Long-term satisfaction of patients after laparoscopic and robotic-assisted hysterectomy

Introduction Da-Vinci-Xi is the most recent device used in gynecologic robotic surgery. The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term satisfaction of patients who had undergone conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy or robotic assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy using the Da-Vinci-Xi surgical system. Methods All hysterectomies performed at the University Hospital of Luebeck from 2018 to 2019 were reviewed. Postoperative outcomes were compared between women who had undergone total hysterectomy with da Vinci Xi (n = 42) or conventional laparoscopy (n = 97). Postoperative outcomes included pain, elimination of complaints after surgery, bladder function, sexual function, satisfaction with the cosmetic outcome, positive experiences after robotic surgery, and satisfaction with the surgeon’s preoperative explanation. Obese patients were evaluated separately in a subgroup analysis. Results Both groups had similar baseline characteristics and complication rates. Preoperative complaints subsided after surgery in a little more than 90% of patients. No significant differences were noted between groups in this regard (p = 0.262), or with reference to postoperative pain after one week (p = 0.866) and one month (p = 0.580), stress incontinence (p = 0.343), sexual function (p = 0.766) and the cosmetic outcome of the abdominal incisions (p = 0.273). The majority of patients who had undergone robotic surgery (96.8%) would be willing to undergo the procedure again if necessary. The subgroup analysis of obese patients revealed no significant differences. Conclusion The Da-Vinci-Xi device did not improve the long-term surgical satisfaction of normal-weight or obese patients who underwent hysterectomy compared with patients who underwent conventional laparoscopy performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

Lower conversion rate with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy; a national cohort study

Background Conversion from laparoscopic to open access colorectal surgery is associated with a poorer postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to assess conversion rates and outcomes after standard laparoscopic rectal resection (LR) and robotic laparoscopic rectal resection (RR). Methods A national 5-year cohort study utilizing prospectively recorded data on patients who underwent elective major laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. Data were retrieved from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. Primary end point was conversion rate. Secondary end points were postoperative complications within 30 days and histopathological results. Chi-square test, two-sided T test, and Mann–Whitney U test were used for univariable analyses. Both univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the relations between different predictors and outcomes, and propensity score matching was performed to address potential treatment assignment bias. Results A total of 1284 patients were included, of whom 375 underwent RR and 909 LR. Conversion rate was 8 out of 375 (2.1%) for RR compared with 87 out of 909 (9.6%) for LR (p < 0.001). RR was associated with reduced risk for conversion compared with LR (aOR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10–0.46). There were no other outcome differences between RR and LR. Factors associated with increased risk for conversion were male gender, severe cardiac disease and BMI > 30. Conversion was associated with higher rates of major complications (20 out of 95 (21.2%) vs 135 out of 1189 (11.4%) p = 0.005), reoperations (13 out of 95 (13.7%) vs 93 out of 1189 (7.1%) p = 0.020), and longer hospital stay (median 8 days vs 6 days, p = 0.001). Conclusion Conversion rate was lower with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy. Conversions were associated with higher rates of postoperative complications.

Clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopic surgery for abdominal conditions: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background In high-income countries, laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach for many abdominal conditions. Conventional laparoscopy is a complex intervention that is challenging to adopt and implement in low resource settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the clinical effectiveness of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy with CO2 pneumoperitoneum and open surgery for general surgery and gynaecological procedures. Methods A search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, AJOL databases and Cochrane Library was performed from inception to January 2021. All randomised (RCTs) and comparative cohort (non-RCTs) studies comparing gasless laparoscopy with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy were included. The primary outcomes were mortality, conversion rates and intraoperative complications. Secondary outcomes: operative times and length of stay. The inverse variance random-effects model was used to synthesise data. Results 63 studies were included: 41 RCTs and 22 non-RCTs (3,620 patients). No procedure-related deaths were reported in the studies. For gasless vs conventional laparoscopy there was no difference in intraoperative complications for general RR 1.04 [CI 0.45–2.40] or gynaecological surgery RR 0.66 [0.14–3.13]. In the gasless laparoscopy group, the conversion rates for gynaecological surgery were high RR 11.72 [CI 2.26–60.87] when compared to conventional laparoscopy. For gasless vs open surgery, the operative times were longer for gasless surgery in general surgery RCT group MD (mean difference) 10 [CI 0.64, 19.36], but significantly shorter in the gynaecology RCT group MD − 18.74 [CI − 29.23, − 8.26]. For gasless laparoscopy vs open surgery non-RCT, the length of stay was shorter for gasless laparoscopy in general surgery MD − 3.94 [CI − 5.93, − 1.95] and gynaecology MD − 1.75 [CI − 2.64, − 0.86]. Overall GRADE assessment for RCTs and Non-RCTs was very low. Conclusion Gasless laparoscopy has advantages for selective general and gynaecological procedures and may have a vital role to play in low resource settings.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy is a feasible method for resection of deep infiltrating endometriosis, especially in the rectosigmoid area

Objective This study aimed to compare outcomes of mini-invasive surgical treatment of endometriosis, especially conventional laparoscopy with robotic-assisted laparoscopy, and to evaluate the quality of life. Methods One hundred three consecutive patients with endometriosis who had surgery from 2014 to 2017 owing to an indication of pain were enrolled in this retrospective study. The majority (n = 77, 75%) of patients underwent conventional laparoscopy and 18 (17%) had robotic-assisted laparoscopy. The quality of life was postoperatively assessed with a questionnaire. Results The rates of parametrectomy (76% vs. 45%,) and rectovaginal resection (28% vs. 4%) were significantly higher in robotic-assisted laparoscopy than in laparoscopy. Additionally, the rate of bowel operations (50% vs. 17%), especially the shaving technique, was higher in robotic-assisted laparoscopy surgery than in laparoscopy (39% vs. 8%). There was no difference in the rate of postoperative complications between laparoscopy and robotic-assisted laparoscopy. Most (91%) of the patients who answered the questionnaire felt that surgical treatment had relieved their pain. In the laparoscopic and robotic-assisted groups, 88% of respondents felt that their quality of life had improved after surgery. Conclusions This study suggests that robotic-assisted laparoscopy is a feasible method to resect deep infiltrating endometriosis, especially in the rectosigmoid area.

Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment

Rectal prolapse is a condition that can cause significant social impairment and negatively affects quality of life. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, with the aim of restoring the anatomy and correcting the associated functional disorders. During recent decades, laparoscopic abdominal procedures have emerged as effective tools for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with the advantages of faster recovery, lower morbidity, and shorter length of stay. Robotic surgery represents the latest evolution in the field of minimally invasive surgery, with the benefits of enhanced dexterity in deep narrow fields such as the pelvis, and may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal prolapse is feasible and safe. It could reduce complication rates and length of hospital stay, as well as shorten the learning curve, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required on long-term functional outcomes and recurrence rates.