Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors of the Stomach: Is There Any Advantage of Robotic Resections? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The role of robotic surgery for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) resection remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in patients requiring surgery for gastric GISTs. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases were searched from inception to September 4, 2023. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic review of the literature to select all types of analytic studies comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for GISTs and reporting intraoperative, postoperative, and/or pathological outcomes. Results: Overall, 4 retrospective studies were selected, including a total of 264 patients, specifically 111 (42%) in the robotic and 153 (58%) in the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery was associated with longer operating time (+42.46 min; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.34, 75.58; P=0.01; I2: 85%) and reduced use of mechanical staplers (odds ratio [OR]: 0.05; 95%CI: 0.02, 0.11; P<0.00001; I2: 92%;) compared with laparoscopy. Although nonsignificant, conversion to open surgery was less frequently reported for robotic surgery (2.7%) than laparoscopy (5.2%) (OR: 0.59; 95%CI: 0.17, 2.03; P=0.4; I2: 0%). No difference was found for postoperative and oncological outcomes. Conclusions: Robotic surgery for gastric GISTs provides similar intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes to laparoscopy, despite longer operative time.

Robotic-assisted treatment of paraesophageal hernias in the emergency setting: a retrospective study

Emergency treatment of paraesophageal hernias can be carried out through laparotomy or minimally invasive approaches, however, evidence in this regard is weak. The aim of our study was to assess safety and feasibility of the robotic-assisted treatment of paraesophageal hernias in the emergency setting. At the Bellinzona e Valli Regional Hospital, Switzerland, we conducted a retrospective analysis of patients operated on from January 2020 to January 2024 with robotic surgery for emergency presentation of paraesophageal hernias. Demographic and clinical details, operative techniques, and postoperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. Out of 82 patients who underwent robotic-assisted paraesophageal hernia repair, 17 were treated in the emergency setting. Median age was 79 years (IQR 77-85), 3 (17.6%) patients were male, and median BMI was 23.9 kg/m2 (IQR 21.0-26.0). Most frequent presentation symptoms were pain (100%), regurgitation (88.2%), and dyspnea (17.6%). No intraoperative complication, conversion to open surgery or stomach resections were recorded. Two complications of grade 3 according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and one of grade 2 occurred; all were successfully treated until resolution. The median length of hospital stay was 8 days (IQR 5-16). After a mean follow-up of 15.9 months (IQR 6.5-25.6) only two small axial asymptomatic recurrences that required no treatment. Despite limitations, our study demonstrated a very low rate of intra- and postoperative complications, likely supporting the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted treatment for paraesophageal hernias in emergency settings. Larger studies with a control arm are needed to validate our initial findings.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining prominence in colorectal procedures owing to advantages like three-dimensional vision and enhanced dexterity, particularly in rectal surgery. Although recent reviews report similar outcomes between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and RS, this study investigates the evolving trends in outcomes over time, paralleling the increasing experience in RS.

METHODS

A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted of randomised controlled trials exploring postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing RS or LS for colorectal pathology. The primary outcome measure was postoperative complications. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Randomised controlled trials were identified from the PubMed®, Embase® and CINAHL® (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases via the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

RESULTS

Of 491 articles screened, 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of postoperative complications revealed no significant difference between RS and LS (relative risk [RR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.18, p=0.72). Meta-regression analysis of postoperative complications demonstrated a significant trend favouring RS over time (yearly change in Ln(RR): -0.0620, 95% CI: -0.1057 to -0.0183, p=0.005). Secondary outcome measures included operative time, length of stay, blood loss, conversion to open surgery, positive circumferential resection margins and lymph nodes retrieved. The only significant findings were shorter operative time favouring LS (mean difference: 41.48 minutes, 95% CI: 22.15 to 60.81 minutes, p<0.001) and fewer conversions favouring RS (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.85, p=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

As experience in RS grows, evidence suggests an increasing safety profile for patients. Meta-regression revealed a significant temporal trend with complication rates favouring RS over LS. Heterogeneous reporting of complications hindered subgroup analysis of minor and major complications. LS remains quicker. Rising adoption of RS coupled with emerging evidence is expected to further elucidate its clinical efficacy.

Robotic-assisted surgery for left-sided colon and rectal resections is associated with reduction in the postoperative surgical stress response and improved short-term outcomes: a cohort study

INTRODUCTION

There is growing evidence that the use of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in colorectal cancer resections is associated with improved short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS) or open surgery (OS), possibly through a reduced systemic inflammatory response (SIR). Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) is a sensitive SIR biomarker and its utility in the early identification of post-operative complications has been validated in a variety of surgical procedures. There remains a paucity of studies characterising post-operative SIR in RAS.

METHODS

Retrospective study of a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients undergoing OS, LS and RAS for left-sided and rectal cancer in a single high-volume unit. Patient and disease characteristics, post-operative CRP levels, and clinical outcomes were reviewed, and their relationships explored within binary logistic regression and propensity scores matched models.

RESULTS

A total of 1031 patients were included (483 OS, 376 LS, and 172 RAS). RAS and LS were associated with lower CRP levels across the first 4 post-operative days (p < 0.001) as well as reduced complications and length of stay compared to OS in unadjusted analyses. In binary logistic regression models, RAS was independently associated with lower CRP levels at Day 3 post-operatively (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21-0.59, p < 0.001) and a reduction in the rate of all complications (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26-0.56, p < 0.001) and major complications (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.26-0.95, p = 0.036). Within a propensity scores matched model comparing LS versus RAS specifically, RAS was associated with lower post-operative CRP levels in the first two post-operative days, a lower proportion of patients with a CRP ≥ 150 mg/L at Day 3 (20.9% versus 30.5%, p = 0.036) and a lower rate of all complications (34.7% versus 46.7%, p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

The present observational study shows that an RAS approach was associated with lower postoperative SIR, and a better postoperative complications profile.

Quality of life after robotic versus conventional minimally invasive cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Optimizing postoperative quality of life (QoL) is an essential aspect of surgical oncology. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) decreases surgical morbidity and improves QoL outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare post-operative QoL after oncologic resections using different MIS modalities. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched for articles that compared post-operative QoL in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) or laparoscopic surgery (LS) versus robotic surgery (RS) for malignancy. Quality assessment was performed using the ROBINS-I and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tools. Meta-analysis was performed using an inverse-variance random effects model. 27 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). 15 studies had a low risk of bias, while 11 had a moderate risk of bias and 1 had serious risk of bias. 8330 patients (RS: 5090, LS/VATS: 3240) from across 25 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Global QoL was significantly better after robotic surgery in the pooled analysis overall (SMD: - 0.28 [95% CI: - 0.49, - 0.08]), as well as in the prostatectomy and gastrectomy subgroups. GRADE certainty of evidence was low. Analysis of EPIC-26 subdomains also suggested greater sexual function after robotic versus laparoscopic prostatectomy. Robotic and conventional MIS approaches produce similar postoperative QoL after oncologic surgery for various tumor types, although advantages may emerge in some patient populations. Our results may assist surgeons in counseling patients who are undergoing oncologic surgery.

Outcomes in robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in a newly established colorectal tertiary center: a retrospective comparative cohort study

The robotic platform matches or surpasses laparoscopic surgery in postoperative results. However, limited date and slow adoption are noticed in the middle east. We aimed to report outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare it to larger more experienced centers. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data between 2021 and 2023 of 107 patients who had robotic-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery was included in the study. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and the quality of oncological specimen. Of 107 patients, 57 were in the robotic and 50 were in the laparoscopic surgery groups. Overall, there were no significant differences in overall morbidity (46.8 vs. 53.2%, p = 0.9), serious morbidity (10.5 vs. 8%, p = 0.7), or mortality (0 vs. 4%, p = 0.2). Regarding oncological outcomes, there were no significant difference between the two groups regarding the number of lymph node harvested (17.7 ± 6.9 vs 19.0 ± 9.7, p = 0.5), R0 resections (92.7 vs. 87.1%, p = 0.5), and the rate of complete mesorectal excision (92.7 vs. 71.4%, p = 0.19). The study found that the robotic group had an 86% reduction in conversion rate to open surgery compared to the laparoscopic group, despite including more obese and physically dependent patients (OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.7, p = 0.01). Robotic surgery appears to be a safe and effective as laparoscopic surgery in smaller colorectal surgery programs led by fellowship-trained robotic surgeons, with outcomes comparable to those of larger programs.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of single-port versus multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether the da Vinci single-port system performs similarly to the previous multi-port system during complicated procedures, such as rectal cancer surgery. Therefore, we compared the short-term clinical outcomes of single-port and multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed 128 patients who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision between July 2020 and June 2022, of whom 84 (42 each: single-port versus multi-port) were included in the propensity score-matched cohort. Perioperative and pathologic outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Median tumor height was similar between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 5.9 ± 2.1 vs 5.6 ± 1.8 cm, P = .719). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was performed equally. The total operative time was less (160.0 ± 42.2 minutes vs 199.6 ± 78.6 minutes, P = .005), the total length of incision was shorter (4.0 ±0.3 vs 5.4 ± 0.7 cm, P = .003), postoperative hospital stay was shorter (6.2 ±1.7 vs 7.2 ±2.8 days, P = .050), and C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day 3 trended to be lower (7.3 ± 4.7 vs 8.9 ± 5.6 mg/L, P = .096) in the single-port group, compared with the multi-port group. Postoperative complications did not differ between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 11.9% vs 16.6%, P = .864). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the single-port and multi-port groups, respectively. The circumferential resection margins were positive in 1 patient in the multi-port group.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic total mesorectal excision were comparable to those of multi-port robotic TME. The single-port robot can be considered a surgical option for treating rectal cancer.

Comparison of robotic‑assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Scarce research has reported the comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgery in mid-low rectal cancer. Therefore, this meta-analysis is aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the two surgical approaches.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science) was performed for studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery. The outcomes of interest acquired from eight articles included three aspects: intraoperative conditions, postoperative status of patients, and complications. All data (robotic = 1350 patients, laparoscopic = 1330 patients) enrolled were analyzed using Rev Man 5.4.

RESULTS

Compared to the laparoscopic group, the robotic group indicated a noticeable superiority in estimated blood loss (P < 0.0001), number of lymph nodes dissected (P = 0.004), time to first flatus (P = 0.001), time to first fluid diet (P = 0.001), hospital stay (P < 0.0001), conversion (P = 0.009), and urinary retention (P = 0.0006), but devoted much more operation time (P = 0.0004).

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery was associated with superiority over laparoscopic surgery in increasing surgical safety, accelerating postoperative recovery, and reducing complications, which suggested that robotic surgery could be a safe and effective method for treating mid-low rectal cancer.

[Robot-assisted visceral surgery in Germany : Analysis of the current status and trends of the last 5 years using data from the StuDoQ|Robotics registry]

Robot-assisted systems have been increasingly used in general surgery for several years. Accordingly, the number of systems installed in Germany has also rapidly increased. While around 100 robot-assisted systems were used in German hospitals in 2018, this figure had already risen to more than 200 by 2022. The aim of this article is to present the current state of development and trends in robotic surgery in Germany. For this purpose, data from the StuDoQ|Robotics register were analyzed. Furthermore, a descriptive analysis of concomitant diagnosis-related groups (DRG) data was carried out via the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), for a better assessment of the representativeness of the StuDoQ|Robotics register data. In both data sets, the annual number of robot-assisted visceral surgery procedures in Germany steadily increased. Compared to the DRG data, only 3.7% up to a maximum of 36.7% of all robot-assisted procedures performed were documented in the StuDoQ|Robotics register, depending on the type of procedure. Colorectal resections were the most frequent robot-assisted procedures (StuDoQ: 32.5% and 36.7% vs. DRG data: 24.2% and 29.7%) and had, for example, low mortality rates (StuDoQ: 1% and 1% vs. DRG data: 2.3% and 1.3%). Due to the low coverage rates of robot-assisted esophageal, gastric, pancreatic and liver interventions, no valid statements could be derived from the StuDoQ data for these areas. With the current coverage rates, the informative value of the StuDoQ|Robotics register is considerably limited for some types of intervention. In the future, measures should therefore be explored that lead to a significant increase in the coverage rates.

Complete mesocolic excision versus standard resection for colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative safety and an evaluation of the use of a robotic approach

PURPOSE

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been associated with improved oncological outcomes in treatment of colon cancer. However, widespread adoption is limited partly because of the technical complexity and perceived risks of the approach. The aim of out study was to evaluate the safety of CME compared to standard resection and to compare robotic versus laparoscopic approaches.

METHODS

Two parallel searches were undertaken in MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases 12 December 2021. The first was to evaluate IDEAL stage 3 evidence to compare complication rates as a surrogate marker of perioperative safety between CME and standard resection. The second independent search compared lymph node yield and survival outcomes between minimally invasive approaches.

RESULTS

There were four randomized control trials (n = 1422) comparing CME to standard resection, and three studies comparing laparoscopic (n = 164) to robotic (n = 161) approaches. Compared to standard resection, CME was associated with a reduction in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher complication rates (3.56% vs. 7.24%, p = 0.002), reduced blood loss (113.1 ml vs. 137.6 ml, p < 0.0001) and greater mean lymph node harvest (25.6 vs. 20.9 nodes, p = 0.001). Between the robotic and laparoscopic groups, there were no significant differences in complication rates, blood loss, lymph node yield, 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.05, p = 0.87) and overall survival (OR 0.83, p = 0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated improved safety with CME. There was no difference in safety or survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic CME. The advantage of a robotic approach may lie in the reduced learning curve and an increased penetration of minimally invasive approach to CME. Further studies are required to explore this.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42021287065.

Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

There is still controversy on whether or not robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) have advantages over laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery(LACS).

Materials and methods

The four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library)were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of RACS and LACS in the treatment of colorectal cancer from inception to 22 July 2023.

Results

Eleven RCTs were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Compared with LACS,RACS has significantly longer operation time(MD=5.19,95%CI: 18.00,39.82, P<0.00001), but shorter hospital stay(MD=2.97,95%CI:-1.60,-0.33,P = 0.003),lower conversion rate(RR=3.62,95%CI:0.40,0.76,P = 0.0003), lower complication rate(RR=3.31,95%CI:0.64,0.89,P=0.0009),fewer blood loss(MD=2.71,95%CI:-33.24,-5.35,P = 0.007),lower reoperation rate(RR=2.12, 95%CI:0.33,0.96,P=0.03)and longer distal resection margin(MD=2.16, 95%CI:0.04,0.94, P = 0.03). There was no significantly difference in harvested lymph nodes, the time of first flatus, the time of first defecation,the time of first resume diet, proximal resection margin, readmission rates, mortalities and CRM+ rates between two group.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that RACS is a feasible and safe technique that can achieve better surgical efficacy compared with LACS in terms of short-term outcomes.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447088.

Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancers: The COLRAR Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether robotic for middle or low rectal cancer produces an improvement in surgical outcomes compared with laparoscopic surgery in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of proven clinical benefit of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) compared with a laparoscopic approach in the setting of multicenter RCTs.

METHODS

Between July 2011 and February 2016, patients diagnosed with an adenocarcinoma located <10 cm from the anal verge and clinically rated T1-4aNxM0 were enrolled. The primary outcome was the completeness of TME assessed by a surgeon and a pathologist.

RESULTS

The RCT was terminated prematurely because of poor accrual of data. In all, 295 patients were assigned randomly to a robot-assisted TME group (151 in R-TME) or a laparoscopy-assisted TME group (144 in L-TME). The rates of complete TME were not different between groups (80.7% in R-TME, 77.1% in L-TME). Pathologic outcomes including the circumferential resection margin and the numbers of retrieved lymph nodes were not different between groups. In a subanalysis, the positive circumferential resection margin rate was lower in the R-TME group (0% vs 6.1% for L-TME; P =0.031). Among the recovery parameters, the length of opioid use was shorter in the R-TME group ( P =0.028). There was no difference in the postoperative complication rate between the groups (12.0% for R-TME vs 8.3% for L-TME).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with middle or low rectal cancer, robotic-assisted surgery did not significantly improve the TME quality compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery (ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT01042743).

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting

PURPOSE

In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study.

METHODS

We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs.

RESULTS

RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9-41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7-5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs.

CONCLUSIONS

From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections.

Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approaches to Treat Colorectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Literature

Surgery is usually required to treat colorectal cancer (CRC). Medical technology has advanced, providing various approaches to tackle this disease. Different surgeries are available, such as laparoscopic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, and robotic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery has several benefits including reduced blood loss and shorter recovery time. It can also improve lung function and minimize complications. However, it requires more time to perform and has a higher risk of complications during the procedure. Robotic surgery provides a three-dimensional view of the surgical area allowing for greater precision in rectal surgeries and access to difficult-to-reach pelvic regions. This method utilizes robotics technology which reduces surgical time and speeds up recovery for patients. There are various surgical options available for treating CRC; however, laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery offer unique advantages despite their own drawbacks. As technology continues to evolve, medical techniques will continue improving existing methods while providing new options resulting in better outcomes for patients. Compared to laparoscopy, robotic surgery has a lower rate of operative conversions and a shorter learning curve. However, it also has some drawbacks, such as a longer docking time, lack of tactile sensation, and higher cost. Therefore, the choice of surgical method should depend on patient characteristics, surgeon preference and expertise, and available resources. Currently, specialized centers offer robotic surgeries which are more expensive and take longer compared to open and laparoscopic approaches. Nonetheless, they are considered safe and feasible when compared to traditional surgery. Short-term outcomes for robotic surgeries are better, while long-term postoperative complication rates remain similar. However, there is a need for additional well-defined randomized control trials conducted across multiple centers to validate the use of robotic surgery over open and laparoscopic approaches. Improving patient care and outcomes is the objective of this comprehensive literature overview on surgical approaches for CRC.

Evaluation of the advantages of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colorectal cancer increases with aging. Curative-intent surgery based on a minimally invasive concept is expected to bring survival benefits to elderly patients (aged over 80 years) with colorectal cancer who are frequently with fragile health status and advanced tumors. The study explored survival outcomes in this patient population who received robotic or laparoscopic surgery and aimed to identify an optimal surgical option for those patients.

METHODS

We retrieved the clinical materials and follow-up data on elderly patients with colorectal carcinoma who received robotic or laparoscopic surgery in our institution. The pathological and surgical outcomes were compared to examine the efficacy and safety of the two approaches. The DFS (disease-free survival) and OS (overall survival) results at 3 years after surgery were assessed to explore the survival benefits.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients were screened for the study, including 55 in the robotic group and 56 in the laparoscopic group. The demographic details were generally similar between the two groups. No statistically significant difference in the number of removed lymph nodes was observed between the two approaches, with a median of 15 versus 14 (P = 0.053). The intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced by robotic technique when compared to the laparoscopic approach, with a mean of 76.9 ml versus 161.6 ml (P = 0.025). There were no significant differences in operation time, conversion, postoperative complications and recovery, and long-term outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery was prized for elderly patients with colorectal cancer who developed anemia and/or hematological conditions.

Ambulatory laparoscopic colectomies: a systematic review

AIM

Ambulatory laparoscopic colectomy (ALC), meaning discharge within 24 h of surgical colonic resection, has recently been proposed in a few, selected patients. This systematic review was performed with the aim of reviewing protocols for ALC and assessing feasibility, safety and outcomes after ALC.

METHOD

A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and pooled analysis was performed searching all English studies published until October 2022 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (PROSPERO, CRD42022334463). Inclusion criteria were original articles including patients undergoing ALC, specifying at least one outcome of interest. Exclusion criteria were articles reporting a robotic-assisted procedure; unable to retrieve patient data from articles; the same patient series included in different studies. Primary outcomes were success, overall complications and readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included mortality and specific complications such us surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, ileus, bleeding, rate of ALC acceptance, and unscheduled consultation and reoperation rate.

RESULTS

Among 1087 studies imported for screening, 11 were included (1296 patients). The success rate was 47% with an overall morbidity of 14%. Readmission and reoperation rates were 5% and 1%, respectively. No mortality was recorded. Protocols of ALC differ significantly among published studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, ALC appears to be safe and feasible in selected cases with an acceptable success rate and a low risk of readmission after hospital discharge. Future studies should evaluate patients' benefits and discharge criteria, as well as uniformity and standardization of eligibility criteria. This systematic review may help inform on ALC adoption in clinical practice.

Patient experiences of left-sided colorectal resection by robotic, conventional laparoscopic and open approaches: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery (RS) is increasingly employed in colorectal surgical practice, widening the range of surgical techniques offered to patients. We investigated the perceptions of patients with colorectal cancer in relation to RS, open surgery (OS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS), to identify ideas or assumptions which, in the context of shared surgeon-patient decision-making, may affect the resultant choice of surgical technique. We also investigated salient factors affecting patients' perioperative experience, including those of RS patients, to guide improvements in care and preoperative patient preparation.

METHODS

This study was conducted on patients who underwent resection of left-sided colorectal cancer at a large UK teaching hospital from November 2020 to July 2021. Purposive sampling was used to ensure a roughly equal proportion of patients who underwent RS, CLS and OS. The patients included in the study participated in semi-structured interviews six weeks postoperatively. The interview schedule allowed discussion around patients' experience of their surgery and postoperative recovery, and their perceptions of surgical techniques. Interview transcripts were coded manually using inductive thematic analysis, and analyst triangulation was employed to refine coding schemes and ensure reliability of emerging themes.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were recruited to the study; RS n = 9 (median age 69 [range 60-80] years); CLS n = 10 (median age 72 [range 32-82] years; OS n = 8 (median age 71 [range 60-75] years). Patients understood the technological benefits of RS but were concerned by a risk of technological failure causing patient harm. OS was understood to be associated with more pain and longer recovery than RS or CLS. Patients perceived CLS to be more technically challenging compared with OS. Less pain and smaller wounds than expected were significant positive factors in the experience of RS and CLS patients specifically. Complications and emotional impact were significant factors in the experience of all groups, for which many patients felt underprepared.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients generally have a positive view of RS and technical innovation in surgery. Concerns mostly centred around failure of technology. Many patients felt unprepared for significant factors in their perioperative experience. Surgeons and healthcare providers should be prepared to address patients' perceptions and expectations of colorectal surgery preoperatively.

Comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic left-sided colorectal cancer resections

Robotic assisted surgery (RAS) has become increasingly adopted in colorectal cancer surgery. This study aims to compare robotic and laparoscopic approaches to left sided colorectal resections in terms of surgical outcomeswith no formal enhanced recovery programme. All patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic left sided or rectal (high and low anterior resection) cancer surgery at a single tertiary referral centre over 3 years were included.A total of 184 consecutive patients from July 2017 to December 2020 were included in this study, with 40.2% (n=74/184) undergoing RAS. The median age at time of surgery was 68 years (IQR 60-73 years). RAS had a significantly shorter length of median stay of 3 days, compared to 5 days in the conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) group (p<0.001). RAS had a significantly lower rate of conversion to open surgery (0% vs 16.4%, p<0.001). The median operative time was also shorter in RAS (308 minutes), compared to CLS (326 minutes, p=0.019). The overall rate of any complication was 16.8%, with the RAS experiencing a lower complication rate (12.2% vs 20.0%, p=0.041). There was no significant difference in anastomotic leak rates between the two groups (4.0% vs 5.5%, p=0.673), or in terms of complete resection (R0) (robotic 98.6%, laparoscopic 100%, p=0.095). Robotic left sided colorectal surgery delivers equivalent oncological resection compared to laparoscopic approaches, with the added benefits of reduced length of stay and lower rates of conversion to open surgery. This has both clinical and healthcare economic benefits.

Application of the advance incision in robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection

Background

The incidence of rectal cancer is increasing each year. Robotic surgery is being used more frequently in the surgical treatment of rectal cancer; however, several problems associated with robotic surgery persist, such as docking the robot repeatedly to perform auxiliary incisions and difficulty exposing the operative field of obese patients. Herein we introduce a new technology that effectively improves the operability and convenience of robotic rectal surgery.

Objectives

To simplify the surgical procedure, enhance operability, and improve healing of the surgical incision, we developed an advance incision (AI) technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection, and compared its safety and feasibility with those of intraoperative incision.

Methods

Between January 2016 and October 2021, 102 patients with rectal cancer underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection with an AI or intraoperative incision (iOI) incisions. We compared the perioperative, incisional, and oncologic outcomes between groups.

Results

No significant differences in the operating time, blood loss, time to first passage of flatus, time to first passage of stool, duration of hospitalization, and rate of overall postoperative complications were observed between groups. The mean time to perform auxiliary incisions was shorter in the AI group than in the iOI group (14.14 vs. 19.77 min; p < 0.05). The average incision length was shorter in the AI group than in the iOI group (6.12 vs. 7.29 cm; p < 0.05). Postoperative incision pain (visual analogue scale) was lower in the AI group than in the iOI group (2.5 vs. 2.9 p = 0.048). No significant differences in incision infection, incision hematoma, incision healing time, and long-term incision complications, including incision hernia and intestinal obstruction, were observed between groups. The recurrence (AI group vs. iOI group = 4.0% vs. 5.77%) and metastasis rates (AI group vs. iOI group = 6.0% vs. 5.77%) of cancer were similar between groups.

Conclusion

The advance incision is a safe and effective technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal anterior resection, which simplifies the surgical procedure, enhances operability, and improves healing of the surgical incision.

Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic left colectomy for radical treatment of colon cancer: a retrospective analysis in a consecutive series of 211 patients

Background

Robotic surgery has been widely used in the radical treatment of colonic cancer. However, it is unclear what advantages the robotic approach offers over other approaches in left colectomy. This study aims to explore the advantage of robotic surgery in left colectomy by comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of patients with radical left colectomy for colon cancer who were admitted to the Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, from November 2012 to November 2017. Two hundred eleven patients included were divided into the open surgery group (OS, n=49), laparoscopic surgery group (LS, n=92), and robotic surgery group (RS, n=70) according to surgical techniques. The clinicopathologic data were collected for clinical outcome assessment. Finally, the clinical value of RS in radical left colectomy was further evaluated by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Results

Three groups were similar in demographics and clinical characteristics. Compared with OS, LS and RS groups had better intraoperative and perioperative clinical outcomes. Moreover, the RS group exhibited the minimum operative times, length of stay (LOS), and evaluated blood loss. LS and RS also exhibited less perioperative and postoperative long-term complications. Three groups showed similar postoperative pathological outcomes. The overall survival and disease-free survival were also similar among the three groups (all P > 0.05). Cox regression analysis showed surgical approach was not a prognostic factor for overall survival (P = 0.671) and disease-free survival (P = 0.776). PSM analysis of RS and LS by clinical characteristics showed RS showed shorter operation time (P < 0.001) and LOS for patients without complications (P = 0.005). However, no significant differences were found in perioperative and long-term postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, overall survival, and disease-free survival.

Conclusions

Among three techniques for radical left colectomy, LS and RS had significant advantages over OS in short-term clinical outcomes, and no significant differences were found in overall, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and distant metastasis incidence. Moreover, RS shows better perioperative clinical outcomes but without compromising survival compared with LS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-022-02796-8.

Evaluation of the learning curve for robotic single-anastomosis duodenal–ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy

Background

The robotic surgical system is being used in various bariatric procedures. However, only a few studies with very small sample size are present on robotic single-anastomosis duodenal–ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S). Moreover, to date, the learning curve of robotic SADI-S has been poorly evaluated yet.

Objective

This retrospective study aimed to estimate the learning curve of robotic SADI-S.

Methods

102 consecutive patients who underwent robotic SADI-S between March 2020 and December 2021 were included. Textbook outcome standard was performed to comprehensively evaluate clinical outcome of robotic SADI-S. Based on the textbook outcome, we evaluated the learning curve of robotic SADI-S by the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method.

Results

The mean operative time was 186.13 ± 36.91 min. No conversion to laparotomy or deaths occurred during the study period. The rate of complications was 6.9% (n = 7), of which major complications were identified in 2.9% (n = 3), including 2 gastric leakages and 1 respiratory failure. A total of 60 patients reached the textbook outcome standard. The rate of textbook outcome was positive and was steadily increasing after the number of surgical cases accumulated to the 58th case. Taking the 58th case as the boundary, all the patients were divided into the learning stage group (the first 58 patients) and mastery stage group (the last 44 patients). The rate of complications, proportion of abdominal drainage tubes and postoperative hospital stay were significantly higher in the learning stage group compared with the mastery stage group (P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of patient demographic data, operative times, reoperations and readmission.

Conclusion

Robotic SADI-S is a feasible and reproducible surgical technique with a learning curve of 58 cases.

The Learning Curve of Da Vinci Robot-Assisted Hemicolectomy for Colon Cancer: A Retrospective Study of 76 Cases at a Single Center

Background and Aims

Robotic-assisted right hemicolectomy (RARH) has many benefits in treating colon cancer, but it is a new technology that needs to be evaluated. This study aims to assess the learning curve (LC) of RARH procedures with the complete mesoscopic exception and D3 lymph node dissection for colon carcinoma.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on a consecutive series of 76 patients who underwent RARH from July 2014 to March 2018. The operation time was evaluated using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to analyze the LC. The patients were categorized into two groups based on the LC: Phase I and Phase II. Statistical methods were used to compare clinicopathological data on intraoperative and perioperative outcomes at different stages of the study.

Results

The peak point of the LC was observed in the 27th case. Using the CUSUM method, we divide the LC into two stages. Stage 1 (initial learning stage): Cases 1–27 and Stage 2 (proficiency phase): Cases 28–76. There were no obvious distinctions between the two patients’ essential characteristics (age, sex, body mass index, clinical stage, and ASA score). The mean operation time of each group is 187.37 ± 45.56 min and 161.1 ± 37.74 min (P = 0.009), respectively. The intraoperative blood loss of each group is 170.4 ± 217.2 ml and 95.7 ± 72.8 ml (P = 0.031), respectively.

Conclusion

Based on the LC with CUSUM analysis, the data suggest that the learning phase of RARH was achieved after 27 cases. The operation time and the intraoperative blood loss decrease with more cases performed.

Robotic operations in urgent general surgery: a systematic review

Robotically assisted operations are the state of the art in laparoscopic general surgery. They are established predominantly for elective operations. Since laparoscopy is widely used in urgent general surgery, the significance of robotic assistance in urgent operations is of interest. Currently, there are few data on robotic-assisted operations in urgent surgery. The aim of this study was to collect and classify the existing studies. A two-stage, PRISMA-compliant literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted. We analyzed all articles on robotic surgery associated with urgent general surgery resp. acute surgical diseases of the abdomen. Gynecological and urological diseases so as vascular surgery, except mesenterial ischemia, were excluded. Studies and case reports/series published between 1980 and 2021 were eligible for inclusion. In addition to a descriptive synopsis, various outcome parameters were systematically recorded. Fifty-two studies of operations for acute appendicitis and cholecystitis, hernias and acute conditions of the gastrointestinal tract were included. The level of evidence is low. Surgical robots in the narrow sense and robotic camera mounts were used. All narrow-sense robots are nonautonomous systems; in 82%, the Da Vinci^® system was used. The most frequently published emergency operations were urgent cholecystectomies (30 studies, 703 patients) followed by incarcerated hernias (9 studies, 199 patients). Feasibility of robotic operations was demonstrated for all indications. Neither robotic-specific problems nor extensive complication rates were reported. Various urgent operations in general surgery can be performed robotically without increased risk. The available data do not allow a final evidence-based assessment.

Postoperative complications after robotic resection of colorectal cancer: An analysis based on 5-year experience at a large-scale center

BACKGROUND

As a common gastrointestinal malignancy, colorectal cancer (CRC) poses a serious health threat globally. Robotic surgery is one of the future trends in surgical treatment of CRC. Robotic surgery has several technical advantages over laparoscopic surgery, including 3D visualization, elimination of the fulcrum effect, and better ergonomic positioning, which together lead to better surgical outcomes and faster recovery. However, analysis of independent factors of postoperative complications after robotic surgery is still insufficient.

AIM

To analyze the incidence and risk factors for postoperative complications after robotic surgery in patients with CRC.

METHODS

In total, 1040 patients who had undergone robotic surgical resection for CRC between May 2015 and May 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. Postoperative complications were categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo (C-D) classification, and possible risk factors were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 1040 patients who had undergone robotic surgery for CRC, the overall, severe, local, and systemic complication rates were 12.2%, 2.4%, 8.8%, and 3.5%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that multiple organ resection (P < 0.001) and level III American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P = 0.006) were independent risk factors for overall complications. Multivariate analysis identified multiple organ resection (P < 0.001) and comorbidities (P = 0.029) as independent risk factors for severe complications (C-D grade III or higher). Regarding local complications, multiple organ resection (P = 0.002) and multiple bowel resection (P = 0.027) were independent risk factors. Multiple organ resection (P < 0.001) and level III ASA score (P = 0.007) were independent risk factors for systemic complications. Additionally, sigmoid colectomy had a lower incidence of overall complications (6.4%; P = 0.006) and local complications (4.7%; P = 0.028) than other types of colorectal surgery.

CONCLUSION

Multiple organ resection, level III ASA score, comorbidities, and multiple bowel resection were risk factors for postoperative complications, with multiple organ resection being the most likely.

The Impact of Robotic-Assisted Surgery on Team Performance: A Systematic Mixed Studies Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to describe the impact of robotic-assisted surgery on team performance in the operating room.

BACKGROUND

The introduction of surgical robots has improved the technical performance of surgical procedures but has also contributed to unexpected interactions in surgical teams, leading to new types of errors.

METHOD

A systematic literature search of Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, ProQuest, Cochrane, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases using key words and MeSH terms was conducted. Screening identified studies employing qualitative and quantitative methods published between January 2000 and September 2019. Two reviewers independently appraised the methodological quality of the articles using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (2018). Discussions were held among authors to examine quality scores of the studies and emergent themes, and agreement was reached through consensus. Themes were derived using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

Combined searches identified 1,065 citations. Of these, 19 articles, 16 quantitative and 3 qualitative, were included. Robotic-assisted surgeries included urology, gynecology, cardiac, and general procedures involving surgeons, anesthetists, nurses, and technicians. Three themes emerged: Negotiating the altered physical environs and adapting team communications to manage task and technology; managing the robotic system to optimize workflow efficiency; and technical proficiency depends on experience, team familiarity, and case complexity.

CONCLUSION

Inclusion of a robot as a team member adds further complexity to the work of surgery.

APPLICATION

These review findings will inform training programs specifically designed to optimize teamwork, workflow efficiency, and learning needs.

Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS).

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I², and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

Results

Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD =  − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE.

Conclusion

RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08782-7.

Systemic inflammatory response in robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer (SIRIRALS): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is being increasingly adopted in treating colorectal cancer, and the transition from laparoscopic surgery to robot-assisted surgery is a trend. The evidence of the benefits of robot-assisted surgery is sparse. However, findings are associated with improved patient-related outcomes and overall morbidity rates compared to laparoscopic surgery. This induction is unclear, considering both surgical modalities are characterized as minimally invasive. This study aims to evaluate the systemic and peritoneal inflammatory stress response induced by robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery for elective colon cancer resections in a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial.

Methods

This study is a single-centre randomized controlled superiority trial with 50 colon cancer participants. The primary endpoint is the level of systemic inflammatory response expressed as serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels between postoperative days one and three. Secondary endpoints include (i) levels of systemic inflammation in serum expressed by a panel of inflammatory and pro-inflammatory cytokines measured during the first three postoperative days, (ii) postoperative surgical and medical complications (30 days) according to Clavien-Dindo classification and Comprehensive Complication Index, (iii) intraoperative blood loss, (iv) conversion rate to open surgery, (v) length of surgery, (vi) operative time, (vii) the number of harvested lymph nodes, and (viii) length of hospital stay. The exploratory endpoints are (i) levels of peritoneal inflammatory response in peritoneal fluid expressed by inflammatory and pro-inflammatory cytokines between postoperative day one and three, (ii) patient-reported health-related quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15), (iii) 30 days mortality rate, (iv) heart rate variability and (v) gene transcript (mRNA) analysis.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first clinical randomized controlled trial to clarify the inflammatory stress response induced by robot-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer resections.

Trial registration This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04687384) on December, 29, 2020, Regional committee on health research ethics, Region of Southern Denmark (N75709) and Data Protection Agency, Hospital Sønderjylland, University Hospital of Southern Denmark (N20/46179).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01355-4.

Brazilian society of surgical oncology: Guidelines for the surgical treatment of mid-low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer in North America, Western Europe, and Brazil, and represents an important public health problem. It is estimated that approximately 30% of all the CRC cases correspond to tumors located in the rectum, requiring complex multidisciplinary treatment. In an effort to provide surgeons who treat rectal cancer with the most current information based on the best evidence in the literature, the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology (SBCO) has produced the present guidelines for rectal cancer treatment that is focused on the main topics related to daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The SBCO developed the present guidelines to provide recommendations on the main topics related to the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer based on current scientific evidence.

METHODS

Between May and June 2021, 11 experts in CRC surgery met to develop the guidelines for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer. A total of 22 relevant topics were disseminated among the participants. The methodological quality of a final list with 221 sources was evaluated, all the evidence was examined and revised, and the treatment guideline was formulated by the 11-expert committee. To reach a final consensus, all the topics were reviewed via a videoconference meeting that was attended by all 11 of the experts.

RESULTS

The prepared guidelines contained 22 topics considered to be highly relevant in the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer, covering subjects related to the tests required for staging, surgical technique-related aspects, recommended measures to reduce surgical complications, neoadjuvant strategies, and nonoperative treatments. In addition, a checklist was proposed to summarize the important information and offer an updated tool to assist surgeons who treat rectal cancer provide the best care to their patients.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines summarize concisely the recommendations based on the most current scientific evidence on the most relevant aspects of the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer and are a practical guide that can help surgeons who treat rectal cancer make the best therapeutic decision.

Postoperative complications observed with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer: An updated meta-analysis of recently published studies

BACKGROUND

This is an updated meta-analysis comparing the postoperative complications observed with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) for the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

Cochrane central, MEDLNE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), Google Scholar, Web of Science and http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies (published after the year 2015), comparing robotic versus LS for the treatment of rectal cancer. The postoperative outcomes were considered as the endpoints in this analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used to carry out the statistical analysis. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the results following data analysis.

RESULTS

A total number of 22,744 participants were included in this study whereby 9178 participants were assigned to the robotic surgery and 13,566 participants were assigned to the LS group. The time period of patients' enrollment varied from years 2007 to 2017. Our results showed that overall complications (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71-1.17; P = .45), wound complications (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.64-1.04; P = .09), anastomotic leak (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.88-1.42; P = .37), anastomotic bleeding (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.29-2.64; P = .82), stoma-related complications (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.24-3.21; P = .85), intra-abdominal abscess (RR: 0.53. 95% CI: 0.22-1.31; P = .17), urinary tract infection (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.53-1.66; P = .83), enterocolitis (RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.38-4.71; P = .64), reoperation (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.46-1.54; P = .58), and mortality (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.34-1.62; P = .46) were not significantly different between robotic-assisted versus LS for rectal cancer. Postoperative ileus (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.81-1.81; P = .34), readmission (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.75-1.83; P = .48), and urinary retention (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.21-1.23; P = .14) were also similarly manifested.

CONCLUSIONS

In this updated meta-analysis, both robotic and laparoscopic surgeries were equally effective for the treatment of rectal cancer. Similar postoperative complications were observed. However, our analysis was restricted only to postoperative outcomes, parameters such as duration of surgery were not taken into consideration.

Outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer: propensity-matched analysis of the National Clinical Database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has several advantages over conventional laparoscopy. However, population-based comparative studies for low anterior resection are limited. This article aimed to compare peri-operative results of robot-assisted low anterior resection (RALAR) and laparoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from patients treated with RALAR or conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (CLLAR) between October 2018 and December 2019, as recorded in the Japanese National Clinical Database, a data set registering clinical information, perioperative outcomes, and mortality. Of note, the registry does not include information on the tumour location (centimetres from the anal verge) and diverting stoma creation. Perioperative outcomes, including rate of conversion to open surgery, were compared between RALAR and CLLAR groups. Confounding factors were adjusted for using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of 21 415 patients treated during the study interval, 20 220 were reviewed. Two homogeneous groups of 2843 patients were created by propensity score matching. The conversion rate to open surgery was significantly lower in the RALAR group than in the CLLAR group (0.7 versus 2.0 per cent; P < 0.001). The RALAR group had a longer operating time (median: 352 versus 283 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (15 versus 20 ml; P < 0.001), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (0.1 versus 0.5 per cent; P = 0.007), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median: 13 versus 14 days; P < 0.001) compared with the CLLAR group. The CLLAR group had a lower rate of readmission within 30 days (2.4 versus 3.3 per cent; P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

These data highlight the reduced conversion rate, in-hospital mortality rate, intraoperative blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay for rectal cancer surgery in patients treated using robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with laparoscopic low anterior resection.

Robotic surgery in colon cancer: current evidence and future perspectives – narrative review

In the last 10 years, surgery has been developing towards minimal invasiveness; therefore, robotic surgery represents the consequent evolution of laparoscopic surgery. Worldwide, surgeons’ performances have been upgraded by the ergonomic developments of robotic systems, leading to several benefits for patients. The introduction into the market of the new Da Vinci Xi system has made it possible to perform all types of surgery on the colon, an in selected cases, to combine interventions in other organs or viscera at the same time. Optimization of the suprapubic surgical approach may shorten the length of hospital stay for patients who undergo robotic colonic resection. From this perspective, single-port robotic colectomy, has reduced the number of robotic ports needed, allowing a better anesthetic outcome and faster recovery. The introduction on the market of new surgical robotic systems from multiple manufacturers is bound to change the landscape of robotic surgery and yield high-quality surgical outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Robotic resections represent a novel approach to treatment of colorectal cancer. The aim of our study was to critically assess the implementation of robotic colorectal surgical program at our institution and to compare it to the established laparoscopically assisted surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was designed to compare outcomes of consecutively operated patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic colorectal resections at a tertiary academic centre from 2019 to 2020. The associations between patient characteristics, type of operation, operation duration, conversions, duration of hospitalization, complications and number of harvested lymph nodes were assessed by using univariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 83 operations met inclusion criteria, 46 robotic and 37 laparoscopic resections, respectively. The groups were comparable regarding the patient and operative characteristics. The operative time was longer in the robotic group (p < 0.001), with fewer conversions to open surgery (p = 0.004), with less patients in need of transfusions (p = 0.004) and lower reoperation rate (p = 0.026). There was no significant difference between the length of stay (p = 0.17), the number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.24) and the overall complications (p = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term results of robotic colorectal resections were comparable to the laparoscopically assisted operations with fewer conversions to open surgery, fewer blood transfusions and lower reoperation rate in the robotic group.

Improved perioperative outcomes and reduced inflammatory stress response in malignant robot-assisted colorectal resections: a retrospective cohort study of 298 patients

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly implemented for the resection of colorectal cancer, although the scientific evidence for adopting this technique is still limited. This study’s main objective was to compare short-term complication rates, oncological outcomes, and the inflammatory stress response after colorectal resection for cancer performed laparoscopic or robot-assisted.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the robot-assisted approach to laparoscopic surgery for elective malignant colorectal neoplasm. Certified colorectal and da Vinci ® robotic surgeons performed resections at a Danish tertiary colorectal high volume center from May 2017 to March 2019. We analyzed the two surgical groups using uni- and multivariate regression analyses to detect differences in intra- and postoperative clinical outcomes and the inflammatory stress response.

Results

Two hundred and ninety-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Significant differences favoring robot-assisted surgery was demonstrated for; length of hospital stay (4 days, interquartile range (4, 5) versus 5 days, interquartile range (4–7), p < 0.001), and intraoperative blood loss (50 mL, interquartile range (20–100) versus 100 mL, interquartile range (50–150), p < 0.001) compared to laparoscopic surgery. The inflammatory stress response was significantly higher after laparoscopic compared to robot-assisted surgery reflected by an increase in C-reactive protein concentration (exponentiated coefficient = 1.23, 95% confidence interval (1.06–1.46), p = 0.008). No differences between the two groups were found concerning mortality, microradical resection rate, conversion to open surgery, and surgical or medical short-term complication rates.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted surgery is feasible and can be safely implemented for colorectal resections. The robot-assisted approach, when compared to laparoscopic surgery, was associated with improved intra- and postoperative outcomes. Extensive prospective studies are needed to determine the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.

The risk of conversion in minimally invasive oncological abdominal surgery. Meta-analysis of randomized evidence comparing traditional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted techniques

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to investigate the risk of conversion associated with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP) versus robot-assisted surgery (ROB) in patients undergoing abdominal oncological surgery. Possible differences between ROB and LAP on postoperative overall and major morbidity, operative time, and length of hospitalization were also assessed.

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials of LAP versus ROB surgery in patients with abdominal malignancy. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Central registries through September 2020. Risk of bias was estimated concerning randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases.

RESULTS

A total of 1867 patients from 12 trials were included in this review. The rate of conversion was significantly higher for LAP than for ROB patients (10 trials, 1447 participants, p = 0.03, OR = 0.56 [0.33, 0.95]). There was a nonsignificant advantage of ROB over LAP on the rate of overall postoperative morbidity (12 trials, 1867 participants, p = 0.32, OR = 0.83) and major morbidity (7 trials, 792 participants, p = 0.87, OR= 0.93). ROB was also associated with prolonged operative time and abbreviated postoperative hospitalization as compared to LAP (p = 0.002, MD = 27.87, and p = 0.04, MD = -0.57, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the available highest level of evidence, the application of ROB decreases the incidence of unplanned conversion into an open procedure as compared to standard LAP in the setting of oncological minimally invasive surgery.

Recurrence Risk after Radical Colorectal Cancer Surgery-Less Than before, But How High Is It?

Simple Summary

Evidence indicates that recurrence risk after colon cancer today is less than it was when trials performed decades ago showed that adjuvant chemotherapy reduces the risk and prolong disease-free and overall survival. After rectal cancer surgery, local recurrence rates have decreased but it is unclear if systemic recurrences have. After a systematic review of available literature reporting recurrence risks after curative colorectal cancer surgery we report that the risks are lower today than they were in the past and that this risk reduction is not solely ascribed to the use of adjuvant therapy. Adjuvant therapy always means overtreatment of many patients, already cured by the surgery. Fewer recurrences mean that progress in the care of these patients has happened but also that the present guidelines giving recommendations based upon old data must be adjusted. The relative gains from adding chemotherapy are not altered, but the absolute number of patients gaining is less.

Abstract

Adjuvant chemotherapy aims at eradicating tumour cells sometimes present after radical surgery for a colorectal cancer (CRC) and thereby diminish the recurrence rate and prolong time to recurrence (TTR). Remaining tumour cells will lead to recurrent disease that is usually fatal. Adjuvant therapy is administered based upon the estimated recurrence risk, which in turn defines the need for this treatment. This systematic overview aims at describing whether the need has decreased since trials showing that adjuvant chemotherapy provides benefits in colon cancer were performed decades ago. Thanks to other improvements than the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy, such as better staging, improved surgery, the use of radiotherapy and more careful pathology, recurrence risks have decreased. Methodological difficulties including intertrial comparisons decades apart and the present selective use of adjuvant therapy prevent an accurate estimate of the magnitude of the decreased need. Furthermore, most trials do not report recurrence rates or TTR, only disease-free and overall survival (DFS/OS). Fewer colon cancer patients, particularly in stage II but also in stage III, today display a sufficient need for adjuvant treatment considering the burden of treatment, especially when oxaliplatin is added. In rectal cancer, neo-adjuvant treatment will be increasingly used, diminishing the need for adjuvant treatment.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer

Minimally invasive surgery has demonstrated many benefits in general surgery, particularly in colon and rectal procedures. On the other hand, it has some limitations that must be taken into account, especially technical drawback. Robotic surgery has incorporated many improvements to overcome this disadvantage, such as 3D visualization, articulating instruments assisting complex and precise movements. As a result, robotic colorectal surgery shows less intraoperative blood loss, shorter time to oral tolerance and initial flatus (particularly associated with "Enhanced Recovery After Surgery" protocol), less conversion rate to open surgery, shortened hospital stay, and longer distal margins compared to laparoscopic and open surgery. This approach also shows a shorter learning curve. Some studies suggest that it could decrease perioperatively or 30 days after the intervention's mortality, raise overall survival, reduce wound infection, and improve functional results, while others show no significant difference. However, it lengthens surgical time. Otherwise, the studies included do not show statistically significant changes in the number of resected lymph nodes and anastomotic leaks. Economic costs remain one of the major concerns, although to date there are no large-scale studies that have evaluated this aspect from a global point of view. Robotic surgery represents a qualitative leap in surgical instruments and, although there is no strong evidence in favor of the use of robotic surgery over laparoscopic or open surgery, there is enough evidence to support its use in colorectal surgery, with potential advantages for patients.

Low-residual diet versus clear-liquid diet for bowel preparation before colonoscopy: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare a low-residual diet (LRD) with a clear-liquid diet (CLD) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane databases for randomized clinical trials comparing LRD with CLD for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The last search was performed on September 20, 2019. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation. The outcomes were compared using systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

RESULTS

Twenty randomized controlled trials published between 2005 and 2019 with 4323 participants were included. LRD was comparable with CLD for adequate bowel preparation (P = .79; odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.29). The detection rates for polyps (P = .68; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.86-1.27) or adenomas (P = .78; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.86-1.23) were similar between the groups. There were significantly fewer advents in individuals in the LRD group: nausea (P = .02; OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.94), vomiting (P = .04; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.98), hunger (P < .001; OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.53), and headache (P = .02; OR ,0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.93). In addition, significantly more individuals in the LRD group found it easy to complete the diet (P = .01; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15-3.00) and showed willingness to repeat it (P = .005; OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.28-3.89). TSA demonstrated that the cumulative Z curve crossed both the traditional boundary and the trial sequential monitoring boundary for adequate bowel preparation.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that LRD was comparable with CLD in the quality of bowel preparation before colonoscopy. More clinical trials are needed to confirm other outcomes.

Do specific operative approaches and insurance status impact timely access to colorectal cancer care?

INTRODUCTION

The increased use of minimally invasive surgery in the management of colorectal cancer has led to a renewed focus on how certain factors, such as insurance status, impact the equitable distribution of both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Our goal was to analyze surgical wait times between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches, and to determine whether insurance status impacts timely access to treatment.

METHODS

After IRB approval, adult patients from the National Cancer Database with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer were identified (2010-2016). Patients who underwent radiation therapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, had wait times of 0 days from diagnosis to surgery, or had metastatic disease were excluded. Primary outcomes were days from cancer diagnosis to surgery and days from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable Poisson regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Among 324,784 patients, 5.9% underwent robotic, 47.5% laparoscopic, and 46.7% open surgery. Patients undergoing robotic surgery incurred the longest wait times from diagnosis to surgery (29.5 days [robotic] vs. 21.7 [laparoscopic] vs. 17.2 [open], p < 0.001), but the shortest wait times from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy (48.9 days [robotic] vs. 49.9 [laparoscopic] vs. 54.8 [open], p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was associated with a 1.46 × longer wait time to surgery (IRR 1.462, 95% CI 1.458-1.467, p < 0.001), but decreased wait time to adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.909, 95% CI 0.905-0.913, p < 0.001) compared to an open approach. Private insurance was associated with decreased wait times to surgery (IRR 0.966, 95% CI 0.962-0.969, p < 0.001) and adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.862, 95% CI 0.858-0.865, p < 0.001) compared to Medicaid.

CONCLUSION

Though patients undergoing robotic surgery experienced delays from diagnosis to surgery, they tended to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy sooner compared to those undergoing open or laparoscopic approaches. Private insurance was independently associated not only with access to robotic surgery, but also shorter wait times during all stages of treatment.

Robotics Total Mesorectal Excision Up To the Minute

Surgical techniques have evolved over the past few decades, and minimally invasive surgery has been rapidly adapted to become a preferred operative approach for treating colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain a technical challenge for surgeons to perform laparoscopically, which has prompted the development of robotic platforms. Robotic surgery has been introduced as the latest advance in minimally invasive surgery. The present article provides an overview of robotic rectal surgery and describes many advances that have been made in the field over the past two decades. More specifically, the introduction of the robotic platform and its benefits, and the limitations of current robotic technology, are discussed. Although the main advantages of robotic surgery over conventional laparoscopy appear to be lower conversion rates and better surgical specimen quality, oncological and functional outcomes appear to be similar to those of other alternatives. Other potential benefits include earlier recovery of voiding and sexual function after robotic total mesorectal excision. Nevertheless, the costs and lack of haptic feedback remain the primary limitations to the widespread use of robotic technology in the field.

Robotic or three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and intracorporeal anastomosis? A propensity score-matching study comparison

BACKGROUND

We describe our preliminary experience in complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) and intracorporeal anastomosis for right colon cancer, comparing the robotic and the three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational clinical cohort study on patients who underwent radical curative surgical resection of right colon cancer with CME from January 2014 to June 2019. Propensity scores were calculated by bivariate logistic regression, including the following variables: age, BMI, and size of tumor.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients underwent CME with CVL: 26 by means of robot-assisted surgery and 29 by means of 3D laparoscopic procedure. There were not statistically significant differences about all the intra- and postoperative outcomes (operative time, length of the specimen, time to bowel canalization, time to soft oral intake, length of hospital stay, postoperative complication, number of retrieved lymph nodes, number of positive lymph nodes and lymph node ratio) between the robotic and the 3D laparoscopic approach. After the matching procedure, 20 patients of the robotic group and 20 patients of the 3D laparoscopic group were selected for the analysis. There were no differences in any of the analyzed variables between the two groups except for longer operative time in the robotic group (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The 3D vision revealed an important advantage in order to achieve the correct identification of surgical anatomy allowing a safe and effective right colectomy with CME, CVL, and intracorporeal anastomosis, either using laparoscopic or with robotic approach, providing similar short-term outcomes. Taking into account the high costs and the longer operative time of robotic procedure, the 3D laparoscopy could be considered in performing right colectomy with CME, while the robotic approach should be considered as a first choice approach for challenging situations (obese patient, complex associated procedures).

[Robotic Assisted Proctocolectomy with Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis in a Case of Suspected Hereditary Polyposis]

BACKGROUND

Various forms of hereditary polyposis have been described in the literature. Classical familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a rare, autosomal dominantly inherited disease which is caused by a germline mutation in the adenomatous polyposis coli gene (APC). Patients with this diagnosis successively develop multiple polyps of the colon. Left untreated, FAP almost inevitably leads to malignant transformation.

INDICATION

We present the case of a 37-year-old patient with histologically confirmed, stenotic adenocarcinoma of the descending colon and an initially suspected hereditary polyposis due to multiple polyps in the descending and sigmoid colon.

METHODS

The video describes the preoperative imaging as well as endoscopic findings and demonstrates the technique of a two-stage, robotically assisted proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and the creation of a temporary loop ileostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to the surgical treatment of classic FAP, restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) with ileal J-pouch construction can be regarded as an established standard procedure, despite controversy regarding various technical aspects. Minimally invasive strategies should be considered as an equivalent option compared to conventional techniques.

Prospective evaluation of the quality of life of patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer depending on the surgical technique

PURPOSE

Monitoring of the quality of life of patients in addition to satisfactory survival indexes in order to choose an optimal treatment method is a trend in contemporary oncological surgery. The goal of the study was to prospectively evaluate the quality of life of patients treated for colorectal cancer depending on the type of surgical technique (open surgery (OS) vs. laparoscopic surgery (LS)).

METHODS

The quality of life was evaluated thrice in the study groups (on the day of admission to the ward (I), 6 months (II), and 18 months after the procedure (III)). The following questionnaires were used in this evaluation: QLQ-C30 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, QLQ-CR29 Quality of Life Questionnaire (module-colorectal cancer), and Acceptance of Illness Scale (AIS).

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients completed this prospective clinical cohort study (LS-32; OS-35). The QLQ-C30 questionnaire demonstrated improvement in functional scales among patients treated with LS technique (p < 0.05) as well as with regard to overall quality of life 6 months after surgery (p < 0,001), while at 18 months postsurgery, statistically significant differences were noted for physical function (p = 0.001) and overall quality of life (p < 0.0001). AIS scale analysis demonstrated that patients treated with laparoscopy were characterized by better acceptance of illness (p < 0.05). Statistically significant differences between OS and LS groups were noted based on the QLQ-CR29 questionnaire with regard to the following scales: body image (p = 0.041) and body mass problem (p = 0.024)-patients treated with LS technique had better scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery gives patients a chance for better quality of life.

[Standardized access options for colorectal surgery with the da Vinci Xi system]

BACKGROUND

Performing colorectal surgery with previous da Vinci system generations presented some limitations that caused uncertainty for surgeons as they began to apply robotic technologies. The da Vinci Xi system is designed to overcome these limitations and to enable multiquadrant colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The design concept of the da Vinci Xi system and the standardized access for colorectal surgery are explained.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The da Vinci Xi system applies an overhead boom that maximizes the arm workspace, minimizes interference and makes the port placement universal for standardized access. Colorectal approaches have been validated in numerous cadaver models confirming the reproducibility of the standardized access.

RESULTS

Standardized access with a straight-line port placement is possible in all colorectal applications. For right-sided hemicolectomy, a transverse abdominal approach as well as a suprapubic port placement are possible. Utilizing the same principles, left-sided colectomy, sigmoid colectomy and low anterior resections can be performed. Proctocolectomy is enabled through boom rotation and a second docking. Only minor arm-to-arm interferences occurred and were easily manageable by the bedside assistant. None of the approaches required rearrangement of the patient cart or swapping arms to different port locations.

CONCLUSION

The da Vinci Xi system enables a standardized access for colorectal surgery through a universal straight-line port placement. Learning this standard principle once enables the surgeon to apply it to all colorectal surgeries and shorten the learning curve as well as minimizing stress for both novices and experienced robotic surgeons learning a new surgical robotic platform.