Explore the vast range of titles available.

Advancements in reconstructive microsurgery have evolved into supermicrosurgery; connecting vessels with diameter between 0.3 and 0.8 mm for reconstruction of lymphatic flow and vascularized tissue transplantation. Supermicrosurgery is limited by the precision and dexterity of the surgeon’s hands. Robot assistance can help overcome these human limitations, thereby enabling a breakthrough in supermicrosurgery. We report the first-in-human study of robot-assisted supermicrosurgery using a dedicated microsurgical robotic platform. A prospective randomized pilot study is conducted comparing robot-assisted and manual supermicrosurgical lymphatico-venous anastomosis (LVA) in treating breast cancer-related lymphedema. We evaluate patient outcome at 1 and 3 months post surgery, duration of the surgery, and quality of the anastomosis. At 3 months, patient outcome improves. Furthermore, a steep decline in duration of time required to complete the anastomosis is observed in the robot-assisted group (33–16 min). Here, we report the feasibility of robot-assisted supermicrosurgical anastomosis in LVA, indicating promising results for the future of reconstructive supermicrosurgery. Reconstructive microsurgery is limited by the precision that human hands can achieve. Here, the authors demonstrate in a randomized clinical pilot trial the feasibility of robot-assisted supermicrosurgery using a dedicated microsurgical robot for the completion of lymphatico-venous anastomosis in the treatment of breast cancer-related lymphedema

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.

Laparoscopic/robotic radical hysterectomy has been historically considered oncologically equivalent to open radical hysterectomy for patients with early cervical cancer. However, a recent prospective randomized trial (Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer, LACC) has demonstrated significant inferiority of the minimally invasive approach. The aim of this study is to evaluate the oncologic outcomes of combined laparoscopic-vaginal radical hysterectomy. Between August 1994 and December 2018, patients with invasive cervical cancer were treated using minimally-invasive surgery at the Universities of Jena, Charité Berlin (Campus CCM and CBF) and Cologne and Asklepios Clinic Hamburg. 389 patients with inclusion criteria identical to the LACC trial were identified. In contrast to the laparoscopic/robotic technique used in the LACC trial, all patients in our cohort underwent a combined transvaginal-laparoscopic approach without the use of any uterine manipulator. A total of 1952 consecutive patients with cervical cancer were included in the analysis. Initial International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage was IA1 lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI+), IA2 and IB1/IIA1 in 32 (8%), 43 (11%), and 314 (81%) patients, respectively, and histology was squamous cell in 263 (68%), adenocarcinoma in 117 (30%), and adenosquamous in 9 (2%) patients. Lymphovascular invasion was confirmed in 106 (27%) patients. The median number of lymph nodes was 24 (range 2–86). Lymph nodes were tumor-free in 379 (97%) patients. Following radical hysterectomy, 71 (18%) patients underwent adjuvant chemoradiation or radiation. After a median follow-up of 99 (range 1–288) months, the 3-, 4.5-, and 10-year disease-free survival rates were 96.8%, 95.8%, and 93.1 %, and the 3-, 4.5-, and 10-year overall survival rates were 98.5%, 97.8%, and 95.8%, respectively. Recurrence location was loco-regional in 50% of cases with recurrence (n=10). Interestingly, 9/20 recurrences occurred more than 39 months after surgery. The combined laparoscopic-vaginal technique for radical hysterectomy with avoidance of spillage and manipulation of tumor cells provides excellent oncologic outcome for patients with early cervical cancer. Our retrospective data suggest that laparoscopic-vaginal surgery may be oncologically safe and should be validated in further randomized trials.

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.

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 For patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. Methods This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0–3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients ( n  = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE ( n  = 109) or MIE ( n  = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station. Conclusion This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458 . Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.

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.

Robotic surgery may be an alternative to laparoscopic surgery for gastric cancer (GC). However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the differences in survival between these two approaches are currently lacking. From September 2017 to January 2020, 300 patients with cT1-4a and N0/+ were enrolled and randomized to either the robotic (RDG) or laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) group (NCT03313700). The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS); secondary endpoints reported here are the 3-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence patterns. The remaining secondary outcomes include intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, quality of lymphadenectomy, and cost differences, which have previously been reported. There were 283 patients in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RDG group: n  = 141; LDG group: n  = 142). The trial has met pre-specified endpoints. The 3-year DFS rates were 85.8% and 73.2% in the RDG and LDG groups, respectively ( p  = 0.011). Multivariable Cox regression model including age, tumor size, sex, ECOG PS, lymphovascular invasion, histology, pT stage, and pN stage showed that RDG was associated with better 3-year DFS (HR: 0.541; 95% CI: 0.314-0.932). The RDG also improved the 3-year cumulative recurrence rate (RDG vs. LDG: 12.1% vs. 21.1%; HR: 0.546, 95% CI: 0.302-0.990). Compared to LDG, RDG demonstrated non-inferiority in 3-year DFS rate. Robotic surgery has been demonstrated to improve short-term outcomes for patients with gastric cancer who received a gastrectomy, but the long-term effects are less clear. Here, the authors report the survival outcomes of their phase 2 randomized controlled trial comparing robotic to laparoscopic distal gastrectomy in patients with resectable gastric cancer.

BackgroundRobotic retromuscular ventral hernia repair (rRMVHR) potentially combines the best features of open and minimally invasive VHR: myofascial release with abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) with the lower wound morbidity of laparoscopic VHR. Proliferation of this technique has outpaced the data supporting this claim. We report 2-year outcomes of the first randomized controlled trial of oRMVHR vs rRMVHR.MethodsSingle-center randomized control trial of open vs rRMVHR. 100 patients were randomized (50 open, 50 robotic). We included patients > 18 y/o with hernias 7–15 cm with at least one of the following: diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30, or current smokers. Primary outcome was occurrence of a composite outcome of surgical site infection (SSI), non-seroma surgical site occurrence (SSO), readmission, or hernia recurrence. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, any SSI or SSO, SSI/SSOPI, operative time, patient reported quality of life, and cost. Analysis was performed in an intention-to-treat fashion. Study was funded by a grant from Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons.Results90 patients were available for 30-day and 62 for 2-year analysis (rRMVHR = 46 and 32, oRMVHR = 44 and 30). Hernias in the open group were slightly larger (10 vs 8 cm, p = 0.024) and more likely to have prior mesh (36.4 vs 15.2%; p = 0.030), but were similar in length, prior hernia repairs, mesh use, and myofascial release. There was no difference in primary composite outcome between oRMVHR and rRMVHR (20.5 vs 19.6%, p = 1.000). Median length of stay was shorter for rRMVHR (1 vs 2 days; p < 0.001). All patients had significant improvement in quality of life at 1 and 2 years. Other secondary outcomes were similar.ConclusionThere is no difference in a composite outcome including SSI, SSOPI, readmission, and hernia recurrence between open and robotic RMVHR.

BackgroundThe KangDuo surgical robot (KD-SR-01) was recently developed in China. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of KD-SR-01 for colorectal cancer surgery.MethodsThis is a multicentre randomised controlled noninferiority trial conducted in three centers in China. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive surgery using the KD-SR-01 system (KD group) or the da Vinci Xi (DV) robotic system (DV group). The primary endpoint was the success rate of operation. The second endpoints were surgical outcomes, pathological outcomes, and postoperative outcomes.ResultsBetween July 2022 and May 2023. A total of 100 patients were included in the trial and randomly assigned to the KD group (50 patients) and the DV group (50 patients). All cases were completed successfully without conversion to laparoscopic surgery. The time to flatus and the incidence of postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher grade were comparable between the two groups. Surgeons reported a high level of comfort with the KD-SR-01 system. In the subgroup analysis of different operative procedures, there were no significant differences in docking time, console time, blood loss, and the length of the incision for extraction between the two groups. There were no differences in pathological outcomes including maximum tumor diameter, circumferential resection margin, distal resection margin, and number of harvested lymph nodes.ConclusionsThe KD-SR-01 system was a viable option for colorectal cancer robotic surgery, with acceptable short-term outcomes comparable to the da Vinci Xi robotic system.