test was used for the curve comparison. Two analyses were performed, considering a per-protocol (PP) population regarding all randomized patients that received nerve-sparing RALP and an Intention-To-Treat (ITT) population regarding all randomized patients that received RALP.ResultsIn the PP analysis, the rates of immediate continence were 12/40 (30%) (CI 95% 17–47%) for the TR-RALP and 20/39 (51.3%) (CI 95% 35–68%) for the RS-RALP (p = 0.05). In the ITT analysis, the corresponding rates were 12/57 (21%) (CI 95% 11–34%) for the TR-RALP and 23/45 (51%) (CI 95% 36–66%) for the RS-RALP (p = 0.001). Median time to continence was 21 days for the TR-RALP and 1 day for RS-RALP, respectively (p = 0.02). The relative Kaplan–Meier curves regarding continence resulted statistically different when compared with the log rank test (p = 0.02). In the multivariate analysis, lower age and the Retzius-sparing approach were significantly associated to earlier continence recovery.ConclusionsThe Retzius-sparing approach significantly reduces time to continence following RALP. Further studies are required to confirm the reproducibility of our results and investigate the role of the RS-RALP as an additional “protective” factor for postoperative continence in the elderly population.

Background Laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) is considered a standard treatment for clinical stage I gastric cancer. Nevertheless, LG has some drawbacks, such as motion restriction and difficulties in spatial perception. Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RG) overcomes these drawbacks by using articulated forceps, tremor-filtering capability, and high-resolution three-dimensional imaging, and it is expected to enable more precise and safer procedures than LG for gastric cancer. However, robust evidence based on a large-scale randomized study is lacking. Methods We are performing a randomized controlled phase III study to investigate the superiority of RG over LG for clinical T1-2N0-2 gastric cancer in terms of safety. In total, 1,040 patients are planned to be enrolled from 46 Japanese institutions over 5 years. The primary endpoint is the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications, including anastomotic leakage, pancreatic fistula, and intra-abdominal abscess of Clavien–Dindo (CD) grade ≥ II. The secondary endpoints are the incidence of all CD grade ≥ II and ≥ IIIA postoperative complications, the incidence of CD grade ≥ IIIA postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications, relapse-free survival, overall survival, the proportion of RG completion, the proportion of LG completion, the proportion of conversion to open surgery, the proportion of operation-related death, and short-term surgical outcomes. The Japan Clinical Oncology Group Protocol Review Committee approved this study protocol in January 2020. Approval from the institutional review board was obtained before starting patient enrollment in each institution. Patient enrollment began in March 2020. We revised the protocol to expand the eligibility criteria to T1-4aN0-3 in July 2022 based on the results of randomized trials of LG demonstrating non-inferiority of LG to open surgery for survival outcomes in advanced gastric cancer. Discussion This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial to confirm the superiority of RG over LG in terms of safety. This study will demonstrate whether RG is superior for gastric cancer. Trial registration The protocol of JCOG1907 was registered in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000039825 ( http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm ). Date of Registration: March 16, 2020. Date of First Participant Enrollment: April 1, 2020.

Background Commonly in surgical randomised controlled trials (RCT) the experimental treatment is a relatively new technique which the surgeons may still be learning, while the control is a well-established standard. This can lead to biased comparisons between treatments. In this paper we discuss the implementation of approaches for addressing this issue in the ROLARR trial, and points of consideration for future surgical trials. Methods ROLARR was an international, randomised, parallel-group trial comparing robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. The primary endpoint was conversion to open surgery (binary). A surgeon inclusion criterion mandating a minimum level of experience in each technique was incorporated. Additionally, surgeon self-reported data were collected periodically throughout the trial to capture the level of experience of every participating surgeon. Multi-level logistic regression adjusting for operating surgeon as a random effect is used to estimate the odds ratio for conversion to open surgery between the treatment groups. We present and contrast the results from the primary analysis, which did not account for learning effects, and a sensitivity analysis which did. Results The primary analysis yields an estimated odds ratio (robotic/laparoscopic) of 0.614 (95% CI 0.311, 1.211; p  = 0.16), providing insufficient evidence to conclude superiority of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic in terms of the risk of conversion to open. The sensitivity analysis reveals that while participating surgeons in ROLARR were expert at laparoscopic surgery, some, if not all, were still learning robotic surgery. The treatment-effect odds ratio decreases by a factor of 0.341 (95% CI 0.121, 0.960; p  = 0.042) per unit increase in log-number of previous robotic operations performed by the operating surgeon. The odds ratio for a patient whose operating surgeon has the mean experience level in ROLARR – 152.46 previous laparoscopic, 67.93 previous robotic operations – is 0.40 (95% CI 0.168, 0.953; p  = 0.039). Conclusions In this paper we have demonstrated the implementation of approaches for accounting for learning in a practical example of a surgery RCT analysis. The results demonstrate the value of implementing such approaches, since we have shown that without them the ROLARR analysis would indeed have been confounded by the learning effects. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry, ID: ISRCTN80500123. Registered on 27 May 2010.

Objective To compare the safety and accuracy of cortical bone trajectory screw placement between the robot-assisted and fluoroscopy-assisted approaches. Methods This retrospective study was conducted between November 2018 and June 2020, including 81 patients who underwent cortical bone trajectory (CBT) surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease. CBT was performed by the same team of experienced surgeons. The patients were randomly divided into two groups—the fluoroscopy-assisted group (FA, 44 patients) and the robot-assisted group (RA, 37 patients). Robots for orthopedic surgery were used in the robot-assisted group , whereas conventional fluoroscopy-guided screw placement was used in the fluoroscopy-assisted group. The accuracy of screw placement and rate of superior facet joint violation were assessed using postoperative computed tomography (CT). The time of single screw placement, intraoperative blood loss, and radiation exposure to the surgical team were also recorded. The χ 2 test and Student’s t-test were used to analyze the significance of the variables ( P  < 0.05). Results A total of 376 screws were inserted in 81 patients, including 172 screws in the robot-assisted group and 204 pedicle screws in the fluoroscopy-assisted group. Screw placement accuracy was higher in the RA group (160, 93%) than in the FA group (169, 83%) ( P  = 0.003). The RA group had a lower violation of the superior facet joint than the FA group. The number of screws reaching grade 0 in the RA group (58, 78%) was more than that in the FA group (56, 64%) ( P  = 0.041). Screw placement time was longer in the FA group (7.25 ± 0.84 min) than in the RA group (5.58 ± 1.22 min, P  < 0.001). The FA group had more intraoperative bleeding (273.41 ± 118.20 ml) than the RA group (248.65 ± 97.53 ml, P  = 0.313). The radiation time of the FA group (0.43 ± 0.07 min) was longer than the RA group (0.37 ± 0.10 min, P  = 0.001). Furthermore, the overall learning curve tended to decrease. Conclusions Robot-assisted screw placement improves screw placement accuracy, shortens screw placement time, effectively improves surgical safety and efficiency, and reduces radiation exposure to the surgical team. In addition, the learning curve of robot-assisted screw placement is smooth and easy to operate.

Background Currently, there are three main surgical approaches for resectable esophageal cancer: open transthoracic esophagectomy (OTE), conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot-assisted esophagectomy (RAE). Previous studies had demonstrated the better short-term outcomes in MIE or RAE when compared to OTE, respectively. However, to date, no prospective study was designed to compare these two minimally invasive approaches (MIE and RAE). The primary objective of this study is to compare the outcomes on survival, safety and efficacy, quality of life between RAE and MIE in the treatment for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Methods This study is designed as a multicenter, prospective, randomized, non-inferiority phase III clinical trial, investigating the safety and efficacy of RAE compared with MIE in the treatment of resectable ESCC. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to either RAE ( n  = 180) or MIE ( n  = 180) group. The follow-up visits will be scheduled at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in the first two years, and then every 6 months until the end of the study. During the follow-up period, clinical data and quality of life questionnaires will be examined. The primary endpoint is the 5-year overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints are 3-year OS, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), short-term outcomes as well as quality of life. Discussion This is the first prospectively randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAE with MIE as surgical treatment for resectable ESCC. According to our hypothesis, RAE will result in at least similar oncologic outcomes and long-term quality of life, but with a shorter operation time, lower percentage of perioperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay when compared with MIE. This study started in July 2017. Follow-up will terminate after 5 years from the time when the last patient was enrolled. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT03094351 (March 29, 2017). The trial was prospectively registered.