Explore the vast range of titles available.

A concise review of the use of robotic technology to enhance surgery

The practice of radical prostatectomy for treating prostate cancer has evolved remarkably since its general introduction around 1900. Initially described using a perineal approach, the procedure was later popularized using a retropubic one, after it was first described as such in 1948. The open surgical method has now largely been abandoned in favour of the minimally invasive robot-assisted method, which was first described in 2000. Until 1980, the procedure was hazardous, often accompanied by massive blood loss and poor outcomes. For patients in whom surgery is indicated, prostatectomy is increasingly being used as the first step in a multitherapeutic approach in advanced local, and even early metastatic, disease. However, contemporary molecular insights have enabled many men to safely avoid surgical intervention when the disease is phenotypically indolent and use of active surveillance programmes continues to expand worldwide. In 2020, surgery is not recommended in those men with low-grade, low-volume Gleason 6 prostate cancer; previously these men — a large cohort of ~40% of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer — were offered surgery in large numbers, with little clinical benefit and considerable adverse effects. Radical prostatectomy is appropriate for men with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease (Gleason score 7–9 or Grade Groups 2–5) in whom radical prostatectomy prevents further metastatic seeding of potentially lethal clones of prostate cancer cells. Small series have suggested that it might be appropriate to offer radical prostatectomy to men presenting with small metastatic burden (nodal and or bone) as part of a multimodal therapeutic approach. Furthermore, surgical treatment of prostate cancer has been reported in cohorts of octogenarian men in good health with minimal comorbidities, when 20 years ago such men were rarely treated surgically even when diagnosed with localized high-risk disease. As medical therapies for prostate cancer continue to increase, the use of surgery might seem to be less relevant; however, the changing demographics of prostate cancer means that radical prostatectomy remains an important and useful option in many men, with a changing indication.In this Perspectives, a pioneer in the field of robotic radical prostatectomy describes the history of the technique and changing indications for its use, from an operation once considered useless, to one offered to almost all patients with low-risk disease, to a procedure that now has a role in advanced disease as part of a multimodal approach.

Summary Ovarian cancer surgery endeavours to remove all visible tumour deposits, and surgical technologies could potentially facilitate this aim. However, there appear to be barriers around the adoption of new technologies, and we hope this article provokes discussion within the specialty to encourage a forward-thinking approach to new-age surgical gynaecological oncology.

PurposeThe introduction of robotic surgical technology into urological reconstruction, particularly pediatrics, has introduced new horizons for reducing the morbidity and enhancing the efficacy of surgical repair of congenital conditions in children. In reviewing the evolution of pediatric urological applications of robotic surgery, we wanted to address the different levels of reported utilization of pyeloplasty and ureteral reimplantation as two of the most common procedures. MethodsReview of the published literature sought to explore the described variation in clinical application of these two common procedures, and the evolution of the practice over time.ResultsReported outcomes suggest that variations in patient selection, the learning curve and in reporting of outcomes all contribute to the wide variation in utilization of pediatric robotic pyeloplasty and ureteral reimplantation.ConclusionsThese technologies are demonstrating their potential as well as the challenges of use in children and there is a steady evolution of capability. Practitioners should be aware of both the possibilities as well as the risks of such new technology in the care of our patients. This requires thorough and open reporting of outcomes, the willingness to introduce change and integrate new findings into practice.

Objectives. To review surgical techniques used in the treatment of laryngoceles over the last two decades and point out developments and trends. Materials and Methods. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the JBI Library of Systematic Reviews were searched using the term “laryngocele.” Demographic data, type of laryngocele, presence of a laryngopyocele, type of treatment and need for a tracheotomy were assessed. Results. Overall, data on 86 patients were analyzed, culled from 50 articles, of which 41 were case reports and 9 were case series. No single systematic review or meta-analysis or randomized controlled trial has been published on the topic. Altogether, 71 laryngoceles in 63 patients met the criteria for further analysis focusing on surgical treatment. An external approach was selected in 25/29 (86.2%) cases of combined laryngoceles. Microlaryngoscopic resection using a CO2 laser was performed in three cases and endoscopic robotic surgery in one case. The majority of patients with an internal laryngocele, 31/42 (73.8%), were treated using the microlaryngoscopy approach. Conclusions. Microlaryngoscopy involving the use of a CO2 laser has become the main therapeutic procedure for the treatment of internal laryngoceles during the past 20 years. An external approach still remains the main therapeutic approach for the treatment of combined laryngoceles.

The idea of reproducing himself with the use of a mechanical robot structure has been in man’s imagination in the last 3000 years. However, the use of robots in medicine has only 30 years of history. The application of robots in surgery originates from the need of modern man to achieve two goals: the telepresence and the performance of repetitive and accurate tasks. The first “robot surgeon” used on a human patient was the PUMA 200 in 1985. In the 1990s, scientists developed the concept of “master–slave” robot, which consisted of a robot with remote manipulators controlled by a surgeon at a surgical workstation. Despite the lack of force and tactile feedback, technical advantages of robotic surgery, such as 3D vision, stable and magnified image, EndoWrist instruments, physiologic tremor filtering, and motion scaling, have been considered fundamental to overcome many of the limitations of the laparoscopic surgery. Since the approval of the da Vinci ® robot by international agencies, American, European, and Asian surgeons have proved its factibility and safety for the performance of many different robot-assisted surgeries. Comparative studies of robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures in general surgery have shown similar results with regard to perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes. However, higher costs and lack of haptic feedback represent the major limitations of current robotic technology to become the standard technique of minimally invasive surgery worldwide. Therefore, the future of robotic surgery involves cost reduction, development of new platforms and technologies, creation and validation of curriculum and virtual simulators, and conduction of randomized clinical trials to determine the best applications of robotics.

Background Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP), including laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy, has gained widespread acceptance over the last decade owing to its favorable short-term outcomes. However, evidence regarding its oncologic safety is insufficient. In March 2023, a randomized phase III study was launched in Japan to confirm the non-inferiority of overall survival in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer undergoing MIDP compared with that of patients undergoing open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). Methods This is a multi-institutional, randomized, phase III study. A total of 370 patients will be enrolled from 40 institutions within 4 years. The primary endpoint of this study is overall survival, and the secondary endpoints include relapse-free survival, proportion of patients undergoing radical resection, proportion of patients undergoing complete laparoscopic surgery, incidence of adverse surgical events, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Only a credentialed surgeon is eligible to perform both ODP and MIDP. All ODP and MIDP procedures will undergo centralized review using intraoperative photographs. The non-inferiority of MIDP to ODP in terms of overall survival will be statistically analyzed. Only if non-inferiority is confirmed will the analysis assess the superiority of MIDP over ODP. Discussion If our study demonstrates the non-inferiority of MIDP in terms of overall survival, it would validate its short-term advantages and establish its long-term clinical efficacy. Trial registration This trial is registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials as jRCT 1,031,220,705 [ https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT1031220705 ].

Survival analysis following oncological treatments require specific analysis techniques to account for data considerations, such as failure to observe the time of event, patient withdrawal, loss to follow-up, and differential follow up. These techniques can include Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analyses. However, studies do not always report overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), or cancer recurrence using hazard ratios, making the synthesis of such oncologic outcomes difficult. We propose a hierarchical utilization of methods to extract or estimate the hazard ratio to standardize time-to-event outcomes so that study inclusion into meta-analyses can be maximized. We also provide proof-of concept results from a statistical analysis that compares OS, DFS, and cancer recurrence for robotic surgery to open and non-robotic minimally invasive surgery. In our example, use of the proposed methodology would allow for the increase in data inclusion from 108 hazard ratios reported to 240 hazard ratios reported or estimated, resulting in an increase of 122%. While there are publications summarizing the motivation for these analyses, and comprehensive papers describing strategies to obtain estimates from published time-dependent analyses, we are not aware of a manuscript that describes a prospective framework for an analysis of this scale focusing on the inclusion of a maximum number of publications reporting on long-term oncologic outcomes incorporating various presentations of statistical data.