Cirugía robótica en artroplastia de rodilla / Robotic surgery in knee arthroplasty

La cirugía protésica de rodilla es un procedimiento ampliamente aceptado como etapa final del tratamiento de la artrosis de rodilla, con sobrevida que supera el 90% a 10­15 años. Dentro de las principales causas de fallo, se encuentran la infección (20,4%) y el aflojamiento mecánico (20,3%). El uso de ayudas tecnológicas en cirugía está en constante desarrollo, con el objetivo de mejorar la precisión del acto quirúrgico. En ese escenario, la Cirugía Asistida por Computador (CAS) en artroplastia de rodilla, crece de forma exponencial, y apunta a mejorar el posicionamiento y selección del tamaño de los componentes protésicos, aumentar la precisión de las resecciones óseas y mejorar el balance de los tejidos blandos, logrando así una mayor sobrevida del implante. En comparación a las técnicas convencionales, la cirugía robótica ha mostrado mejores resultados funcionales, al primer año de seguimiento, en términos de rango articular, menor dolor post-operatorio y menor tiempo de estadía hospitalaria. Pero todavía es necesario establecer si, a largo plazo, esas diferencias funcionales se traducirán en mejores resultados clínicos que permitan, de forma consistente, inclinar la balanza en favor de la técnica asistida por robot por sobre las técnicas tradicionales.

Prosthetic knee surgery is a widely accepted procedure as the final stage in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, with survival rate over 90% at 10 - 15 years. Among the main causes of failure are infection (20.4%) and mechanical loosening (20.3%). The use of technological aids in surgery is in constant development, with the aim of improving the accuracy of the surgical act. In this scenario, Computer-Aided Surgery (CAS) in knee arthroplasty grows exponentially, and aims to improve the positioning and selection of the size of the prosthetic components, increase the accuracy of bone resections and improve the balance of soft tissues, thus achieving a greater survival of the implant. Compared to conventional techniques, robotic surgery has shown better functional results at the first year of follow-up, in terms of joint range, less post-operative pain and shorter hospital stay. It is still necessary to establish whether, in the long term, these functional differences will result in better clinical results that will allow - in a consistent manner - to tip the balance in favor of robot-assisted technique over traditional techniques.

Introduction of robotic surgery for endometrial cancer into a Brazilian cancer service: a randomized trial evaluating perioperative clinical outcomes and costs

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome and costs after the implementation of robotic surgery in the treatment of endometrial cancer, compared to the traditional laparoscopic approach. METHODS: In this prospective randomized study from 2015 to 2017, eighty-nine patients with endometrial carcinoma that was clinically restricted to the uterus were randomized in robotic surgery (44 cases) and traditional laparoscopic surgery (45 cases). We compared the number of retrieved lymph nodes, total time of surgery, time of each surgical step, blood loss, length of hospital stay, major and minor complications, conversion rates and costs. RESULTS: The ages of the patients ranged from 47 to 69 years. The median body mass index was 31.1 (21.4-54.2) in the robotic surgery arm and 31.6 (22.9-58.6) in the traditional laparoscopic arm. The median tumor sizes were 4.0 (1.5-10.0) cm and 4.0 (0.0-9.0) cm in the robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgery groups, respectively. The median total numbers of lymph nodes retrieved were 19 (3-61) and 20 (4-34) in the robotic and traditional laparoscopic surgery arms, respectively. The median total duration of the whole procedure was 319.5 (170-520) minutes in the robotic surgery arm and 248 (85-465) minutes in the traditional laparoscopic arm. Eight major complications were registered in each group. The total cost was 41% higher for robotic surgery than for traditional laparoscopic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer presented equivalent perioperative morbidity to that of traditional laparoscopic surgery. The duration and total cost of robotic surgery were higher than those of traditional laparoscopic surgery.

The Role of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Overcoming Technical Challenges in Laparoscopic Surgery by Advanced Techniques

The conventional laparoscopic approach to rectal surgery has several limitations, and therefore many colorectal surgeons have great expectations for the robotic surgical system as an alternative modality in overcoming challenges of laparoscopic surgery and thus enhancing oncologic and functional outcomes. This review explores the possibility of robotic surgery as an alternative approach in laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. The da Vinci(R) Surgical System was developed specifically to compensate for the technical limitations of laparoscopic instruments in rectal surgery. The robotic rectal surgery is associated with comparable or better oncologic and pathologic outcomes, as well as low morbidity and mortality. The robotic surgery is generally easier to learn than laparoscopic surgery, improving the probability of autonomic nerve preservation and genitourinary function recovery. Furthermore, in very complex procedures such as intersphincteric dissections and transabdominal transections of the levator muscle, the robotic approach is associated with increased performance and safety compared to laparoscopic surgery. The robotic surgery for rectal cancer is an advanced technique that may resolve the issues associated with laparoscopic surgery. However, high cost of robotic surgery must be addressed before it can become the new standard treatment.