Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the established gold standard treatment for benign gallbladder diseases. However, robotic cholecystectomy is still controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in LC and robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) in patients with nonmalignant gallbladder conditions. PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies comparing RAC to LC in patients with benign gallbladder disease. Only randomized trials and non-randomized studies with propensity score matching were included. Mean differences (MDs) were computed for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for binary endpoints, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Statistical analysis was performed using Software R, version 4.2.3. A total of 13 studies comprising 22,440 patients were included, of whom 10,758 patients (47.94%) underwent RAC. The mean age was 48.5 years and 65.2% were female. Compared with LC, RAC significantly increased operative time (MD 12.59 min; 95% CI 5.62-19.55; p < 0.01; I2 = 79%). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in hospitalization time (MD -0.18 days; 95% CI - 0.43-0.07; p = 0.07; I2 = 89%), occurrence of intraoperative complications (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.38-1.15; p = 0.14; I2 = 35%) and bile duct injury (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.64, 1.55; p = 0.97; I2 = 0%). RAC was associated with an increase in operative time compared with LC without increasing hospitalization time or the incidence of intraoperative complications. These findings suggest that RAC is a safe approach to benign gallbladder disease.

OBJECTIVE: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common orthopedic surgery, yet postoperative dissatisfaction persists in around 20% of cases. Robotic total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) promises enhanced precision, but its impact on patient satisfaction compared to conventional TKA remains controversial (cTKA). This systematic review aims to evaluate patient satisfaction post-rTKA and compare outcomes with cTKA.
METHODS: Papers from the following databases were identified and reviewed: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Online Library, using keywords like \"Knee replacement,\" \"Total knee arthroplasty,\" \"Robotic,\" and \"Patient satisfaction.\" Extracted data included patient satisfaction measures, Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score, Forgotten Joint Score, SF-36, HSS, and KOOS. Statistical analysis, including odds ratio and 95% CI was performed using R software. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane\'s Q test.
RESULTS: The systematic review included 17 articles, involving 1148 patients (571 in the rTKA group and 577 in the cTKA group) assessing patient satisfaction following rTKA. An analysis of proportions reveals rTKA satisfaction rate was 95%, while for cTKA, it was 91%. A meta-analysis comparing rTKA and cTKA found no statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction. Additionally, various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were examined, showing mixed results across different studies and follow-up periods.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study found no difference in patient satisfaction outcomes in the short to mid-term for rTKA compared to conventional methods. This study does not assert superiority for the robotic approach, highlighting the need for careful consideration of various factors influencing outcomes in knee arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVE: Comparing the safety and efficacy of single-port (SP) versus multi-port (MP) robotic-assisted techniques in urological surgeries.
METHODS: A systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA criteria for primary outcomes of interest, and quality assessment followed AMSTAR. Four databases were systematically searched: Embase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The search time range is from database creation to December 2022. Stata16 was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: There were 17 studies involving 5015 patients. In urological surgeries, single-port robotics had shorter length of stay (WMD = - 0.63, 95% Cl [- 1.06, - 0.21], P < 0.05), less estimated blood loss (WMD = - 19.56, 95% Cl [- 32.21, - 6.91], P < 0.05), less lymph node yields (WMD = - 3.35, 95% Cl [- 5.16, - 1.55], P < 0.05), less postoperative opioid use (WMD = - 5.86, 95% Cl [- 8.83, - 2.88], P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in operative time, positive margins rate, overall complications rate, and major complications rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Single-port robotics appears to have similar perioperative outcomes to multi-port robotics in urological surgery. In radical prostatectomy, single-port robotics has shown some advantages, but the specific suitability of single-port robots for urological surgical types needs to be further explored.

UNASSIGNED: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) are two viable options in patients undergoing lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the debate on which one is superior is unceasing.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed and Scopus databases were queried for studies including patients who underwent either VATS or RATS lobectomy. This meta-analysis is in accordance with the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Individual patient data on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were extracted from Kaplan-Meier curves. One- and two-stage survival analyses, and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.
UNASSIGNED: Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 1,231 and 814 patients in the VATS and RATS groups, respectively. Patients who underwent VATS had similar OS compared with those who underwent RATS [hazard ratio (HR): 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.27, P=0.538] during a weighted median follow-up of 51.7 months, and this was validated by the two-stage meta-analysis (HR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.85-1.90, P=0.24, I2=68.50%). Regarding DFS, the two groups also displayed equivalent outcomes (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.92-1.25, P=0.371) and this was once again validated by the two-stage meta-analysis (HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.85-1.30, P=0.67, I2=28.27%). Both RATS and VATS had similar postoperative complication rates, prolonged air leak, conversion to thoracotomy and operative times. RATS was found to be superior to VATS in terms of length of hospital stay and number of lymph nodes dissected.
UNASSIGNED: In patients undergoing lobectomy for NSCLC, VATS and RATS have equivalent overall and DFS at a median follow-up of 51.7 months.

Robotic-assisted surgery is a computer-controlled technique that may improve the accuracy and outcomes of unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a partial knee replacement surgery. The purpose of a meta-analysis about robotic-assisted versus conventional surgery for unicompartmental TKA is to compare the effectiveness of these two methods based on the current evidence. Our meta-analysis can help inform clinical decisions and guidelines for surgeons and patients who are considering unicompartmental TKA as a treatment option. We searched four online databases for studies that compared the two methods until March 2023. We used RevMan software to combine the data from the studies. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome, which are statistical measures of the difference and the uncertainty between the two methods. We included 16 studies in our analysis. We found that robotic-assisted surgery had a better hip-knee-ankle angle, which is a measure of how well the knee is aligned, than conventional surgery (MD = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.16-1.56). We also found that robotic-assisted surgery had a better Oxford Knee score, which is a measure of how well the knee functions, than conventional surgery (MD = 3.03, 95% CI = 0.96-5.110). This study compared the results of conventional and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in 12 studies. We concluded that robotic-assisted surgery may have some benefits over conventional surgery in terms of alignment and function of the knee. However, we did not find any significant difference between the two methods in terms of other outcomes, such as pain, range of motion, health status, and joint awareness. Therefore, we suggest that more research is needed to confirm these results and evaluate the long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery.

Posterior spinal fusion and segmental spinal instrumentation using pedicle screws (PS) is the most used procedure to correct adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Computed navigation, robotic navigation, and patient-specific drill templates are available, besides the first described free-hand technique. None of these techniques are recognized as the gold standard. This review compares the PS placement accuracy and misplacement-related complication rates achieved with the techniques mentioned above. It further reports PS accuracy classifications and anatomic PS misplacement risk factors. The literature suggests a higher PS placement accuracy for robotic relative to computed navigation and for the latter relative to the free-hand technique (misplacement rates: 0.4-7.2% versus 1.9-11% versus 1.5-50.7%) using variable accuracy classifications. The reported PS-misplacement-related complication rates are, however, uniformly low (0-1.4%) for every technique, while robotic and computed navigation induce a roughly fourfold increase in the patient\'s intraoperative radiation exposure relative to the free-hand technique with fluoroscopic implant positioning control. The authors, therefore, recommend dedicating robotic and computed navigation for complex deformities or revisions with altered landmarks, underline the need for a generally accepted PS accuracy classification, and advise against PS placement in grade 4 pedicles yielding higher misplacement rates (22.2-31.5%).

UNASSIGNED: An increasing proportion of Knee arthroplasty is performed using robotic-assisted surgical techniques. This study sought to use a meta-analytical approach to establish summary rates of surgical site infection in robotic-assisted procedures and compare the rate of deep infections to those seen in conventional knee arthroplasty.
UNASSIGNED: This study performed a literature search across four online databases to establish a summary rate of surgical site infection across two categories: deep infection and superficial and pin-site infections. This was processed with the aid of a bespoke data-extraction tool. Risk of Bias analysis was performed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. Meta-analysis was then performed with tests for heterogeneity and a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 17 studies were identified as appropriate for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The summary rate of overall surgical site infections within one year of robotic knee arthroplasty was found to be 0.568% (SE = 0.183, 95% CI = 0.209-0.927). Deep infections fell to 0.154% (SE = 0.069, 95% CI = 0.018-0.290) and to 0.347% (SE = 0.109, 95% CI = 0.133-0.561) in superficial and pin-site infections.
UNASSIGNED: The surgical site infection rates were found to be low across robotic knee arthroplasty. Further research is required to prove its superiority compared to the conventional, non-robotic technique.

UNASSIGNED: In both clinical practice and residency training, the use of robotic platforms in surgery is becoming more common. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia (PEH) repair.
UNASSIGNED: The PRISMA statement guidelines were used to perform this systematic review. We conducted a database search which included Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, and Daily, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. There were 384 articles discovered in the initial search using various keywords. From those 384 articles, after duplicates were removed and publications were eliminated based on eligibility criteria, 7 publications were then chosen for analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Narrative synthesis of results has been provided.
UNASSIGNED: When compared to standard laparoscopic approaches, robotic surgery for large PEHs may offer benefits in terms of decreased conversion rate and shorter hospital stay. Some studies found a decrease in need for esophageal lengthening procedures and fewer long-term recurrences. The perioperative complication rate is similar between the two techniques in most studies; however, one large study of nearly 170,000 patients in the early years of robotics adoption demonstrated a higher rate of esophageal perforation and respiratory failure in the robotic group (2.2% increase in absolute risk). Cost is another disadvantage of robotic repair when compared to laparoscopic repair. Our study is limited by the non-randomized and retrospective nature of the studies.
UNASSIGNED: More studies into recurrence rates and long-term complications are needed to determine the efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic PEHs repair.

UNASSIGNED: During the past decades, robotic-assisted technology has experienced an incredible advancement in the field of total joint arthroplasty (TJA), which demonstrated promise in improving the accuracy and precision of implantation and alignment in both primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, revision TJA remains a technically challenging procedure with issues of large-scale bone defects and damage to nearby anatomical structures. Thus, surgeons are trying to harness the abilities of robotic-assisted technology for revision TJA surgery.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched to identify relevant publications that reported the application of robotic-assisted technology in revision TJA.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, ten studies reported the use of the robotic system in revision TJA, including active (ROBODOC) and semi-active (MAKO and NAVIO) systems. One clinical case reported conversion from hip fusion to THA, and three studies reported revision from primary THA to revision THA. Moreover, four studies reported that robotic-assisted technology is helpful in revising unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to TKA, and two case reports converted primary TKA to revision TKA. In this study, we present the latest evolvements, applications, and technical obstacles of robotic-assisted technology in the revision of TJA and the current state-of-the-art.
UNASSIGNED: Current available evidence suggests that robotic-assisted technology may help surgeons to reproducibly perform preoperative plans and accurately achieve operative targets during revision TJA. However, concerns remain regarding preoperative metal artifacts, registration techniques, closed software platforms, further bone loss after implant removal, and whether robotic-assisted surgery will improve implant positioning and long-term survivorship.

BACKGROUND: The use of new total joint arthroplasty technologies, including patient-specific implants/instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted (CA), and robotic-assisted (RA) techniques, is increasing. There is an ongoing debate regarding the value provided and potential concerns about conflicts of interest (COI).
METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were followed. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched for total hip and knee arthroplasties, unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKA), PSI, CA, and RA. Bibliometric data, financial COI, clinical/functional scores, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.
RESULTS: Eighty-seven studies were evaluated, with 35 (40.2%) including at least one author reporting COI, and 13 (14.9%) disclosing industry funding. COI and industry funding had no significant effects on outcomes (P = 0.682, P = 0.447), and there were no significant effects of conflicts or funding on level of evidence (P = 0.508, P = 0.826). Studies in which author(s) disclosed COI had significantly higher relative citation ratio (RCR) and impact factor (IF) than those without (P < 0.001, P = 0.032). Subanalysis demonstrated RA and PSI studies were more likely to report COI or industry funding (P = 0.045). RA (OR = 6.31, 95% CI: 1.61-24.68) and UKA (OR = 9.14, 95% CI: 1.43-58.53) had higher odds of reporting favorable outcomes than PSI.
CONCLUSIONS: Author COIs (about 40%) may be lower than previously reported in orthopedic technologies/techniques reviews. Studies utilizing RA and PSI were more likely to report COI, while RA and UKA studies were more likely to report favorable outcomes than PSI. No statistically significant association between the presence of COIs and/or industry funding and the frequency of favorable outcomes or study level of evidence was found.
METHODS: Level V Systematic Review.