BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery is widely used in abdominal emergency surgery (AES), and the possibility of extending this approach to the more recent robotic surgery (RS) arouses great interest. The slow diffusion of robotic technology mainly due to high costs and the longer RS operative time when compared to laparoscopy may represent disincentives, especially in AES. This study aims to report our experience in the use of RS in AES assessing its safety and feasibility, with particular focus on intra- and post-operative complications, conversion rate, and surgical learning curve. Our data were also compared to other experiences though an extensive literature review.
METHODS: We retrospectively analysed a single surgeon series of the last 10 years. From January 2014 to December 2023, 36 patients underwent urgent or emergency RS. The robotic devices used were Da Vinci Si (15 cases) and Xi (21 cases).
RESULTS: 36 (4.3%) out of 834 robotic procedures were included in our analysis: 20 (56.56%) females. The mean age was 63 years and 30% of patients were ≥ 70 years. 2 (5.55%) procedures were performed at night. No conversions to open were reported in this series. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, 2 (5.5%) major complications were collected. Intraoperative and 30-day mortality were 0%.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that RS may be a useful and reliable approach also to AES and intraoperative laparoscopic complications when performed in selected hemodynamically stable patients in very well-trained robotic centers. The technology may increase the minimally invasive use and conversion rate in emergent settings in a completely robotic or hybrid approach.

The safety and efficacy of single-port and multi-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN, respectively) were assessed for treating partial nephrectomy in this study. A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was conducted up to June 2024 to compare studies on SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN. Primary outcomes included perioperative results, complications, and oncological outcomes. Eight studies involving 1014 patients were analyzed. For binary outcomes, comparisons were performed using odds ratios (OR), and for continuous variables, weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The search failed to discover significant meaningful variations in operating times (p = 0.54), off-clamp procedure (P = 0.36), blood loss (p = 0.31), positive surgical margins (PSMs) (p = 0.78), or major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) (p = 0.68) between SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN. However, shorter hospital stays (WMD - 0.26 days, 95% CI - 0.36 to - 0.15; p < 0.00001) and longer warm ischemia times (WIT) (WMD 3.13 min, 95% CI 0.81-5.46; p = 0.008) were related to SP-RAPN, and higher transfusion rate (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.31-6.80; p = 0.009) compared to MP-RAPN. SP-RAPN performed better in terms of hospital stay but had slightly higher rates of transfusion, off-clamp procedures, and warm ischemia time (WIT) compared to MP-RAPN. As an emerging technology, preliminary research suggests that SP-RAPN is a feasible and safe method for carrying out a nephrectomy partial. However, compared to MP-RAPN, it shows inferior outcomes regarding (WIT) and transfusion rates.

Median arcuate ligament syndrome (MALS) is rare syndrome and is diagnosis of exclusion. Though first robotic median arcuate ligament release (MALR) was described in 2007, there are only a few case reports (CR), case series (CS), and retrospective cohort studies (RCS) in the published literature. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of robotic-assisted MALR (r-MALR). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched (last search December 2023) for articles reporting r-MALR. All studies including CR, CS, RCS reporting technical feasibility (operating time and rate of conversions), safety (intra-operative complications, blood loss, post-operative complications), and outcome (length of stay [LoS]) were included (PROSPERO: CRD42024502792). A total of 23 studies (8-CR, 5-CS, 10-RCS) with total 290 patients were available in the literature. Except 1-RCS, all studies reported age and mean age for CR was 40.38 ± 17.7, 36.08 ± 15.12 for CS, 39.72 ± 7.35 years for RS; except 2-RCS, all studies reported gender distribution and there were 57 males and 214 females. Operating time: 3-CR, 4-CS, 9-RCS reported operating time, and mean time was 111 ± 54, 131.69 ± 7.51, 117.34 ± 35.03 min, respectively. Conversion rate: All studies reported data on conversion and only four (1.37%) cases were converted-one to laparoscopic approach, three to open approach (1-inadvertent celiac arteriotomy, 2-reasons not mentioned). Intraoperative complications: only 5-CR, 4-CS, and 9-RCS reported data on intra-operative complications, and there were only 6 complications (1.5%): 1-inadvertent celiac arteriotomy converted to open; 3-unnamed vascular injuries (2 managed robotically, 1 converted to open); 1-bleeding managed robotically; there were no other reported injuries. Estimated blood loss ranged from 5 to 30 ml. Post-operative complications: 5-CR, 4-CS, 8-RCS described post-operative complications in 21 (7%) patients. Twenty cases were grade I, one was grade IIIa, and all managed successfully. LoS stay: 2-CR, 4-CS, 10-RCS reported LoS and overall, it was 2 days. r-MALR is reasonable, technically feasible, safe, and has acceptable outcomes. In addition, robotic approach provided superior vision, improved dexterity, precise, and easy circumferential dissection.PROSPERO registration: The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024502792).

Robotic pyelolithotomy continues to gain attention as an alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for managing complex renal stones. We performed a single-arm meta-analysis and systematically searched the English-language literature published in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases up to June 2024. The risk of non-randomized bias was assessed using ROBINS-I, and the quality of the literature was assessed using MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies). Merger parameters were calculated using Stata16/SE under a random-effects model. Five non-comparative single-arm studies were included in the meta-analysis. Results showed that the operative time for robotic pyelolithotomy was 168.10 min (95% CI 133.63, 202.56). The hospital stay was 2.63 days (95% CI 0.96, 4.29), and blood loss was 44.13 ml (95% CI 19.76, 68.51). The stone clearance rate was 87% (95% CI 79-93%). The incidence of minor postoperative complications (Clavien grade I-II) was 23.7% (95% CI 13.4-35.8%), and the incidence of major complications (Clavien grade ≥ III) was 7% (95% CI 0.3-20.7%).The safety and efficacy of robotic pyelolithotomy in treating complex renal stones are acceptable, but future large prospective cohort studies are needed to validate the treatment.

This study aimed to analyze perioperative results in robot-assisted laparoscopic urological surgeries, comparing the AirSeal system with traditional pneumoperitoneum systems. This study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Extensive searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies up to June 15, 2024. A combined examination of the studies found that the AirSeal system had superior results in terms of surgery duration, end-tidal carbon dioxide levels, and tidal volume compared to the traditional pneumoperitoneum system. During robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy, the AirSeal team experienced a notable decrease in surgical time, ETCO2, and VT. In addition, the occurrence of SCE was lower in the AirSeal group. However, there were no significant differences observed between the groups regarding EBL, LOHS, overall complications, and major complications. Compared to conventional pneumoperitoneum systems, the AirSeal system offers several advantages in robot-assisted laparoscopic urological surgery: reduced operative time, lower end-tidal CO2 pressure, and decreased tidal volume. Furthermore, implementing the AirSeal system does not lead to higher rates of complications, estimated blood loss, or lengthier hospital stays.

Background and Objectives: This paper evaluates the efficacy and safety of ureteral access sheath (UAS) utilization in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to 30 August 2023. The inclusion criteria comprised English-language original studies on RIRS with or without UAS in humans. The primary outcome was SFR, while the secondary outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative complications, the lengths of the operation and the hospitalization period, and the duration of the fluoroscopy. Subgroup analyses and a sensitivity analysis were performed. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger\'s regression tests. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), while mean differences (MDs) were employed for continuous variables. Results: We included 22 studies in our analysis. These spanned 2001 to 2023, involving 12,993 patients and 13,293 procedures. No significant difference in SFR was observed between the UAS and non-UAS groups (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.63-1.30, p = 0.59). Intraoperative (OR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.75-1.69, p = 0.5) and postoperative complications (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 0.89-1.87, p = 0.18) did not significantly differ between the groups. UAS usage increased operation times (MD = 8.30, 95% CI 2.51-14.10, p = 0.005) and fluoroscopy times (MD = 5.73, 95% CI 4.55-6.90, p < 0.001). No publication bias was detected for any outcome. Conclusions: In RIRS, UAS usage did not significantly affect SFR, complications, or hospitalization time. However, it increased operation time and fluoroscopy time. Routine UAS usage is not supported, and decisions should be patient-specific. Further studies with larger sample sizes and standardized assessments are needed to refine UAS utilization in RIRS.

This study was conducted to compare the changes in different clinical scores and imaging indexes of patients who underwent robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) and manual total knee arthroplasty (M-TKA). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched according to PRISMA guidelines in June 2024. Search terms included \"robot-assisted\", \"manual\" and \"total knee arthroplasty\". Outcome indicators included American Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), range of motion (ROM), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), operation duration (min), intraoperative blood loss (ml), pain score, patient\'s satisfaction scores, hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle, frontal femoral component angle, frontal tibia component angle, lateral femoral component angle and lateral tibia component angle. A total of 1,033 articles were obtained after removing duplicates, and 12 studies involving 2,863 patients (1,449 RA-TKAs and 1,414 M-TKAs) were finally meta-analyzed (22-32). The baseline data of both groups were similar in all results. Meta-analysis suggested a better performance of the RA-TKA group than the M-TKA group regarding the HKA angle. The manual TKA reduced the operation time and significantly improved the range of motion. The results of > 6 months follow-up showed that M-TKA was better than RA-TKA in terms of KSS score and WOMAC. Compared with M-TKA, RA-TKA can produce more accurate prosthetic alignment, but it does not lead to better clinical results. Orthopedic surgeons should choose between two surgical procedures according to their own experience and patients\' characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are the 2 principal minimally invasive surgical approaches and the first line of treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It is not clear which one has greater safety and efficacy. In this meta-analysis, we aim to compare the safety and effectiveness of LH versus RFA for patients with HCC, especially where perioperative and postoperative outcomes differrent.
METHODS: In PROSPERO, a meta-analysis with registration number CRD42021257575 was registered. Using an established search strategy, we systematically searched Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase to identify eligible studies before June 2023. Data on operative times, blood loss, length of stay, overall complications, overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were subjected to meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Overall, the present meta-analysis included 8 retrospective and 6 PSM studies comprising 1,848 patients (810 and 1,038 patients underwent LH and RFA). In this meta-analysis, neither LH nor RFA showed significant differences in 1-year and 3-year OS rate and 5-year RFS rate. Despite this, in comparison to the RFA group, LH resulted in significantly higher 1-year(p<0.0001) and 3-year RFS rate (p = 0.005), higher 5-year OS rate (p = 0.008), lower local recurrence rate (p<0.00001), longer length of stay(LOS) (p<0.0001), longer operative time(p<0.0001), more blood loss (p<0.0001), and higher rate of complications (p=0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Comparative studies indicate that LH seemed to provide better OS and lower local recurrence rate, but higher complication rate and longer hospitalization.

This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of greenlight (PVP) and thulium laser vaporization (ThuVAP) in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) treatment. A systematic literature search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, Wangfang, and VIP in November 2023. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis of the primary outcomes of interest were performed. The review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42023491316. A total of 13 studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that compared to PVP, ThuVAP had a shorter operation time (MD: 8.56, 95% CI: 4.10 ~ 13.03, p = 0.0002), and higher postoperative transfusion (OR:0.26, 95% CI: 0.10 ~ 0.64, p = 0.004). However, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of length of stay (MD: -0.32, 95% CI: -0.78 ~ 0.14, p = 0.17), catherization time (MD: 0.03, 95% CI: -0.13 ~ 0.19, p = 0.73), international prostate symptom score improvement (MD: 0.23, 95% CI: -0.36 ~ 0.81, p = 0.45), quality of life improvement (MD: 0.04, 95% CI: -0.04 ~ 0.12, p = 0.29), maximum urinary flow rate improvement (MD: -0.59, 95% CI: -1.42 ~ 0.24, p = 0.16), postvoid residual urine volume improvement (MD: 1.04, 95% CI: -6.63 ~ 8.71, p = 0.79), overall postoperative complications (OR:1.15, 95% CI: 0.65 ~ 2.03, p = 0.63), postoperative bleeding (OR:1.18, 95%  CI: 0.67 ~ 2.07, p = 0.56), re-peration (OR:0.55, 95% CI: 0.16 ~ 1.95, p = 0.35), urethral stricture (OR:0.90, 95% CI: 0.46 ~ 1.75, p = 0.75), and urinary incontinence (OR:1.07, 95% CI: 0.64 ~ 1.78, p = 0.80). The results of subgroup analysis showed that the results of comparing thulium vaporesection or vapoenucleation with PVP were consistent with the results of the pooled analysis. Both greenlight and thulium laser vaporization are effective and safe, with comparable surgical and functional outcomes. The choice between these methods should be based on patient-specific factors.

This meta-analysis aimed to compare perioperative outcome measures between the AirSeal system and conventional insufflation system in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Up to May 2024, comprehensive searches were conducted across various prominent databases worldwide, such as PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, focusing solely on English-language materials. Reviews and protocols devoid of published data were excluded, along with conference abstracts and articles unrelated to the study\'s aims. Primary outcome measures encompassed operative duration and hospitalization length, while secondary outcome measures included estimated blood loss and complications. The meta-analysis included five cohort studies, encompassing a total of 1503 patients. In comparison to the conventional insufflation system group, the AirSeal group displayed shorter operative times (WMD - 15.62, 95% CI - 21.87 to - 9.37; p < 0.00001) and reduced hospital stays (WMD - 0.45, 95% CI - 0.60 to - 0.30; p < 0.00001). Fewer major complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.66; p = 0.01). Notably, there were no significant differences observed in estimated blood loss or overall complications between the two groups. Compared to conventional insufflation systems, employing the AirSeal system in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy appears to potentially decrease operative time and hospital length of stay without a concurrent rise in estimated blood loss or complication rates.