Objective To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence. Methods Data on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of robotic surgery were collected in seven electronic databases from the inception to July 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. A systematic review was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the outcome of interest. Results Thirty-one CUAs of robotic surgery were eligible. Overall, the identified CUAs were fair to high quality, and 63% of the CUAs ranked the cost-utility of robotic surgery as “favored,” 32% categorized as “reject,” and the remaining 5% ranked as “unclear.” Although a high heterogeneity was present in terms of the study design among the included CUAs, most studies (81.25%) consistently found that robotic surgery was more cost-utility than open surgery for prostatectomy (ICER: $6905.31/QALY to $26240.75/QALY; time horizon: 10 years or lifetime), colectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), knee arthroplasty (ICER: $1134.22/QALY to $1232.27/QALY; time horizon: lifetime), gastrectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), spine surgery (ICER: $17707.27/QALY; time horizon: 1 year), and cystectomy (ICER: $3154.46/QALY; time horizon: 3 months). However, inconsistent evidence was found for the cost-utility of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Conclusions Fair or high-quality evidence indicated that robotic surgery is more cost-utility than open surgery, while it remains inconclusive whether robotic surgery is more cost-utility than laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Thus, an additional evaluation is required.

Minimally invasive surgery includes traditional laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery. Although many studies related to robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery have been published, when doing our search, scientometric studies that focus on related robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery were limited. In this study, we aimed to analyze and review the research hots and research status of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery. We searched publications that involved robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery in the Web of Science database from 1980 to May 23, 2020. The top 100 publications were published in 2012 with the number of 17 and citations ranged from 618 to 64. Published across 34 different journals, namely European urology (n = 17) and others, the greatest contribution among 36 institutes was made by the Cleveland Clinic (n = 11). Of the top 100 publications, a total of 429 unique words were identified and the most frequently occurring keyword was laparoscopy (n = 33). The co-occurrence of keywords in the top 100 publications indicated that the study of diseases mainly focused on prostatectomy, complications, prostate cancer, retropubic prostatectomy, nephron-sparing surgery, lymph-node dissection, total mesenteric excision, sexual function, rectal cancer, and assisted distal gastrectomy. In recent years, comparative research on robot and laparoscopic surgery has decreased and most studies focus on cancer. (C) 2020 Asian Surgical Association and Taiwan Robotic Surgery Association. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.

INTRODUCTION: The use of video games has been proposed as an alternative to shorten the learning curve of basic laparoscopic skills. However, it is not yet clar how useful this practice is. METHODS: We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We identified three systematic reviews including eight primary studies, of which four were randomized trials. We concluded video games training could help shorten the learning curve of basic laparoscopic visuospatial skills measured in a virtual platform, but the certainty of the available evidence is low.

AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the surgical safety and clinical effectiveness of RH versus LH and laparotomy for cervical cancer. METHODS: We searched Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, and the Cochrane library through May 2015, and checked references of relevant studies. We selected the comparative studies reported the surgical safety (overall; peri-operative; and post-operative complications; death within 30 days; and specific morbidities), and clinical effectiveness (survival; recurrence; length of stay [LOS]; estimated blood loss [EBL]; operative time [OT]) and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Fifteen studies comparing RH with OH and 11 comparing RH with LH were identified. No significant differences were found in survival outcomes. The LOS was shorter and transfusion rate was lower with RH compared to OH or LH. EBL was significantly reduced with RH compared to OH. Compared to OH, overall complications, urinary infection, wound infection, and fever were significantly less frequent with RH. The overall, peri-operative, and post-operative complications were similar in other comparisons. Several patient-reported outcomes were improved with RH, though each outcome was reported in only one study. CONCLUSIONS: RH appears to have a positive effect in reducing overall complications, individual adverse events including wound infection, fever, urinary tract infection, transfusion, LOS, EBL, and time to diet than OH for cervical cancer patients. Compared to LH, the current evidence is not enough to clearly determine its clinical safety and effectiveness. Further rigorous prospective studies with long-term follow-up that overcome the many limitations of the current evidence are needed.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a prominent form of cancer diagnosed in men living in developed countries, for which radical prostatectomy is a common frontline treatment. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) is more effective in the treatment of localised prostate cancer, compared to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). METHODS: An electronic search of Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) was performed up until December 2014. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that offered a direct comparison of laparoscopic and robotic techniques were eligible for inclusion in this review. RESULTS: A total of 93 articles were identified through the literature search, of which 2 were included in this review. Meta-analysis of 2 studies identified a significantly higher rate of return of erectile function in the RALP group (relative risk (RR) 1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19, 1.92). A similar effect was observed with return to continence function (RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04, 1.24). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review offers the first evaluation of evidence from RCTs with respect to the effectiveness of RALP and LRP in the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Preliminary results suggest that RALP was more efficient at preserving the erectile function and continence in comparison to LRP. (c) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel

AIM: To verify the utility of fluorescent cholangiography for more rigorous identification of the extrahepatic biliary system. METHODS: MEDLINE and PubMed searches were performed using the key words 'fluorescent cholangiography', 'fluorescent angiography', 'intraoperative fluorescent imaging', and 'laparoscopic cholecystectomy' in order to identify relevant articles published in English, French, German, and Italian during the years of 2009 to 2014. Reference lists from the articles were reviewed to identify additional pertinent articles. For studies published in languages other than those mentioned above, all available information was collected from their English abstracts. Retrieved manuscripts (case reports, reviews, and abstracts) concerning the application of fluorescent cholangiography were reviewed by the authors, and the data were extracted using a standardized collection tool. Data were subsequently analyzed with descriptive statistics. In contrast to classic meta-analyses, statistical analysis was performed where the outcome was calculated as the percentages of an event (without comparison) in pseudo-cohorts of observed patients. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were found that involved fluorescent cholangiography during standard laparoscopic cholecystectomies (n = 11), single-incision robotic cholecystectomies (n = 3), multiport robotic cholecystectomy (n = 1), and single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n = 1). Overall, these preliminary studies indicated that this novel technique was highly sensitive for the detection of important biliary anatomy and could facilitate the prevention of bile duct injuries. The structures effectively identified before dis of Calot's triangle included the cystic duct (CD), the common hepatic duct (CHD), the common bile duct (CBD), and the CD-CHD junction. A review of the literature revealed that the frequencies of detection of the extrahepatic biliary system ranged from 71.4% to 100% for the CD, 33.3% to 100% for the CHD, 50% to 100% for the CBD, and 25% to 100% for the CD-CHD junction. However, the frequency of visualization of the CD and the CBD were reduced in patients with a body mass index > 35 kg/m(2) relative to those with a body mass index < 35 kg/m(2) (91.0% and 64.0% vs 92.3% and 71.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Fluorescent cholangiography is a safe procedure enabling real-time visualization of bile duct anatomy and may become standard practice to prevent bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy