Robotic rectal surgery

Combined Endoscopic Robotic Surgery for Complex Colon Polyps

BACKGROUND

Combined endoscopic robotic surgery is a surgical technique that modifies traditional endoscopic laparoscopic surgery with robotic assistance to aid in the removal of complex colonic polyps. This technique has been described in the literature but lacks patient follow-up data.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and outcomes of combined endoscopic robotic surgery.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of a prospective database.

SETTING

East Jefferson General Hospital, Metairie, Louisiana.

PATIENTS

Ninety-three consecutive patients who underwent combined endoscopic robotic surgery from March 2018 to October 2021 were included in the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative time, intraoperative complication, 30-day postoperative complication, hospital length of stay, and follow-up pathology report results were the main outcome measures.

RESULTS

Combined endoscopic robotic surgery was completed in 88 of 93 participants (95%). Among the 88 participants who completed combined endoscopic robotic surgery, the average age was 66 years (SD = 10), BMI was 28.8 kg/m 2 (SD = 6), and history of previous abdominal surgeries was 1 (SD = 1). Median operative time was 72 minutes (range, 31-184 minutes) and polyp size was 40 mm (range, 5-180 mm). The most common polyp locations were the cecum, ascending colon, and transverse colon (31%, 28%, 25%). Pathology mainly demonstrated tubular adenoma (76%). Data on 40 patients who underwent follow-up colonoscopy were available. The average follow-up time was 7 months (range, 3-22 months). One patient (2.5%) had polyp recurrence at the resection site.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations for our study include a lack of randomization and follow-up rate to assess for recurrence. The low compliance rate may be due to procedure cancelations/difficulty scheduling because of changing coronavirus disease 2019 guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to literature-reported statistics for its laparoscopic counterpart, combined endoscopic robotic surgery was associated with decreased operation times and resection site polyp recurrence. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C208 .

CIRUGA ROBTICA ENDOSCPICA COMBINADA PARA PLIPOS DE COLON COMPLEJOS

ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía robótica endoscópica combinada es una técnica quirúrgica que modifica la cirugía laparoscópica endoscópica tradicional con asistencia robótica para ayudar en la extracción de pólipos colónicos complejos. Esta técnica está previamente descrita en la literatura, pero carece de datos de seguimiento de los pacientes.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la seguridad y los resultados de la cirugía robótica endoscópica combinada.DISEÑO:Revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos prospectiva.AJUSTE:Hospital General East Jefferson, Metairie LouisianaPACIENTES:Noventa y tres pacientes consecutivos y sometidos a cirugía robótica endoscópica combinada por un solo cirujano colorrectal desde marzo de 2018 hasta octubre de 2021.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tiempo operatorio, complicación intraoperatoria, complicación posoperatoria a los 30 días, duración de la estancia hospitalaria y resultados del informe patológico de seguimiento.RESULTADOS:La cirugía robótica endoscópica combinada se completó en 88 de 93 (95%). Entre los 88 participantes que completaron la cirugía robótica endoscópica combinada, la edad promedio fue de 66 años (desviación estándar = 10), índice de masa corporal de 28,8 (desviación estándar = 6) y el historial de cirugías abdominales previas de 1 (desviación estándar = 1). La mediana del tiempo operatorio y el tamaño de los pólipos fueron 72 minutos (rango 31-184 minutos) y 40 milímetros (rango 5-180 milímetros), respectivamente. Las ubicaciones de pólipos más comunes fueron el ciego, colon ascendente y transverso (31%, 28%, 25%). La patología demostró principalmente adenoma tubular (76%). Los datos de 40 pacientes sometidos a una colonoscopia de seguimiento estaban disponibles. El tiempo medio de seguimiento fue de 7 meses (rango 3-22 meses). Un paciente (2,5%) presentó recurrencia polipoidea en el sitio de resección.LIMITACIONES:Las limitaciones de nuestro estudio incluyeron la falta de aleatorización y la tasa de seguimiento para evaluar la recurrencia. La baja tasa de seguimiento puede deberse a la renuencia del paciente en hacerse una colonoscopia o cancelaciones de procedimientos por la dificultad para programar debido a cambios de COVID-19.CONCLUSIÓN:En comparación con las estadísticas reportadas en la literatura para su contraparte laparoscópica, la cirugía robótica endoscópica combinada se asoció con reducción en tiempos de operación y recurrencia de pólipos en el sitio de resección. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C208 . (Traducción - Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Incomplete lymphatic sealing around the inferior mesenteric artery is a risk factor for chylous ascites in robotic rectal cancer surgery

INTRODUCTION

Compared with laparoscopic surgery (LS), robotic surgery (RS) is considered to have acceptable outcomes in rectal cancer, but few reports have focused on chylous ascites in RS. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and etiology of chylous ascites after RS.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 291 patients with rectal cancer who underwent RS (n = 165) or LS (n = 126) with high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to compare the two groups.

RESULTS

\Dissection around the IMA was achieved using ultrasonic coagulating shears in most LS cases, and monopolar scissors in most RS cases, sometimes using bipolar vessel sealing device or bipolar forceps. The incidence of chylous ascites was 12.2% in RS and 4.1% in LS after PSM (P = .037). When limited to the RS group, multivariate analysis identified absence of lymphatic sealing at the left side of the IMA and shorter operative time as independent risk factors for chylous ascites. Except for duration of drain placement, no outcomes differed significantly with or without chylous ascites. One patient with chylous ascites developed later infection and required antibiotic treatment.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of chylous ascites is significantly higher in RS than in LS, and RS with incomplete lymphatic sealing around the IMA is a risk factor for chylous ascites in rectal cancer. Although outcomes for patients with chylous ascites were acceptable, adequate lymphatic sealing during dissection around the IMA is crucial to prevent chylous ascites in RS.

Cost-conscious robotic restorative proctectomy has similar economic and oncologic outcomes to open restorative proctectomy: Results of a long-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND

In this study, we hypothesised that the direct hospital costs of robotic restorative proctectomy (RP) would be similar to those of open RP when a cost-conscious approach was employed in rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RP between 12/2011 and 10/2014. A cost-conscious approach was employed in robotic surgery. We compared demographics, long-term oncologic outcomes, and direct hospital costs between the open and robotic groups.

RESULTS

There were 32 robotic and 68 open RP procedures performed. Compared to open RP, the robotic RP group had a longer operative time but less estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusions, overall short-term morbidity, decreased length of stay. After the initial five robotic cases, overall hospital costs were comparable between the groups (1 ± 0.5 vs. 1 ± 0.4, open and robotic RP, respectively, p = 0.90).

CONCLUSION

Increasing surgeon experience and a cost-conscious approach may improve the value of care of robotic RP in patients with rectal cancer.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic versus traditional laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Gastrectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for gastric cancer patients. Currently, there are two minimally invasive surgical methods to choose from, robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG). Nevertheless, it is still unclear which is superior between the two. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RG and LG for gastric cancer. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases until September 2018 in studies that compared RG and LG in gastric cancer patients. Operative and postoperative outcomes analyzed were assessed. The quality of the evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations. Twenty-four English studies were analyzed. The meta-analysis revealed that the RG group had a significantly longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss, and higher perioperative costs compared to the LG group. However, there were no differences in complications, conversion rate, reoperation rate, mortality, number of lymph nodes harvested, days of first flatus, postoperative hospitalization time, and survival rate between the two groups. RG was shown to be associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss and increased perioperative cost and operation time compared to LG. Several higher-quality original studies and prospective clinical trials are required to confirm the advantages of RG.

The relationship between mesorectal grading and oncological outcome in rectal adenocarcinoma

AIM

The prognostic association between mesorectal grading and oncological outcome in patients undergoing resection for rectal adenocarcinoma is controversial. The aim of this retrospective chart review was to determine the individual impact of mesorectal grading on rectal cancer outcomes.

METHOD

We compared oncological outcomes in patients with complete, near-complete and incomplete mesorectum who underwent rectal excision with curative intent from 2009 to 2014 for Stage cI-III rectal adenocarcinoma. We also assessed the independent association of mesorectal grading and oncological outcome using multivariate models including other relevant variables.

RESULTS

Out of 505 patients (339 men, median age of 60 years), 347 (69%) underwent a restorative procedure. There were 452 (89.5%), 33 (6.5%) and 20 (4%) patients with a complete, near-complete and incomplete mesorectum, respectively. Local recurrence was seen in 2.4% (n = 12) patients after a mean follow-up of 3.1 ± 1.7 years. Unadjusted 3-year Kaplan-Meier analysis by mesorectal grade showed decreased rates of overall, disease-free and cancer-specific survival and increased rates of overall and distant recurrence with a near-complete mesorectum, while local recurrence was increased in cases of an incomplete mesorectum (all P < 0.05). On multivariate analyses, a near-complete mesorectum was independently associated with decreased cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio 0.26, 95% CI 0.1-0.7; P = 0.007). There were no associations between mesorectal grading and overall survival, disease-free survival, overall recurrence or distant recurrence (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Mesorectal grading is independently associated with oncological outcome. It provides unique information for optimizing surgical quality in rectal cancer.

Considering Value in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An Analysis of Costs and Outcomes Based on the Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approach for Proctectomy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare value (outcomes/costs) of proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer by 3 approaches: open, laparoscopic, and robotic.

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive proctectomy in rectal cancer is controversial. In the era of value-based medicine, costs must be considered along with outcomes.

METHODS

Primary rectal cancer patients undergoing curative intent proctectomy at our institution between 2010 and 2014 were included. Patients were grouped by approach [open surgery, laparoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery (RS)] on an intent-to-treat basis. Groups were compared by direct costs of hospitalization for the primary resection, 30-day readmissions, and ileostomy closure and for short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 488 patients were evaluated; 327 were men (67%), median age was 59 (27-93) years, and restorative procedures were performed in 333 (68.2%). Groups were similar in demographics, tumor characteristics, and treatment details. Significant outcome differences between groups were found in operative and anesthesia times (longer in the RS group), and in estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, length of stay, and postoperative complications (all higher in the open surgery group). No significant differences were found in short-term oncologic outcomes. Direct cost of the hospitalization for primary resection and total direct cost (including readmission/ileostomy closure hospitalizations) were significantly greater in the RS group.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic and open approaches to proctectomy in patients with rectal cancer provide similar value. If robotic proctectomy is to be widely applied in the future, the costs of the procedure must be reduced.

Laparoscopic versus robotic colectomy: a national surgical quality improvement project analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic colorectal surgery is being increasingly adopted. Our objective was to compare early postoperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic colectomy in a nationally representative sample.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Colectomy Targeted Dataset from 2012 to 2014 was used for this study. Adult patients undergoing elective colectomy with an anastomosis were included. Patients were stratified based on location of colorectal resection (low anterior resection (LAR), left-sided resection, or right-sided resection). Bivariate data analysis was performed, and logistic regression modeling was conducted to calculate risk-adjusted 30-day outcomes.

RESULTS

There were a total of 25,998 laparoscopic colectomies (30 % LAR's, 45 % left-sided, and 25 % right-sided) and 1484 robotic colectomies (54 % LAR's, 28 % left-sided, and 18 % right-sided). The risk-adjusted overall morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality were similar between laparoscopic and robotic approaches in all anastomotic groups. Patients undergoing robotic LAR had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.47, 95 % CI 1.20-1.76) and postoperative sepsis rate (OR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.29-0.85) but a higher rate of diverting ostomies (OR 1.45, 95 % CI 1.20-1.76). Robotic right-sided colectomies had significantly lower conversion rates (OR 0.58, 95 % CI 0.34-0.96). Robotic colectomy in all groups was associated with a longer operative time (by 40 min) and a decreased length of stay (by 0.5 days).

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationally representative sample comparing laparoscopic and robotic colectomies, the overall morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality between groups are similar while length of stay was shorter by 0.5 days in the robotic colectomy group. Robotic LAR was associated with lower conversion rates and lower septic complications. However, robotic LAR is also associated with a significantly higher rate of diverting ostomy. The reason for this relationship is unclear. Surgeon factors, patient factors, and technical factors should be considered in future studies.

Robotic versus laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and oncologic outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (R-LAR) with conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (L-LAR).

METHODS

A search in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Ovid databases was performed for studies published before July 2014 that compared the clinical and oncologic outcomes of R-LAR and L-LAR. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed. Depending on statistical heterogeneity, a fixed or random effects model was used for the meta-analysis. The clinical and oncologic outcomes evaluated included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, rate of conversion to open surgery, post-operative complications, circumferential margin status, and number of lymph nodes collected.

RESULTS

Eight studies, including 324 R-LAR cases and 268 conventional L-LAR cases, were analyzed. The meta-analysis showed that R-LAR was associated with a shorter hospital stay (mean difference (MD) = -1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -1.78, -0.28; P = 0.007), lower conversion rate (odds ratio (OR) = 0.08; 95% CI = 0.02, 0.31; P = 0.0002), lower rate of circumferential margin involvement (OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.25, 1.01; P = 0.05), and lower overall complication rate (MD = 0.65; 95% CI = 0.43, 0.99; P = 0.04) compared with L-LAR. There was no difference in operative time (MD = 28.4; 95% CI = -3.48, 60.27; P = 0.08), the number of lymph nodes removed (MD = -0.63; 95% CI = -0.78, 2.05; P = 0.38), and days to return of bowel function (MD = -0.15; 95% CI = -0.37, 0.06; P = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

R-LAR was shown to be associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower conversion rate, lower rate of circumferential margin involvement, and lower overall complication rate compared with L-LAR. There were no differences in operative time, the number of lymph nodes removed, and days to return of bowel function.