Robotic Surgery

The conversion rate from minimally invasive to open surgery for liver resection has been known to be high, but researchers from the University of Illinois, Chicago, have reported that conversion rates are considerably lower in robot-assisted liver resections, which may ultimately improve survival and complication rates.

Master Video/Shutterstock

Their study, published in the International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, found that the overall conversion rate of robot-assisted to open surgery for liver resection was 4.4%, considerably lower than that for the pure laparoscopic approach. “The robotic assist could potentially help in decreasing the conversion rate,” said Federico Gheza, MD, and his coauthors. They claimed that this is the first paper to focus on reasons for conversion from robot-assisted liver resection to open surgery.

The study findings are based on a systematic review of 29 series of 1,091 patients who had robot-assisted liver resection, including Dr. Gheza’s and his coauthors’ own series of 139 patients who had the operation from 2007 to 2017. The series were published from 2009 to 2017.

Dr. Gheza’s and his coauthors’ series had a conversion rate of 7.9%. When their results were included with those of the previously published studies, the conversion rate was 4.8%.

Dr. Gheza and his coauthors noted that the conversion rate for minimally invasive hepatic operations is one of the highest among all types of laparoscopic operations, with rates reported as high as 23% in published series (Ann Surg. 2016;263:761-77). “More importantly, preliminary database analysis and large series review suggested an association between conversion and higher morbidity and mortality,” the study noted.

The purpose of the systematic review was to better understand reasons for conversion from robotic to open in liver resections, Dr. Gheza and his coauthors said. They noted a study of 2,861 laparoscopic resections reported that more than one-third of patients were converted for bleeding, and almost one-fifth (18.9%) for peritoneal adhesions (Ann Surg. 2017;268:1051-7). “In the whole literature on hepatic robotic surgery, no conversion due to adhesion was reported,” Dr. Gheza and his coauthors said.

A subanalysis of nine series that included both robotic (360 patients) and laparoscopic (462 patients) surgeries found conversion rates of 2.5% vs. 8%, respectively (P less than .01).

Dr. Gheza and his coauthors called for a prospective trial to further define the impact of robotic surgery on conversions, but the clinical implications of conversions to open surgery in minimally invasive hepatic surgery remain unclear.

Dr. Gheza disclosed relationships with Medtronic. Coauthor P. C. Giulianotti, MD, reported financial relationships with Intuitive, Covidien/Medtronic and Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson. The other coauthors had no relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Gheza F et al. Intl J Med Robotics Comp Assisted Surg. 2018; doi:10.1002/rcs.1976.

The conversion rate from minimally invasive to open surgery for liver resection has been known to be high, but researchers from the University of Illinois, Chicago, have reported that conversion rates are considerably lower in robot-assisted liver resections, which may ultimately improve survival and complication rates.

Master Video/Shutterstock

Their study, published in the International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, found that the overall conversion rate of robot-assisted to open surgery for liver resection was 4.4%, considerably lower than that for the pure laparoscopic approach. “The robotic assist could potentially help in decreasing the conversion rate,” said Federico Gheza, MD, and his coauthors. They claimed that this is the first paper to focus on reasons for conversion from robot-assisted liver resection to open surgery.

The study findings are based on a systematic review of 29 series of 1,091 patients who had robot-assisted liver resection, including Dr. Gheza’s and his coauthors’ own series of 139 patients who had the operation from 2007 to 2017. The series were published from 2009 to 2017.

Dr. Gheza’s and his coauthors’ series had a conversion rate of 7.9%. When their results were included with those of the previously published studies, the conversion rate was 4.8%.

Dr. Gheza and his coauthors noted that the conversion rate for minimally invasive hepatic operations is one of the highest among all types of laparoscopic operations, with rates reported as high as 23% in published series (Ann Surg. 2016;263:761-77). “More importantly, preliminary database analysis and large series review suggested an association between conversion and higher morbidity and mortality,” the study noted.

The purpose of the systematic review was to better understand reasons for conversion from robotic to open in liver resections, Dr. Gheza and his coauthors said. They noted a study of 2,861 laparoscopic resections reported that more than one-third of patients were converted for bleeding, and almost one-fifth (18.9%) for peritoneal adhesions (Ann Surg. 2017;268:1051-7). “In the whole literature on hepatic robotic surgery, no conversion due to adhesion was reported,” Dr. Gheza and his coauthors said.

A subanalysis of nine series that included both robotic (360 patients) and laparoscopic (462 patients) surgeries found conversion rates of 2.5% vs. 8%, respectively (P less than .01).

Dr. Gheza and his coauthors called for a prospective trial to further define the impact of robotic surgery on conversions, but the clinical implications of conversions to open surgery in minimally invasive hepatic surgery remain unclear.

Dr. Gheza disclosed relationships with Medtronic. Coauthor P. C. Giulianotti, MD, reported financial relationships with Intuitive, Covidien/Medtronic and Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson. The other coauthors had no relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Gheza F et al. Intl J Med Robotics Comp Assisted Surg. 2018; doi:10.1002/rcs.1976.

The conversion rate from minimally invasive to open surgery for liver resection has been known to be high, but researchers from the University of Illinois, Chicago, have reported that conversion rates are considerably lower in robot-assisted liver resections, which may ultimately improve survival and complication rates.

Master Video/Shutterstock

Their study, published in the International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, found that the overall conversion rate of robot-assisted to open surgery for liver resection was 4.4%, considerably lower than that for the pure laparoscopic approach. “The robotic assist could potentially help in decreasing the conversion rate,” said Federico Gheza, MD, and his coauthors. They claimed that this is the first paper to focus on reasons for conversion from robot-assisted liver resection to open surgery.

The study findings are based on a systematic review of 29 series of 1,091 patients who had robot-assisted liver resection, including Dr. Gheza’s and his coauthors’ own series of 139 patients who had the operation from 2007 to 2017. The series were published from 2009 to 2017.

Dr. Gheza’s and his coauthors’ series had a conversion rate of 7.9%. When their results were included with those of the previously published studies, the conversion rate was 4.8%.

Dr. Gheza and his coauthors noted that the conversion rate for minimally invasive hepatic operations is one of the highest among all types of laparoscopic operations, with rates reported as high as 23% in published series (Ann Surg. 2016;263:761-77). “More importantly, preliminary database analysis and large series review suggested an association between conversion and higher morbidity and mortality,” the study noted.

The purpose of the systematic review was to better understand reasons for conversion from robotic to open in liver resections, Dr. Gheza and his coauthors said. They noted a study of 2,861 laparoscopic resections reported that more than one-third of patients were converted for bleeding, and almost one-fifth (18.9%) for peritoneal adhesions (Ann Surg. 2017;268:1051-7). “In the whole literature on hepatic robotic surgery, no conversion due to adhesion was reported,” Dr. Gheza and his coauthors said.

A subanalysis of nine series that included both robotic (360 patients) and laparoscopic (462 patients) surgeries found conversion rates of 2.5% vs. 8%, respectively (P less than .01).

Dr. Gheza and his coauthors called for a prospective trial to further define the impact of robotic surgery on conversions, but the clinical implications of conversions to open surgery in minimally invasive hepatic surgery remain unclear.

Dr. Gheza disclosed relationships with Medtronic. Coauthor P. C. Giulianotti, MD, reported financial relationships with Intuitive, Covidien/Medtronic and Ethicon/Johnson & Johnson. The other coauthors had no relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Gheza F et al. Intl J Med Robotics Comp Assisted Surg. 2018; doi:10.1002/rcs.1976.

The Sinai Robotic Surgery Trial in HPV Positive Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma trial is an interventional study recruiting patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)–positive oropharyngeal cancer.

Patients who are recruited will undergo robotic surgery after being screened for poor prognosis. Patients with good prognosis will be followed without receiving postoperative radiation. Those in this group who experience a recurrence will receive either more surgery and postoperative radiotherapy or postoperative chemoradiotherapy alone. Patients with poor prognosis will receive reduced-dose radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy based on pathology.

Few trials have examined deescalation using surgery alone in intermediate- and early-stage HPV-positive cancer, the investigators noted, adding that they expect more than half of participants will undergo curative treatment with surgery alone and that withholding radiation in these patients will not noticeably affect their long-term survival.

Patients are eligible for the study if they have early- or intermediate-stage, resectable, HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer. Patients must be at aged at least 18 years; cannot be pregnant; cannot have active alcohol addiction or tobacco usage; must have adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal functions; have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; have a limiting serious illness; and have had previous surgery, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma other than biopsy or tonsillectomy.

The primary outcome measures of the study are disease-free survival and local regional control after 3 and 5 years. Secondary outcome measures include overall survival, toxicity rates, quality of life outcomes after 3 and 5 years, and local regional control after 5 years.

Recruitment for the study ends in March 2019. About 200 people are expected to be included in the final analysis.

Find more information on the study page at Clinicaltrials.gov.

[email protected]

The Sinai Robotic Surgery Trial in HPV Positive Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma trial is an interventional study recruiting patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)–positive oropharyngeal cancer.

Patients who are recruited will undergo robotic surgery after being screened for poor prognosis. Patients with good prognosis will be followed without receiving postoperative radiation. Those in this group who experience a recurrence will receive either more surgery and postoperative radiotherapy or postoperative chemoradiotherapy alone. Patients with poor prognosis will receive reduced-dose radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy based on pathology.

Few trials have examined deescalation using surgery alone in intermediate- and early-stage HPV-positive cancer, the investigators noted, adding that they expect more than half of participants will undergo curative treatment with surgery alone and that withholding radiation in these patients will not noticeably affect their long-term survival.

Patients are eligible for the study if they have early- or intermediate-stage, resectable, HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer. Patients must be at aged at least 18 years; cannot be pregnant; cannot have active alcohol addiction or tobacco usage; must have adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal functions; have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; have a limiting serious illness; and have had previous surgery, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma other than biopsy or tonsillectomy.

The primary outcome measures of the study are disease-free survival and local regional control after 3 and 5 years. Secondary outcome measures include overall survival, toxicity rates, quality of life outcomes after 3 and 5 years, and local regional control after 5 years.

Recruitment for the study ends in March 2019. About 200 people are expected to be included in the final analysis.

Find more information on the study page at Clinicaltrials.gov.

[email protected]

The Sinai Robotic Surgery Trial in HPV Positive Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma trial is an interventional study recruiting patients with human papillomavirus (HPV)–positive oropharyngeal cancer.

Patients who are recruited will undergo robotic surgery after being screened for poor prognosis. Patients with good prognosis will be followed without receiving postoperative radiation. Those in this group who experience a recurrence will receive either more surgery and postoperative radiotherapy or postoperative chemoradiotherapy alone. Patients with poor prognosis will receive reduced-dose radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy based on pathology.

Few trials have examined deescalation using surgery alone in intermediate- and early-stage HPV-positive cancer, the investigators noted, adding that they expect more than half of participants will undergo curative treatment with surgery alone and that withholding radiation in these patients will not noticeably affect their long-term survival.

Patients are eligible for the study if they have early- or intermediate-stage, resectable, HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer. Patients must be at aged at least 18 years; cannot be pregnant; cannot have active alcohol addiction or tobacco usage; must have adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal functions; have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; have a limiting serious illness; and have had previous surgery, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma other than biopsy or tonsillectomy.

The primary outcome measures of the study are disease-free survival and local regional control after 3 and 5 years. Secondary outcome measures include overall survival, toxicity rates, quality of life outcomes after 3 and 5 years, and local regional control after 5 years.

Recruitment for the study ends in March 2019. About 200 people are expected to be included in the final analysis.

Find more information on the study page at Clinicaltrials.gov.

[email protected]

A group of expert robotic colorectal surgeons have published what they claim is the first European consensus on standards for total mesorectal excision (TME) and anterior resection in robotic rectal surgery in an effort to establish uniform training and education and improve outcomes for the robotic operations.

gorodenkoff/iStock/Getty Images

“The aim of this consensus study was to establish a detailed description of technical steps for robotic anterior resection and TME of the rectum as recommended by a representative group of established European expert surgeons,” wrote Danilo Miskovic, PhD, FRCS, of St. Mark’s Hospital in London, and his coauthors. The study, published in Colorectal Disease, provides a baseline for technical standards and structured training in robotic rectal surgery.

The consensus authors acted at the behest of the European Academy for Robotic Colorectal Surgery (EARCS), a nonprofit organization that provides training for robotic colorectal surgery. They cited evidence suggesting that the robotic approach to TME confers significant benefits in selected patients, compared with laparoscopic surgery (Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:570-7), but that the ROLARR trial found no benefit with robotic surgery (Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27:233-41).

“Notwithstanding the absence of evidence, robotic surgery continues to increase in popularity in many countries,” Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors wrote.

The consensus statement covers recommendations for the da Vinci Si and Xi robotic platforms in the following areas.

• Surgical setup, including patient positioning and port placement and docking.
• Colonic mobilization, including vascular pedicle dissection and splenic flexure mobilization.
• Pelvic dissection, including establishing operative planes and specimen extraction.

Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors arrived at the consensus statement by asking 24 EARCS faculty members to complete a 72-item questionnaire. The initial responses yielded an 87% agreement among the responses, but after suggested modifications, the average level of agreement for all items was 97%.

One of the limitations of the study that the investigators acknowledged is that it covers only two da Vinci robotic platforms; the recommendations may not apply to new robotic systems. Secondly, a selected group of experts provided input. “There may be other experienced surgeons who might disagree with some aspects of our recommendations,” the authors wrote. “This document should therefore be seen as a foundation for debate and modification in light of future technical developments.”

Future research should evaluate how training of technical standards within a group like EARCS impacts clinical outcomes, Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors noted.

The investigators had no financial relationships to report. Participating surgeons are members of the EARCS faculty and/or its scientific committee

SOURCE: Miskovic D et al. Colorectal Dis. 2018 Nov 29. doi: 10.1111/codi.14502.

A group of expert robotic colorectal surgeons have published what they claim is the first European consensus on standards for total mesorectal excision (TME) and anterior resection in robotic rectal surgery in an effort to establish uniform training and education and improve outcomes for the robotic operations.

gorodenkoff/iStock/Getty Images

“The aim of this consensus study was to establish a detailed description of technical steps for robotic anterior resection and TME of the rectum as recommended by a representative group of established European expert surgeons,” wrote Danilo Miskovic, PhD, FRCS, of St. Mark’s Hospital in London, and his coauthors. The study, published in Colorectal Disease, provides a baseline for technical standards and structured training in robotic rectal surgery.

The consensus authors acted at the behest of the European Academy for Robotic Colorectal Surgery (EARCS), a nonprofit organization that provides training for robotic colorectal surgery. They cited evidence suggesting that the robotic approach to TME confers significant benefits in selected patients, compared with laparoscopic surgery (Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:570-7), but that the ROLARR trial found no benefit with robotic surgery (Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27:233-41).

“Notwithstanding the absence of evidence, robotic surgery continues to increase in popularity in many countries,” Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors wrote.

The consensus statement covers recommendations for the da Vinci Si and Xi robotic platforms in the following areas.

• Surgical setup, including patient positioning and port placement and docking.
• Colonic mobilization, including vascular pedicle dissection and splenic flexure mobilization.
• Pelvic dissection, including establishing operative planes and specimen extraction.

Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors arrived at the consensus statement by asking 24 EARCS faculty members to complete a 72-item questionnaire. The initial responses yielded an 87% agreement among the responses, but after suggested modifications, the average level of agreement for all items was 97%.

One of the limitations of the study that the investigators acknowledged is that it covers only two da Vinci robotic platforms; the recommendations may not apply to new robotic systems. Secondly, a selected group of experts provided input. “There may be other experienced surgeons who might disagree with some aspects of our recommendations,” the authors wrote. “This document should therefore be seen as a foundation for debate and modification in light of future technical developments.”

Future research should evaluate how training of technical standards within a group like EARCS impacts clinical outcomes, Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors noted.

The investigators had no financial relationships to report. Participating surgeons are members of the EARCS faculty and/or its scientific committee

SOURCE: Miskovic D et al. Colorectal Dis. 2018 Nov 29. doi: 10.1111/codi.14502.

A group of expert robotic colorectal surgeons have published what they claim is the first European consensus on standards for total mesorectal excision (TME) and anterior resection in robotic rectal surgery in an effort to establish uniform training and education and improve outcomes for the robotic operations.

gorodenkoff/iStock/Getty Images

“The aim of this consensus study was to establish a detailed description of technical steps for robotic anterior resection and TME of the rectum as recommended by a representative group of established European expert surgeons,” wrote Danilo Miskovic, PhD, FRCS, of St. Mark’s Hospital in London, and his coauthors. The study, published in Colorectal Disease, provides a baseline for technical standards and structured training in robotic rectal surgery.

The consensus authors acted at the behest of the European Academy for Robotic Colorectal Surgery (EARCS), a nonprofit organization that provides training for robotic colorectal surgery. They cited evidence suggesting that the robotic approach to TME confers significant benefits in selected patients, compared with laparoscopic surgery (Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:570-7), but that the ROLARR trial found no benefit with robotic surgery (Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012;27:233-41).

“Notwithstanding the absence of evidence, robotic surgery continues to increase in popularity in many countries,” Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors wrote.

The consensus statement covers recommendations for the da Vinci Si and Xi robotic platforms in the following areas.

• Surgical setup, including patient positioning and port placement and docking.
• Colonic mobilization, including vascular pedicle dissection and splenic flexure mobilization.
• Pelvic dissection, including establishing operative planes and specimen extraction.

Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors arrived at the consensus statement by asking 24 EARCS faculty members to complete a 72-item questionnaire. The initial responses yielded an 87% agreement among the responses, but after suggested modifications, the average level of agreement for all items was 97%.

One of the limitations of the study that the investigators acknowledged is that it covers only two da Vinci robotic platforms; the recommendations may not apply to new robotic systems. Secondly, a selected group of experts provided input. “There may be other experienced surgeons who might disagree with some aspects of our recommendations,” the authors wrote. “This document should therefore be seen as a foundation for debate and modification in light of future technical developments.”

Future research should evaluate how training of technical standards within a group like EARCS impacts clinical outcomes, Dr. Miskovic and his coauthors noted.

The investigators had no financial relationships to report. Participating surgeons are members of the EARCS faculty and/or its scientific committee

SOURCE: Miskovic D et al. Colorectal Dis. 2018 Nov 29. doi: 10.1111/codi.14502.

The Robotic or Open Radical Cystectomy in Treating Patients With Bladder Cancer trial is an interventional, randomized, phase 2 study recruiting patients with bladder cancer.

Patients who are recruited will undergo either open or robotic radical cystectomy. In open radical cystectomy, the surgeon cuts into the lower abdomen to expose the urinary tract in order to remove the bladder. In robotic radical cystectomy, small cuts are made in the abdomen into which a scope is inserted; with robotic help, the surgeon removes the bladder. It is currently unknown which approach results in fewer complications, better quality of life, and faster recovery time.

Patients are eligible for the study if they are indicated for radical cystectomy, have Tis-T3 urothelial cancer, and meet surgical candidate criteria. Exclusion factors include having a bulky lymphadenopathy, prior pelvic radiation, or uncontrolled coagulopathy.

The primary outcome measure is change in patient-reported quality of life, as reported using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-QLQ-C30, 1 month post surgery. The secondary outcome measure is change in erectile dysfunction, as measured by the Sexual Health Inventory For Men score, over a follow-up of up to 12 months.

Recruitment ends on Oct. 12, 2019, and the estimated study completion date is Oct. 12, 2020. About 208 participants are expected to be included.

Find more information on the study page at Clinicaltrials.gov.

[email protected]

The Robotic or Open Radical Cystectomy in Treating Patients With Bladder Cancer trial is an interventional, randomized, phase 2 study recruiting patients with bladder cancer.

Patients who are recruited will undergo either open or robotic radical cystectomy. In open radical cystectomy, the surgeon cuts into the lower abdomen to expose the urinary tract in order to remove the bladder. In robotic radical cystectomy, small cuts are made in the abdomen into which a scope is inserted; with robotic help, the surgeon removes the bladder. It is currently unknown which approach results in fewer complications, better quality of life, and faster recovery time.

Patients are eligible for the study if they are indicated for radical cystectomy, have Tis-T3 urothelial cancer, and meet surgical candidate criteria. Exclusion factors include having a bulky lymphadenopathy, prior pelvic radiation, or uncontrolled coagulopathy.

The primary outcome measure is change in patient-reported quality of life, as reported using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-QLQ-C30, 1 month post surgery. The secondary outcome measure is change in erectile dysfunction, as measured by the Sexual Health Inventory For Men score, over a follow-up of up to 12 months.

Recruitment ends on Oct. 12, 2019, and the estimated study completion date is Oct. 12, 2020. About 208 participants are expected to be included.

Find more information on the study page at Clinicaltrials.gov.

[email protected]

The Robotic or Open Radical Cystectomy in Treating Patients With Bladder Cancer trial is an interventional, randomized, phase 2 study recruiting patients with bladder cancer.

Patients who are recruited will undergo either open or robotic radical cystectomy. In open radical cystectomy, the surgeon cuts into the lower abdomen to expose the urinary tract in order to remove the bladder. In robotic radical cystectomy, small cuts are made in the abdomen into which a scope is inserted; with robotic help, the surgeon removes the bladder. It is currently unknown which approach results in fewer complications, better quality of life, and faster recovery time.

Patients are eligible for the study if they are indicated for radical cystectomy, have Tis-T3 urothelial cancer, and meet surgical candidate criteria. Exclusion factors include having a bulky lymphadenopathy, prior pelvic radiation, or uncontrolled coagulopathy.

The primary outcome measure is change in patient-reported quality of life, as reported using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-QLQ-C30, 1 month post surgery. The secondary outcome measure is change in erectile dysfunction, as measured by the Sexual Health Inventory For Men score, over a follow-up of up to 12 months.

Recruitment ends on Oct. 12, 2019, and the estimated study completion date is Oct. 12, 2020. About 208 participants are expected to be included.

Find more information on the study page at Clinicaltrials.gov.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – It would be nice if surgeons could know beforehand how long robotic laparoscopic myomectomies will take, according to Peter Movilla, MD, a minimally invasive gynecologic surgery fellow at Newton (Mass.) Wellesley Hospital.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Best guesses are sometimes wrong, and it’s not uncommon for robotic cases to go longer than expected, especially when they have to be converted to an open approach.

Among other problems, going long backs up operating room (OR)scheduling and makes families impatient. Also, if it was known beforehand that a robotic case might take 5 hours, patients could be offered a quicker open procedure, especially if they are not good candidates for prolonged pneumoperitoneum.

After a case went past 6 hours at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), when Dr. Movilla was an ob.gyn. resident, he wanted to find a better way.

“I saw that we were not the best at guessing how long these surgeries were going to take, and thought maybe we could make prediction a little better by [incorporating] preoperative factors” in a structured way. “I wanted to create something that would give us an answer of how long it will take,” he said at a meeting sponsored by AAGL.

So he and his colleagues reviewed 126 robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomies at UCSF. The mean operative time from skin incision to closure was 213 minutes, mean specimen weight 264.4 g, mean dominant fibroid diameter 8.5 cm, and mean number of fibroids removed 2.5. Four cases (3%) were converted to open laparotomy.

The team divided the cases by how long they took; 20% were under 3 hours, 70% took 3-5 hours; and 10% went over 5 hours. “Five hours is a long time to be in the OR,” especially when a case could have been done open, Dr. Movilla said.

Length of surgery correlated with 7 of the 21 preoperative factors considered on multivariate logistic regression. Cases tended to be longer in younger women and in women with diabetes, and when surgeons had less experience. There was a trend toward longer cases with higher body mass indices, but it was not statistically significant.

Having three or more fibroids on preoperative imaging and a larger number of fibroids over 3 cm were predictive of operations longer than 3 hours. However, the strongest predictors of long cases were uterine volume and the diameter of the largest fibroid, a mean of 532.4 cm³ and 8.8 cm, respectively, in cases over 5 hours. Posterior and intramural fibroids also increased operative time, but, again, the trends were not statistically significant.

The team put it all together in a risk calculator they tested against their subjects’ actual surgery times. The model tended to underestimate very short and very long cases at either end of the curve, but overall the fit was “not too bad,” and the more cases that are added to the model, the more accurate it will get, Dr. Movilla said.

There was no external funding for the work, and Dr. Movilla had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Movilla P et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 69.

LAS VEGAS – It would be nice if surgeons could know beforehand how long robotic laparoscopic myomectomies will take, according to Peter Movilla, MD, a minimally invasive gynecologic surgery fellow at Newton (Mass.) Wellesley Hospital.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Best guesses are sometimes wrong, and it’s not uncommon for robotic cases to go longer than expected, especially when they have to be converted to an open approach.

Among other problems, going long backs up operating room (OR)scheduling and makes families impatient. Also, if it was known beforehand that a robotic case might take 5 hours, patients could be offered a quicker open procedure, especially if they are not good candidates for prolonged pneumoperitoneum.

After a case went past 6 hours at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), when Dr. Movilla was an ob.gyn. resident, he wanted to find a better way.

“I saw that we were not the best at guessing how long these surgeries were going to take, and thought maybe we could make prediction a little better by [incorporating] preoperative factors” in a structured way. “I wanted to create something that would give us an answer of how long it will take,” he said at a meeting sponsored by AAGL.

So he and his colleagues reviewed 126 robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomies at UCSF. The mean operative time from skin incision to closure was 213 minutes, mean specimen weight 264.4 g, mean dominant fibroid diameter 8.5 cm, and mean number of fibroids removed 2.5. Four cases (3%) were converted to open laparotomy.

The team divided the cases by how long they took; 20% were under 3 hours, 70% took 3-5 hours; and 10% went over 5 hours. “Five hours is a long time to be in the OR,” especially when a case could have been done open, Dr. Movilla said.

Length of surgery correlated with 7 of the 21 preoperative factors considered on multivariate logistic regression. Cases tended to be longer in younger women and in women with diabetes, and when surgeons had less experience. There was a trend toward longer cases with higher body mass indices, but it was not statistically significant.

Having three or more fibroids on preoperative imaging and a larger number of fibroids over 3 cm were predictive of operations longer than 3 hours. However, the strongest predictors of long cases were uterine volume and the diameter of the largest fibroid, a mean of 532.4 cm³ and 8.8 cm, respectively, in cases over 5 hours. Posterior and intramural fibroids also increased operative time, but, again, the trends were not statistically significant.

The team put it all together in a risk calculator they tested against their subjects’ actual surgery times. The model tended to underestimate very short and very long cases at either end of the curve, but overall the fit was “not too bad,” and the more cases that are added to the model, the more accurate it will get, Dr. Movilla said.

There was no external funding for the work, and Dr. Movilla had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Movilla P et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 69.

LAS VEGAS – It would be nice if surgeons could know beforehand how long robotic laparoscopic myomectomies will take, according to Peter Movilla, MD, a minimally invasive gynecologic surgery fellow at Newton (Mass.) Wellesley Hospital.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Best guesses are sometimes wrong, and it’s not uncommon for robotic cases to go longer than expected, especially when they have to be converted to an open approach.

Among other problems, going long backs up operating room (OR)scheduling and makes families impatient. Also, if it was known beforehand that a robotic case might take 5 hours, patients could be offered a quicker open procedure, especially if they are not good candidates for prolonged pneumoperitoneum.

After a case went past 6 hours at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), when Dr. Movilla was an ob.gyn. resident, he wanted to find a better way.

“I saw that we were not the best at guessing how long these surgeries were going to take, and thought maybe we could make prediction a little better by [incorporating] preoperative factors” in a structured way. “I wanted to create something that would give us an answer of how long it will take,” he said at a meeting sponsored by AAGL.

So he and his colleagues reviewed 126 robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomies at UCSF. The mean operative time from skin incision to closure was 213 minutes, mean specimen weight 264.4 g, mean dominant fibroid diameter 8.5 cm, and mean number of fibroids removed 2.5. Four cases (3%) were converted to open laparotomy.

The team divided the cases by how long they took; 20% were under 3 hours, 70% took 3-5 hours; and 10% went over 5 hours. “Five hours is a long time to be in the OR,” especially when a case could have been done open, Dr. Movilla said.

Length of surgery correlated with 7 of the 21 preoperative factors considered on multivariate logistic regression. Cases tended to be longer in younger women and in women with diabetes, and when surgeons had less experience. There was a trend toward longer cases with higher body mass indices, but it was not statistically significant.

Having three or more fibroids on preoperative imaging and a larger number of fibroids over 3 cm were predictive of operations longer than 3 hours. However, the strongest predictors of long cases were uterine volume and the diameter of the largest fibroid, a mean of 532.4 cm³ and 8.8 cm, respectively, in cases over 5 hours. Posterior and intramural fibroids also increased operative time, but, again, the trends were not statistically significant.

The team put it all together in a risk calculator they tested against their subjects’ actual surgery times. The model tended to underestimate very short and very long cases at either end of the curve, but overall the fit was “not too bad,” and the more cases that are added to the model, the more accurate it will get, Dr. Movilla said.

There was no external funding for the work, and Dr. Movilla had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Movilla P et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 69.

Robot-assisted rectal surgery is gaining acceptance but, with some exceptions, outcomes are not significantly improved over the conventional laparoscopic approach, a meta-analysis has found.

Nimur/Wikimedia Commons

Conducted by Katie Jones, MD, and her colleagues at Brighton and Sussex (England) University Hospital NHS Trust, the meta-analysis was designed as a follow-up to ROLARR (isrctn.org ID: ISRCTN80500123), a randomized clinical trial in which robot-assisted and. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were studied for risk of conversion to open surgery. That trial findings showed that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion. For other outcomes (pathology, complications, bladder, and sexual function), the differences between the two approaches were insignificant. But the two surgical approaches did differ on cost: The robot-assisted operation was significantly more expensive than the conventional laparoscopic procedure.

Dr. Jones and her colleagues analyzed data from ROLARR in the context of 27 other qualifying studies and confirmed many of the ROLARR findings. The 27 case control studies comprised 5,547 patients and had comparable outcomes data.

The outcomes of interest were duration of operation, conversion risk, blood loss, length of stay, oncological outcomes, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, postoperative morbidity, and postoperative mortality.

The investigators found that duration of the operation was longer for the robot-assisted procedure, compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach, though this difference was not statistically significant (z = 1.28, P = .20), and blood loss, morbidity, and mortality were similar between the two groups. Oncological outcomes (risk of positive circumferential resection margins, lymph node yield, and length of distal resection margins) were similar for these two surgical approaches.

In contrast to the ROLARR findings, this meta-analysis found that the risk of conversion favored the robot-assisted procedure (z = 5.51, P = .00001). Hospital stay (z = 2.46, P = 01) and time to first flatus outcomes (z = 3.09, P = .002) favored the robot-assisted procedure. Postop morbidity and mortality and reoperation rate were similar in the two groups.

“Based upon the findings of this largest-ever series on the role of robotic surgery in rectal cancer resection, the [robot-assisted procedure] is certainly a feasible technique and oncologically safe surgical intervention but failed to demonstrate any superiority over [the conventional laparoscopic approach] for many surgical outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Mere advantage of robotic surgery was noted in only three postoperative outcomes, that is early passage of flatus, lower risk of conversion, and shorter hospitalization.”

Dr. Jones and her colleagues declared they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jones K et al. World J Gastroentrol. 2018 Nov 15. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i11.449.

Robot-assisted rectal surgery is gaining acceptance but, with some exceptions, outcomes are not significantly improved over the conventional laparoscopic approach, a meta-analysis has found.

Nimur/Wikimedia Commons

Conducted by Katie Jones, MD, and her colleagues at Brighton and Sussex (England) University Hospital NHS Trust, the meta-analysis was designed as a follow-up to ROLARR (isrctn.org ID: ISRCTN80500123), a randomized clinical trial in which robot-assisted and. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were studied for risk of conversion to open surgery. That trial findings showed that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion. For other outcomes (pathology, complications, bladder, and sexual function), the differences between the two approaches were insignificant. But the two surgical approaches did differ on cost: The robot-assisted operation was significantly more expensive than the conventional laparoscopic procedure.

Dr. Jones and her colleagues analyzed data from ROLARR in the context of 27 other qualifying studies and confirmed many of the ROLARR findings. The 27 case control studies comprised 5,547 patients and had comparable outcomes data.

The outcomes of interest were duration of operation, conversion risk, blood loss, length of stay, oncological outcomes, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, postoperative morbidity, and postoperative mortality.

The investigators found that duration of the operation was longer for the robot-assisted procedure, compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach, though this difference was not statistically significant (z = 1.28, P = .20), and blood loss, morbidity, and mortality were similar between the two groups. Oncological outcomes (risk of positive circumferential resection margins, lymph node yield, and length of distal resection margins) were similar for these two surgical approaches.

In contrast to the ROLARR findings, this meta-analysis found that the risk of conversion favored the robot-assisted procedure (z = 5.51, P = .00001). Hospital stay (z = 2.46, P = 01) and time to first flatus outcomes (z = 3.09, P = .002) favored the robot-assisted procedure. Postop morbidity and mortality and reoperation rate were similar in the two groups.

“Based upon the findings of this largest-ever series on the role of robotic surgery in rectal cancer resection, the [robot-assisted procedure] is certainly a feasible technique and oncologically safe surgical intervention but failed to demonstrate any superiority over [the conventional laparoscopic approach] for many surgical outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Mere advantage of robotic surgery was noted in only three postoperative outcomes, that is early passage of flatus, lower risk of conversion, and shorter hospitalization.”

Dr. Jones and her colleagues declared they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jones K et al. World J Gastroentrol. 2018 Nov 15. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i11.449.

Robot-assisted rectal surgery is gaining acceptance but, with some exceptions, outcomes are not significantly improved over the conventional laparoscopic approach, a meta-analysis has found.

Nimur/Wikimedia Commons

Conducted by Katie Jones, MD, and her colleagues at Brighton and Sussex (England) University Hospital NHS Trust, the meta-analysis was designed as a follow-up to ROLARR (isrctn.org ID: ISRCTN80500123), a randomized clinical trial in which robot-assisted and. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were studied for risk of conversion to open surgery. That trial findings showed that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion. For other outcomes (pathology, complications, bladder, and sexual function), the differences between the two approaches were insignificant. But the two surgical approaches did differ on cost: The robot-assisted operation was significantly more expensive than the conventional laparoscopic procedure.

Dr. Jones and her colleagues analyzed data from ROLARR in the context of 27 other qualifying studies and confirmed many of the ROLARR findings. The 27 case control studies comprised 5,547 patients and had comparable outcomes data.

The outcomes of interest were duration of operation, conversion risk, blood loss, length of stay, oncological outcomes, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, postoperative morbidity, and postoperative mortality.

The investigators found that duration of the operation was longer for the robot-assisted procedure, compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach, though this difference was not statistically significant (z = 1.28, P = .20), and blood loss, morbidity, and mortality were similar between the two groups. Oncological outcomes (risk of positive circumferential resection margins, lymph node yield, and length of distal resection margins) were similar for these two surgical approaches.

In contrast to the ROLARR findings, this meta-analysis found that the risk of conversion favored the robot-assisted procedure (z = 5.51, P = .00001). Hospital stay (z = 2.46, P = 01) and time to first flatus outcomes (z = 3.09, P = .002) favored the robot-assisted procedure. Postop morbidity and mortality and reoperation rate were similar in the two groups.

“Based upon the findings of this largest-ever series on the role of robotic surgery in rectal cancer resection, the [robot-assisted procedure] is certainly a feasible technique and oncologically safe surgical intervention but failed to demonstrate any superiority over [the conventional laparoscopic approach] for many surgical outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “Mere advantage of robotic surgery was noted in only three postoperative outcomes, that is early passage of flatus, lower risk of conversion, and shorter hospitalization.”

Dr. Jones and her colleagues declared they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jones K et al. World J Gastroentrol. 2018 Nov 15. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v10.i11.449.

The Assessment of Ventilatory Management During General Anesthesia for Robotic Surgery trial is an observational, prospective cohort study of patients receiving mechanical ventilation during robotic surgery.

The trial will assess the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients who receive mechanical ventilation while under general anesthesia during robotic surgery to characterize current ventilation practices and evaluate any association between ventilator parameters and postoperative pulmonary complications.

Patients will be included if they are at least 18 years old and had their robotic surgical procedure done under general anesthesia. Exclusion criteria include being pregnant during surgery and having their procedure done outside an operating room.

The primary outcome measure is incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications within 5 days of the procedure or hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes include intraoperative mechanical ventilation practice, mechanical ventilation practice, and postoperative pulmonary complications within 5 days of the procedure or hospital discharge, intraoperative surgical positioning and ventilation, preoperative risk for postoperative pulmonary complications, and intraoperative mechanical ventilation practice and complications.

The estimated primary completion date is March 1, 2019, and the estimated study completion date is May 1, 2019. About 500 patients are estimated to be enrolled.

Find more information on the study at Clinicaltrials.gov.

[email protected]

The Assessment of Ventilatory Management During General Anesthesia for Robotic Surgery trial is an observational, prospective cohort study of patients receiving mechanical ventilation during robotic surgery.

The trial will assess the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients who receive mechanical ventilation while under general anesthesia during robotic surgery to characterize current ventilation practices and evaluate any association between ventilator parameters and postoperative pulmonary complications.

Patients will be included if they are at least 18 years old and had their robotic surgical procedure done under general anesthesia. Exclusion criteria include being pregnant during surgery and having their procedure done outside an operating room.

The primary outcome measure is incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications within 5 days of the procedure or hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes include intraoperative mechanical ventilation practice, mechanical ventilation practice, and postoperative pulmonary complications within 5 days of the procedure or hospital discharge, intraoperative surgical positioning and ventilation, preoperative risk for postoperative pulmonary complications, and intraoperative mechanical ventilation practice and complications.

The estimated primary completion date is March 1, 2019, and the estimated study completion date is May 1, 2019. About 500 patients are estimated to be enrolled.

Find more information on the study at Clinicaltrials.gov.

[email protected]

The Assessment of Ventilatory Management During General Anesthesia for Robotic Surgery trial is an observational, prospective cohort study of patients receiving mechanical ventilation during robotic surgery.

The trial will assess the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients who receive mechanical ventilation while under general anesthesia during robotic surgery to characterize current ventilation practices and evaluate any association between ventilator parameters and postoperative pulmonary complications.

Patients will be included if they are at least 18 years old and had their robotic surgical procedure done under general anesthesia. Exclusion criteria include being pregnant during surgery and having their procedure done outside an operating room.

The primary outcome measure is incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications within 5 days of the procedure or hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes include intraoperative mechanical ventilation practice, mechanical ventilation practice, and postoperative pulmonary complications within 5 days of the procedure or hospital discharge, intraoperative surgical positioning and ventilation, preoperative risk for postoperative pulmonary complications, and intraoperative mechanical ventilation practice and complications.

The estimated primary completion date is March 1, 2019, and the estimated study completion date is May 1, 2019. About 500 patients are estimated to be enrolled.

Find more information on the study at Clinicaltrials.gov.

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – It’s fine to take a peek inside the bladder with the laparoscope after robotic hysterectomy; there’s no need for a separate cystoscopy setup to check for injuries, according to a review from St. Joseph’s University Medical Center, in Paterson, N.J.

Master Video/Shutterstock

Postoperative urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the big worry with using the same scope, but they really weren’t a problem at St. Joe’s; in a study of 45 women, there was just one UTI, confirmed by culture, at the 2-week postoperative visit, yielding a rate (2.2%) that is actually better the 5%-10% reported for stand-alone cystoscopy, said lead investigator and ob.gyn. resident Nikki Amirlatifi, MD.

“This is a safe alternative to traditional cystoscopy. We had no problems with visualization, and it doesn’t increase the rate of UTIs. Of course, it’s not only cost saving but time saving, as well,” she said.

The cases all were routine, however. For tougher ones, “where we need a more in-depth look at the bladder, we would [still] do cystoscopy,” she said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

There’s some debate about routine cystoscopy during laparoscopic hysterectomy, but Dr. Amirlatifi noted that it’s been reported to detect up to 89% of ureter injuries and up to 95% of bladder injuries. Using the same scope for both procedures makes it easier.

After the uterus was taken out, the bladder was backfilled with 180 mL of sterile water, then the Foley catheter was pulled. The previously used 5 mm laparoscope, which had been used for abdominal entry at 0 degrees, was introduced into the bladder. Efflux from both ureteral orifices was visualized, then the catheter reinserted until the end of surgery.

The women were an average of 44 years old, with an average body mass index of 32 kg/m². Abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, and fibroids were the main indications for surgery. No ureteral or bladder injuries were detected.

Everyone was questioned about UTI symptoms and gave a clean-catch urine sample at the first postoperative visit. Cultures were performed on the seven women who reported symptoms or had white cells in their sample, and they were treated empirically with antibiotics. Only one culture grew out despite a high prevalence of UTI risk factors, including diabetes (13%), obesity (42%), and smoking (11%).

All the women had preoperative antibiotics and phenazopyridine. Most went home on the day of surgery.

There was no outside funding for the work, and the investigators didn’t have any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: J Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2018 Nov-Dec;25[7]:S46-47.

LAS VEGAS – It’s fine to take a peek inside the bladder with the laparoscope after robotic hysterectomy; there’s no need for a separate cystoscopy setup to check for injuries, according to a review from St. Joseph’s University Medical Center, in Paterson, N.J.

Master Video/Shutterstock

Postoperative urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the big worry with using the same scope, but they really weren’t a problem at St. Joe’s; in a study of 45 women, there was just one UTI, confirmed by culture, at the 2-week postoperative visit, yielding a rate (2.2%) that is actually better the 5%-10% reported for stand-alone cystoscopy, said lead investigator and ob.gyn. resident Nikki Amirlatifi, MD.

“This is a safe alternative to traditional cystoscopy. We had no problems with visualization, and it doesn’t increase the rate of UTIs. Of course, it’s not only cost saving but time saving, as well,” she said.

The cases all were routine, however. For tougher ones, “where we need a more in-depth look at the bladder, we would [still] do cystoscopy,” she said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

There’s some debate about routine cystoscopy during laparoscopic hysterectomy, but Dr. Amirlatifi noted that it’s been reported to detect up to 89% of ureter injuries and up to 95% of bladder injuries. Using the same scope for both procedures makes it easier.

After the uterus was taken out, the bladder was backfilled with 180 mL of sterile water, then the Foley catheter was pulled. The previously used 5 mm laparoscope, which had been used for abdominal entry at 0 degrees, was introduced into the bladder. Efflux from both ureteral orifices was visualized, then the catheter reinserted until the end of surgery.

The women were an average of 44 years old, with an average body mass index of 32 kg/m². Abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, and fibroids were the main indications for surgery. No ureteral or bladder injuries were detected.

Everyone was questioned about UTI symptoms and gave a clean-catch urine sample at the first postoperative visit. Cultures were performed on the seven women who reported symptoms or had white cells in their sample, and they were treated empirically with antibiotics. Only one culture grew out despite a high prevalence of UTI risk factors, including diabetes (13%), obesity (42%), and smoking (11%).

All the women had preoperative antibiotics and phenazopyridine. Most went home on the day of surgery.

There was no outside funding for the work, and the investigators didn’t have any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: J Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2018 Nov-Dec;25[7]:S46-47.

LAS VEGAS – It’s fine to take a peek inside the bladder with the laparoscope after robotic hysterectomy; there’s no need for a separate cystoscopy setup to check for injuries, according to a review from St. Joseph’s University Medical Center, in Paterson, N.J.

Master Video/Shutterstock

Postoperative urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the big worry with using the same scope, but they really weren’t a problem at St. Joe’s; in a study of 45 women, there was just one UTI, confirmed by culture, at the 2-week postoperative visit, yielding a rate (2.2%) that is actually better the 5%-10% reported for stand-alone cystoscopy, said lead investigator and ob.gyn. resident Nikki Amirlatifi, MD.

“This is a safe alternative to traditional cystoscopy. We had no problems with visualization, and it doesn’t increase the rate of UTIs. Of course, it’s not only cost saving but time saving, as well,” she said.

The cases all were routine, however. For tougher ones, “where we need a more in-depth look at the bladder, we would [still] do cystoscopy,” she said at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

There’s some debate about routine cystoscopy during laparoscopic hysterectomy, but Dr. Amirlatifi noted that it’s been reported to detect up to 89% of ureter injuries and up to 95% of bladder injuries. Using the same scope for both procedures makes it easier.

After the uterus was taken out, the bladder was backfilled with 180 mL of sterile water, then the Foley catheter was pulled. The previously used 5 mm laparoscope, which had been used for abdominal entry at 0 degrees, was introduced into the bladder. Efflux from both ureteral orifices was visualized, then the catheter reinserted until the end of surgery.

The women were an average of 44 years old, with an average body mass index of 32 kg/m². Abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, and fibroids were the main indications for surgery. No ureteral or bladder injuries were detected.

Everyone was questioned about UTI symptoms and gave a clean-catch urine sample at the first postoperative visit. Cultures were performed on the seven women who reported symptoms or had white cells in their sample, and they were treated empirically with antibiotics. Only one culture grew out despite a high prevalence of UTI risk factors, including diabetes (13%), obesity (42%), and smoking (11%).

All the women had preoperative antibiotics and phenazopyridine. Most went home on the day of surgery.

There was no outside funding for the work, and the investigators didn’t have any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: J Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2018 Nov-Dec;25[7]:S46-47.

LAS VEGAS – There hasn’t been a single corneal abrasion in 860 cases of gynecologic robotic surgery at the University of Texas, Austin, since surgeons and anesthesiologists there started sealing women’s eyes shut with a thick layer of ointment and Tegaderm, instead of the usual small squeeze of ointment and tape, according to Michael T. Breen, MD, a gynecologic surgeon at the university.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Slathered eyes and Tegaderm are now standard practice at the university. Before the switch was made, there were six corneal abrasions in 231 cases over 6 months. Two of those patients stayed longer in the hospital than they would have otherwise. The changes have eliminated the problem.

The impetus for the switch was a 42-year-old woman who had a robotic hysterectomy. The surgery went fine, but then Dr. Breen had to rush back to the recovery room. The woman was screaming in pain, not from her surgery, but from her left eye.

Corneal abrasions are a well-known risk of surgery because anesthesia decreases tear production and dries the eyes. Robotic gynecologic surgery increases the risk even more, because patients are under longer than with other approaches, and the steep Trendelenburg increases intraocular pressure and eye edema, especially with excess IV fluid.

And “believe it or not, having a pulse oximeter on the dominant hand [also] increases your risk of ocular injury,” Dr. Breen said. Sometimes, patients wake up, go to rub their eyes, and drag the device across their cornea, he said.

The screaming patient – who recovered without permanent damage – prompted Dr. Breen and his colleagues to turn to the literature for solutions. “One was a fully occlusive eye dressing, more than the tape we’ve all been accustomed to, with thick eye ointment application and Tegaderm applying positive pressure to the eye,” he said.

Dr. Michael Breen/University of Texas, Austin

Dr. Breen showed his audience a slide of the setup. “It looks a little unorthodox, but this is how every one of our robotic patients now have their eyes protected. Thick gel which is then covered with a positive pressure Tegaderm,” he said.

Another change was telling patients to keep their hands off their eyes for the first few postop hours, and placing the pulse ox on the nondominant hand. The team already had been decreasing IV fluids as part of their enhanced recovery after surgery protocol, and bringing patients out of steep Trendelenburg as soon as possible.

With the changes, “the rate of corneal abrasions decreased from 2.6% to 0% – and has stayed there,” Dr. Breen said.

There’ve been no allergic reactions to Tegaderm and no eyelid problems. “What we have seen with the simple taping is that, when it comes off, so does some of the eyelid, particularly with geriatric patients. We have not seen that with Tegaderm,” he said.

“Some people use goggles to protect the eyes, and we thought initially that the camera was hitting the face, so we used the Mayo stand to protect it from the camera,” but that didn’t turn out to be the problem, he said. “Goggles actually may make things worse.”

The project had no industry funding, and Dr. Breen had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]
 

SOURCE: Breen MT et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 16.

LAS VEGAS – There hasn’t been a single corneal abrasion in 860 cases of gynecologic robotic surgery at the University of Texas, Austin, since surgeons and anesthesiologists there started sealing women’s eyes shut with a thick layer of ointment and Tegaderm, instead of the usual small squeeze of ointment and tape, according to Michael T. Breen, MD, a gynecologic surgeon at the university.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Slathered eyes and Tegaderm are now standard practice at the university. Before the switch was made, there were six corneal abrasions in 231 cases over 6 months. Two of those patients stayed longer in the hospital than they would have otherwise. The changes have eliminated the problem.

The impetus for the switch was a 42-year-old woman who had a robotic hysterectomy. The surgery went fine, but then Dr. Breen had to rush back to the recovery room. The woman was screaming in pain, not from her surgery, but from her left eye.

Corneal abrasions are a well-known risk of surgery because anesthesia decreases tear production and dries the eyes. Robotic gynecologic surgery increases the risk even more, because patients are under longer than with other approaches, and the steep Trendelenburg increases intraocular pressure and eye edema, especially with excess IV fluid.

And “believe it or not, having a pulse oximeter on the dominant hand [also] increases your risk of ocular injury,” Dr. Breen said. Sometimes, patients wake up, go to rub their eyes, and drag the device across their cornea, he said.

The screaming patient – who recovered without permanent damage – prompted Dr. Breen and his colleagues to turn to the literature for solutions. “One was a fully occlusive eye dressing, more than the tape we’ve all been accustomed to, with thick eye ointment application and Tegaderm applying positive pressure to the eye,” he said.

Dr. Michael Breen/University of Texas, Austin

Dr. Breen showed his audience a slide of the setup. “It looks a little unorthodox, but this is how every one of our robotic patients now have their eyes protected. Thick gel which is then covered with a positive pressure Tegaderm,” he said.

Another change was telling patients to keep their hands off their eyes for the first few postop hours, and placing the pulse ox on the nondominant hand. The team already had been decreasing IV fluids as part of their enhanced recovery after surgery protocol, and bringing patients out of steep Trendelenburg as soon as possible.

With the changes, “the rate of corneal abrasions decreased from 2.6% to 0% – and has stayed there,” Dr. Breen said.

There’ve been no allergic reactions to Tegaderm and no eyelid problems. “What we have seen with the simple taping is that, when it comes off, so does some of the eyelid, particularly with geriatric patients. We have not seen that with Tegaderm,” he said.

“Some people use goggles to protect the eyes, and we thought initially that the camera was hitting the face, so we used the Mayo stand to protect it from the camera,” but that didn’t turn out to be the problem, he said. “Goggles actually may make things worse.”

The project had no industry funding, and Dr. Breen had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]
 

SOURCE: Breen MT et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 16.

LAS VEGAS – There hasn’t been a single corneal abrasion in 860 cases of gynecologic robotic surgery at the University of Texas, Austin, since surgeons and anesthesiologists there started sealing women’s eyes shut with a thick layer of ointment and Tegaderm, instead of the usual small squeeze of ointment and tape, according to Michael T. Breen, MD, a gynecologic surgeon at the university.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

Slathered eyes and Tegaderm are now standard practice at the university. Before the switch was made, there were six corneal abrasions in 231 cases over 6 months. Two of those patients stayed longer in the hospital than they would have otherwise. The changes have eliminated the problem.

The impetus for the switch was a 42-year-old woman who had a robotic hysterectomy. The surgery went fine, but then Dr. Breen had to rush back to the recovery room. The woman was screaming in pain, not from her surgery, but from her left eye.

Corneal abrasions are a well-known risk of surgery because anesthesia decreases tear production and dries the eyes. Robotic gynecologic surgery increases the risk even more, because patients are under longer than with other approaches, and the steep Trendelenburg increases intraocular pressure and eye edema, especially with excess IV fluid.

And “believe it or not, having a pulse oximeter on the dominant hand [also] increases your risk of ocular injury,” Dr. Breen said. Sometimes, patients wake up, go to rub their eyes, and drag the device across their cornea, he said.

The screaming patient – who recovered without permanent damage – prompted Dr. Breen and his colleagues to turn to the literature for solutions. “One was a fully occlusive eye dressing, more than the tape we’ve all been accustomed to, with thick eye ointment application and Tegaderm applying positive pressure to the eye,” he said.

Dr. Michael Breen/University of Texas, Austin

Dr. Breen showed his audience a slide of the setup. “It looks a little unorthodox, but this is how every one of our robotic patients now have their eyes protected. Thick gel which is then covered with a positive pressure Tegaderm,” he said.

Another change was telling patients to keep their hands off their eyes for the first few postop hours, and placing the pulse ox on the nondominant hand. The team already had been decreasing IV fluids as part of their enhanced recovery after surgery protocol, and bringing patients out of steep Trendelenburg as soon as possible.

With the changes, “the rate of corneal abrasions decreased from 2.6% to 0% – and has stayed there,” Dr. Breen said.

There’ve been no allergic reactions to Tegaderm and no eyelid problems. “What we have seen with the simple taping is that, when it comes off, so does some of the eyelid, particularly with geriatric patients. We have not seen that with Tegaderm,” he said.

“Some people use goggles to protect the eyes, and we thought initially that the camera was hitting the face, so we used the Mayo stand to protect it from the camera,” but that didn’t turn out to be the problem, he said. “Goggles actually may make things worse.”

The project had no industry funding, and Dr. Breen had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]
 

SOURCE: Breen MT et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 16.

LAS VEGAS – Patients experience less right-sided pain after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy when surgeons use an 8-mm assistant port instead of a 12-mm port, results from a small trial show.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

In the trial, conducted at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Ill.,17 women were randomized to undergo the procedure with an 8-mm assistant port, and 18 with a 12-mm port, both on the right side of the abdomen.

Overall, pain severity was low at 2 weeks postop in both groups at just over 1 point on a 10-point visual analogue scale and not statistically different. However, patients who had a 12-mm assistant port were more likely to report right-sided pain, compared with those who had an 8-mm assistant port (60% vs.18%, P = 0.027).

“I saw a lot of these patients in the clinic at 2 weeks, and even though the overall pain score was low, they kept complaining about a dull, achy pain on the right side. They were using ibuprofen, and some of them had even restricted [their activities] because they were afraid they were going to pop a stitch,” said study lead Yufan B. Chen, MD, a urogynecology fellow at Loyola.

He said the research team thinks the difference in port-site pain “is clinically significant. Even if we had more patients in our study, I think it’s still likely our results would have been the same. Since our study ended, we have stopped using the 12-mm port in most of our cases; we use the 8-mm port for the assistant,” he said at the meeting, sponsored by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.

The tradeoff was that there were more needle struggles with the 8-mm port, 3.1/case vs. 0.6/case (P = .004). Surgeons found inserting and withdrawing the Gore-Tex needle through the smaller port more difficult. But there were no needle losses in either group and no differences in operative time – an average of about 95 minutes.

“The larger port size essentially benefits the surgeon more than the patient. This is kind of a common theme in minimally invasive surgery where less is actually more,” he said. Since the study, “we have identified why we have challenges with the needle transport; it’s usually because the needle gets bent, so we just unbend it a little bit with our needle drivers before we remove it,” Dr. Chen said.

Even so, “there may be a role in using the 12-mm port when you have assistants who are not [that] experienced,” he said.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is done through four ports at Loyola: a 12-mm umbilical port for the scope; two 5-mm ports on the left for the primary surgeon; and the right side port for the assistant, through which the Gore-Tex needle is passed.

In the study, there were no demographic or preop differences between the two groups of women. About 60% were white, with a mean age of 61 years. About 10% of the women had had prior abdominal surgery.

The study received no industry funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Chen YB et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 197.

LAS VEGAS – Patients experience less right-sided pain after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy when surgeons use an 8-mm assistant port instead of a 12-mm port, results from a small trial show.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

In the trial, conducted at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Ill.,17 women were randomized to undergo the procedure with an 8-mm assistant port, and 18 with a 12-mm port, both on the right side of the abdomen.

Overall, pain severity was low at 2 weeks postop in both groups at just over 1 point on a 10-point visual analogue scale and not statistically different. However, patients who had a 12-mm assistant port were more likely to report right-sided pain, compared with those who had an 8-mm assistant port (60% vs.18%, P = 0.027).

“I saw a lot of these patients in the clinic at 2 weeks, and even though the overall pain score was low, they kept complaining about a dull, achy pain on the right side. They were using ibuprofen, and some of them had even restricted [their activities] because they were afraid they were going to pop a stitch,” said study lead Yufan B. Chen, MD, a urogynecology fellow at Loyola.

He said the research team thinks the difference in port-site pain “is clinically significant. Even if we had more patients in our study, I think it’s still likely our results would have been the same. Since our study ended, we have stopped using the 12-mm port in most of our cases; we use the 8-mm port for the assistant,” he said at the meeting, sponsored by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.

The tradeoff was that there were more needle struggles with the 8-mm port, 3.1/case vs. 0.6/case (P = .004). Surgeons found inserting and withdrawing the Gore-Tex needle through the smaller port more difficult. But there were no needle losses in either group and no differences in operative time – an average of about 95 minutes.

“The larger port size essentially benefits the surgeon more than the patient. This is kind of a common theme in minimally invasive surgery where less is actually more,” he said. Since the study, “we have identified why we have challenges with the needle transport; it’s usually because the needle gets bent, so we just unbend it a little bit with our needle drivers before we remove it,” Dr. Chen said.

Even so, “there may be a role in using the 12-mm port when you have assistants who are not [that] experienced,” he said.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is done through four ports at Loyola: a 12-mm umbilical port for the scope; two 5-mm ports on the left for the primary surgeon; and the right side port for the assistant, through which the Gore-Tex needle is passed.

In the study, there were no demographic or preop differences between the two groups of women. About 60% were white, with a mean age of 61 years. About 10% of the women had had prior abdominal surgery.

The study received no industry funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Chen YB et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 197.

LAS VEGAS – Patients experience less right-sided pain after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy when surgeons use an 8-mm assistant port instead of a 12-mm port, results from a small trial show.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

In the trial, conducted at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Ill.,17 women were randomized to undergo the procedure with an 8-mm assistant port, and 18 with a 12-mm port, both on the right side of the abdomen.

Overall, pain severity was low at 2 weeks postop in both groups at just over 1 point on a 10-point visual analogue scale and not statistically different. However, patients who had a 12-mm assistant port were more likely to report right-sided pain, compared with those who had an 8-mm assistant port (60% vs.18%, P = 0.027).

“I saw a lot of these patients in the clinic at 2 weeks, and even though the overall pain score was low, they kept complaining about a dull, achy pain on the right side. They were using ibuprofen, and some of them had even restricted [their activities] because they were afraid they were going to pop a stitch,” said study lead Yufan B. Chen, MD, a urogynecology fellow at Loyola.

He said the research team thinks the difference in port-site pain “is clinically significant. Even if we had more patients in our study, I think it’s still likely our results would have been the same. Since our study ended, we have stopped using the 12-mm port in most of our cases; we use the 8-mm port for the assistant,” he said at the meeting, sponsored by the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.

The tradeoff was that there were more needle struggles with the 8-mm port, 3.1/case vs. 0.6/case (P = .004). Surgeons found inserting and withdrawing the Gore-Tex needle through the smaller port more difficult. But there were no needle losses in either group and no differences in operative time – an average of about 95 minutes.

“The larger port size essentially benefits the surgeon more than the patient. This is kind of a common theme in minimally invasive surgery where less is actually more,” he said. Since the study, “we have identified why we have challenges with the needle transport; it’s usually because the needle gets bent, so we just unbend it a little bit with our needle drivers before we remove it,” Dr. Chen said.

Even so, “there may be a role in using the 12-mm port when you have assistants who are not [that] experienced,” he said.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is done through four ports at Loyola: a 12-mm umbilical port for the scope; two 5-mm ports on the left for the primary surgeon; and the right side port for the assistant, through which the Gore-Tex needle is passed.

In the study, there were no demographic or preop differences between the two groups of women. About 60% were white, with a mean age of 61 years. About 10% of the women had had prior abdominal surgery.

The study received no industry funding, and the investigators had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Chen YB et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 197.