暂无摘要。

Current scientific literature is deficient in detailing the optimal timing for conducting bariatric surgery in relation to kidney transplantation. In this study, we performed a retrospective evaluation of kidney transplant recipients with BMI >35 kg/m2. It aimed to provide data on those who received both sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and kidney transplantation (KT) simultaneously, as well as on patients who underwent SG and KT at different times, either before or after. In addition, the acceptance levels of the bariatric surgery among different scenarios were assessed. Our findings demonstrated that combined KT and SG led to successful weight loss, in contrast to undergoing kidney transplant alone, while maintaining comparable rates of graft and patient survival. Weight loss was similar between recipients who had a combined operation and those who underwent SG following the transplant. Additionally, over a median time frame of 1.7 years, patients who underwent SG before KT exhibited a statistically significant reduction in BMI at the time of the transplant. Notably, our study highlights that patients offered the combined procedure were significantly more likely to undergo SG compared to those for whom SG was presented at a different operative time than the transplant.

Robotic total knee replacement (TKR) surgery has evolved over the years with the aim of improving the overall 80% satisfaction rate associated with TKR surgery. Proponents claim higher precision in executing the pre-operative plan which results in improved alignment and possibly better clinical outcomes. Opponents suggest longer operative times with potentially higher complications and no superiority in clinical outcomes alongside increased costs. This editorial will summarize where we currently stand and the future implications of using robotics in knee replacement surgery.

Although robotic radical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) has been reported in some large hepatobiliary centers, biliary-enteric reconstruction (BER) remains a critical step that hampers the operation\'s success. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and quality of BER in robotic radical resection of HCCA and propose technical recommendations. A retrospective study was conducted on patients with HCCA who underwent minimally invasive radical resection at Zhejiang Provincial People\'s Hospital between January 2016 and July 2023. A 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM), widely used to reduce selection bias, was performed to evaluate the outcomes, especially BER-related data, between the robotic and laparoscopic surgery. Forty-six patients with HCCA were enrolled; ten underwent robotic-assisted resection, while the others underwent laparoscopic surgery. After PSM at a ratio of 1:2, 10 and 20 patients were assigned to the robot-assisted and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The baseline characteristics of both groups were generally well-balanced. The average liver resection time was longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (139.5 ± 38.8 vs 108.1 ± 35.8 min, P = 0.036). However, the former had less intraoperative blood loss [200 (50-500) vs 310 (100-850) ml], despite no statistical difference (P = 0.109). The number of residual bile ducts was 2.6 ± 1.3 and 2.7 ± 1.2 (P = 0.795), and anastomoses were both 1.6 ± 0.7 in the two groups (P = 0.965). The time of BER was 38.4 ± 13.6 and 59.1 ± 25.5 min (P = 0.024), accounting for 9.9 ± 2.8% and 15.4 ± 4.8% of the total operation time (P = 0.001). Although postoperative bile leakage incidence in laparoscopic group (40%) was higher than that in robotic group (10%), there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.204); 6.7 ± 4.4 and 12.1 ± 11.7 days were observed for tube drawing (P = 0.019); anastomosis stenosis and calculus rate was 10% and 30% (P = 0.372), 0% and 15% (P = 0.532), respectively. Neither group had hemorrhage- or bile leakage-related deaths. Robotic radical resection for HCCA may offer perioperative outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopic procedures and tends to be advantageous in terms of anastomosis time and quality. We are optimistic about its wide application in the future with the improvement of surgical techniques and experience.

Objectives: We recently introduced a frameless, navigated, robot-driven laser tool for depth electrode implantation as an alternative to frame-based procedures. This method has only been used in cadaver and non-recovery studies. This is the first study to test the robot-driven laser tool in an in vivo recovery animal study. Methods: A preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan was conducted to plan trajectories in sheep specimens. Burr hole craniotomies were performed using a frameless, navigated, robot-driven laser tool. Depth electrodes were implanted after cut-through detection was confirmed. The electrodes were cut at the skin level postoperatively. Postoperative imaging was performed to verify accuracy. Histopathological analysis was performed on the bone, dura, and cortex samples. Results: Fourteen depth electrodes were implanted in two sheep specimens. Anesthetic protocols did not show any intraoperative irregularities. One sheep was euthanized on the same day of the procedure while the other sheep remained alive for 1 week without neurological deficits. Postoperative MRI and CT showed no intracerebral bleeding, infarction, or unintended damage. The average bone thickness was 6.2 mm (range 4.1-8.0 mm). The angulation of the planned trajectories varied from 65.5° to 87.4°. The deviation of the entry point performed by the frameless laser beam ranged from 0.27 mm to 2.24 mm. The histopathological analysis did not reveal any damage associated with the laser beam. Conclusion: The novel robot-driven laser craniotomy tool showed promising results in this first in vivo recovery study. These findings indicate that laser craniotomies can be performed safely and that cut-through detection is reliable.

UNASSIGNED: To compare long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excisions (TMEs) for rectal cancer in a tertiary center.
UNASSIGNED: Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has comparable long-term outcomes to the open approach, with several advantages in short-term outcomes. However, it has significant technical limitations, which the robotic approach aims to overcome.
UNASSIGNED: We included patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic TME surgery between 2013 and 2021. The groups were compared after propensity-score matching. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease-free survival (DFS), and short-term surgical and patient-related outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 594 patients were included, and after propensity-score matching 215 patients remained in each group. There was a significant difference in 5-year OS (72.4% for laparoscopy vs 81.7% for robotic, P = 0.029), but no difference in 5-year LR (4.7% vs 5.2%, P = 0.850), DR (16.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.390), or DFS (63.9% vs 74.4%, P = 0.086). The robotic group had significantly less conversion (3.7% vs 0.5%, P = 0.046), shorter length of stay [7.0 (6.0-13.0) vs 6.0 (4.0-8.0), P < 0.001), and less postoperative complications (63.5% vs 50.7%, P = 0.010).
UNASSIGNED: This study shows a correlation between higher 5-year OS and comparable long-term oncological outcomes for robotic TME surgery compared to the laparoscopic approach. Furthermore, lower conversion rates, a shorter length of stay, and a less minor postoperative complications were observed. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is a safe and favorable alternative to the traditional approaches.

METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND: The complexity of human anatomical structures and the variability of vertebral body structures in patients with scoliosis pose challenges in pedicle screw placement during spinal deformity correction surgery. Through technological advancements, robots have been introduced in spinal surgery to assist with pedicle screw placement.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and CNKI databases and comparative studies assessing the accuracy and postoperative efficacy of pedicle screw placement using robotic assistance or freehand techniques in patients with scoliosis were included. The analysis evaluated the accuracy of screw placement, operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay, and complications.
RESULTS: Seven studies comprising 584 patients were included in the meta-analysis, with 282 patients (48.3%) in the robot-assisted group and 320 (51.7%) in the freehand group. Robot-assisted placement showed significantly better clinically acceptable screw placement results compared with freehand placement (odds ratio [OR]: 2.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.75-3.91, P < 0.0001). However, there were no statistically significant differences in achieving \"perfect\" screw placement between the two groups (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 0.95-2.46, P = 0.08). The robot-assisted group had longer operation durations (mean deviation [MD]: 43.64, 95% CI: 22.25-64.74, P < 0.0001) but shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD: - 1.12, 95% CI: - 2.15 to - 0.08, P = 0.03) than the freehand group. There were no significant differences in overall complication rates or intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. There was no significant difference in Cobb Angle between the two groups before and after operation.
CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted pedicle screw placement offers higher accuracy and shorter hospital stay than freehand placement in scoliosis surgery; although the robotics approach is associated with longer operative durations, similar complication rates and intraoperative blood loss.

UNASSIGNED: To assess feasibility, safety, and early efficacy of robotic-enhanced epicardial ablation (RE-EA) as first stage of a hybrid approach to patients with persistent (PsAF) and long-standing atrial fibrillation (LSAF).
UNASSIGNED: Single-center, retrospective analysis of patients with documented PsAF and LSAF who underwent RE-EA followed by catheter-guided endocardial ablation. Postoperatively, patients were monitored for major adverse events and underwent rhythm follow-up at 3 and 12 months.
UNASSIGNED: Between January 2021 and June 2023, we performed RE-EA in 64 patients (73.5% male, CHA2DS2-VASc 2.7 ± 1.6, BMI 34.1 ± 6.3 kg/m2). Mean AF preoperative duration and left atrial volume index were, respectively, 85 months and 47.5 mL/m2. Through the robotic approach, the intended lesion set was completed in all patients without cardiopulmonary bypass support, conversion to thoracotomy/sternotomy, blood transfusions, or perioperative mortality. The average LOS was 1.7 days, with only 1 patient requiring intensive care unit admission and >65% of patients discharged within 24 hours. At follow-up, 2 (3.1%) patients experienced new left pleural effusion or hemidiaphragm paralysis requiring treatment. There were no readmissions related to AF, stroke, thromboembolic events, or deaths. The mean interval between the epicardial and endocardial stages of the procedure was 5.9 months. Rhythm follow-up showed AF resolution in 73.4% and 71.9% of patients at 3 and 12 months, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: RE-EA is a feasible and safe, first-stage approach for the treatment of patients with PsAF and LSAF. It improves exposure of the intended targets, favors short hospital stay, and facilitates return to activity with satisfactory AF treatment in the short term.

Background: To investigate the perception of young European otolaryngologists (OTOs), i.e., head and neck surgeons, toward transoral robotic surgery (TORS). Methods: Members of the Young Confederation of European Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Young Otolaryngologists of International Federation of Otorhinolaryngological Societies were surveyed about TORS perception and practice. Results: The survey was completed by 120 young OTOS (26%). The most important barriers to TORS were robot availability (73%), cost (69%), and lack of training (37%). The participants believed that the main benefits include better surgical filed view (64%), shorter hospital stay (62%), and better postoperative outcomes (61%) than the conventional approach. Head and neck surgeons considered cT1-T2 oropharyngeal cancers (94%), resection of base of tongue for sleep apnea (86%), or primary unknown cancer (76%) as the most appropriate indications. A total of 67% of TORS surgeons assessed themselves as adequately trained in TORS. Conclusions: Young European OTOs report positive perception, adoption, and knowledge of TORS. The cost-related unavailability and the lack of training or access are reported to be the most important barriers for the spread of TORS.

This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to compare important clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes between robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RATHA) and conventional total hip arthroplasty (COTHA) in patients with hip osteoarthritis. We identified published RCTs comparing RATHA with COTHA in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently performed study screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Main outcomes were major complications, revision, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and radiological outcomes. We included 8 RCTs involving 1014 patients and 977 hips. There was no difference in major complication rate (Relative Risk (RR) 0.78; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.74), revision rate (RR 1.33; 95%CI 0.08 to 22.74), and PROMs (standardized mean difference 0.01; 95%CI - 0.27 to 0.30) between RATHA and COTHA. RATHA resulted in little to no effects on femoral stem alignment (mean difference (MD) - 0.57 degree; 95%CI - 1.16 to 0.03) but yielded overall lower leg length discrepancy (MD - 4.04 mm; 95%CI - 7.08 to - 1.0) compared to COTHA. Most combined estimates had low certainty of evidence mainly due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Based on the current evidence, there is no important difference in clinical and functional outcomes between RATHA and COTHA. The trivial higher radiological accuracy was also unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Regardless, more robust evidence is needed to improve the quality and strength of the current evidence.PROSPERO registration: the protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023453294). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.