Dataset Information

Management of recurrent ureteral stricture: a retrospectively comparative study with robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open approach.

ABSTRACT: Background:Management of recurrent ureteral stricture is challenging. Consensus on the best surgical choice has not been demonstrated. In this study, we aim to report our experience in treating recurrent ureteral stricture and demonstrate whether robot-assisted procedure for redo ureteral surgery is as effective as open procedure while remaining less invasive. Methods:We retrospectively assessed 41 patients (22 robot-assisted surgeries and 19 open surgeries) who underwent consecutive robot-assisted and open procedures for redo ureteral surgery from January 2014 to 2018 in our institution. Perioperative outcomes, including demographics, operative time, estimated blood loss, complications, pain scores, success rate and cost, were compared between two groups. Results:There was no significant intergroup difference in terms of age, body mass index, gender composition and American Society of Anesthesiologists scores. A total of 31 patients underwent redo pyeloplasty and ten underwent redo uretero-ureterostomy. Compared with open group, robot-assisted group showed shorter operative time (124.55 min vs. 185.11 min, p < 0.0001), less estimated blood loss (100.00 mL vs. 182.60 mL, p = 0.008) and higher cost (61161.77¥ vs. 39470.79¥, p < 0.0001). Complication rate and pain scores were similar between two groups. Median follow-up periods were 30 and 48 months for robot-assisted and open group respectively. Success rate in the robot-assisted (85.71%) and the open group (82.35%) was not significantly different. Conclusions:Robot-assisted surgery for recurrent stricture after previous ureteral reconstruction is as effective as open procedure and is associated with shorter operative time and less estimated blood loss.

SUBMITTER: Wang Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6898986 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:For esophageal cancer patients, radical esophagolymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of multimodality treatment with curative intent. Transthoracic esophagectomy is the preferred surgical approach worldwide allowing for en-bloc resection of the tumor with the surrounding lymph nodes. However, the percentage of cardiopulmonary complications associated with the transthoracic approach is high (50 to 70%).Recent studies have shown that robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy (RATE) is at least equivalent to the open transthoracic approach for esophageal cancer in terms of short-term oncological outcomes. RATE was accompanied with reduced blood loss, shorter ICU stay and improved lymph node retrieval compared with open esophagectomy, and the pulmonary complication rate, hospital stay and perioperative mortality were comparable. The objective is to evaluate the efficacy, risks, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of RATE as an alternative to open transthoracic esophagectomy for treatment of esophageal cancer.This is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven monocenter randomized controlled parallel-group, superiority trial. All adult patients (age ? 18 and ? 80 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal carcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 112) with resectable esophageal cancer are randomized in the outpatient department to either RATE (n = 56) or open three-stage transthoracic esophageal resection (n = 56). The primary outcome of this study is the percentage of overall complications (grade 2 and higher) as stated by the modified Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications.This is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RATE with open transthoracic esophagectomy as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal cancer. If our hypothesis is proven correct, RATE will result in a lower percentage of postoperative complications, lower blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, but with at least similar oncologic outcomes and better postoperative quality of life compared with open transthoracic esophagectomy. The study started in January 2012. Follow-up will be 5 years. Short-term results will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient.Dutch trial register: NTR3291 ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01544790.

Project description:BackgroundCompared to conventional laparoscopy, robot assisted surgery is expected to have most potential in difficult areas and demanding technical skills like minimally invasive suturing. This study was performed to identify the differences in the learning curves of laparoscopic versus robot assisted suturing.MethodNovice participants performed three suturing tasks on the EoSim laparoscopic augmented reality simulator or the RobotiX robot assisted virtual reality simulator. Each participant performed an intracorporeal suturing task, a tilted plane needle transfer task and an anastomosis needle transfer task. To complete the learning curve, all tasks were repeated up to twenty repetitions or until a time plateau was reached. Clinically relevant and comparable parameters regarding time, movements and safety were recorded. Intracorporeal suturing time and cumulative sum analysis was used to compare the learning curves and phases.ResultsSeventeen participants completed the learning curve laparoscopically and 30 robot assisted. Median first knot suturing time was 611 s (s) for laparoscopic versus 251 s for robot assisted (p < 0.001), and this was 324 s versus 165 (sixth knot, p < 0.001) and 257 s and 149 s (eleventh knot, p < 0.001) respectively on base of the found learning phases. The percentage of 'adequate surgical knots' was higher in the laparoscopic than in the robot assisted group. First knot: 71% versus 60%, sixth knot: 100% versus 83%, and eleventh knot: 100% versus 73%. When assessing the 'instrument out of view' parameter, the robot assisted group scored a median of 0% after repetition four. In the laparoscopic group, the instrument out of view increased from 3.1 to 3.9% (left) and from 3.0 to 4.1% (right) between the first and eleventh knot (p > 0.05).ConclusionThe learning curve of minimally invasive suturing shows a shorter task time curve using robotic assistance compared to the laparoscopic curve. However, laparoscopic outcomes show good end results with rapid outcome improvement.

Project description:Objective: We present the applications and experiences of robot-assisted laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery (RALTS) in pediatric surgery. Materials and Methods: A prospective, observational, and longitudinal study was conducted from March 2015 to March 2018 that involved a non-random sample of a pediatric population that was treated with RALTS. The parameters examined were: gender, age, weight, height, diagnoses, surgical technique, elapsed time of console surgery, estimated bleeding, need for hemotransfusion, complications, surgical conversions, postoperative hospital stay, and follow-up. The Clavien-Dindo classification of complications was used. The surgical system used was the da Vinci model, Si version (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA. U.S.A), with measures of central tendency. Results: In a 36-months period, 186 RALTS cases were performed, in 147 pediatric patients and an adult; 53.23% were male, and the remaining were female. The average age was 83 months, ranging from 3.5 to 204 months, plus one adult patient of 63 years. The stature was an average of 116.6 cm, with a range of 55-185 cm; the average weight was 26.9 kg, with a range of 5-102 kg; the smallest patient at 3.5 months was 55 cm in stature and weighed 5.5 kg. We performed 41 different surgical techniques, grouped in 4 areas: urological 91, gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary (GI-HB) 84, thoracic 6, and oncological 5. The console surgery time was 137.2 min on average, ranging from 10 to 780 min. Surgeon 1 performed 154 operations (82.8%), and the remainder were performed by Surgeon 2, with a conversion rate of 3.76%. The most commonly performed surgeries were: pyeloplasty, fundoplication, diaphragmatic plication, and removal of benign tumors, by area. Hemotransfusion was performed for 4.83%, and complications occurred in 2.68%. The average postoperative stay was 2.58 days, and the average follow-up was 23.5 months. The results of the 4 areas were analyzed in detail. Conclusion: RALTS is safe and effective in children. An enormous variety of surgeries can be safely performed, including complex hepatobiliary, and thoracic surgery in small children. There are few published prospective series describing RALTS in the pediatric population, and most only describe urological surgery. It is important to offer children the advantages and safety of minimal invasion with robotic assistance; however, this procedure has only been slowly accepted and utilized for children. It is possible to implement a robust program of pediatric robotic surgery where multiple procedures are performed.

Project description:IntroductionRobot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) offers potential cure for localised prostate cancer but is associated with considerable toxicity. Potency and urinary continence are improved when the neurovascular bundles (NVBs) are spared during a nerve spare (NS) RALP. There is reluctance, however, to perform NS RALP when there are concerns that the cancer extends beyond the capsule of the prostate into the NVB, as NS RALP in this instance increases the risk of a positive surgical margin (PSM). The NeuroSAFE technique involves intraoperative fresh-frozen section analysis of the posterolateral aspect of the prostate margin to assess whether cancer extends beyond the capsule. There is evidence from large observational studies that functional outcomes can be improved and PSM rates reduced when the NeuroSAFE technique is used during RALP. To date, however, there has been no randomised controlled trial (RCT) to substantiate this finding. The NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study is designed to assess whether it is feasible to randomise men to NeuroSAFE RALP versus a control arm of 'standard of practice' RALP.MethodsNeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study will be a multicentre, single-blinded RCT with patients randomised 1:1 to either NeuroSAFE RALP (intervention) or standard RALP (control). Treatment allocation will occur after trial entry and consent. The primary outcome will be assessed as the successful accrual of 50 men at three sites over 15 months. Secondary outcomes will be used to aid subsequent power calculations for the definitive full-scale RCT and will include rates of NS; PSM; biochemical recurrence; adjuvant treatments; and patient-reported functional outcomes on potency, continence and quality of life.Ethics and disseminationNeuroSAFE PROOF has ethical approval (Regional Ethics Committee reference 17/LO/1978). NeuroSAFE PROOF is supported by National Institute for Healthcare Research Research for Patient Benefit funding (NIHR reference PB-PG-1216-20013). Findings will be made available through peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberNCT03317990.

Dataset Information

Management of recurrent ureteral stricture: a retrospectively comparative study with robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus open approach.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets