Search

Objective: To assess long-term outcomes with robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery for colorectal, urologic, endometrial, cervical, and thoracic cancers. Background: Minimally invasive surgery provides perioperative benefits and similar oncological outcomes compared with open surgery. Recent robotic surgery data have questioned long-term benefits. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cancer outcomes based on surgical approach was conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase. Hazard ratios for recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were extracted/estimated using a hierarchical decision tree and pooled in RevMan 5.4 using inverse-variance fixed-effect (heterogeneity nonsignificant) or random effect models. Results: Of 31,204 references, 199 were included (7 randomized, 23 database, 15 prospective, 154 retrospective studies)—157,876 robotic, 68,007 laparoscopic/thoracoscopic, and 234,649 open cases. Cervical cancer: OS and DFS were similar between robotic and laparoscopic [1.01 (0.56, 1.80), P =0.98] or open [1.18 (0.99, 1.41), P =0.06] surgery; 2 papers reported less recurrence with open surgery [2.30 (1.32, 4.01), P =0.003]. Endometrial cancer: the only significant result favored robotic over open surgery [OS; 0.77 (0.71, 0.83), P <0.001]. Lobectomy: DFS favored robotic over thoracoscopic surgery [0.74 (0.59, 0.93), P =0.009]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.93 (0.87, 1.00), P =0.04]. Prostatectomy: recurrence was less with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery [0.77 (0.68, 0.87), P <0.0001]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.78 (0.72, 0.85), P <0.0001]. Low-anterior resection: OS significantly favored robotic over laparoscopic [0.76 (0.63, 0.91), P =0.004] and open surgery [0.83 (0.74, 0.93), P =0.001]. Conclusions: Long-term outcomes were similar for robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery, with no safety signal or indication requiring further research (PROSPERO Reg#CRD42021240519). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThere is an ongoing debate regarding the cost-benefit of different surgical modalities for hysterectomy. Studies have relied primarily on evaluation of clinical outcomes and medical expenses. Thus, a paucity of information on patient-reported outcomes including satisfaction, recovery, and recommendations exists. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to identify differences in patient satisfaction and recommendations by approach to a hysterectomy. MethodsWe recruited a large, geographically diverse group of women who were members of an online hysterectomy support community. US women who had undergone a benign hysterectomy formed this retrospective study cohort. Self-reported characteristics and experiences were compared by surgical modality using chi-square tests. Outcomes over time were assessed with the Jonkheere-Terpstra trend test. Logistic regression identified independent predictors of patient satisfaction and recommendations. ResultsThere were 6262 women who met the study criteria; 41.74% (2614/6262) underwent an abdominal hysterectomy, 10.64% (666/6262) were vaginal, 27.42% (1717/6262) laparoscopic, 18.94% (1186/6262) robotic, and 1.26% (79/6262) single-incision laparoscopic. Most women were at least college educated (56.37%, 3530/6262), and identified as white, non-Hispanic (83.17%, 5208/6262). Abdominal hysterectomy rates decreased from 68.2% (152/223) to 24.4% (75/307), and minimally invasive surgeries increased from 31.8% (71/223) to 75.6% (232/307) between 2001 or prior years and 2013 (P

Background: Skill assessment during robotically assisted surgery remains challenging. While the popularity of the Global Evaluative Assessment of Robotics Skills (GEARS) has grown, its lack of discrimination between independent console skills limits its usefulness. The purpose of this study was to evaluate construct validity and interrater reliability of a novel assessment designed to overcome this limitation. Methods: We created the Assessment of Robotic Console Skills (ARCS), a global rating scale with six console skill domains. Fifteen volunteers who were console surgeons for 0 ('novice'), 1-100 ('intermediate'), or >100 ('experienced') robotically assisted procedures performed three standardized tasks. Three blinded raters scored the task videos using ARCS, with a 5-point Likert scale for each skill domain. Scores were analyzed for evidence of construct validity and interrater reliability. Results: Group demographics were indistinguishable except for the number of robotically assisted procedures performed ( p = 0.001). The mean scores of experienced subjects exceeded those of novices in dexterity (3.8 > 1.4, p < 0.001), field of view (4.1 > 1.8, p < 0.001), instrument visualization (3.9 > 2.2, p < 0.001), manipulator workspace (3.6 > 1.9, p = 0.001), and force sensitivity (4.3 > 2.6, p < 0.001). The mean scores of intermediate subjects exceeded those of novices in dexterity (2.8 > 1.4, p = 0.002), field of view (2.8 > 1.8, p = 0.021), instrument visualization (3.2 > 2.2, p = 0.045), manipulator workspace (3.1 > 1.9, p = 0.004), and force sensitivity (3.7 > 2.6, p = 0.033). The mean scores of experienced subjects exceeded those of intermediates in dexterity (3.8 > 2.8, p = 0.003), field of view (4.1 > 2.8, p < 0.001), and instrument visualization (3.9 > 3.2, p = 0.044). Rater agreement in each domain demonstrated statistically significant concordance ( p < 0.05). Conclusions: We present strong evidence for construct validity and interrater reliability of ARCS. Our study shows that learning curves for some console skills plateau faster than others. Therefore, ARCS may be more useful than GEARS to evaluate distinct console skills. Future studies will examine why some domains did not adequately differentiate between subjects and applications for intraoperative use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]