[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"minimally-invasive-surgery\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:minimally-invasive-surgery":30},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,7,0,[8,50,91,116,141,176,214],{"id":9,"slug":10,"hasResults":11,"nctId":12,"briefTitle":13,"officialTitle":14,"acronym":15,"eligibilityCriteria":16,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":19,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":23,"briefSummary":25,"conditions":26,"keywords":31,"overallStatus":37,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":38,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":39,"startDateStruct":42,"completionDateStruct":44,"leadSponsor":46,"locationsCount":49},"100626369","paravertebral-catheter-versus-epidural-analgesia-in-totally-minimally-invasive-esophagectomies-100626369",false,"NCT07434739","PAravertebral CaTheter Versus Epidural Analgesia in Totally Minimally Invasive Esophagectomies","PAravertebral CaTheter Versus Epidural Analgesia in Totally Minimally Invasive Esophagectomies: a Randomized Controlled Trial","PACEMIE","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patient requiring totally minimally invasive surgical esophagectomy (robot-assisted or not) with 2 Ivor-Lewis type approaches: laparoscopy for the abdominal approach and thoracoscopy for the thoracic approach.\n* Age ≥ 18 years old\n* Patient who has given written consent to participate in the trial\n* Socially insured patient\n* Patient willing to comply with all study procedures and duration\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* \\- Intervention planned by open esophagectomy (laparotomy and\u002For thoracotomy)\n* 3-stage esophagectomy, McKeown type\n* Obesity with body mass index ≥ 35 kg.m-2 (due to the foreseeable difficulties arising from this BMI).\n* Pregnancy\n* Haemostasis trouble\n* ASA score \\> 3\n* Renal failure (eGFR \\\u003C 50 mL\u002Fmin)\n* Ongoing opioid use (\\>3 months prior to the day of surgery)\n* Contraindication to local anesthesia\n* Local infection\n* Inability to receive informed information\n* Person deprived of the liberty\n* Person benefiting from a system of legal protection (guardianship…)","ALL","18 Years",{"count":20,"type":21},506,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[24],"NA","Esophageal cancer ranks as the seventh leading cause of cancer globally, with 604,100 new cases, and the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide.\n\nWhen applicable, surgery is the gold standard treatment for resectable oesophageal-esophagogastric junction cancer. The surgical technique requires both an abdominal approach and a transthoracic approach to resect the esophagus, perform the anastomosis, and allow optimal lymph node removal.\n\nSurgery Historically, esophagectomy was performed entirely through open surgery. This procedure was complex, associated with significant morbidity and mortality, as well as intense acute and chronic postoperative pain.\n\nIn this context, thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is the gold standard in the management of acute postoperative pain. It allows for opioid sparing and reduces postoperative pulmonary complications.\n\nIn order to reduce postoperative pain, facilitate postoperative recovery and limit postoperative complications, particularly respiratory complications, the minimally invasive approach has been proposed for several surgical indications. This principle has led to the development of hybrid esophagectomy, i.e. an abdominal approach by laparoscopy and a thoracic approach by right thoracotomy. An abdominal laparoscopic approach during esophagectomy, even in combination with a right thoracotomy, would therefore limit postoperative complications compared to open surgery.\n\nIn parallel to the wider use of hybrid esophagectomy, some teams have demonstrated the feasibility of a totally minimally invasive esophagectomy (TMIE), first video-assisted, then robot-assisted.\n\nThe rise of minimally invasive surgery (both hybrid and totally minimally invasive) has led to a decrease in postoperative pain compared to open surgery.\n\nEnhanced recovery after surgery protocols have been developed to improve postoperative recovery and management of acute postoperative pain. In this context, thoracic epidural analgesia TEA may prove counterproductive by inducing arterial hypotension requiring vasopressor drugs, acute urinary retention, and limiting mobilization. Moreover, thoracic epidural analgesia TEA failure occurs in 30% of cases. In minimally invasive surgery, it may be inadequate in half of the patients.\n\nParavertebral block (PVB) appears as a satisfactory alternative for postoperative analgesia management. In this sense, PVB is recommended for pain management in thoracoscopic lung.\n\nEvidence of the effectiveness and interest of the paravertebral catheter is lacking regarding totally minimally invasive esophageal surgery as most studies demonstrating the benefit of Paravertebral block PVB in esophageal surgery were retrospective.",[27,28,29,30],"Esophageal Cancer","Esophagectomy","Multimodal Analgesia","Minimally Invasive Surgery",[32,33,34,35,36],"Minimally Invasive surgery","Multimodal analgesia","Paravertebral","Epidural","Esophagectomies","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-02-19",{"date":40,"type":41},"2026-02-27","ACTUAL",{"date":43,"type":21},"2026-05-01",{"date":45,"type":21},"2028-10-01",{"name":47,"class":48},"University Hospital, Lille","OTHER",1,{"id":51,"slug":52,"hasResults":11,"nctId":53,"briefTitle":54,"officialTitle":55,"acronym":56,"eligibilityCriteria":57,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":58,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":60,"briefSummary":61,"conditions":62,"keywords":72,"overallStatus":81,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":82,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":83,"startDateStruct":85,"completionDateStruct":87,"leadSponsor":89,"locationsCount":49},"100588255","laparoscopic-versus-robot-assisted-left-sided-pancreatectomy-for-benign-and-pre-malignant-lesions-diploma-3-100588255","NCT06939023","Laparoscopic Versus Robot-assisted Left-sided Pancreatectomy for Benign and Pre-malignant Lesions (DIPLOMA-3)","Laparoscopic Versus Robot-assisted Left-sided Pancreatectomy for Benign and Pre-malignant Lesions (DIPLOMA-3): an International Multicenter Patient-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial","DIPLOMA-3","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age at least 18 years;\n* Indication for elective left-sided pancreatectomy, either spleen-preserving or non-preserving (because of proven or suspected left-sided benign or premalignant disease);\n* Both robot-assisted and laparoscopic left-sided pancreatectomy are technically feasible for resection, according to the local treatment team;\n* Fit to undergo left-sided pancreatectomy according to the surgeon and anaesthesiologist;\n* Written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma;\n* Tumor or cyst larger than 8 cm;\n* Required resection or ablation of organs other than pancreas and spleen;\n* Tumor involvement or abutment of major vessels (celiac trunk, mesenteric artery or vena cava);\n* Pregnancy;\n* Body mass index \\>40 kg\u002Fm2;\n* Participation in another study with interference of study outcomes",{"count":59,"type":21},256,[24],"The DIPLOMA-3 trial is an international, multicenter, patient-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted left-sided pancreatectomy. Patients with an indication for elective left-sided pancreatecomy for benign or premalignant lesions in the body or tail of the pancreas and considered eligible will be randomized between laparoscopic and robot-assisted resection.",[63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,30],"Pancreatectomy","Distal Pancreatectomy (DP)","Pancreatic Neoplasms","Pancreatic Adenoma","Pancreatic Cyst","Pancreatic Cystadenoma","Surgery","Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique","Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy",[73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80],"pancreas surgery","left-sided pancreatectomy","distal pancreatectomy","minimally invasive surgery","robot-assisted pancreatectomy","left pancreatectomy","robotic pancreatectomy","laparoscopic pancreatectomy","RECRUITING","2025-08-28",{"date":84,"type":41},"2025-09-04",{"date":86,"type":41},"2025-06-01",{"date":88,"type":21},"2028-06-01",{"name":90,"class":48},"Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)",{"id":92,"slug":93,"hasResults":11,"nctId":94,"briefTitle":95,"officialTitle":96,"acronym":97,"eligibilityCriteria":98,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":99,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":101,"briefSummary":102,"conditions":103,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":81,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":108,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":109,"startDateStruct":111,"completionDateStruct":113,"leadSponsor":115,"locationsCount":49},"100601337","robot-assisted-versus-open-lateral-pancreaticojejunostomy-for-the-treatment-of-symptomatic-chronic-pancreatitis-panacotta-100601337","NCT07109180","Robot-assisted Versus Open Lateral Pancreaticojejunostomy for the Treatment of Symptomatic Chronic Pancreatitis (PANACOTTA)","Robot-assisted Versus Open Lateral Pancreaticojejunostomy for the Treatment of Symptomatic Chronic Pancreatitis (PANACOTTA): a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial","PANACOTTA","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* At least 18 years old\n* Indication for (extended or partial) lateral pancreaticojejunostomy as agreed during multidisciplinary team meeting based on symptomatic chronic pancreatitis (i.e. morphine dependent pain or recurrent acute flares of pancreatitis, at least 3 episodes per year) and a dilated pancreatic duct of ≥ 5 mm, with a non-enlarged pancreatic head \\\u003C 40 mm\n* Confirmed CP, according to the M-ANNHEIM diagnostic Criteria24\n* Eligible for both an robot-assisted and open approach\n* Obtained written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Suspected or confirmed current pancreatic cancer\n* ASA classification ≥ 4\n* Other painful conditions aside from CP, with pain difficult to discriminate from CP pain\n* Prior pancreatic surgery\n* Pregnancy",{"count":100,"type":21},28,[24],"PANACOTTA is a multicenter randomized controlled trial including patients with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis and a dilated main pancreatic duct to either robot-assisted or open lateral pancreaticojejunostomy. The PANACOTTA trial will assess the post-operative quality of recovery following robot-assisted versus open lateral pancreaticojejunostomy.",[104,69,70,105,106,30,107],"Chronic Pancreatitis","Robot Surgica","Robot Surgery","Pancreaticojunostomy","2025-07-31",{"date":110,"type":41},"2025-08-07",{"date":112,"type":41},"2025-04-16",{"date":114,"type":21},"2026-12-31",{"name":90,"class":48},{"id":117,"slug":118,"hasResults":11,"nctId":119,"briefTitle":120,"officialTitle":121,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":122,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":123,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":124,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":126,"briefSummary":127,"conditions":128,"keywords":131,"overallStatus":37,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":132,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":133,"startDateStruct":135,"completionDateStruct":137,"leadSponsor":139,"locationsCount":49},"100594278","eras-program-implementation-for-mipd-100594278","NCT07017361","ERAS Program Implementation for MIPD","A Multicenter Randomized Prospective Study on Establishing an ERAS Program and Optimized Clinical Protocol for Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD)","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥ 19 years, scheduled for standard minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) pancreatoduodenectomy for periampullary tumors\n* ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 at screening\n* Able to provide written informed consent, understand study procedures, and complete patient-reported questionnaires\n* ASA physical status classification I-III\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Hypersensitivity to fentanyl or ropivacaine\n* Cognitive impairment preventing independent use of patient-controlled analgesia or completion of questionnaires\n* Major internal medical or psychiatric disorders affecting treatment response\n* Severe hepatic or renal dysfunction\n* Any condition deemed inappropriate for study participation by the investigator","19 Years",{"count":125,"type":21},140,[24],"To evaluate the impact of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program on postoperative recovery in patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD)",[129,130,30],"Pancreaticoduodenectomy","ERAS",[129,130,30],"2025-06-14",{"date":134,"type":41},"2025-06-17",{"date":136,"type":21},"2025-07-15",{"date":138,"type":21},"2027-12-31",{"name":140,"class":48},"Seoul National University Hospital",{"id":142,"slug":143,"hasResults":11,"nctId":144,"briefTitle":145,"officialTitle":146,"acronym":147,"eligibilityCriteria":148,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":17,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":149,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":151,"phases":4,"briefSummary":152,"conditions":153,"keywords":163,"overallStatus":81,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":166,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":167,"startDateStruct":169,"completionDateStruct":171,"leadSponsor":173,"locationsCount":175},"100551962","evaluation-of-intra-operative-photographs-for-the-assessment-of-a-proper-lymphadenectomy-in-minimally-invasive-gastrectomies-for-gastric-cancer-photonodes-100551962","NCT06466902","Evaluation of Intra-operative Photographs for the Assessment of a Proper Lymphadenectomy in Minimally-invasive Gastrectomies for Gastric Cancer (PhotoNodes)","Evaluation of Intra-operative Photographs for the Assessment of a Proper Lymphadenectomy in Minimally-invasive Gastric Cancer Surgery (PhotoNodes)","PhotoNodes","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* All patients undergoing minimally invasive curative-intent surgery for gastric adenocarcinoma with D2 lymphadenectomy\n* Patients undergoing upfront surgery or treated with a neoadjuvant\u002Fperioperative chemotherapy\n* Total or Subtotal Gastrectomy\n* Laparoscopic or Robotic approach\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age less than 18 year old\n* Esophago-gastric junction cancer Siewert type I, II or III\n* Metastatic disease\n* Lymphadenectomy less than D2\n* Open surgery\n* Conversion to open surgery\n* Palliative gastrectomy\n* R1 or R2 resection\n* Multivisceral resection except for cholecystectomy\n* Surgical procedures other than subtotal or total gastrectomy\n* A single node station rated as unevaluable by more than one reviewer",{"count":150,"type":21},326,"OBSERVATIONAL","Even after the wide introduction of chemo\u002Fradiotherapy in the treatment algorithm, adequate surgery remains the cornerstone of gastric cancer treatment with curative intent. A proper D2 lymphadenectomy is associated with improved cancer specific survival as confirmed in Western countries by fifteen-year follow-up results of Dutch and Italian randomized trials.\n\nIn clinical practice, the total number of harvested lymph nodes is often considered as a surrogate marker for adequate D2 lymphadenectomy; nonetheless, the number of retrieved nodes does not necessarily correlate with residual nodes, which intuitively could represent a more reliable marker of surgical adequacy. The availability of an efficient tool for evaluating the absence of residual nodes in the operative field at the end of node dissection could better correlate with survival outcomes.\n\nThe goal of this multicentric observational prospective study is to test the reliability of a new score (PhotoNodes Score) created to rate the quality of the lymphadenectomy performed during minimally invasive gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The score is assigned by assessing the absence of residual nodes at the end of node dissection on a set of laparoscopic\u002Frobotic high quality intraoperative images collected from each patient undergoing a minimally invasive gastrectomy with D2 node dissection.\n\nIdeally, this tool could be a new indicator of the quality of D2 dissection and could assume a prognostic role in the treatment of gastric cancer.",[154,155,156,30,157,158,159,160,161,162],"Gastric Cancer","Gastric Adenocarcinoma","Lymphadenectomy","Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer","Laparoscopic Surgery","Robotic Surgery","Survival Outcomes","Survival Analysis","Quality Of Care",[164,165],"D2 Lymphadenectomy quality assessment","Minimally invasive gastric cancer oncologic surgery","2024-07-03",{"date":168,"type":41},"2024-07-05",{"date":170,"type":41},"2022-12-22",{"date":172,"type":21},"2027-12",{"name":174,"class":48},"Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma",8,{"id":177,"slug":178,"hasResults":11,"nctId":179,"briefTitle":180,"officialTitle":181,"acronym":182,"eligibilityCriteria":183,"healthyVolunteers":184,"sex":185,"minAge":186,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":187,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":189,"briefSummary":190,"conditions":191,"keywords":197,"overallStatus":37,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":205,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":206,"startDateStruct":208,"completionDateStruct":210,"leadSponsor":212,"locationsCount":4},"100519946","evaluating-artisential-laparoscopic-instruments-in-gynecologic-surgery-100519946","NCT06050161","Evaluating Artisential Laparoscopic Instruments in Gynecologic Surgery","Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery Utilizing the Artisential Articulating Laparoscopic Instruments","MIGS-ART","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patient scheduled for robotic or laparoscopic total hysterectomy\n* Patient scheduled for robotic or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Not a candidate for the above surgical procedures",true,"FEMALE","22 Years",{"count":188,"type":21},50,[24],"This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of Artisential laparoscopic instruments in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.",[192,193,194,158,195,196,30],"Pelvic Organ Prolapse","Abnormal Uterine Bleeding","Mesh Augmentation","Robotic Surgical Suturing","Laparoscopic Hysterectomy",[198,199,200,201,202,203,204],"Laparoscopic surgery","Laparoscopic suturing","Laparoscopic instruments","Pelvic organ prolapse","Sacrocolpopexy","Minimally invasive surgery","Vaginal cuff closure","2023-09-17",{"date":207,"type":41},"2023-09-22",{"date":209,"type":21},"2023-09-20",{"date":211,"type":21},"2027-09-20",{"name":213,"class":48},"Kern Medical Center",{"id":215,"slug":216,"hasResults":11,"nctId":217,"briefTitle":218,"officialTitle":219,"acronym":220,"eligibilityCriteria":221,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":185,"minAge":222,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":223,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":225,"briefSummary":226,"conditions":227,"keywords":230,"overallStatus":81,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":232,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":233,"startDateStruct":235,"completionDateStruct":237,"leadSponsor":239,"locationsCount":240},"100390941","safety-of-minimally-invasive-surgery-using-endoscopic-stapler-in-early-stage-cervical-cancer-patients-solution-100390941","NCT04370496","Safety of Minimally Invasive Surgery Using Endoscopic Stapler in Early Stage Cervical Cancer Patients (SOLUTION)","Safety Of Laparoscopic or Robotic Radical Hysterectomy Using Endoscopic sTapler for Inhibiting tumOr Spillage of Cervical Neoplasms (SOLUTION): a Phase II Study","SOLUTION","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Females, aged 20 years or older\n* Histologically confirmed primary squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix\n* Patients with FIGO stage IB1 (FIGO staging 2009)\n\n  : stromal invasion\\>5 mm or 7 mm \\\u003Clesion size ≤4 cm\n* Patients undergoing either type B or C hysterectomy (Querleu-Morrow classification)\n* Patients with normal bone marrow, renal and hepatic function\n\n  * WBC \\> 3.0x10\\^9 cells\u002FL\n  * Platelets \\> 100x10\\^9 cells\u002FL\n  * Serum creatinine ≤1.5 mg\u002FdL\n  * Serum total bilirubin \\\u003C1.5 x normal range and AST\u002FSGOT or ALT\u002FSGPT \\\u003C3 x normal range\n* ECOG performance status 0 or 1\n* Synchronous cancer with no evidence of recurrence during the past 5 years\n* Informed consent of patient\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Any histological type other than squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma of the uterine cervix\n* Tumor size greater than 4 cm\n* Patients with FIGO less than stage IA2 or greater than IB2 (FIGO staging 2009)\n\n  * stromal invasion ≤5 mm and lesion size ≤7 mm (less than IA2)\n  * or lesion size\\> 4 cm (greater than IB2)\n* Patients with evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging studies, enlarged pelvic or aortic lymph nodes greater than 2 cm, or histologically positive lymph nodes\n* Patients in pregnancy\n* Patients with a history of pelvic or abdominal radiotherapy\n* Patients with contraindication of surgery (serious concomitant systemic disorders incompatible with the study to be decided at the discretion of the investigator)\n* Patients who agree to intra-operative lymphatic mapping (IOLM) must not have:\n\n  * Known allergies to triphenylmethane compounds\n  * History of retroperitoneal surgery.\n  * History of pelvic irradiation.\n  * Cold knife or LEEP cone biopsy within 4 weeks of enrollment","20 Years",{"count":224,"type":21},124,[24],"The SOLUTION trial aims to show the efficacy and safety of performing radical hysterectomy by minimally invasive surgery using an endoscopic stapler in patients with cervical cancer stage IB1 (FIGO staging 2009) and thus to prove that minimally invasive surgery is non-inferior to open surgery.",[228,229,30],"Cervical Cancer","Cervical Cancer Stage IB1",[231,229,203],"Cervical cancer","2023-06-23",{"date":234,"type":41},"2023-06-26",{"date":236,"type":41},"2020-07-02",{"date":238,"type":21},"2028-12-31",{"name":140,"class":48},3]