Takehiro Sejima1, Shuichi Morizane1, Kazunori Fujiwara2, Keigo Ashida3, Hiroaki Saito3, Yuji Taniguchi4, Hiroshige Nakamura4, Atsushi Takenaka1. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8503, Japan. 2. †Division of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Medicine of Sensory and Motor Organs, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8503, Japan. 3. ‡Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8503, Japan. 4. §Division of General Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8503, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To ensure safe performance in robotic surgery, the Minimal Invasive Surgery Center (MISC) is composed of the anesthesiology department, five surgery departments and co-medical staff in our institution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of different types of robotic surgeries for cancer treatment (n = 326) from different surgery departments in the MISC. METHODS: The outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), partial nephrectomy (RAPN), transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for pharyngeal cancer, and robotic surgery for lung, gastric and rectal cancer were evaluated using the similar concept of pentafecta in RARP. RESULTS: The pentafecta rates of RARP and robotic surgery for rectal cancer were 33.3 and 56.5%, respectively. The tetrafecta rates of RARP (excluding potency evaluation from pentafecta) and TORS were 48.4 and 57.1%, respectively. The trifecta rates of RAPN, robotic surgeries for lung and gastric cancer were 75.9, 74.2 and 84.2%, respectively. The failure of tetrafecta in RARP achievement was significantly associated with high risk than with low risk according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network classification. CONCLUSION: This is the world's first comprehensive evaluation of different types of robotic surgeries for cancer treatment in the constitutional framework of an academic institution. MISC, which provides the constitutional framework of an academic institution, is providing immeasurable benefits in terms of robotic surgery quality, and it may ultimately lead to high penta-, tetra-, and trifecta rates for robotic surgeries for cancer treatment in all surgical departments.
BACKGROUND: To ensure safe performance in robotic surgery, the Minimal Invasive Surgery Center (MISC) is composed of the anesthesiology department, five surgery departments and co-medical staff in our institution. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of different types of robotic surgeries for cancer treatment (n = 326) from different surgery departments in the MISC. METHODS: The outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), partial nephrectomy (RAPN), transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for pharyngeal cancer, and robotic surgery for lung, gastric and rectal cancer were evaluated using the similar concept of pentafecta in RARP. RESULTS: The pentafecta rates of RARP and robotic surgery for rectal cancer were 33.3 and 56.5%, respectively. The tetrafecta rates of RARP (excluding potency evaluation from pentafecta) and TORS were 48.4 and 57.1%, respectively. The trifecta rates of RAPN, robotic surgeries for lung and gastric cancer were 75.9, 74.2 and 84.2%, respectively. The failure of tetrafecta in RARP achievement was significantly associated with high risk than with low risk according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network classification. CONCLUSION: This is the world's first comprehensive evaluation of different types of robotic surgeries for cancer treatment in the constitutional framework of an academic institution. MISC, which provides the constitutional framework of an academic institution, is providing immeasurable benefits in terms of robotic surgery quality, and it may ultimately lead to high penta-, tetra-, and trifecta rates for robotic surgeries for cancer treatment in all surgical departments.
Authors: Amilcare Parisi; Ninh T Nguyen; Daniel Reim; Shu Zhang; Zhi-Wei Jiang; Steven T Brower; Juan-Santiago Azagra; Olivier Facy; Orhan Alimoglu; Patrick G Jackson; Hironori Tsujimoto; Yukinori Kurokawa; Lu Zang; Natalie G Coburn; Pei-Wu Yu; Ben Zhang; Feng Qi; Andrea Coratti; Mario Annecchiarico; Alexander Novotny; Martine Goergen; Jean-Baptiste Lequeu; Tunc Eren; Metin Leblebici; Waddah Al-Refaie; Shuji Takiguchi; Junjun Ma; Yong-Liang Zhao; Tong Liu; Jacopo Desiderio Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 6.071
Authors: R Houston Thompson; Brian R Lane; Christine M Lohse; Bradley C Leibovich; Amr Fergany; Igor Frank; Inderbir S Gill; Michael L Blute; Steven C Campbell Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 20.096