[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"health-studies-list:{\"conditionNormalized\":\"robotic-surgery\",\"overallStatus\":[\"RECRUITING\",\"AVAILABLE\",\"NOT_YET_RECRUITING\"],\"orderBy\":\"LastUpdateSubmitDate:desc\",\"size\":25,\"offset\":0}":3,"health-study-condition:robotic-surgery":27},{"pageToken":4,"total":5,"offset":6,"count":5,"results":7},null,17,0,[8,54,82,109,142,167,195,227,249,276,298,319,347,371,396,421,455],{"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":32,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":42,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":43,"startDateStruct":46,"completionDateStruct":48,"leadSponsor":50,"locationsCount":53},"100644334","timing-of-recruitment-maneuver-in-robotic-prostate-surgery-100644334",false,"NCT07662642","Timing of Recruitment Maneuver in Robotic Prostate Surgery","Comparison of the Effects of Recruitment Maneuver Timing on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Patients Undergoing Robotic Prostate Surgery","ROBPROREC1","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients scheduled for elective robotic prostate surgery\n* Age 18 years or older\n* Body mass index between 18 and 35 kg\u002Fm²\n* No cognitive impairment\n* Ability to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age younger than 18 years\n* Emergency surgery\n* Preoperative oxygen requirement\n* Cognitive impairment\n* Refusal to participate in the study","MALE","18 Years",{"count":20,"type":21},86,"ESTIMATED","INTERVENTIONAL",[24],"NA","Robotic prostate surgery is commonly performed under general anesthesia with carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg positioning. These conditions may reduce lung volumes, impair respiratory mechanics, and increase the risk of atelectasis and postoperative pulmonary complications. Recruitment maneuvers combined with individualized positive end-expiratory pressure may improve intraoperative oxygenation and lung compliance; however, the optimal timing of recruitment maneuver application in robotic prostate surgery remains unclear.\n\nThis prospective randomized study aims to compare the effects of recruitment maneuver timing on postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing elective robotic prostate surgery. Participants will be randomized into two groups. In the Supine Recruitment Group, the recruitment maneuver will be performed before carbon dioxide insufflation while the patient is in the supine position, followed by individualized PEEP determination. In the Trendelenburg Recruitment Group, the recruitment maneuver will be performed after pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg positioning, followed by individualized PEEP determination. Patients will be evaluated for postoperative pulmonary complications up to postoperative 72 hours or until discharge, whichever occurs first.",[27,28,29,30,31],"Robotic Surgery","Urologic Surgical Procedures","Postoperative Pulmonary Complications (PPCs)","Pulmonary Atelectasis","Postoperative Complications",[33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40],"Robotic prostate surgery","Recruitment maneuver","Pneumoperitoneum","Trendelenburg position","Positive end-expiratory pressure","Atelectasis","Postoperative pulmonary complications","General anesthesia","RECRUITING","2026-06-16",{"date":44,"type":45},"2026-06-23","ACTUAL",{"date":47,"type":45},"2026-05-09",{"date":49,"type":21},"2026-07-20",{"name":51,"class":52},"Ankara University","OTHER",1,{"id":55,"slug":56,"hasResults":11,"nctId":57,"briefTitle":58,"officialTitle":59,"acronym":60,"eligibilityCriteria":61,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":62,"minAge":18,"maxAge":63,"enrollmentInfo":64,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":66,"briefSummary":67,"conditions":68,"keywords":69,"overallStatus":72,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":73,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":74,"startDateStruct":75,"completionDateStruct":77,"leadSponsor":79,"locationsCount":53},"100641689","grip-gordian-robotic-integrated-port-closure-study-100641689","NCT07649915","GRIP: Gordian Robotic Integrated Port Closure Study","Gordian Robotic Integrated Port Closure Using the TroClose™ 1200 With the da Vinci® 12 mm Robotic Assistant Port","GRIP","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Males or female patients age 18 to 95 years old\n* Scheduled to undergo an elective, clinically indicated robotic surgery with a da Vinci® 12 mm assistant port\n* Trocar site is appropriate for TroClose™ per Investigator\u002FSurgeon discretion\n* Subject is able and willing to sign a written informed consent form\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Scheduled to undergo emergency surgery\n* Weight under 45kg (99.2 pounds)\n* Infection at port site\n* Prior surgical mesh at intended incision location\n* Surgeon-determined contraindication for use of the TroClose™ 1200\n* Inability to provide written, informed consent\n* Known allergy to PGA (Polyglycolic Acid)\n* PLA (Polylactic Acid).","ALL","95 Years",{"count":65,"type":21},26,[24],"The GRIP (Gordian Robotic Integrated Port Closure) Study is a prospective, single-arm feasibility study evaluating the use of the TroClose™ 1200 device for closure of da Vinci® 12 mm robotic assistant port sites following robotic-assisted surgical procedures.\n\nTroClose™ 1200 is an FDA-cleared medical device designed to facilitate fascial closure of laparoscopic and robotic access ports. The device deploys anchors and suture at the beginning of the procedure, allowing closure to be completed at the end of surgery without the need for additional needle passage or specialized closure instruments.\n\nThe purpose of this study is to assess the safety, feasibility, procedural performance, and clinical outcomes associated with use of the device in patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery. Study assessments will include successful port-site closure, device-related adverse events, post-operative complications, and short-term follow-up evaluations.\n\nApproximately 26 adult participants undergoing robotic-assisted surgical procedures at Allegheny Health Network will be enrolled.",[27],[27,70,71],"Port Site Closure","Integrated Robotic Closure","NOT_YET_RECRUITING","2026-06-11",{"date":42,"type":45},{"date":76,"type":21},"2026-06-30",{"date":78,"type":21},"2026-12-30",{"name":80,"class":81},"Gordian Surgical","INDUSTRY",{"id":83,"slug":84,"hasResults":11,"nctId":85,"briefTitle":86,"officialTitle":87,"acronym":88,"eligibilityCriteria":89,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":62,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":90,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":92,"briefSummary":93,"conditions":94,"keywords":95,"overallStatus":72,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":100,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":101,"startDateStruct":103,"completionDateStruct":105,"leadSponsor":107,"locationsCount":53},"100637468","perioperative-high-flow-nasal-oxygen-in-patients-undergoing-robotic-surgery-100637468","NCT07591610","Perioperative High-flow Nasal Oxygen in Patients Undergoing Robotic Surgery","Perioperative High-flow Nasal Oxygen in Patients Undergoing Robotic Surgery: A Randomized Trial","Periop HFNO","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age \\>= 18\n* Undergoing non-emergent, non-cardiac, intra-abdominal, intra-thoracic or pelvic robot-assisted surgery with an expected duration of at least 2 hours under general anesthesia with planned extubation at the end of the procedure\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Known pregnancy\n* Preoperative intubation or tracheostomy\n* Anatomical or clinical conditions precluding the use of high-flow nasal oxygen (severe midface trauma, recent nasal surgery, severe nasal septum deviation, severe nasal deformation)\n* Contraindications to electrical impedance tomography (EIT), including inability to place the EIT belt or presence of active implantable electronic devices (e.g., pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator)\n* Planned postoperative admission to the intensive care unit",{"count":91,"type":21},190,[24],"The aim of the study is to assess whether perioperative use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) during the period from induction of anesthesia until discharge from the post-anesthesia care unit in patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery reduces perioperative oxygen desaturation and postoperative pulmonary complications.",[27],[96,97,98,99],"Electric Impedance Tomography (EIT)","High-flow nasal oxygenation","Perioperative oxygenation","Robotic surgery","2026-06-01",{"date":102,"type":45},"2026-06-02",{"date":104,"type":21},"2026-08-01",{"date":106,"type":21},"2029-10-31",{"name":108,"class":52},"Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center",{"id":110,"slug":111,"hasResults":11,"nctId":112,"briefTitle":113,"officialTitle":114,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":115,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":62,"minAge":116,"maxAge":117,"enrollmentInfo":118,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":120,"briefSummary":122,"conditions":123,"keywords":128,"overallStatus":72,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":134,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":135,"startDateStruct":137,"completionDateStruct":138,"leadSponsor":140,"locationsCount":53},"100637651","phase-4-transversus-abdominis-plane-and-rectus-sheath-block-for-robotic-colectomy-100637651","NCT07624916","Transversus Abdominis Plane and Rectus Sheath Block for Robotic Colectomy","Impact of Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Combined With Rectus Sheath Block on Postoperative Pain Management in Patients Undergoing Elective Robotic Colectomy","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients scheduled for elective robotic colorectal cancer surgery for the first time\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age \\\u003C 18 years or age \\> 80 years\n* Allergic to any medication in the protocol\n* Infection over the injection site\n* Chronic pain history\n* Severe hepatic or renal insufficiency\n* Pregnancy\n* Emergency surgery\n* Refusal to join the study","20 Years","80 Years",{"count":119,"type":21},90,[121],"PHASE4","This study aimed to evaluate the impact of ultrasound-guided bilateral transversus abdominis plane block combined with rectus sheath block on postoperative pain and recovery after robotic colectomy under an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol.",[124,125,126,27,127],"Rectus Sheath Block","Transversus Abdominis Plane Block","Enhanced Recovery After Surgery","Colorectal Cancer",[129,130,131,132,133],"colorectal cancer","robotic colectomy","enhanced recovery after surgery","transversus abdominis plane block","rectus sheath block","2026-05-30",{"date":136,"type":45},"2026-06-03",{"date":100,"type":21},{"date":139,"type":21},"2028-03-31",{"name":141,"class":52},"Tri-Service General Hospital",{"id":143,"slug":144,"hasResults":11,"nctId":145,"briefTitle":146,"officialTitle":147,"acronym":148,"eligibilityCriteria":149,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":150,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":151,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":153,"briefSummary":154,"conditions":155,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":159,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":160,"startDateStruct":161,"completionDateStruct":163,"leadSponsor":165,"locationsCount":53},"100610665","evaluation-of-wellbeing-and-patient-reported-outcomes-after-open-vs-robotic-mastectomy-with-diep-reconstruction-100610665","NCT07230535","Evaluation of Wellbeing and Patient Reported Outcomes After Open vs Robotic Mastectomy With DIEP Reconstruction","A Randomised Control Trial Evaluating Well Being and Patient Reported Outcomes After Open vs Robotic Single-port Nipple Sparing Mastectomy With DIEP Reconstruction","REBORN","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Women aged 18 years and older\n* Candidates who have already been selected to undergo mastectomy (of any kind) and immediate DIEP reconstruction by the breast MDT for the following indications:\n\n  1. Genetic mutation carriers undergoing risk-reducing mastectomy.\n  2. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) requiring mastectomy.\n  3. Early invasive breast cancer requiring mastectomy.\n  4. For those considered for Nipple Sparing Mastectomy randomisation arms the tumour must not have skin involvement and no evidence of invasive disease within 1cm of skin, nipple or Pec major muscle (as proven on MRI).\n* Candidates for immediate breast reconstruction with DIEP reconstruction\n* Fluent in English\n* Fit for general anaesthetic\n* Signed informed consent form\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Advanced breast cancer with skin involvement for Nipple Sparing Mastectomy Arms\n* Nipple involvement for Nipple Sparing Mastectomy Arms.\n* Prior chest wall radiation therapy\n* Pregnancy\n* Lactation\n* Patients with insufficient English to sign an informed consent (i.e. interpreter required).","FEMALE",{"count":152,"type":21},250,[24],"Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) preserves the nipple-areolar complex (NAC) and is associated with improved cosmetic outcomes, body image, and patient satisfaction compared with more ablative techniques. Its use has expanded in both therapeutic and risk-reducing settings, including ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and early-stage invasive breast cancer, where the NAC is not clinically or radiologically involved. Multiple observational and cohort studies support the oncological safety of NSM in appropriately selected patients, provided meticulous surgical technique and pathological assessment are employed to minimise the risk of residual disease.\n\nRobotic-assisted NSM has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional open techniques. Robotic platforms offer enhanced three-dimensional visualisation, improved instrument articulation, and ergonomic advantages that may facilitate precise dissection while reducing surgeon fatigue. Single-port robotic systems enable NSM to be performed through a single axillary incision, potentially reducing visible scarring and postoperative discomfort while maintaining oncological principles. Early series from high-volume centres have demonstrated the technical feasibility and short-term safety of robotic NSM, with outcomes broadly comparable to open NSM and signals of potential aesthetic benefit. However, these data are largely non-randomised and derived from single-centre experiences.\n\nDespite the increasing adoption of both conventional and robotic NSM, there remains a paucity of high-quality prospective evidence evaluating patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Validated instruments such as the Breast-Q, Hopwood Body Image Scale, and Aesthetic Item Scale (AIS) provide robust measures of patient satisfaction, psychosocial well-being, and aesthetic outcome, yet randomised comparisons of robotic versus open NSM using these tools are lacking. In particular, there is limited evidence examining whether the proposed cosmetic and experiential advantages of robotic surgery translate into meaningful improvements in PROs across different reconstructive pathways.\n\nBreast reconstruction is a critical determinant of postoperative quality of life following mastectomy. Both implant-based reconstruction and autologous reconstruction using deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps are established techniques, each with distinct risk profiles, recovery trajectories, and long-term outcomes. Autologous DIEP reconstruction is associated with superior long-term satisfaction and physical well-being in many patients, while implant-based reconstruction remains the most commonly performed approach nationally. Evaluating NSM techniques across both reconstructive modalities enhances the generalisability and clinical relevance of trial findings.\n\nThe REBORN Network Trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled study conducted within an Irish cancer network using a hub-and-spoke model for robotic surgery delivery. Patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction are stratified by reconstruction type (implant-based or DIEP flap) and randomised to receive either robotic-assisted or conventional open NSM. Robotic procedures are centralised within a designated surgical hub, while open procedures are delivered either locally or centrally, depending on reconstructive requirements. This design enables equitable access to robotic surgery while maintaining oncological safety and surgical expertise.\n\nBy comparing robotic-assisted and open NSM within both implant and DIEP reconstruction cohorts using validated PRO measures, this study aims to determine whether robotic technology confers measurable benefits in patient satisfaction, body image, and aesthetic outcome. The findings will inform patient counselling, surgical decision-making, and future service development within networked breast cancer care systems.",[156,157,158,27],"Breast Cancer, Breast Neoplasms","Breast Reconstruction","DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction","2026-05-28",{"date":100,"type":45},{"date":162,"type":45},"2025-12-01",{"date":164,"type":21},"2029-12-31",{"name":166,"class":52},"Beaumont Hospital",{"id":168,"slug":169,"hasResults":11,"nctId":170,"briefTitle":171,"officialTitle":172,"acronym":173,"eligibilityCriteria":174,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":62,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":175,"targetDuration":177,"studyType":178,"phases":4,"briefSummary":179,"conditions":180,"keywords":183,"overallStatus":72,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":186,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":187,"startDateStruct":189,"completionDateStruct":191,"leadSponsor":193,"locationsCount":4},"100634566","the-hugo-ras-colorectal-collaborative-100634566","NCT07541352","The Hugo RAS Colorectal Collaborative","The Hugo RAS Colorectal Collaborative (HRCC): An International Study to Advance Minimally Invasive Surgery","HRCC","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Adult patients (age ≥ 18 years)\n* Scheduled to undergo any type of colorectal surgery (elective or emergent) where the Hugo RAS system is planned to be used\n* Willing and able to provide written informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n-Patients unable to provide informed consent",{"count":176,"type":21},2000,"3 Years","OBSERVATIONAL","The Hugo RAS Colorectal Collaborative (HRCC) is an international, multicenter dataset of patients undergoing colorectal surgery using the Hugo RAS system. The registry aims to analyze short and long-term outcomes to provide real-world evidence on the safety and effectiveness of the system.",[181,27,182],"Colorectal Surgery","ColoRectal Cancer and Inflammatory Bowel Disease",[184,185,99],"Colorectal cancer","IBD","2026-04-20",{"date":188,"type":45},"2026-04-22",{"date":190,"type":21},"2026-04",{"date":192,"type":21},"2029-06",{"name":194,"class":52},"IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna",{"id":196,"slug":197,"hasResults":11,"nctId":198,"briefTitle":199,"officialTitle":200,"acronym":201,"eligibilityCriteria":202,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":62,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":203,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":178,"phases":4,"briefSummary":205,"conditions":206,"keywords":210,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":217,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":218,"startDateStruct":220,"completionDateStruct":222,"leadSponsor":224,"locationsCount":226},"100634579","rats-sleeve-lobectomy-after-neo-chemo-io-for-nsclc-100634579","NCT07541521","RATS Sleeve Lobectomy After Neo-Chemo-IO for NSCLC","Robotic-Assisted Sleeve Lobectomy for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer After Neoadjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy","RIDDLE-NSCLC","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Age ≥18 years\n* ECOG performance status 0-2\n* Histologically confirmed NSCLC\n* AJCC 9th clinical stage IIB-III, M0, deemed resectable or potentially resectable by the multidisciplinary tumour discussion (MDT)\n* Planned neoadjuvant chemo-immunotherapy (PD-1\u002FPD-L1 inhibitor + platinum doublet；additional neoadjuvant thoracic radiotherapy is allowed)\n* Planned curative-intent RATS sleeve lobectomy with systematic nodal dissection\n* Baseline and restaging imaging per protocol (CT ± PET-CT)\n* Complete 30-day postoperative follow-up\n* Ability to provide informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Metastatic disease (M1) at baseline or on restaging.\n* No immunotherapy component in neoadjuvant regimen (pure chemotherapy) .\n* Prior systemic therapy or thoracic radiotherapy for the current cancer before starting chemo-IO.\n* Palliative intent or planned non-anatomic resection only (e.g., wedge) when sleeve\u002Flobectomy is indicated oncologically.\n* Clear unresectability at restaging (e.g., multistation bulky N2\u002FN3 not responding; unreconstructable T4 invasion) or MDT consensus against surgery.\n* Contraindication to general anesthesia or prohibitive cardiopulmonary risk precluding sleeve\u002Flobectomy.\n* Active autoimmune disease requiring systemic immunosuppression within 2 years, prior organ transplant, or history of grade ≥2 pneumonitis\u002FILD\n* Uncontrolled infection, pregnancy or breastfeeding, or any intercurrent illness that would compromise participation.",{"count":204,"type":21},100,"The goal of this multicenter prospective observational study is to learn about the surgical difficulty and outcomes of robotic-assisted sleeve lobectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy. The main questions it aims to answer are:\n\nWhat is the rate of unsuccessful robotic-assisted sleeve lobectomy after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy?\n\nWhat factors are associated with unsuccessful surgery?\n\nHow do surgeons subjectively assess intraoperative difficulty across multiple dimensions during these procedures?\n\nIn this study, unsuccessful surgery is defined as any of the following: conversion to thoracotomy, incomplete (non-R0) resection, or major postoperative complications. Participants who are scheduled to undergo curative-intent robotic-assisted sleeve lobectomy as part of their routine clinical care after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy will be enrolled from multiple centers. Clinical, intraoperative, pathological, and short-term postoperative data will be collected prospectively. In addition, surgeons will be asked to provide a multidimensional subjective assessment of intraoperative difficulty, including factors such as pleural adhesions, hilar fibrosis, nodal matting, fissure completeness, and vascular inflammation or edema, to better characterize the technical challenges of surgery and their association with perioperative outcomes.",[207,208,27,209],"Stage IIB-III NSCLC","Sleeve Lobectomy","Neoadjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy",[211,212,213,214,215,216],"stage IIB-III NSCLC","sleeve lobectomy","robotic surgery","neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy","perioperative outcomes","difficulty of surgery","2026-04-16",{"date":219,"type":45},"2026-04-21",{"date":221,"type":21},"2026-04-13",{"date":223,"type":21},"2027-05-30",{"name":225,"class":52},"Shanghai Chest Hospital",10,{"id":228,"slug":229,"hasResults":11,"nctId":230,"briefTitle":231,"officialTitle":232,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":233,"healthyVolunteers":234,"sex":62,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":235,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":178,"phases":4,"briefSummary":237,"conditions":238,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":240,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":241,"startDateStruct":243,"completionDateStruct":245,"leadSponsor":247,"locationsCount":53},"100541967","cardiac-performance-during-steep-trendelenburg-position-in-patients-undergoing-robotic-surgery-surgery-100541967","NCT06336746","Cardiac Performance During Steep Trendelenburg Position in Patients Undergoing Robotic Surgery Surgery.","Effects of Steep Trendelenburg and Pneumoperitoneum on Cardiac Performance During Robotic-assisted Surgery in Patients With Normal and Low Ejection Fraction.","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1\\. Consecutive Patients Scheduled for Robotic Surgery with Trendelenburg positioning.\n\n\\-\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age \\\u003C18;\n2. Dementia,\n3. Not able to give written consent -",true,{"count":236,"type":21},80,"The field of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery increases all the time. Older and more fragile patients which are not suitable for major open surgery could be scheduled for robotic- assisted surgery. The peroperative anesthesiological challenges and stresses during this type of surgery could anyway be even more prominent.\n\nThe extreme positioning of patients during robotic surgery in the pelvis, often 30 degrees head down tilting (Trendelenburg positioning), should increase the work load of the heart significantly. There are no studies concerning fragile patients with heart failure during these conditions.\n\nIn this study the circulatory effects in patients with normal heart function and preexisting heart failure will be studied during robotic surgery in extreme Trendelenburg positioning\n\nDuring surgery the work load and performance of the heart will be monitored using an esophageal doppler and optical spectrophotometry measuring regional saturation of the brain. This study can identify patients at risk of developing critical circulatory failure during this type of surgery.",[239,27],"Heart Failure, Systolic","2026-02-10",{"date":242,"type":45},"2026-02-12",{"date":244,"type":45},"2024-11-21",{"date":246,"type":21},"2026-12-31",{"name":248,"class":52},"Karlstad Central Hospital",{"id":250,"slug":251,"hasResults":11,"nctId":252,"briefTitle":253,"officialTitle":254,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":255,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":62,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":256,"targetDuration":258,"studyType":178,"phases":4,"briefSummary":259,"conditions":260,"keywords":262,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":267,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":268,"startDateStruct":270,"completionDateStruct":272,"leadSponsor":274,"locationsCount":53},"100577855","public-perceptions-toward-robotic-surgery-telesurgery-and-telemedicine-100577855","NCT06803719","Public Perceptions Toward Robotic Surgery, Telesurgery and Telemedicine","Public Awareness, Trust, and Risk Perception Toward Robotic Surgery, Telesurgery and Telemedicine","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Chinese citizens aged 18 years or older\n* Able to understand and complete the questionnaire\n* Voluntarily participating in this study and providing informed consent\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Aged below 18 years\n* Unable to understand the questionnaire or unable to complete the questionnaire independently\n* Those who submit the questionnaire repeatedly",{"count":257,"type":21},1000,"6 Months","This study aims to systematically assess the public's and clinicians' levels of awareness, attitudes, risk perception, acceptance, and potential concerns regarding robotic surgery and telesurgery. It also analyzes the key factors influencing their attitudes and explores the needs of physicians regarding training systems for robotic and telesurgery, as well as the factors affecting their preparedness.",[27,261],"Telemedicine",[263,264,265,266],"Public perception","Telemedicine adoption","Surgical training","Surgical decision-making","2025-12-31",{"date":269,"type":45},"2026-01-02",{"date":271,"type":45},"2024-11-01",{"date":273,"type":21},"2027-12-31",{"name":275,"class":52},"Shanghai 6th People's Hospital",{"id":277,"slug":278,"hasResults":11,"nctId":279,"briefTitle":280,"officialTitle":281,"acronym":282,"eligibilityCriteria":283,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":150,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":284,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":286,"briefSummary":287,"conditions":288,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":72,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":291,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":292,"startDateStruct":294,"completionDateStruct":295,"leadSponsor":297,"locationsCount":4},"100611113","evaluation-of-well-being-and-patient-reported-outcomes-after-robotic-single-port-nipple-sparing-mastectomy-and-implant-reconstruction-100611113","NCT07236359","Evaluation of Well Being and Patient Reported Outcomes After Robotic Single-port Nipple Sparing Mastectomy and Implant Reconstruction","A Randomised Control Trial Evaluating Well Being and Patient Reported Outcomes After Robotic Single-port Nipple Sparing Mastectomy and Implant Reconstruction","Reborn-i","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Women aged 18 years and older\n* Candidates who have already been selected to undergo nipple sparing mastectomy and immediate implant reconstruction by the breast MDT for the following indications:\n* Genetic mutation carriers undergoing risk-reducing mastectomy.\n* Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) requiring mastectomy.\n* Early invasive breast cancer requiring mastectomy.\n* The tumour must not have skin involvement and no evidence of invasive disease within 1cm of skin, nipple or Pec major muscle (as proven on MRI).\n* Candidates for immediate breast reconstruction with IMPLANT reconstruction\n* Fluent in English\n* Fit for general anaesthetic\n* Signed informed consent form\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Advanced breast cancer with skin involvement.\n* Nipple involvement for Nipple Sparing Mastectomy Arms.\n* Prior chest wall radiation therapy\n* Pregnancy\n* Lactation\n* Patients with insufficient English to sign an informed consent (i.e. interpreter required).",{"count":285,"type":21},108,[24],"This study is being carried out to better understand how different types of mastectomy surgeries affect women's recovery, satisfaction, and overall well-being after breast cancer surgery and reconstruction. There are different ways to perform a mastectomy. In some patients, a nipple-sparing mastectomy may be suitable, where the nipple and surrounding breast skin are preserved. This approach allows for immediate breast reconstruction with an implant, which is placed at the same time as the mastectomy to restore the breast shape. A newer technique called robotic single-port nipple-sparing mastectomy uses advanced robotic technology to remove breast tissue through a small hidden incision at the side of the chest. This method may reduce scarring, pain, and recovery time, while preserving the appearance and sensation of the breast.\n\nHowever, while early studies suggest this technique is safe and effective, more evidence is needed to compare it directly with standard surgeries.\n\nThis study will compare:\n\n* Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy\n* Standard (open) nipple-sparing mastectomy We will assess patient satisfaction, body image, physical and emotional well-being, and surgical outcomes over 12 months following surgery. By taking part, you are helping researchers evaluate whether robotic and nipple-sparing approaches offer measurable benefits to patients.\n\nTaking part in this study will not affect your surgery or the care you receive. You will be given the best treatment available based on your individual medical needs, whether or not you decide to participate in the research.",[157,289,290,27],"Breast Cancer","Hereditary Breast\u002FOvarian Cancer (brca1, brca2)","2025-11-14",{"date":293,"type":45},"2025-11-19",{"date":267,"type":21},{"date":296,"type":21},"2028-12-31",{"name":166,"class":52},{"id":299,"slug":300,"hasResults":11,"nctId":301,"briefTitle":302,"officialTitle":302,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":303,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":62,"minAge":18,"maxAge":304,"enrollmentInfo":305,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":306,"briefSummary":307,"conditions":308,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":72,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":311,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":312,"startDateStruct":314,"completionDateStruct":316,"leadSponsor":317,"locationsCount":53},"100604831","phase-4-effect-of-topical-lidocaine-spraying-on-the-vocal-cords-before-intubation-during-robotic-surgery-a-randomized-controlled-trial-100604831","NCT07154628","Effect of Topical Lidocaine Spraying on the Vocal Cords Before Intubation During Robotic Surgery: a Randomized Controlled Trial","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* ASA classification I\\~III\n* aged 18\\~69 y\u002Fo\n* BMI 18\\~35 kg\u002Fm2\n* scheduled for elective robotic surgery under general anesthesia\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Allergy or contraindication to lidocaine","69 Years",{"count":236,"type":21},[121],"Endotracheal intubation is a respiratory management technique used during general anesthesia. It is essential for certain surgical procedures as it ensures a secure airway for the patient.\n\nHowever, during the placement of the endotracheal tube, the passage of the tube through the vocal cords can cause pain stimulation, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. Lidocaine reversibly blocks the conduction of nerve impulses along nerve fibers by preventing the movement of sodium ions across the nerve membrane. Topical application of lidocaine near the vocal cords before endotracheal tube placement may be a way to reduce the surgical pleth index and changes in vital signs (heart rate, blood pressure) caused by excessive endotracheal tube stimulation.\n\nThis study aims to investigate the benefit of topical spraying of lidocaine on the vocal cords before endotracheal tube placement during routine da Vinci surgery. The primary outcomes were the pharmacological effects of spraying either lidocaine or normal saline (control group) on the vocal cords. These included: post-intubation hypertension (defined as an increase in systolic blood pressure of more than 20% from baseline), changes in mean arterial pressure before and after intubation, and objective pain indices such as the Surgical Pleth Index. Secondary outcomes included post-intubation hypotension (defined as mean arterial pressure less than 70 mmHg), as well as postoperative complaints and severity of sore throat, pain on swallowing, and hoarseness.",[309,310,27],"Lidocaine Spray","Intubation","2025-09-04",{"date":313,"type":45},"2025-09-11",{"date":315,"type":21},"2025-09-01",{"date":296,"type":21},{"name":318,"class":52},"Kaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial Hospital",{"id":320,"slug":321,"hasResults":11,"nctId":322,"briefTitle":323,"officialTitle":324,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":325,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":62,"minAge":326,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":327,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":329,"briefSummary":330,"conditions":331,"keywords":334,"overallStatus":72,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":337,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":338,"startDateStruct":340,"completionDateStruct":342,"leadSponsor":344,"locationsCount":53},"100596625","the-effect-of-dexmedetomidine-on-postoperative-cognitive-function-in-geriatric-patients-100596625","NCT07047898","The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Postoperative Cognitive Function in Geriatric Patients","The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Postoperative Cognitive Function in Geriatric Patients Undergoing Robotic Urologic Surgery","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* Patients over 65 years of age\n* Those with ASA 1,2,3\n* Patients who underwent robotic urological surgery\n* Those who underwent Mini Mental Test in the preoperative period\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Those under 65 years of age\n* Those with ASA score IV and above\n* Those with advanced co-morbidities\n* Patients who have converted robotic surgery to open surgery\n* Those with morbid obesity\n* Those with alcohol or drug addiction\n* Refusing to participate\n* Those with a known history of psychiatric and neurological diseases\n* Those with visual and hearing impairments\n* Those who score below 24 on the Mini Mental Test\n* Patients who are hemodynamically unstable peroperatively","65 Years",{"count":328,"type":21},60,[24],"In pelvic surgeries, using laparoscopic surgical procedures provides advantages such as reduced postoperative pain and complications, early mobilization, shorter hospital stays, lower costs, better cosmetic outcomes, and faster return to daily activities. In robotic surgeries, the instruments have superior maneuverability compared to the human wrist, allowing for more precise work in delicate areas with a three-dimensional view while eliminating the surgeon's hand tremor. On the other hand, despite advances in surgical techniques, anesthesia management, and intensive care, a significant proportion of geriatric patients experience cognitive decline after surgery. Postoperative cognitive function decline can reduce the quality of life and lead to significant damage to family and social support systems. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD), defined as a decline in cognitive function following surgeries performed under general anesthesia, is a common postoperative cognitive impairment, particularly in the elderly population. Studies have shown that the incidence of POCD in individuals aged 60 and above ranges between 20% and 40%. Additionally, POCD is associated with prolonged hospital stays, reduced mobility, and increased mortality. Patients undergoing robotic laparoscopic radical surgery assume the Trendelenburg position, which provides better exposure of the pelvic organs. However, in robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgeries, patients must be placed in a steep Trendelenburg position. Prolonged pneumoperitoneum and excessive head-down tilt can increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier. As a result of the Trendelenburg position, intracranial pressure may increase, leading to brain hypoxia, inadequate cerebral blood flow, low arterial oxygen content, anemia, and high brain oxygen consumption. Impaired cerebral oxygenation can directly affect brain function. Compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery tend to exhibit prolonged emergence from anesthesia and increased psychomotor agitation due to factors such as stress response, trauma, anesthesia, bleeding, and transfusion. This condition is influenced by factors such as decreased cerebral blood flow and hypotension. Therefore, real-time monitoring methods are needed to detect and address cerebral hypoxia. While diagnostic tools like computed tomography (CT), echocardiography (ECHO), electroencephalography (EEG), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reveal brain damage at a later stage, near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) is a continuous, safe, and non-invasive method for detecting cerebral hypoxia. Identifying oxygen deficiency in the brain can allow adjustments in treatment strategies and help prevent postoperative cognitive dysfunction, potentially reducing patients' intensive care and hospital stay durations while minimizing complications. Recently, certain medications have been used to prevent postoperative cognitive dysfunction. Dexmedetomidine, a drug with neuroprotective properties, is commonly used perioperatively in patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia. Pharmacologically, dexmedetomidine is an α2-adrenergic agonist with sedative, analgesic, anxiolytic, and diuretic effects. However, previous clinical studies evaluating the effects of dexmedetomidine on POCD in elderly patients have yielded inconsistent results. This study aims to investigate the effects of dexmedetomidine on recovery from anesthesia and postoperative cognitive function in elderly patients undergoing robotic urologic surgery, particularly focusing on its neuroprotective properties. Patients included in our study will be randomly divided into two groups. Both groups will undergo routine standard ASA monitoring, NIRS, and BIS monitoring. Both groups will receive standard anesthesia induction. Then, one group will receive sevoflurane + remifentanil, while the other group will receive dexmedetomidine and remifentanil infusion along with sevoflurane. Both patient groups will undergo the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) before and after the operation. During the intraoperative period, anesthesia depth will be monitored using BIS (maintaining the depth between 40 and 60 for both groups), and oxygenation will be tracked using NIRS. Our study will include geriatric patients undergoing robotic urologic surgery. The patients will be randomly divided into two groups. The randomization process will be performed using a web-based randomization program (Sortition), which is defined for validity. The anesthesiologist providing anesthesia management and the anesthetist conducting the postoperative cognitive function monitoring will be different individuals. Patients who accept the study and undergo the preoperative Mini-Mental Test will be included in the study after postoperative assessments on the 24th hour and the 7th day.",[332,27,333],"Dexmedetomidine","Geriatric Patients",[335,336],"Postoperative Cognitive Function","recovery","2025-07-01",{"date":339,"type":45},"2025-07-02",{"date":341,"type":21},"2025-08",{"date":343,"type":21},"2026-08-21",{"name":345,"class":346},"Ankara Etlik City Hospital","OTHER_GOV",{"id":348,"slug":349,"hasResults":11,"nctId":350,"briefTitle":351,"officialTitle":351,"acronym":352,"eligibilityCriteria":353,"healthyVolunteers":234,"sex":62,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":354,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":178,"phases":4,"briefSummary":356,"conditions":357,"keywords":358,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":362,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":363,"startDateStruct":365,"completionDateStruct":367,"leadSponsor":369,"locationsCount":53},"100513059","robotic-curriculum-for-young-surgeons-100513059","NCT05960539","Robotic Curriculum for Young Surgeons","RoCS","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* robotic procedures\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* no consent of patients or surgeons",{"count":355,"type":21},500,"Robotic training program for unexperienced novice surgeons",[27],[213,359,360,361],"NASA Task Load Index","training","curriculum","2025-04-26",{"date":364,"type":45},"2025-04-30",{"date":366,"type":45},"2020-05-01",{"date":368,"type":21},"2026-04-30",{"name":370,"class":52},"Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg",{"id":372,"slug":373,"hasResults":11,"nctId":374,"briefTitle":375,"officialTitle":376,"acronym":377,"eligibilityCriteria":378,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":62,"minAge":18,"maxAge":326,"enrollmentInfo":379,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":381,"briefSummary":382,"conditions":383,"keywords":384,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":387,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":388,"startDateStruct":390,"completionDateStruct":392,"leadSponsor":394,"locationsCount":53},"100564475","robotic-versus-laparoscopic-sleeve-gastrectomy-100564475","NCT06629662","Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy","Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Prospective Randomized Study.","SLEEVEROBOP","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n* According to IFSO (International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity)\u002FASMBS (American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery) 2023 guidelines\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n* Previous bariatric or abdominal surgery",{"count":380,"type":21},50,[24],"Sleeve gastrectomy is the most commonly performed bariatric procedures. Robotic surgery seems to add more precision to the surgical interventions. However, robotic bariatric procedures appear to be burdened by longer operative time.\n\nAim of the investigators is to prospectively and randomly submit patients suffering from obesity to robotic or laparoscopic surgery in order to compare outcomes.",[27],[99,385,386],"Sleeve Gastrectomy","Bariatric surgery","2025-03-29",{"date":389,"type":45},"2025-04-03",{"date":391,"type":45},"2024-10-01",{"date":393,"type":21},"2025-11-01",{"name":395,"class":52},"University of Naples",{"id":397,"slug":398,"hasResults":11,"nctId":399,"briefTitle":400,"officialTitle":401,"acronym":402,"eligibilityCriteria":403,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":150,"minAge":4,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":404,"targetDuration":406,"studyType":178,"phases":4,"briefSummary":407,"conditions":408,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":412,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":413,"startDateStruct":415,"completionDateStruct":417,"leadSponsor":419,"locationsCount":53},"100573622","endoscopic-and-robotic-nsm-with-immediate-prosthesis-breast-reconstruction-100573622","NCT06748677","Endoscopic and Robotic NSM with Immediate Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction","Prospective Cohort Study of Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Traditional Open Surgery for Nipple Areola Preserving Mastectomy Combined with Immediate Prosthesis Reconstruction","EnRoNSM","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Underwent surgical treatment at Peking University People's Hospital, with hospitalization records;\n2. Preoperative core needle biopsy confirmed breast cancer;\n3. The clinical stage of the tumor is stage 0-IIIB; 4）cT≤5cm， cN0\u002FcN1，M0， And there is no tumor invasion of the nipple areola complex, skin, and chest wall;\n\n5\\) Intraoperative plan to use non biological patches (such as TiLoop) to partially or completely wrap the prosthesis 6) Signed agreement to participate in this study; 7) Can cooperate to complete the Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) questionnaire.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Lack of clinical pathological data (such as imaging data, pathological data);\n2. Pregnancy or lactation period;\n3. Patients with metastatic breast cancer or bilateral breast cancer;\n4. Have undergone breast conserving surgery\u002Fchest radiation therapy before;\n5. Patients with nipple areola invasion and subsequent removal of nipple areola complex;\n6. Failed to undergo curative surgery;",{"count":405,"type":21},484,"5 Years","Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor in women. Surgical treatment is the most important treatment for early breast cancer. Breast cancer resection is considered to be a destructive operation. Patients need to accept the double blow of physical and psychological loss of breast shape. Although with the change of the concept of early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, the breast conserving rate of breast cancer is gradually increasing in China, more than half of the patients are still unable to retain breast due to their condition. For these patients, breast reconstruction surgery is an important means to improve the postoperative breast shape. With the improvement of surgical technology, endoscopic\u002Frobotic NSM combined with immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction has been gradually developed. According to previous literature reports, it has good tumor safety and aesthetics, but it is still lack of large-scale prospective results.\n\nThis project plans to adopt a prospective cohort design, based on the large sample breast disease cohort database established by the breast center of Peking University People's Hospital, and prospectively include patients who receive NSM combined with immediate prosthesis reconstruction under endoscopy\u002Frobot and conventional surgery from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2028. The perioperative complications, tumor safety and patient reported outcomes of the two methods were compared.",[409,410,411,27],"Nipple-sparing Mastectomy","Immediate Prosthesis Reconstruction","Endoscopic Surgery","2025-01-05",{"date":414,"type":45},"2025-01-07",{"date":416,"type":45},"2025-01-03",{"date":418,"type":21},"2031-12-31",{"name":420,"class":52},"Peking University People's Hospital",{"id":422,"slug":423,"hasResults":11,"nctId":424,"briefTitle":425,"officialTitle":426,"acronym":427,"eligibilityCriteria":428,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":62,"minAge":18,"maxAge":4,"enrollmentInfo":429,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":178,"phases":4,"briefSummary":431,"conditions":432,"keywords":442,"overallStatus":41,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":445,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":446,"startDateStruct":448,"completionDateStruct":450,"leadSponsor":452,"locationsCount":454},"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":430,"type":21},326,"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.",[433,434,435,436,437,438,27,439,440,441],"Gastric Cancer","Gastric Adenocarcinoma","Lymphadenectomy","Minimally Invasive Surgery","Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer","Laparoscopic Surgery","Survival Outcomes","Survival Analysis","Quality Of Care",[443,444],"D2 Lymphadenectomy quality assessment","Minimally invasive gastric cancer oncologic surgery","2024-07-03",{"date":447,"type":45},"2024-07-05",{"date":449,"type":45},"2022-12-22",{"date":451,"type":21},"2027-12",{"name":453,"class":52},"Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma",8,{"id":456,"slug":457,"hasResults":11,"nctId":458,"briefTitle":459,"officialTitle":460,"acronym":4,"eligibilityCriteria":461,"healthyVolunteers":11,"sex":62,"minAge":18,"maxAge":462,"enrollmentInfo":463,"targetDuration":4,"studyType":22,"phases":465,"briefSummary":466,"conditions":467,"keywords":4,"overallStatus":72,"whyStopped":4,"lastUpdateSubmitDate":469,"lastUpdatePostDateStruct":470,"startDateStruct":472,"completionDateStruct":474,"leadSponsor":475,"locationsCount":53},"100548513","effectiveness-of-robotic-surgery-for-right-colon-cancer-100548513","NCT06421974","Effectiveness of Robotic Surgery for Right Colon Cancer","A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effectiveness of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Right Colon Cancer","Inclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Age 18-75 years old.\n2. ASA classification ≤ Level III.\n3. Colon adenocarcinoma was confirmed by colonoscopy and biopsy pathology.\n4. Transabdominal enhanced CT showed that the distal and proximal ends of the primary tumor were located in the right colon (cecum to the proximal 1\u002F3 of the transverse colon).\n5. Preoperative clinical stage: TanyNanyM0.\n6. The patient's condition meets the indications for robotic surgery and is willing to accept the robotic surgery treatment plan.\n7. Voluntarily participate in this study and sign the informed consent form. If the subject is unable to read and sign the informed consent form due to incapacity or other reasons, his or her guardian must be responsible for the informed process and sign the informed consent form. If the subject is unable to read the informed consent form (such as illiterate subjects), a witness must witness the informed process and sign the informed consent form.\n\nExclusion Criteria:\n\n1. Preoperative examination indicates synchronous multiple primary colorectal cancers or other diseases requiring intestinal segmental resection.\n2. The results of preoperative imaging examination or intraoperative exploration suggest: 1) The tumor involves surrounding organs and requires combined organ resection; 2) There is distant metastasis; 3) R0 resection cannot be performed.\n3. Additional radical surgery after emr and esd surgery.\n4. Have a history of any other malignant tumor or familial adenomatous polyposis in the past 5 years, except for cured cervical carcinoma in situ, basal cell carcinoma, papillary thyroid carcinoma or cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.\n5. Combined intestinal obstruction, intestinal perforation, intestinal bleeding, etc. require emergency surgery.\n6. Patients who are not suitable for or cannot tolerate robotic or laparoscopic surgery.\n7. Pregnant or lactating women.\n8. Patients with a history of mental illness.\n9. Patients who have received neoadjuvant treatment before surgery.\n10. MDT discusses patients who are not suitable for entering the study.\n11. Patients who refuse to undergo either robotic or laparoscopic surgery.","75 Years",{"count":464,"type":21},610,[24],"This study aims to explore through a multi-center, randomized controlled clinical study whether robot-assisted radical resection of right colon cancer is superior to laparoscopic surgery in terms of surgical quality and oncological prognosis.",[468,27],"Colon Cancer","2024-05-14",{"date":471,"type":45},"2024-05-20",{"date":473,"type":21},"2024-06-01",{"date":223,"type":21},{"name":476,"class":52},"Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital"]