Comparison of Intraoperative Outcomes between Single-incision Robotic Cholecystectomy and Multi-incision Robotic Cholecystectomy

Introduction Our study objective was to evaluate differences in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) using Senhance robotic platform vs laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Material and methods A retrospective case – matched analysis was performed for all patients who underwent cholecystectomy from November 2018 to November 2019. RC cases were matched to LC. RC was performed using Senhance robotic platform. Propensity score matching analysis with a ratio of 1:1 (RC: LC) was performed. The groups were matched according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI). All procedures were performed by two same experienced robotic surgeons at Klaipeda University Hospital (O.D. and V.E.). Age, BMI, operative time, blood loss and length of hospital stay were collected and analysed between those patient groups. Results A total of 40 patients underwent RC or LC. There were no statistical differences between groups in concern of length of hospital stay, blood loss or complications. There were no bile duct injuries in either group, no intraoperative complications, no conversions either RC to LC or LC to open surgery. One patient in robotic group was reoperated on postoperative day 5 regarding sub-hepatic haematoma. The only statistical significance was in operative time (p < .05) which was longer in RC group. Median docking time was 12 min (range 5–23). Conclusions Robotic cholecystectomy using Senhance robotic platform appears to be safe in comparison with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy might be feasible in gaining robotic surgery skills.

Few studies have compared the surgical results of single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (SIRC) with those of conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy (CLC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative clinical efficacy of SIRC by comparing the number of postoperative days, pain level and complications between the 2 surgical methods. We retrospectively collected demographic, perioperative and postoperative data for all patients who underwent SIRC or CLC performed by a single surgeon from June 2016 to May 2017. Operative time was recorded, divided into anesthesia time, docking time, console time and total operation time. Postoperative pain was measured with the Numerical Pain Rating Scale. A total of 121 patients underwent cholecystectomy during the study period, of whom 61 had SIRC and 60 had CLC. The mean total operation time of SIRC and CLC was 93.52 (SD 20.27) minutes and 37.67 (SD 19.73) minutes, respectively (p < 0.001). The total operation time excluding console time of SIRC was significantly longer than that of CLC (82.77 [SD 18.27] min v. 37.67 [SD 19.73] min) (p < 0.001). The mean Numerical Pain Rating Scale score was 4.73 (SD 1.23) (SIRC: 4.75 [SD 1.24]; CLC: 4.70 [SD 1.22]) (p = 0.8) within 1 hour after the operation; scores after 6 hours and 1 day decreased in a similar manner in the 2 groups (p = 0.1). Postoperative pain, use of an additional port, complication rates, operation time and cost of SIRC were similar to or greater than those of CLC. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to examine the true benefits of SIRC.

Robotic Cholecystectomy Is a Safe Educational Alternative to Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy During General Surgical Training: A Pilot Study

24. Lateral decubitus single position circumferential fusion (ALIF & PSF) improves perioperative outcomes compared to traditional anterior-posterior fusion

Elective cholecystectomy is a high-volume, simple procedure, well suited for the development of a pediatric robotic surgery program. Surgical robot software, by "reversing" the surgeon's hands, simplifies single-site cholecystectomy through a single incision at the umbilicus. Data were reviewed on the first nine children who had robotic cholecystectomy, with the Da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) device, at our institution. All cases were performed by a single surgeon, proctored by an experienced robotic general surgeon. There were 9 patients: the first 4 patients had robotic multiport cholecystectomy, and the last 5 had robotic single-site cholecystectomy. Eight were girls. They were 10-18 years of age (median, 14 years). Diagnoses were biliary dyskinesia (n = 5) and symptomatic cholelithiasis (n = 4). Median body mass index was 24.9 (range, 20.2-43.8) kg/m(2). Median anesthesia time for multiport cholecystectomy was 139 (range, 120-162) minutes; median anesthesia time for single-site cholecystectomy was 169 (range 122-180) minutes. Median console time for multiport cholecystectomy was 47 (range, 44-58) minutes; median console time for single-site cholecystectomy was 69 (range, 66-86) minutes. Eight of the 9 patients went home on the day of surgery, and 1 stayed overnight. Patients were seen at 13-20 days after surgery (median, 14 days). There were no complications. There were no conversions to open surgery and none from single-site to multiport surgery. Robotic cholecystectomy is safe and efficacious and is a suitable introductory procedure for pediatric surgeons considering a robotic surgery program. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy is a cosmetically attractive option but takes longer than multiport robotic cholecystectomy.

Background:Typically, fibrin sealants (FSs) and fibrin glues (FGs) are used to strengthen dural repairs during spinal surgery. In 2014, Epstein demonstrated that one FS/FG, Tisseel (Baxter International Inc., Westlake Village, CA, USA) equalized the average times to drain removal and length of stay (LOS) for patients with versus without excess bleeding (e.g. who did not receive Tisseel) undergoing multilevel laminectomies with 1-2 level noninstrumented fusions (LamF).[6]Methods:Here Tisseel was utilized to promote hemostasis for two populations; 39 patients undergoing average 4.4 level lumbar laminectomies with average 1.3 level noninstrumented fusions (LamF), and 48 patients undergoing average 4.0 level laminectomies alone (Lam). We compared the average operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements for the LamF versus Lam groups.Results:The average operative times, EBL, postoperative drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements were all greater for LamF versus Lam patients; operative times (4.1 vs. 3.0 h), average EBL (192.3 vs. 147.9 cc), drainage (e.g. day 1; 199.6 vs. 167.4 cc; day 2; 172.9 vs. 63.9 cc), average LOS (4.6 vs. 2.5 days), and transfusion requirements (11 LamF patients; 18 Units [U] RBC versus 2 Lam patients; 3 U RBC).Conclusions:Utilizing Tisseel to facilitate hemostasis in LamF versus Lam still resulted in greater operative times, EBL, postoperative average drainage, LOS, and transfusion requirements for patients undergoing the noninstrumented fusions. Although Tisseel decreases back bleeding within the spinal canal, it does not reduce blood loss from LamF decorticated transverse processes.

Robotic surgery has been widely adopted by many specialties, including hepatobiliary surgery. However, robotic procedures generally require longer operative times and are costlier than their laparoscopic counterparts. The role for robotic cholecystectomy (RC), particularly in patients with advanced liver disease, has not been established. A retrospective analysis of the NSQIP database was performed, focusing on patients with chronic liver disease who underwent cholecystectomy. Patients were categorized based on their model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score and the type of surgical procedure: open, laparoscopic, or RC. Rates of a variety of postoperative complications including length of stay (LOS) were analyzed. In patients with a MELD score of 21 to 30, open cholecystectomy was associated with a long hospital LOS (3 vs 1 vs 1; P -0.01). RC was equivalent to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in terms of perioperative mortality for higher MELD score patients but was associated with lower conversion rates and overall LOS. This data suggests that RC should be considered in patients with advanced liver disease needing cholecystectomy.

The impact of robotic cholecystectomy on private practice in a community teaching hospital

Background:Laparoscopic single-incision surgery is fraught with significant technical drawbacks but has witnessed increased growth mainly for its presumed aesthetic advantages. Recently, a single-site robotic platform has been introduced to alleviate some of the technical challenges with laparoscopic single-site surgery, although literature on this topic is scant. The aim of this study is to analyze the experience of a single surgeon with single-site robotic cholecystectomies since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave its approval in December 2011, and to evaluate the robotic platform's safety and short-term surgical outcomes.Methods:From February 1st 2012 to February 28th 2013, patients who underwent single-site cholecystectomy at an academic institution in the United States were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. The following variables were analyzed: age, sex, body mass index, previous surgeries, total operative time, port insertion time, docking time, console time, estimated blood loss, closure time, conversion to open or multiport approach, postoperative outcomes for wound infection, bile leak, biliary ductal injury, right hepatic artery injury, reoperations, readmission, and mortality. Indication for cholecystectomy was symptomatic gallbladder disease. No exclusion criteria were used and no cost analysis was performed.Results:During the study period, 31 patients were enrolled. The mean patient age, body mass index, weight, and operative time was 33.6 years, 32.2 kg/m2, 86.3 kg, and 81.4 minutes, respectively. There were no conversions to the open or traditional multiport approach, and no major complications of biliary ductal or hepatic artery injury, bile leak, reoperations, or mortality occurred. There was 1 case of superficial wound infection.Conclusions:Single-site robotic cholecystectomy is feasible and safe and requires a minimal learning curve to transition from traditional multiport to single-port robotic cholecystectomy.

Performance of a modified 3-level classification in stratifying open liver resection procedures in terms of complexity and postoperative morbidity

Objective To evaluate the learning curve of three–port extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy(ELRP) and to minimize operative time and blood loss about this procedure. Methods From August 2013 to October 2014, the data from 95 consecutive patients, who had undergone three–port ELRP for prostate cancer, were retrospectively analyzed. The mean age was 65.9±7.7 years, mean total PSA level was 15.4±12.7 μg/L, and mean body mass index(BMI) was 24.8±3.2 kg/m2. According to the number of procedures performed by the surgeon, all patients were classified into three chronologic groups, including group A(No.1–32), group B(No.33–64) and group C(No.65–95). There were no significant differences including age, BMI, tPSA, estimated prostate volume, clinical stages, history of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy, history of transurethral resection of the prostate(TURP) among group A, B and C (P>0.05). The operative outcomes analyzed were operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, drainage tube indwelling days, pathological Gleason scores, pathological stages, positive surgical margin rates, biochemical recurrence rates and urinary incontinence rates. Among these 95 patients, the results of the first 32 cases were compared with those of the remaining 63 cases, the first 64 with the remaining 31. Results The average operative time in 95 patients was 81.0±18.6 min. The sloping learning curve for this surgeon showed that the operative time for all 95 cases was strongly correlated with additional experience(|rs|=0.612, P 0.05). Group A had longer operative time than that of Group B plus C(96.4±11.3 min vs 73.2±16.7 min, P 0.05). There were no significant correlation between the accumulation of experience and positive surgical margin rates, biochemical recurrence rates and urinary incontinence rates. Conclusion Our experience of three–port ELRP cases appears to be favorable with decreasing tendency in operative time, estimated blood loss with experience accumulation. Exposure to 32 surgeries, operative time and estimated blood loss reduced significantly, and after 64 cases operative time and estimated blood loss further reduced. Key words: Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Extraperitoneal approach; Laparoscopy; Learning curving

Meta-analysis of Laparoscopy-Assisted and Open Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

To identify factors affecting blood loss and operation time (OT) during robotic myomectomy (RM), we reviewed a total of 448 patients who underwent RM at Seoul Asan Hospital between 1 January 2019, and 28 February 2021, at Seoul Asan Hospital. To avoid variations in surgical proficiency, only 242 patients managed by two surgeons who each performed >80 RM procedures during the study period were included in this study. All cases of RM were performed with a reduced port technique. We obtained the following data from each patient’s medical chart: age, gravidity, parity, body mass index, and history of previous abdominal surgery including cesarean section. We also collected information on the maximal diameter and type of myomas, number and weight of removed myomas, concomitant surgery, total OT from skin incision to closure, estimated blood loss (EBL), and blood transfusion. Data on preoperative use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHas) and perioperative use of hemostatic agents (tranexamic acid or vasopressin) were also collected. Data on the length of hospital stay, postoperative fever within 48 h, and any complications related to RM were also obtained. The primary endpoint in this study was the identification of factors affecting EBL and the secondary endpoint was the identification of factors affecting the total OT during multiport RM. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify the factors affecting EBL and OT during multiport RM. The medians of the maximal diameter and weight of the removed myomas were 9.00 (interquartile range [IQR], 7.00 to 10.00) cm and 249.75 (IQR, 142.88 to 401.00) g, respectively. The median number of myomas was two (IQR, one to four), ranging from 1 to 34. Of the cases, 155 had low EBL and 87 had high EBL. Most myomas were of the intramural type (n = 179). The odds of EBL > 320 mL increased by 251% (odds ratio [OR], 2.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–5.42) for five to nine myomas and by 647% (OR, 6.47; 95% CI, 1.87–22.33) for ≥10 myomas. The odds of subserosal-type myomas decreased by 67% compared with intramural-type myomas (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14–0.80). History of abdominal surgery other than cesarean section was positively correlated with EBL. The weight of the removed myomas and a history of previous cesarean section were not correlated with the EBL. Conclusion: The number of myomas (5–9 and ≥10), maximal myoma diameter, and history of abdominal surgery other than cesarean section affect the EBL in RM.

126. Introducing navigation or robotics into TLIF techniques: are we optimizing our index episode of care or just spending more money?

IntroductionTotal Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) can be associated with significant peri- and post-operative blood loss necessitating blood transfusion. The blood loss may be relatively less when the accelerometer-based handheld navigation system (HHNS) is used, as there is neither a need for intramedullary breach nor additional pin insertions. The primary hypothesis was that HHNS instrumentation reduced perioperative blood loss when compared with conventional instrumentation, and to prove this, we compared the perioperative parameters like tourniquet time, hemoglobin loss, and estimated blood loss between patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty using conventional instrumentation with handheld navigation instrumentation.MethodsThis prospective comparative study involves 40 patients in the HHNS group and 40 patients in the conventional group based on the instrumentation used, respectively. Tourniquet was used in all the cases. Patient characteristics like age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) were recorded. The perioperative parameters like tourniquet time, the estimated blood loss, hemoglobin loss, blood transfusions, and the number of units transfused were recorded and compared between the groups.ResultsThere was no significant difference in age, BMI, ASA grade, or CCI between the two groups. The tourniquet time was 83.7 ± 9.6 in the navigation and 73.9 ± 10.3 in the conventional group. The estimated Hb loss was lower at 2.5 ± 1.6 in the HHNS group compared to 3.0 ± 1.8 in the conventional group (p<0.001). Similarly, estimated blood loss was also lower at 830 ± 285ml for the HHNS group compared to 1088 ± 228 in the conventional group. Two patients in the navigation group had a total of four units transfused, whereas three patients in the conventional group had five units of blood transfusion.ConclusionsThe primary hypothesis that HHNS reduced perioperative blood loss was confirmed by the results of our study. We demonstrated that HHNS instrumentation significantly decreased the estimated blood loss, drain volume, and hemoglobin loss compared to conventional instrumentation with similar operating times. Though blood transfusions were seen in fewer patients, there was no significant reduction in blood transfusions by HHNS instrumentation.