Preliminary Surgery Experience for Preventing Heat SteamInduced Skin Damage During in Robot-Assisted Breast Reconstruction Surgery
Objectives: The clinical objective of this study was to compare surgical outcomes and postoperative skin complications in patients with breasts without cooling and breasts with intraoperative cooling.
Methods: A retrospective study was conducetd for the patients who received RNSMIBR between September 2022 and August 2023 were examined. Surgical outcomes and postoperative skin complications were analyzed.
Results: A total of 57 R-NSMIBR procedures were analyzed by segregating the patient population into two groups, (group 1) 29 patients without cooling and (group 2) 28 patients with intraoperative cooling respectively. The proportion of postoperative skin complications was higher in the no-cooling group when compared to the ntraoperative cooling group. Other clinical factors were not differed significantly between the two groups. Regarding surgical outcomes, skin complications in the no-cooling group resulted in implant loss. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications but statistically significant differences were observed in skin complications (erythematous flaps and vesication), infections, and loss of implant (P<0.05) between the two groups.
Conclusion: Significant difference was observed in surgical outcomes or postoperative complications between the patient groups such as breast without cooling and breast with intraoperative cooling. Intraoperative cooling of the breast is necessary due to the limited space in which the breast is operated and the heat steam generated by the robotic instruments can cause skin damage.
1. McCormack V, McKenzie F, Foerster M, Zietsman A, Galukande M, Adisa C, et al. Breast cancer survival and survival gap apportionment in sub-Saharan Africa (ABC-DO): A prospective cohort study. Lancet Glob Health 2020;8:e1203–12.
2. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71(3):209–49.
3. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68(6):394–424.
4. Donnely E, Griffin MF, Butler PE. Robotic surgery: A novel approach for breast surgery and reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020;8(1):e2626.
5. Ahn JH, Park JM, Choi SB, Go J, Lee J, Kim JY, et al. Early experience of robotic axillary lymph node dissection in patients with node-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2023;198(3):405–12.
6. Chen K, Beeraka NM, Zhang J, Reshetov IV, Nikolenko VN, Sinelnikov MY, et al. Efficacy of da Vinci robot-assisted lymph node surgery than conventional axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer - a comparative study. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2021;17(6):e2307.
7. Jensen JA. Nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2018;226(1):108.
8. Kopkash K, Sisco M, Poli E, Seth A, Pesce C. The modern approach to the nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Surg Oncol 2020;122(1):29–35.
9. Filipe M, de Bock E, Postma E, Bastian O, Schellekens P, Vriens M, et al. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy complication rate compared to traditional nipple-sparing mastectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robotic Surg 2022;16(2):265–72.
10. Lee H, Lee J, Lee K, Kim JY, Park HS. Comparison between gasless and gas-inflated robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy. J Breast Cancer 2021;24(2):183.
11. Desroches B, Porter J, Bhayani S, Figenshau R, Liu PY, Stifelman M. Comparison of the safety and efficacy of valveless and standard insufflation during robotic partial nephrectomy: A prospective, randomized, multi-institutional trial. Urology 2021;153:185–91.
12. Park KU, Tozbikian GH, Ferry D, Tsung A, Chetta M, Schulz S, et al. Residual breast tissue after robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy. Breast 2021;55:25–9.
13. Ingram D. Is it time for breast cancer surgeons to embrace endoscopic-assisted mastectomy? ANZ J Surg 2008;78(10):837– 838.
14. Leff DR, Vashisht R, Yongue G, Keshtgar M, Yang GZ, Darzi A. Endoscopic breast surgery: Where are we now and what might the future hold for video-assisted breast surgery? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;125:607–25.
15. Abramovici L, Cartier C, Pierre G, Garrel R. Robot-assisted transaxillary thyroidectomy: Surgical technique. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 2015;132(3):153–6.
16. Alkatout I, Mettler L, Maass N, Ackermann J. Robotic surgery in gynecology. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2016;17(4):224.
17. Park HS, Lee J, Lai HW, Park JM, Ryu JM, Lee JE, et al. Surgical and oncologic outcomes of robotic and conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction: International multicenter pooled data analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2022;29(11):6646–57.
18. Hewitt DB, Park KU. Safe technical innovation: Development and implementation of a robotic breast operation program. Ann Surg Open 2022;3(3):e178.
19. Park KU, Lee S, Sarna A, Chetta M, Schulz S, Agnese D, et al. Prospective pilot study protocol evaluating the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM). BMJ Open 2021;11(11):e050173.
20. Houvenaeghel G, Cohen M, Ribeiro SR, Barrou J, Heinemann M, Frayret C, et al. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with robotic latissimus dorsi flap harvest: Technique and results. Surg Innov 2020;27(5):481–91.
21. Chen K, Zhang J, Beeraka NM, Song D, Sinelnikov MY, Lu P. Robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction with gel implant and latissimus dorsi muscle flap: Our initial experience. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2023;19(5):e2528.
22. Nelskylä K, Yli-Hankala A, Sjöberg J, Korhonen I, Korttila K. Warming of insufflation gas during laparoscopic hysterectomy: Effect on body temperature and the autonomic nervous system. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1999;43(10):974–8.
23. Cheong JY, Keshava A, Witting P, Young CJ. Effects of intraoperative insufflation with warmed, humidified CO2 during abdominal surgery: A review. Ann Coloproctol 2018;34(3):125.
24. Klugsberger B, Schreiner M, Rothe A, Haas D, Oppelt P, Shamiyeh A. Warmed, humidified carbon dioxide insufflation versus standard carbon dioxide in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2014;28:2656–60.
25. Peng Y, Zheng M, Ye Q, Chen X, Yu B, Liu B. Heated and humidified CO2 prevents hypothermia, peritoneal injury, and intraabdominal adhesions during prolonged laparoscopic insufflations. J Surg Res 2009;151(1):40–7.
26. Gunusen I, Akdemir A, Sargin A, Karaman S. The effects of CO2 pneumoperitoneum at different temperature and humidity on hemodynamic and respiratory parameters and postoperative pain in gynecological laparoscopic surgery: A prospective randomized controlled study. Asian J Surg 2022;45(1):154–61.
27. Luketina RR, Luketina TL, Antoniou SA, Köhler G, Könneker S, Manzenreiter L, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial on comparison of standard CO2 pressure pneumoperitoneum insufflator versus AirSeal®. Surg Endosc 2021;35:3670–8.
28. Madueke-Laveaux OS, Advincula A, Grimes CL, Walters R, Kim JH, Simpson K, et al. Comparison of carbon dioxide absorption rates in gynecologic laparoscopy with a valveless versus standard insufflation system: Randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2020;27(1):225–34.