Obese patients and robotic colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

Association between body mass index and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy can be technically challenging in patients with increased body mass index, reportedly associated with higher surgical site infection (SSI) and incisional hernia rates. We aimed to assess the association between increased body mass index and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients with colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy between 2011 and 2021. Patients were managed with a standardized care protocol that comprised preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative measures and were divided according to body mass index-normal body mass index (18-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), and obesity (≥30 kg/m2). Body mass index groups were compared for baseline characteristics and outcomes. The main outcome measures were operative time, hospital stay, 30-day complications, reoperation, number of harvested lymph nodes, and resection status.

RESULTS

A total of 270 patients (50% male sex; mean age: 68.7 ± 13.5 years) were included-28.5% had normal body mass index, 47% were overweight, and 24.5% had obesity. Mean operative times in obese and overweight patients were significantly longer than patients with normal body mass index (172.1 and 168.8 versus 143.3 minutes, P = .01). Compared to normal body mass index, obesity was associated with significantly higher odds of incisional SSI (odds ratio: 9.29, P = .039). Body mass index had a significant positive correlation with operation time (r = 0.205, P = .004) and incisional SSI (r = 0.126, P = .04). Body mass index groups had similar hospital stays, 30-day complications and mortality, anastomotic leak, ileus, and reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Patients with increased body mass index had longer operative times and higher SSI rates, yet similar hospital stays and comparable 30-day complication rates, mortality, and reoperation to patients with normal body mass index.

Outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in morbidly obese patients: A propensity score-matched analysis of the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Morbid obesity is associated with poorer postoperative outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We aimed to evaluate short-term outcomes after robotic versus conventional laparoscopic CRC resection in morbidly obese patients.

METHODS

This population-based, retrospective study extracted data from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample during 2005-2018. Adults ≥ 20 years old, with morbid obesity and CRC, and undergoing robotic or laparoscopic resections were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to minimize the confounding. Univariate and multivariable regression was conducted to evaluate the associations between outcomes and study variables.

RESULTS

After PSM, 1296 patients remained. The risks of any postoperative complication (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.80, 1.22), prolonged length of stay (LOS) (aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.63, 1.01), death (aOR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.11, 3.10), or pneumonia (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.73, 1.77) were not significantly different between the two procedures after adjustment. Robotic surgery was significantly associated with greater hospital cost (aBeta = 26.26, 95% CI: 16.08, 36.45) than laparoscopic surgery. Stratified analyses revealed that, in patients with tumor located at the colon, robotic surgery was associated with lower risk of prolonged LOS (aOR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with morbid obesity, risks of postoperative complication, death, or pneumonia are not significantly different between robotic and laparoscopic CRC resection. Among patients with tumor located at the colon, robotic surgery is associated with lower risk of prolonged LOS. These findings fill the knowledge gap and provide useful information for clinicians on risk stratification and treatment choice.

Feasibility and learning curve for robotic surgery in a small hospital: A retrospective cohort study

Robotic surgery rates, typified by the use of the da Vinci Surgical System, have increased in recent years. However, robotic surgery is mostly performed in large hospitals and has not been fully implemented in small hospitals. Therefore, we aimed to verify the feasibility of robotic surgery in small hospitals and verify the number of cases in which perioperative preparation for robotic surgery is stable by creating a learning curve in small hospitals. Forty robot-assisted rectal cancer surgeries performed in large and small hospitals by a surgeon with extensive experience in robotic surgery were validated. Draping and docking times were recorded as perioperative preparation times. Unexpected surgical interruptions, intraoperative adverse events, conversion to laparoscopic or open surgery, and postoperative complications were recorded. Cumulative sum analysis was used to derive the learning curve for perioperative preparation time. Draping times were significantly longer in the small hospital group (7 vs 10 minutes, P = .0002), while docking times were not significantly different (12 vs 13 minutes, P = .098). Surgical interruptions, intraoperative adverse events, and conversions were not observed in either group. There were no significant differences in the incidence of severe complications (25% [5/20] vs 5% [1/20], P = .184). In the small hospital group, phase I of the draping learning curve was completed in 4 cases, while phase I of the docking learning curve was completed in 7 cases. Robotic surgery is feasible for small hospitals, and the preoperative preparation time required for robotic surgery stabilizes relatively early.

Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy node retrieval in the obese population

Data are scarce comparing robotic and laparoscopic colectomy node retrieval based on body mass index or age. With differences in anastomosis, mobilization, and ligation between these approaches, obese and/or elderly patients undergoing robotic surgery may have differences in node yield compared to laparoscopy. A retrospective review was conducted between four institutions from February 1, 2019 through August 1, 2021, during which 144 right colectomies were performed. Benign pathology, open colectomies, and conversions to open were excluded. All included surgeons had at least five patients to ensure experience. The population was categorized by a robotic or laparoscopic approach. Records were reviewed focusing on age, body mass index, surgical approach, anastomosis, pathology, and node count. The node count was then compared by body mass index and age between the robotic or laparoscopic approach to identify differences. After applied exclusions and outlier analysis, our final sample consisted of 80 patients. Both body mass index and age were significant, (p = 0.002 and p = 0.005, respectively). Body mass index ≤ 25.0 and age < 60 years old had higher average node counts. These variables interacted, (p = 0.003); those with both < 60 years old and body mass index ≤ 25 showed the greatest number of nodes (36.9). Laparoscopy yielded more nodes in ≥ 60 years old than robotics (27.4 verses 20.9), though this was not significant (p = 0.68). Node retrieval in overweight and obese patients did not differ between approaches (p = 0.48). Both body mass index and age influence the number of nodes that can be extracted in right hemicolectomies by experienced surgeons.

Robotic CME in obese patients: advantage of robotic ultrasound scan for vascular dissection

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) in right-sided colon cancers appears to confer oncological benefits compared to conventional colectomy. Identification of the superior mesenteric vein (SMV) remains challenging. We describe the novel use of intra-operative robotic ultrasound scan (rUSS) in obese patients (BMI ≥ 29). All consecutive patients having robotic CME for colon cancer between 2014 and 2017 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Data were recorded on an ethics approved prospective database and included patient demographics, clinical and oncological outcomes. Patients were divided into group 1 (BMI ≤ 28) and group 2 (BMI ≥ 29). SMV first approach was employed in all cases and SMV detection was aided using rUSS in group 2. Primary outcome was postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, operative time and length of stay (LOS). 41 (group 1, median 66 years) were compared to 32 patients (group 2, median 63 years). There were no conversions to laparoscopy or laparotomy. Median operative times for group 2 were 30 min longer (186 vs. 216 min, p = 0.05). Overall morbidity was similar (20% vs. 19% in group 1 and 2, p = 0.26). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to LOS (median 7 vs. 6 days, p = 0.48), readmissions (2 vs. 5, p = 0.13), R0 resection rate (98% vs. 94%, p = 0.43) and lymph node harvest (median 31 vs. 30, p = 0.28).CME can be technically more challenging than conventional colectomy in obese patients and is associated with longer operative times. The use of rUSS in obese patients can help to identify SMV and allow safer dissection.

Robotic colon surgery in obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer resection can be technically difficult in the obese (OB) population. Robotic surgery is a promising technique but its benefits remain uncertain in OB patients. The aim of this study is to compare OB versus non-obese (NOB) patients undergoing robotic colon surgery, as well as OB patients undergoing robotic versus open or laparoscopic colonic surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Primary outcome measures included length of stay (LOS), surgical site infection (SSI) rate, complications, anastomotic leak and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were included, with five comparing OB and NOB patients undergoing robotic colon surgery included in meta-analysis. A total of 263 OB patients and 400 NOB patients formed the sample for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups in operative time, conversion to open, LOS, lymph node yield, anastomotic leak and postoperative ileus. There was a trend towards a significant increase in overall complications and SSI in the OB group (32.3% OB versus 26.8% NOB for complications, 14.2% OB versus 9.9% NOB for SSI). The three included studies comparing surgical techniques were too heterogeneous to undergo meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colon surgery is safe in obese patients, but high-quality prospective evidence is lacking. Future studies should report on oncological safety and the cost-effectiveness of adopting the robotic technique in these challenging patients.

Review article: obesity and colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a growing global public health problem. More than half the European and North American population is overweight or obese. Colon and rectum cancers are still the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide, and epidemiological data support an association between obesity and colorectal cancers (CRCs).

AIM

To review the literature on CRC epidemiology in obese subjects, assessing the effects of obesity, including childhood or maternal obesity, on CRC, diagnosis, management, and prognosis, and discussing targeted prophylactic measures.

METHOD

We searched PubMed for obesity/overweight/metabolic syndrome and CRC. Other key words included 'staging', 'screening', 'treatment', 'weight loss', 'bariatric surgery' and 'chemotherapy'.

RESULTS

In Europe, about 11% of CRCs are attributed to overweight and obesity. Epidemiological data suggest that obesity is associated with a 30%-70% increased risk of colon cancer in men, the association being less consistent in women. Visceral fat or abdominal obesity seems to be of greater concern than subcutaneous fat obesity, and any 1 kg/m² increase in body mass index confers more risk (hazard ratio 1.03). Obesity might increase the likelihood of recurrence or mortality of the primary cancer and may affect initial management, including accurate staging. The risk maybe confounded by different factors, including lower adherence to organised CRC screening programmes. It is unclear whether bariatric surgery helps reduce rectal cancer risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a growing body of evidence linking obesity to CRC, many questions remain unanswered, including whether we should screen patients with obesity earlier or propose prophylactic bariatric surgery for certain patients with obesity.

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery - initial results

INTRODUCTION

The mini invasive procedure in colorectal surgery is gaining ground as an alternative to conventional surgery. Colorectal surgery has significantly evolved since the advent of the automatic stapler devices and subsequently with the minimally invasive approach. The next logical step - the robotic assisted surgery was developed to satisfy surgeons' needs to the area of colorectal surgery and to offer a new and safer method to patients. The evidence for benefits of its use in this area appears to be promising.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study

The current gold standard surgical treatment for right colonic malignancy is the laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH). However, laparoscopic surgery has limitations which can be overcome by robotic surgery. The benefits of robotics for rectal cancer are widely accepted but its use for right hemicolectomy remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) and LRH in a university teaching hospital. Demographic, perioperative and postoperative data along with early oncological outcomes of patients who underwent RRH and LRH with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) were identified from a prospectively maintained database. A total of 70 patients (35 RRH, 35 LRH) were identified over a 4-year period. No statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, 30-day reoperation, 30-day mortality, surgical site infection or lengths of stay were demonstrated. Surgical specimen quality in both groups was favourable. The mean duration of surgery was longer in RRH (p <  < 0.00001). A statistically significant proportion of RRH patients had a higher BMI and ASA grade. The results demonstrate that RRH is safe and feasible when compared to LRH, with no statistical difference in postoperative morbidity, mortality and early oncological outcomes. A difference was noted in operating time, however was influenced by training residents in docking the robot and a technically challenging cohort of patients. Operative time has shortened with further experience. Incorporating an intracorporeal anastomosis technique in RRH offers the potential to improve outcomes compared to LRH.

The impact of body mass index on outcomes in robotic colorectal surgery: a single-centre experience

Obesity is an independent risk factor for postoperative morbidity and mortality in laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS). The technological advantages of robotic colorectal surgery (RCRS) may allow surgeons to overcome the limitations of LCRS in obese patients, but it is largely unknown if this translates to superior outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative, postoperative and short-term oncological outcomes in obese (BMI ≥ 30.0 kg/m²) and non-obese (BMI < 30 kg/m²) patients undergoing RCRS in a university teaching hospital. Demographic, perioperative and postoperative data along with short-term oncological outcomes of obese and non-obese patients that underwent RCRS for both benign and malignant colorectal disease were identified from a prospectively maintained database. A total of 107 patients (34 obese, 73 non-obese) underwent RCRS over a 4-year period. No statistically significant differences in the incidence of complications, 30-day reoperation, 30-day mortality, conversion to open surgery, anastomotic leak or length of inpatient stay were demonstrated. Obese patients had a significantly higher rate of surgical site infection (SSI) (p < 0.0001). Short-term oncological outcomes in both groups were favourable. There was no statistically significant difference in median duration of surgery between the two cohorts. The results demonstrate that obese patients undergoing RCRS in this institution experience similar outcomes to non-obese patients. These results suggest that RCRS is safe and feasible in obese patients and may be superior to LCRS in this cohort, where the literature suggests a higher complication rate compared to non-obese patients. The inherent advantages of robotic surgical platforms, such as improved visualisation, dexterity and ergonomics likely contribute to the improved outcomes in this challenging patient population.