Search

The purpose of this study was to describe the current evidence found through a patent search about robotics used to assist nurses in providing care. The authors used a modified seven-step strategy of searching patents according to the US Patent and Trademark Office guidelines. The nursing robotic search was performed in four databases including the US Patent and Trademark Office issued patent database, the US Patent and Trademark Office published patent application database, the European Patent Office database, and Relecura. Keywords reflecting the scope of the term "robot" were defined for the purposes of this specific search. This broad search yielded large numbers of patents germane to nursing care. These results were narrowed using keywords and the Cooperative Patent Classification schemes to determine relevance, ensure rigor, and capture the most relevant results. This review of patents suggests robots for nursing care are proliferating. The opportunity for robotics in nursing is emerging in industry. Although nursing will likely benefit from robotics, we must determine the appropriate place to include robots in nursing care delivery.

Background: An assist-as-needed robot-assisted gait training protocol was recently developed. It allows active movement during training, but its exact criteria remain unknown. Asymmetric step length is a common abnormal gait pattern in hemiplegic stroke patients. We compared the effects of assist-as-needed robot-assisted gait training on the unaffected and affected limbs of hemiplegic stroke patients., Method: Twenty-four chronic stroke patients with asymmetric step lengths were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups. Twelve completed the study protocol. Group 1 underwent 20 sessions of assist-as-needed robot-assisted gait training for the unaffected limb and fully-assisted robot-assisted training for the affected limb. Group 2 underwent 20 sessions of robot-assisted gait training using the opposite protocol. Clinical measurements were obtained and 3-dimensional gait analyses were performed at baseline and after 10 and 20 training sessions., Results: Clinical measurements improved in both groups after 20 training sessions. The unaffected limb's step length asymmetry ratio and hip maximal extension moment significantly improved in group 1. The affected limb's maximal dorsiflexion angle for the ankle in the swing phase significantly improved in group 2., Conclusion: Application of the assist-as-needed training mode for the unaffected limb helped improve step length asymmetry in chronic stroke patients.

This article describes factors affecting the accuracy of transpedicle screw placements performed with the Renaissance robot-guided system and reviews the relevant literature. Between January 2013 and January 2015, Renaissance robot-guided spinal surgery was performed in 125 patients at Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. The surgeries included 662 transpedicle screw implants and 49 Kirschner wire (K-wire) reimplants performed by intraoperative repositioning. The lead author evaluated the accuracy of all K-wire insertions and classified their accuracy into 3 categories relative to the preoperative plan for transpedicle screw placement. For cases in which screws required repositioning after the registration step, factors affecting pedicle screw placement were determined according to the consensus of 3 experienced spinal surgeons. According to the scheme developed by Kuo et al (PLoS One 2016;11:e0153235), the K-wire placement accuracies before and after repositioning were respectively classified as follows: 76.1% and 77.6% in type I; 12.2% and 17.7% in type IIa; 4.3% and 4.5% in type IIb; 6.4% and 0% in type IIIa; and 1% and 1% in type IIIb. The percentage of screws requiring repositioning due to drilling error was 85.7% (42/49). Comparisons of preoperative and postoperative function showed significantly improved accuracy. This study showed that inaccurate pedicle screw placement mainly results from errors in preoperative planning, mounting, registration, drilling, and robot assembly. Pedicle screw placement using a bone-mounted miniature robot system requires meticulous preoperative planning to minimize these errors., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

This purpose of this retrospective study is validation of an intraoperative robotic grading classification system for assessing the accuracy of Kirschner-wire (K-wire) placements with the postoperative computed tomography (CT)-base classification system for assessing the accuracy of pedicle screw placements.We conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from 35 consecutive patients who underwent 176 robotic assisted pedicle screws instrumentation at Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital from September 2014 to November 2015. During the operation, we used a robotic grading classification system for verifying the intraoperative accuracy of K-wire placements. Three months after surgery, we used the common CT-base classification system to assess the postoperative accuracy of pedicle screw placements. The distributions of accuracy between the intraoperative robot-assisted and various postoperative CT-based classification systems were compared using kappa statistics of agreement.The intraoperative accuracies of K-wire placements before and after repositioning were classified as excellent (131/176, 74.4% and 133/176, 75.6%, respectively), satisfactory (36/176, 20.5% and 41/176, 23.3%, respectively), and malpositioned (9/176, 5.1% and 2/176, 1.1%, respectively)In postoperative CT-base classification systems were evaluated. No screw placements were evaluated as unacceptable under any of these systems. Kappa statistics revealed no significant differences between the proposed system and the aforementioned classification systems (P <0.001).Our results revealed no significant differences between the intraoperative robotic grading system and various postoperative CT-based grading systems. The robotic grading classification system is a feasible method for evaluating the accuracy of K-wire placements. Using the intraoperative robot grading system to classify the accuracy of K-wire placements enables predicting the postoperative accuracy of pedicle screw placements., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Background and Purpose: Developing a better understanding of the trajectory and timing of stroke recovery is critical for developing patient-centered rehabilitation approaches. Here, we quantified proprioceptive and motor deficits using robotic technology during the first 6 months post stroke to characterize timing and patterns in recovery. We also make comparisons of robotic assessments to traditional clinical measures., Methods: One hundred sixteen subjects with unilateral stroke were studied at 4 time points: 1, 6, 12, and 26 weeks post stroke. Subjects performed robotic assessments of proprioceptive (position sense and kinesthesia) and motor function (unilateral reaching task and bimanual object hit task), as well as several clinical measures (Functional Independence Measure, Purdue Pegboard, and Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment)., Results: One week post stroke, many subjects displayed proprioceptive (48% position sense and 68% kinesthesia) and motor impairments (80% unilateral reaching and 85% bilateral movement). Interindividual recovery on robotic measures was highly variable. However, we characterized recovery as early (normal by 6 weeks post stroke), late (normal by 26 weeks post stroke), or incomplete (impaired at 26 weeks post stroke). Proprioceptive and motor recovery often followed different timelines. Across all time points, robotic measures were correlated with clinical measures., Conclusions: These results highlight the need for more sensitive, targeted identification of sensory and motor deficits to optimize rehabilitation after stroke. Furthermore, the trajectory of recovery for some individuals with mild to moderate stroke may be much longer than previously considered., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)

The true benefits of robotic surgery are controversial, and whether robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) can be justified as a standard treatment for rectal cancer patients needs to be clarified. This case-matched study aimed to compare the postoperative complications and short- and long-term outcomes of R-TME and laparoscopic TME (L-TME) for rectal cancer.Among 1029 patients, we identified 278 rectal cancer patients who underwent R-TME. Propensity score matching was used to match this group with 278 patients who underwent L-TME.The mean follow-up period was similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 52.5 ± 17.1 vs 51.0 ± 13.1 months, P = 0.253), as were patient characteristics. The operation time was significantly longer in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group (361.6 ± 91.9 vs 272.4 ± 83.8 min; P < 0.001), whereas the conversion rate, length of hospital stay, and recovery of pain and bowel motility were similar between both groups. The rates of circumferential resection margin involvement and early complications were similar between both groups (L-TME vs R-TME: 4.7% vs 5.0%, P = 1.000; and 23.7% vs 25.9%, P = 0.624, respectively), as were the 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and local recurrence rates (93.1% vs 92.2%, P = 0.422; 79.6% vs 81.8%, P = 0.538; 3.9% vs 5.9%, P = 0.313, respectively).The oncologic quality, short- and long-term outcomes, and postoperative morbidity in the R-TME group were comparable with those in the L-TME group.

Purpose of Review: Robotically assisted surgeries have flourished in the United States, especially in gynecological procedures. Current robotic systems have high upfront and procedure costs that have led many in the medical community to question the new technology's cost-effectiveness., Recent Findings: Recent research continues to find that robotically assisted gynecological cancer treatments have comparable outcomes to traditional laparoscopy and similar or better outcomes than that of laparotomy in the cases studied. However, robotic surgery costs remain higher than that of traditional laparoscopy., Summary: Under the current reimbursement climate, practicing physicians and hospitals should collaborate on identifying cost-effective uses of robotic systems and pushing manufacturers to lower purchase and procedure costs to a level that may be accepted by all stakeholders.

Objective: To compare the costs of vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy with robotically assisted hysterectomy., Methods: We identified all cases of robotically assisted hysterectomy, with or without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, treated at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2009. Cases were propensity score-matched (one-to-one) to cases of vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy, selected randomly from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2006 (before acquisition of the robotic surgical system). All billed costs were abstracted through the sixth postoperative week from the Olmsted County Healthcare Expenditure and Utilization Database and compared between cohorts with a generalized linear modeling framework. Predicted costs were estimated with the recycled predictions method. Costs of operative complications also were estimated., Results: The total number of abdominal hysterectomies collected for comparison was 234 and the total number of vaginal hysterectomies was 212. Predicted mean cost of robotically assisted hysterectomy was $2,253 more than that of vaginal hysterectomy ($13,619 compared with $11,366; P<.001), although costs of complications were not significantly different. The predicted mean costs of robotically assisted compared with abdominal hysterectomy were similar ($14,679 compared with $15,588; P=.35). The costs of complications were not significantly different., Conclusions: Overall, vaginal hysterectomy was less costly than robotically assisted hysterectomy. Abdominal hysterectomy and robotically assisted hysterectomy had similar costs., Level of Evidence: II.

Objective: Robotic technology has diffused rapidly despite high costs and limited additive reimbursement by major payers. We aimed to identify the factors associated with hospitals' decisions to adopt robotic technology and the consequences of these decisions., Methods: This observational study used data on hospitals and market areas from 2005 to 2009. Included were hospitals in census-based statistical areas within states in the State Inpatient Database that participated in the American Hospital Association annual surveys and performed radical prostatectomies. The likelihood that a hospital would acquire a robotic facility and the rates of radical prostatectomy relative to the prevalence of robots in geographic market areas were assessed using multivariable analysis., Results: Hospitals in areas where a higher proportion of other hospitals had already acquired a robot were more likely to acquire one (P=0.012), as were those with more than 300 beds (P<0.0001) and teaching hospitals (P<0.0001). There was a significant association between years with a robot and the change in the number of radical prostatectomies (P<0.0001). More radical prostatectomies were performed in areas where the number of robots per 100,000 men was higher (P<0.0001). Adding a single robot per 100,000 men in an area was associated with a 30% increase in the rate of radical prostatectomies., Conclusions: Local area robot competition was associated with the rapid spread of robot technology in the United States. Significantly more radical prostatectomies were performed in hospitals with robots and in market areas of hospitals with robotic technology.

Objective: Laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy are widely used for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) treatment. Evidence comparing outcomes and costs is lacking. We compared costs and clinically relevant outcomes in women randomized to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy., Methods: Participants with symptomatic stage POP II or greater, including significant apical support loss, were randomized to either laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexy. We compared surgical costs (including costs for robot, initial hospitalization) and rehospitalization within 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain, POP quantification, symptom severity and quality of life, and adverse events., Results: We randomized 78 women (mean age 59 years): laparoscopic (n=38) and robotic (n=40). The robotic sacrocolpopexy group had higher initial hospital costs ($19,616 compared with $11,573, P<.001) and over 6 weeks, hospital costs remained higher for robotic sacrocolpopexy ($20,898 compared with $12,170, P<.001). When we excluded costs of robot purchase and maintenance, we did not detect a statistical difference in initial day of surgery costs of robotic compared with laparoscopic ($12,586 compared with $11,573; P=.160) or hospital costs over 6 weeks ($13,867 compared with $12,170; P=.060). The robotic group had longer operating room times (202.8 minutes compared with 178.4 minutes, P=.030) and higher pain scores 1 week after surgery (3.5±2.1 compared with 2.6±2.2; P=.044). There were no group differences in symptom bother by Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, POP stage, or rate of adverse events., Conclusion: Costs of robotic sacrocolpopexy are higher than laparoscopic, whereas short-term outcomes and complications are similar. Primary cost differences resulted from robot maintenance and purchase costs., Clinical Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01124916., Level of Evidence: I.

The business sector provides regular reportage on the development of personal care robots to enable elders and people with disabilities to remain in their homes. Technology in this area is advancing rapidly in Asia, Europe, and North America. To date, the nursing literature has not addressed how nurses will assist these vulnerable populations in the selection and use of robotic technology or how robotics could effect nursing care and patient outcomes. This article provides an overview of development in the area of personal care robotics to address societal needs reflecting demographic trends. Selected relevant issues related to the human-robotic interface including ethical concerns are identified. Implications for nursing education and the delivery of nursing services are identified. Collaboration with engineers in the development of personal care robotic technology has the potential to contribute to the creation of products that optimally address the needs of elders and people with disabilities.

Background: Although the use of transoral robotic surgery for tumor extirpation is expanding, little is known about national trends in the reconstruction of resultant defects., Methods: An 18-question electronic survey was created by an expert panel of surgeons from the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the University of Tennessee. Eligible participants were identified by the American Head and Neck Society Web site and from the Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Web site after review of surgeons trained in transoral robotic surgery techniques., Results: Twenty-three of 27 preselected head and neck surgeons (85.18 percent) completed the survey. All respondents use transoral robotic surgery for head and neck tumor extirpation. The majority of the respondents [n = 17 (77.3 percent)] did not use any means of reconstruction. With respect to methods of reconstruction following transoral robotic surgery defects, the majority [n = 4 (80.0 percent)] used a free flap, a pedicled local flap [n = 3 (60.0 percent)], or a distant flap [n = 3 (60.0 percent)]. The radial forearm flap was the most commonly used free flap by all respondents., Conclusions: In general, the majority of survey respondents allow defects to heal secondarily or close primarily. Based on this survey, consensus indications for pedicled or free tissue transfer following transoral robotic surgery defects were primary head and neck tumors (stage T3 and T4a), pharyngeal defects with exposure of vital structures, and prior irradiation or chemoradiation to the operative site and neck.

Objective: To compare surgical outcomes of laparoscopic myomectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy., Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 115 consecutive laparoscopic myomectomy and 174 consecutive robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy performed at Brigham and Women's Hospital over a period of 31 months. Uterine incisions were closed in multiple layers (running barbed suture was used for most cases in the laparoscopic myomectomy group). Surgical outcomes measured included operative time, estimated intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and perioperative complications. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated from multivariable logistic regression models; adjusted geometric means were estimated from linear regression models on logged outcomes because of skewed distributions., Results: Surgical groups were similar in age, body mass index, and leiomyoma characteristics. Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy had significantly longer operative time than laparoscopic myomectomy (adjusted geometric mean of 195.1 compared with 118.3 minutes, P<.001) and higher estimated blood loss (adjusted geometric mean of 110.0 compared with 85.9 mL, P=.04), but postoperative complications were similar., Conclusion: Robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy and laparoscopic myomectomy have similar operative outcomes in a high-volume surgical practice. Operative time and intraoperative estimated blood loss were significantly greater in the robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy group, but the level of statistical significance for intraoperative estimated blood loss was marginal and the clinical significance was undetermined. Use of barbed suture in the laparoscopic myomectomy group may account for these differences., Level of Evidence: II.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of introducing a robotic program on cost and patient outcome., Methods: This was a prospective evaluation of clinical outcome and cost after introducing a robotics program for the treatment of endometrial cancer and a retrospective comparison to the entire historical cohort., Results: Consecutive patients with endometrial cancer who underwent robotic surgery (n=143) were compared with all consecutive patients who underwent surgery (n=160) before robotics. The rate of minimally invasive surgery increased from 17% performed by laparoscopy to 98% performed by robotics in 2 years. The patient characteristics were comparable in both eras, except for a higher body mass index in the robotics era (median 29.8 compared with 27.6; P<.005). Patients undergoing robotics had longer operating times (233 compared with 206 minutes), but fewer adverse events (13% compared with 42%; P<.001), lower estimated median blood loss (50 compared with 200 mL; P<.001), and shorter median hospital stay (1 compared with 5 days; P<.001). The overall hospital costs were significantly lower for robotics compared with the historical group (Can$7,644 compared with Can$10,368 [Canadian dollars]; P<.001) even when acquisition and maintenance cost were included (Can$8,370 compared with Can$10,368; P=.001). Within 2 years after surgery, the short-term recurrence rate appeared lower in the robotics group compared with the historic cohort (11 recurrences compared with 19 recurrences; P<.001)., Conclusion: Introduction of robotics for endometrial cancer surgery increased the proportion of patients benefitting from minimally invasive surgery, improved short-term outcomes, and resulted in lower hospital costs., Level of Evidence: II.

Objectives: Minimally invasive apical sacropexies (MI-APSC) can be performed using robotics or laparoscopy. We hypothesized that operative characteristics of MI-APSC, laparoscopic (LSC) and robotic (RSC), were similar. The objective of our study was to compare operative characteristics, objective prolapse outcomes, and robotic learning curve., Methods: Ninety-two women planning MI-APSC for treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse from 2006 to 2010 were included in the study. The primary outcome was operative time. The secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss, rate of conversion, intraoperative complications, hospital stay, and objective prolapse outcome. We also analyzed the robotic learning curve. Statistical analysis included independent samples t test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, χ, and multiple logistic regressions; significance was set at P < 0.05. Learning curve was graphed with moving average and analyzed with moving block technique., Results: Forty-eight RSCs and 43 LSCs were analyzed. Mean operative times were LSC, 238 ± 59 minutes; and RSC, 242 ± 54 minutes. Robotic MI-APSC setup was longer (P = 0.02). Complications, conversions, estimated blood loss and hospital stay were low and similar between groups. Patients' characteristics were similar. Concomitant procedures produced longer operative times., Conclusions: Operating room experiences with laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted approaches to MI-APSC were similar, but setup time is longer for the robotic-assisted approach. The robotic learning curve is short for surgeons who have experience with LSC.

Objective: To compare conventional laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal apex prolapse., Methods: This single-center, blinded randomized trial included participants with stage 2-4 posthysterectomy vaginal prolapse. Participants were randomized to laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexy. The primary outcome was total operative time from incision to closure. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, functional activity, bowel and bladder symptoms, quality of life, anatomic vaginal support, and cost from a health care system perspective., Results: A total of 78 patients enrolled and were randomized (laparoscopic n=38; robotic n=40). Total operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group (+67-minute difference; 95% confidence interval [CI] 43-89; P<.001). Anesthesia time, total time in the operating room, total sacrocolpopexy time, and total suturing time were all significantly longer in the robotic group. Participants in the robotic group also had significantly higher pain at rest and with activity during weeks 3 through 5 after surgery and required longer use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (median, 20 compared with 11 days, P<.005). The robotic group incurred greater cost than the laparoscopic group (mean difference +$1,936; 95% CI $417-$3,454; P=.008). Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in vaginal support and functional outcomes 1 year after surgery with no differences between groups., Conclusion: Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy results in longer operating time and increased pain and cost compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists confirm advantages of conventional minimally invasive surgery over laparotomy for benign gynecological procedures; however, adoption remains low for the general gynecologist. A systematic search for gynecology publications was performed using Medline and Scopus. Available data on adoption rates and perioperative outcomes for hysterectomy, myomectomy, sacrocolpopexy, and endometriosis were reviewed. Robotic assistance may provide an improved rate of minimally invasive surgery adoption with equivalent perioperative outcomes to that of conventional techniques. Accessibility and cost remain controversial. Formal training programs are being created to address these issues.

Objective: In a 3-year period, the main mode of access for hysterectomy at Brigham and Women's Hospital changed from abdominal to laparoscopic. We estimated potential effects of this shift on perioperative outcomes and costs., Methods: We compared the perioperative outcomes and the cost of care for all hysterectomies performed in 2006 and 2009 at an urban academic tertiary care center using the χ² test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and two-sided Student's t test for continuous variables. A multivariate regression analysis was also performed for the major perioperative outcomes across the study groups. Cost data were gathered from the hospital's billing system; the remainder of data was extracted from patients' medical records., Results: This retrospective study included 2,133 patients. The total number of hysterectomies performed remained stable (1,054 procedures in 2006 compared with 1,079 in 2009) but the relative proportions of abdominal and laparoscopic cases changed markedly during the 3-year period (64.7% to 35.8% for abdominal, P<.001; and 17.7% to 46% for laparoscopic cases, P<.001). The overall rate of intraoperative complications and minor postoperative complications decreased significantly (7.2% to 4%, P<.002; and 18% to 5.7%, P<.001, respectively). Operative costs increased significantly for all procedures aside from robotic hysterectomy, although no significant change was noted in total mean costs., Conclusion: A change from majority abdominal hysterectomy to minimally invasive hysterectomy was accompanied by a significant decrease in procedure-related complications without an increase in total mean costs.

Background: Despite its expense and controversy surrounding its benefit, the surgical robot has been widely adopted for the treatment of prostate cancer., Objectives: To determine the relationship between surgical robot acquisition and changes in volume of radical prostatectomy (RP) at the regional and hospital levels., Research Design: Retrospective cohort study., Subjects: Men undergoing RP for prostate cancer at nonfederal, community hospitals located in the states of Arizona, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, New York, New Jersey, and Washington., Measures: Change in number of RPs at the regional and hospital levels before (2001) and after (2005) dissemination of the surgical robot., Results: Combining data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases 2001 and 2005 with the 2005 American Hospital Association Survey and publicly available data on robot acquisition, we identified 554 hospitals in 71 hospital referral regions (HRR). The total RPs decreased from 14,801 to 14,420 during the study period. Thirty six (51%) HRRs had at least 1 hospital with a surgical robot by 2005; 67 (12%) hospitals acquired at least 1 surgical robot. Adjusted, clustered generalized estimating equations analysis demonstrated that HRRs with greater numbers of hospitals acquiring robots had higher increases in RPs than HRRs acquiring none (mean changes in RPs for HRRs with 9, 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0 are 414.9, 189.6, 106.6, 14.7, -11.3, and -41.2; P<0.0001). Hospitals acquiring surgical robots increased RPs by a mean of 29.1 per year, while those without robots experienced a mean change of -4.8, P<0.0001., Conclusions: Surgical robot acquisition is associated with increased numbers of RPs at the regional and hospital levels. Policy makers must recognize the intimate association between technology diffusion and procedure utilization when approving costly new medical devices with unproven benefit.

Objective: To compare the surgical outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy (robot-assisted), standard laparoscopic myomectomy (laparoscopic), and open myomectomy (abdominal)., Methods: Myomectomy patients were identified from the case records of the Cleveland Clinic and stratified into three groups. Operative and immediate postoperative outcomes were compared. Data analysis was performed using analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis analysis of ranks, χ2, and Fisher exact tests where appropriate., Results: From a total of 575 myomectomies, 393 (68.3%) were abdominal, 93 (16.2%) were laparoscopic, and 89 (15.5%) were robot-assisted. The three groups were comparable regarding the size, number, and location. Significantly heavier myomas were removed in the robot-assisted group (223 [85.25, 391.50] g) compared with the laparoscopic group (96.65 [49.50, 227.25] g, P<.001) and were lower than in the abdominal group (263 [ 90.50, 449.00] g, P=.002). Higher blood loss was reported in the abdominal group compared with the other two groups, with a median (interquartile range) of blood loss in milliliters of 100 (50, 212.50), 200 (100, 437.50) and 150 (100, 200) in the laparoscopic, abdominal, and robot-assisted groups, respectively. The actual surgical time in minutes was 126 (95, 177) in the abdominal group, 155 (98, 200) in the laparoscopic group, and 181 (151, 265) in robot-assisted group (P<.001). Patients in the abdominal group had a higher median length of hospital stay of 3 (2, 3) days, compared with 1 (0, 1) day in the laparoscopic group and 1 (1, 1) days in the robot-assisted group (P<.001)., Conclusion: Robotic-assisted myomectomy is associated with decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay compared with traditional laparoscopy and to open myomectomy. Robotic technology could improve the utilization of the laparoscopic approach for the surgical management of symptomatic myomas., Level of Evidence: II.

Background and Purpose: Locomotor training (LT) using a treadmill can improve walking ability over conventional rehabilitation in individuals with hemiparesis, although the personnel requirements often necessary to provide LT may limit its application. Robotic devices that provide consistent symmetrical assistance have been developed to facilitate LT, although their effectiveness in improving locomotor ability has not been well established., Methods: Forty-eight ambulatory chronic stroke survivors stratified by severity of locomotor deficits completed a randomized controlled study on the effects of robotic- versus therapist-assisted LT. Both groups received 12 LT sessions for 30 minutes at similar speeds, with guided symmetrical locomotor assistance using a robotic orthosis versus manual facilitation from a single therapist using an assist-as-needed paradigm. Outcome measures included gait speed and symmetry, and clinical measures of activity and participation., Results: Greater improvements in speed and single limb stance time on the impaired leg were observed in subjects who received therapist-assisted LT, with larger speed improvements in those with less severe gait deficits. Perceived rating of the effects of physical limitations on quality of life improved only in subjects with severe gait deficits who received therapist-assisted LT., Conclusions: Therapist-assisted LT facilitates greater improvements in walking ability in ambulatory stroke survivors as compared to a similar dosage of robotic-assisted LT.