Robotic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients may lead to better short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopy: a comparative propensity scored match study

Comparative Outcomes of Robotic Versus Open Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer at High Risk of Positive Circumferential Resection Margin

BACKGROUND

Concerns persist regarding the effectiveness of robotic proctectomy compared with open proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer with a high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement.

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of surrogate cancer outcomes after robotic versus open proctectomy in this subpopulation.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Three academic hospitals (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Rochester) with data available through the Mayo Data Explorer platform.

PATIENTS

Patients at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement were selected on the basis of the MRI-based definition from the MERCURY I and II trials.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rate of pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (≤1 mm), mesorectal grading, and rate of distal margin involvement.

RESULTS

Out of 413 patients, 125 (30%) underwent open and 288 (70%) underwent robotic proctectomy. Open proctectomy was significantly associated with a greater proportion of cT4 tumors (39.3% vs 24.8%, p = 0.021), multivisceral/concomitant resections (40.8% vs 18.4%, p < 0.001), and less frequent total neoadjuvant therapy use (17.1% vs 47.1%, p = 0.001). Robotic proctectomy was less commonly associated with pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (7.3% vs 17.6%, p = 0.002), including after adjustment for cT stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and multivisceral resection (OR 0.326; 95% CI, 0.157-0.670, p = 0.002). Propensity score matching for 66 patients per group and related multivariable analysis no longer indicated any reduction of circumferential positive margin rate associated with robotic surgery ( p = 0.86 and p = 0.18). Mesorectal grading was comparable (incomplete mesorectum in 6% robotic proctectomy patients vs 11.8% open proctectomy patients, p = 0.327). All cases had negative distal resection margins.

LIMITATION

Retrospective design.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement, robotic proctectomy is an effective approach and could be pursued when technically possible as an alternative to open proctectomy. See Video Abstract .

RESULTADOS COMPARATIVOS ENTRE LA PROCTECTOMA ROBTICA Y LA PROCTECTOMA ABIERTA EN CASOS DE CNCER DE RECTO CON ALTO RIESGO DE MRGEN DE RESECCIN CIRCUNFERENCIAL POSITIVO

ANTECEDENTES:Persisten preocupaciones con respecto a la efectividad de la proctectomía robótica en comparación con la proctectomía abierta en casos de cáncer de recto localmente avanzado con un alto riesgo de margen de resección circunferencial positivo.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados en la subpoblación de portadores de cáncer luego de una proctectomía robótica versus una proctectomía abierta.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de cohortes.AJUSTE:Realizado en tres hospitales académicos (Mayo Clinic de Arizona, Florida y Rochester) a través de la plataforma Mayo Data Explorer.PACIENTES:Fueron seleccionados aquellos pacientes con alto riesgo de compromiso sobre el margen de resección circunferencial, según la definición de los Estudios Mercury I-II basada en la Imágen de Resonancia Magnética.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO PRINCIPALES Y SECUNDARIAS:La tasa de compromiso patológico sobre el margen de resección circunferencial (≤1 mm), la clasificación mesorrectal y la tasa del compromiso del margen distal.RESULTADOS:De 413 pacientes, 125 (30%) fueron sometidos a una proctectomía abierta y 288 (70%) a proctectomía robótica. La proctectomía abierta se asoció significativamente con una mayor proporción de tumores cT4 (39,3% frente a 24,8%, p = 0,021), las resecciones multiviscerales/concomitantes fueron de 40,8% frente a 18,4%, p < 0,001 y una adminstración menos frecuente de terapia neoadyuvante total (17,1). % vs 47,1%, p = 0,001).La proctectomía robótica se asoció con menos frecuencia con la presencia de una lesión sobre el margen de resección circunferencial patológico (7,3% frente a 17,6%, p = 0,002), incluso después del ajuste por estadio cT, de la terapia neoadyuvante y de resección multivisceral (OR 0,326, IC 95% 0,157-0,670, p = 0,002). El apareado de propensión por puntuación en 66 pacientes por grupo y el análisis multivariable relacionado, no mostraron ninguna reducción en la tasa de margen positivo circunferencial asociado con la cirugía robótica ( p = 0,86 y p = 0,18). La clasificación mesorrectal fue igualmente comparable (mesorrecto incompleto en el 6% de los pacientes con RP frente al 11,8% de los pacientes con OP, p = 0,327). Todos los casos tuvieron márgenes de resección distal negativos.LIMITACIÓN:Diseño retrospectivo.CONCLUSIÓN:En pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado con alto riesgo de compromiso del margen de resección circunferencial, la proctectomía robótica es un enfoque eficaz y podría realizarse cuando sea técnicamente posible como alternativa a la proctectomía abierta. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing the efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in obese patients

This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and contrast the effectiveness of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the treatment of obese patients. In February 2024, we carried out an exhaustive search of key global databases including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, limiting our focus to studies published in English and Chinese. We excluded reviews, protocols lacking published results, articles derived solely from conference abstracts, and studies not relevant to our research objectives. To analyze categorical variables, we utilized the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method along with random-effects models, calculating inverse variances and presenting the outcomes as odds ratios (ORs) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical significance was determined when p values were less than 0.05. In our final meta-analysis, we included eight cohort studies, encompassing a total of 5,004 patients. When comparing the robotic surgery group to the laparoscopic group, the findings revealed that the robotic group experienced a longer operative time (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 37.53 min, 95% (CI) 15.58-59.47; p = 0.0008), a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -0.68 days, 95% CI -1.25 to -0.10; p = 0.02), and reduced blood loss (WMD = -49.23 mL, 95% CI -64.31 to -34.14; p < 0.00001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding overall complications, conversion rates, surgical site infections, readmission rates, lymph node yield, anastomotic leakage, and intestinal obstruction. The results of our study indicate that robot-assisted colorectal surgery offers benefits for obese patients by shortening the length of hospital stay and minimizing blood loss when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Nonetheless, it is associated with longer operation times and shows no significant difference in terms of overall complications, conversion rates, rehospitalization rates, and other similar metrics.

Comparative analysis of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer in patients with varied body mass indexes: evaluating of short-term outcomes

The main aim of this study was to evaluate and contrast the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures in the treatment of low and mid rectal cancer in different BMI (body mass index) groups. The clinical records of patients who had laparoscopic or robotic proctectomy at a single center between December 2019 and August 2023 were analyzed. Then we utilized a classification framework to categorize individuals based on their BMI into three unique groups: non-obese, overweight, and obese. The short-term efficacy was evaluated. A consecutive sample of 1413 patients was included in this retrospective investigation. 1158 people out of the total sample chose laparoscopic surgery, whereas 255 people chose robotic surgery. In the group of obese people, robotic surgery showed a statistically significant decrease in blood loss compared to laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.026). People who were overweight or obese were in the hospital for a shorter amount of time after robotic surgery than after laparoscopic surgery (P = 0.033 and P = 0.031, respectively). People with different BMIs in the robotic surgery group took less time to have a flatus passage and oral intake those in the laparoscopic surgery group. Oncological outcomes and the frequency of complications were comparable between the two treatments with different BMIs. Surgical resection of patients undergoing low-anterior surgery may benefit from a robotic approach, particularly in overweight and obese patients.

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.

Advancements in Robotic Surgery: A Comprehensive Overview of Current Utilizations and Upcoming Frontiers

Robotic surgery, a groundbreaking advancement in medical technology, has redefined the landscape of surgical procedures. This comprehensive overview explores the multifaceted world of robotic surgery, encompassing its definition, historical development, current applications, clinical outcomes, benefits, emerging frontiers, challenges, and future implications. We delve into the fundamentals of robotic surgical systems, examining their components and advantages. From general and gynecological surgery to urology, cardiac surgery, orthopedics, and beyond, we highlight the diverse specialties where robotic surgery is making a significant impact. The many benefits discussed include improved patient outcomes, reduced complications, faster recovery times, cost-effectiveness, and enhanced surgeon experiences. The outlook reveals a healthcare landscape where robotic surgery is increasingly vital, enabling personalized medicine, bridging healthcare disparities, and advancing surgical precision. However, challenges such as cost, surgeon training, technical issues, ethical considerations, and patient acceptance remain relevant. In conclusion, robotic surgery is poised to continue shaping the future of health care, offering transformative possibilities while emphasizing the importance of collaboration, innovation, and ethical governance.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in obese patients

BACKGROUND

Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has a lower conversion rate to open surgery and causes less blood loss than laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), clear evidence on the impact of the surgical approach on morbidity is lacking. Prior studies have shown a higher rate of complications among obese patients undergoing pancreatectomy. The primary aim of this study is to compare short-term outcomes of RDP vs. LDP in patients with a BMI ≥ 30.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, all obese patients who underwent RDP or LDP for any indication between 2012 and 2022 at 18 international expert centers were included. The baseline characteristics underwent inverse probability treatment weighting to minimize allocation bias.

RESULTS

Of 446 patients, 219 (50.2%) patients underwent RDP. The median age was 60 years, the median BMI was 33 (31-36), and the preoperative diagnosis was ductal adenocarcinoma in 21% of cases. The conversion rate was 19.9%, the overall complication rate was 57.8%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 0.7% (3 patients). RDP was associated with a lower complication rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.89; p = 0.005), less blood loss (150 vs. 200 ml; p < 0.001), fewer blood transfusion requirements (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.50; p < 0.001) and a lower Comprehensive Complications Index (8.7 vs. 8.9, p < 0.001) than LPD. RPD had a lower conversion rate (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19-0.39; p < 0.001) and achieved better spleen preservation rate (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13-3.39; p = 0.016) than LPD.

CONCLUSIONS

In obese patients, RDP is associated with a lower conversion rate, fewer complications and better short-term outcomes than LPD.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some studies have suggested disparities in access to robotic colorectal surgery, however, it is unclear which factors are most meaningful in the determination of approach relative to laparoscopic or open surgery. This study aimed to identify the most influential factors contributing to robotic colorectal surgery utilization.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of published studies that compared the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations in September 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Patients were less likely to undergo robotic versus laparoscopic surgery if they were female (OR = 0.91, 0.84-0.98), older (OR = 1.61, 1.38-1.88), had Medicare (OR = 0.84, 0.71-0.99), or had comorbidities (OR = 0.83, 0.77-0.91). Non-academic hospitals had lower odds of conducting robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.73, 0.62-0.86). Additional disparities were observed when comparing robotic with open surgery for patients who were Black (OR = 0.78, 0.71-0.86), had lower income (OR = 0.67, 0.62-0.74), had Medicaid (OR = 0.58, 0.43-0.80), or were uninsured (OR = 0.29, 0.21-0.39).

CONCLUSION

When determining who undergoes robotic surgery, consideration of factors such as age and comorbid conditions may be clinically justified, while other factors seem less justifiable. Black patients and the underinsured were less likely to undergo robotic surgery. This study identifies nonclinical disparities in access to robotics that should be addressed to provide more equitable access to innovations in colorectal surgery.

Relationship between body mass index and short-term postoperative prognosis in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a state in which excess heat is converted into excess fat, which accumulates in the body and may cause damage to multiple organs of the circulatory, endocrine, and digestive systems. Studies have shown that the accumulation of abdominal fat and mesenteric fat hypertrophy in patients with obesity makes laparoscopic surgery highly difficult, which is not conducive to operation and affects patient prognosis. However, there is still controversy regarding these conclusions.

AIM

To explore the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and short-term prognosis after surgery for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, CNKI, and China Biology Medicine Disc databases were searched to obtain relevant articles on this topic. After the articles were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the risk of literature bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the prognostic indicators were combined and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 16 articles were included for quantitative analysis, and 15588 patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery were included in the study, including 3775 patients with obesity and 11813 patients without obesity. Among them, 12 articles used BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² and 4 articles used BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² for the definition of obesity. Four patients underwent robotic colorectal surgery, whereas 12 underwent conventional laparoscopic colorectal resection. The quality of the literature was good. Meta-combined analysis showed that the overall complication rate of patients with obesity after surgery was higher than that of patients without obesity [OR = 1.35, 95%CI: 1.23-1.48, Z = 6.25, P < 0.0001]. The incidence of anastomotic leak after surgery in patients with obesity was not significantly different from that in patients without obesity [OR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.70-1.41), Z = -0.06, P = 0.956]. The incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after surgery in patients with obesity was higher than that in patients without obesity [OR = 1.43, 95%CI: 1.16-1.78, Z = 3.31, P < 0.001]. The incidence of reoperation in patients with obesity after surgery was higher than that in patients without obesity; however, the difference was not statistically significant [OR = 1.15, 95%CI: 0.92-1.45, Z = 1.23, P = 0.23]; Patients with obesity had lower mortality after surgery than patients without obesity; however, the difference was not statistically significant [OR = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.35-1.06, Z = -1.75, P = 0.08]. Subgroup analysis revealed that the geographical location of the institute was one of the sources of heterogeneity. Robot-assisted surgery was not significantly different from traditional laparoscopic resection in terms of the incidence of complications.

CONCLUSION

Obesity increases the overall complication and SSI rates of patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery but has no influence on the incidence of anastomotic leak, reoperation rate, and short-term mortality rate.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients: ACS-NSQIP analysis

Laparoscopic rectal surgery within the confines of a narrow pelvis may be associated with a high rate of open conversion. In the obese and morbidly obese patient, the complexity of laparoscopic surgery increases substantially. Robotic technology is known to reduce the risk of conversion, but it is unclear if it can overcome the technical challenges associated with obesity. The ACS NSQIP database was used to identify obese patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic-assisted rectal resection from 2015 to 2016. Obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m². Morbid obesity was defined as a BMI greater than or equal to 35 kg/m². The primary outcome was unplanned conversions to open. Other outcomes measures assessed included anastomotic leak, operative time, surgical site infections, length of hospital stay, readmissions and mortality. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 (IBM SPSS, USA). 1490 patients had robotic-assisted and 4967 patients had laparoscopic rectal resections between 2015 and 2016. Of those patients, 561 obese patients had robotic-assisted rectal resections and 1824 patients underwent laparoscopic rectal surgery. In the obese cohort, the rate of unplanned conversion to open in the robotic group was 14% compared to 24% in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.0001). Median operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group (248 min vs. 215 min, P < 0.0001). There was no difference in anastomotic leak or systemic sepsis between the laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgery groups. In morbidly obese patients (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m²), the rate of unplanned conversion to open in the robotic group was 19% compared to 26% in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.027). There was no difference in anastomotic leak, systemic sepsis or surgical site infection rates between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection. Multivariate analysis showed that robotic-assisted surgery was associated with fewer unplanned conversions to open (OR 0.28, P < 0.0001). Robotic-assisted surgery is associated with a decreased risk of conversion to open in obese and morbidly obese patients when compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery was associated with longer operative time and despite improvement in the rate of conversion to open, there was no difference in complications or length of stay. Our findings are limited by the retrospective non-randomised nature of the study, demographic differences between the two groups, and the likely difference in surgeon experience between the two groups. Large randomised controlled studies are needed to further explore the role of robotic rectal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients.

More work is needed on cost-utility analyses of robotic-assisted surgery

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence.

METHODS

Data on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of robotic surgery were collected in seven electronic databases from the inception to July 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. A systematic review was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Thirty-one CUAs of robotic surgery were eligible. Overall, the identified CUAs were fair to high quality, and 63% of the CUAs ranked the cost-utility of robotic surgery as "favored," 32% categorized as "reject," and the remaining 5% ranked as "unclear." Although a high heterogeneity was present in terms of the study design among the included CUAs, most studies (81.25%) consistently found that robotic surgery was more cost-utility than open surgery for prostatectomy (ICER: $6905.31/QALY to $26240.75/QALY; time horizon: 10 years or lifetime), colectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), knee arthroplasty (ICER: $1134.22/QALY to $1232.27/QALY; time horizon: lifetime), gastrectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), spine surgery (ICER: $17707.27/QALY; time horizon: 1 year), and cystectomy (ICER: $3154.46/QALY; time horizon: 3 months). However, inconsistent evidence was found for the cost-utility of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Fair or high-quality evidence indicated that robotic surgery is more cost-utility than open surgery, while it remains inconclusive whether robotic surgery is more cost-utility than laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Thus, an additional evaluation is required.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Oncological Outcomes

The treatment of rectal cancer is complex and involves specialized multidisciplinary care, although the tenet is still rooted in a high-quality total mesorectal excision. The robotic platform is one of many tools in the arsenal to assist dissection in the low pelvis. This article is a comprehensive review of the oncological outcome comparing robotic vs laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, with a particular focus on total mesorectal excision. There is no statistical difference in total mesorectal grade, circumferential margin, distal margin, and lymph node harvest. Survival data are less mature, but there is also no difference in disease-free or overall survival between the two techniques. Although additional randomized trials are still needed to validate these findings, both techniques are currently acceptable in the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, and surgeon preference is paramount to safe and optimal resection.

Robotic and robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of short-term and long-term results

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer (RC) is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. This study conducted a meta-analysis of rectal cancer surgery for short-term and long-term outcome by Robotic and robotic-assisted surgery (RS) vs laparoscopic surgery (LS).Pubmed, Embase, Ovid, CNKI, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of short-term and long-term effect between RS and LS for RC were selected. Lymph node harvested, operation time, hospital stay, circumferential resection margins（CRM), complications, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year DFS parameters were evaluated. All data were performed by Review Manager 5.3 software. Nine studies were collected that included 1436 cases in total, 716 (49.86%) in the RS group, 720(50.14%) in the LS group. Compared with LS, RS was associated with longer operation time (MD 35.19, 95%CI [7.57, 62.81]; P = 0.01), but similar hospital stay (MD -0.43, 95%CI [-0.87,0.01]; P = 0.05).Lymph node harvested, CRM, complications, 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS had no significance difference between RS and LS groups（MD -0.67，95%CI[-1.53，0.19]；P = 0.13；MD 0.86，95%CI[0.54,1.37]；P = 0.52；MD 0.97，95%CI [0.73,1.29]；P = 0.86；MD 0.94，95%CI[0.60,1.48]；P = 0.79；MD 0.88，95%CI[0.52,1.47]；P = 0.61 respectively）.RS is feasible and safe for RC. It has an advantage in short -term outcome and a similar effect in long-term outcome compared with LS.

Excess Body Weight and Abdominal Hernia

Background

Obese patients have an increased incidence of ventral hernias; in over 50% of these cases, patients are symptomatic. At the same time, morbid obesity is a disease of epidemic proportions. The combination of symptomatic hernia and obesity is a challenge for the treating surgeon, because the risk of perioperative complications and recurrence increases with increasing BMI.

Summary

This review outlines this problem and discusses interdisciplinary approaches to the management of affected patients. In emergency cases, the hernia is treated according to the surgeon's expertise. In elective cases, an individual decision must be made whether bariatric surgery is indicated before hernia repair or whether both should be performed simultaneously. After bariatric surgery a weight reduction of 25-30% of total body weight in the first year can be achieved and it is often advantageous to perform a bariatric operation prior to hernia repair. Technically, the risk of complications is lower with minimally invasive procedures than with open ones, but laparoscopy is challenging in obese patients, and meshes can only be implanted in intraperitoneal position. This mesh position has to be questioned because of adhesions, recurrence rate, and risk of contamination during re-interventions in patients who are often still relatively young.

Key Messages

Obese patients with hernia need to be approached in an interdisciplinary manner, in some patients a weight loss procedure may be advantageous before hernia repair. Recent data show the benefits of robotic hernia surgery in obese patients, as not only haptic advantages result, but especially the mesh can be implanted in a variety of extraperitoneal positions in the abdominal wall with low morbidity.

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

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

Difference in surgical outcomes of rectal cancer by study design: meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, case-matched studies, and cohort studies

Background

RCTs are considered the standard in surgical research, whereas case-matched studies and propensity score matching studies are conducted as an alternative option. Both study designs have been used to investigate the potential superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. However, no conclusion has been reached regarding whether there are differences in findings according to study design. This study aimed to examine similarities and differences in findings relating to robotic surgery for rectal cancer by study design.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify RCTs, case-matched studies, and cohort studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcomes were incidence of postoperative overall complications, incidence of anastomotic leakage, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed for each study design using a random-effects model.

Results

Fifty-nine articles were identified and reviewed. No differences were observed in incidence of anastomotic leakage, mortality, rate of positive circumferential resection margins, conversion rate, and duration of operation by study design. With respect to the incidence of postoperative overall complications and duration of hospital stay, the superiority of robotic surgery was most evident in cohort studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95 per cent c.i. 0.74 to 0.92, P < 0.001; mean difference (MD) –1.11 (95 per cent c.i. –1.86 to –0.36) days, P = 0.004; respectively), and least evident in RCTs (RR 1.12, 0.91 to 1.38, P = 0.27; MD –0.28 (–1.44 to 0.88) days, P = 0.64; respectively).

Conclusion

Results of case-matched studies were often similar to those of RCTs in terms of outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, case-matched studies occasionally overestimated the effects of interventions compared with RCTs.

State of the art in robotic rectal surgery: marginal gains worth the pain?

After their first introduction in the 1990s to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, especially in confined spaces such as the pelvis, telemanipulators (i.e., master-slave manipulators) have gained popularity and acceptance among gastrointestinal surgeons. These complex, interventional surgical devices use multiple technologies, such as 3-D advanced imaging, tremor reduction and 7-degree movement. Superior instrument dexterity, stable precise vision and accessibility to narrow confined spaces make these devices well suited for colorectal surgery. The drive for innovations in the field of surgical robotics will leverage novel robots driven by data, image integration, and artificial intelligence. However, if this vision is to be realized, lessons must be learned from the current literature and clinical trials. The feasibility and safety of robotic rectal surgery is now well established; increasing evidence suggests that when compared to laparoscopic rectal surgery, robotic approaches might offer superior peri-operative outcomes. Notably, the marginal gains achieved with the use of robotics in rectal cancer surgery are linked with structured training and standardization of operative techniques. With decreasing costs and wider availability of new systems, it is foreseeable that robotic surgical systems will be an integral part of colorectal practice.

Trends and consequences of surgical conversion in the United States

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to identify national utilization trends of robotic surgery for elective colectomy, conversion rates over time, and the specific impact of conversion on postoperative morbidity. Conversion to open represents a hard endpoint for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and is associated with worse outcomes when compared to MIS or even traditional open procedures.

METHODS

All adult patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic elective colectomy from 2013 to 2018 as reported in the American College of Surgeons Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database were included. National trends of both robotic utilization and conversion rates were analyzed, overall and according to underlying disease (benign disease, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), cancer), or the presence of obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m²). Demographic and surgical risk factors for surgical conversion to open were identified through multivariable regression analysis. Further assessed were overall and specific postoperative 30-day complications, which were risk adjusted and compared between converted patients and the remaining cohort.

RESULTS

Of 66,652 included procedures, 5353 (8.0%) were converted to open. Conversion rates were 8.5% for laparoscopic and 4.9% for robotic surgery (p < 0.0001). A decline in conversion rates over the 6-year inclusion period was observed overall and for patients with obesity. This trend paralleled an increased utilization of the robotic platform. Several surrogates for advanced disease stages for cancer, diverticulitis, and IBD and prolonged surgical duration were identified as independent risk factors for unplanned conversion, while robotic approach was an independent protective factor (OR 0.44, p < 0.0001). Patients who had unplanned conversion were more likely to experience postoperative complications (OR 2.36; 95% CI [2.21-2.51]), length of hospital stay ≥ 6 days (OR 2.86; 95% CI [2.67-3.05], and 30-day mortality (OR 2.28; 95% CI [1.72-3.02]).

CONCLUSION

This nationwide study identified a decreasing trend in conversion rates over the 6-year inclusion period, both overall and in patients with obesity, paralleling increased utilization of the robotic platform. Unplanned conversion to open was associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications.

[Robot-assisted operations in visceral surgery]

BACKGROUND

Although only a low percentage of abdominal surgical interventions are performed using a robotic platform, the total number has significantly increased in recent years and robotic surgery (RS) is no longer limited only to university hospitals. Despite the increasing popularity and many innovations in the field of robotic surgery with new devices, the data situation is confusing.

OBJECTIVE

This review deals with the current areas of application of robotic devices in abdominal surgery and whether there are any advantages compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The current international literature was evaluated and is critically discussed with a particular focus on clinical trials.

RESULTS

While the disadvantages include high costs and longer times of surgery, the advantages are a stable optical platform and the high mobility even in confined spaces; however, no high-quality, randomized controlled trial in abdominal surgery is currently available that could demonstrate an advantage of RS compared to LS.

CONCLUSION

Although no clear advantages of RS for the patients could so far be demonstrated, it seems to be at least equivalent to LS. Undisputed is the level of comfort for the surgeon. Once the costs of RS can be reduced, LS will probably be replaced for most indications.

Robotic surgery in colorectal cancer: the way forward or a passing fad

Introduced mainly to overcome the technical limitations of laparoscopy, robotic colorectal surgery (CRS) has been touted to provide superior optics, ergonomics, and surgeon autonomy. This technological advancement is nonetheless associated with certain drawbacks, mainly involving its cost and the lack of unequivocal benefit over conventional laparoscopy. In this era of evidence-based medicine, robotic CRS remains predominantly a subject of individual institution case series, retrospective studies, matched comparisons at best, and repeated reviews of the above literature. This article provides a critique of the more contemporary data regarding the use of robotics in colorectal cancer surgery and the controversies surrounding the literature.

Robotic ventral hernia repair in morbidly obese patients: perioperative and mid-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a growing epidemic and it has been found to be an independent risk factor for a multitude of perioperative complications. We describe our experience with morbidly obese patients who underwent robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR), examining factors affecting perioperative and mid-term outcomes.

METHODS

From a prospectively maintained database, all morbid obese (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m²) patients who underwent robotic procedures between 2013 and 2018 were analyzed retrospectively including perioperative outcomes and the mid-term follow-up. Complications were assessed with validated grading systems and index. Univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to determine the factors associated with the development of any complication. Kaplan-Meier's time-to-event analysis was performed to calculate freedom-of-recurrence.

RESULTS

Fifty patients with median BMI 42.9 kg/m² were included. The median last pain score before leaving PACU was 4. The mean LOS of all cohorts was 0.32 day. The postoperative complication rate was 46%. The most frequent complication was persistent pain/discomfort (32%) in early postoperative period. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grade-I and II) were seen in 40% of patients while major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade-III and IV) were seen in 6%. The maximum comprehensive complication index® score was 42.9. In regression analysis, BMI, adhesiolysis, intraperitoneal mesh placement, and off-console time were found to be significantly associated with postoperative complications. Mean follow-up was 22.7 months. Hernia recurrence was seen in 2% and the mean freedom-of-recurrence was 57.4 months (95% CI 54.6-60.2).

CONCLUSIONS

To our best knowledge, this study is the first to present outcomes of morbidly obese patients who underwent RVHR. The results indicate the safety and efficacy of RVHR in morbid obesity with a low recurrence rate as well as a long freedom-of-recurrence time. Further studies are needed to better elucidate the role of robotic surgery in morbidly obese patients.

Cost-effectiveness of current approaches in rectal surgery

Colorectal cancer is ranked as the fourth malignant cause of mortality. With the tremendous revolution in the modern medical techniques, minimally invasive approaches have been incorporated into rectal surgery. The effectiveness of surgical procedures is usually measured by a combination of qualitative (quality of life) and quantitative (years of life) measures, while the costs should reflect the use of different resources that were involved in delivering the medical care and they are affected by several factors, including length of hospital stay. In this review, we provide an insight into the cost-effectiveness of the different types of rectal surgeries in order to present a systematic approach for future preferences. A comprehensive literature review using Medline (via PUBMED), Embase and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (via clinical trial.org) was performed. Minimally invasive rectal surgeries have considerable cost-effective properties that outweigh those of the open techniques in terms of earlier return to bowel function, lower morbidity rates, reduced pain, shorter length of hospital stay and the overall patients’ quality of life although there was no difference in long-term oncological and survival outcomes. The paucity of currently available long-term oncologic, quality of life, and economic outcomes may limit an adequate comparison of robotic surgeries to other surgical techniques. It is therefore recommended to conduct focused studies to help balance the cost/benefit factors along with other technical considerations aimed at reducing the cost of robotic systems with subsequent improvement of their cost-effectiveness.

•

Colorectal cancer is the fourth cause of mortality. Minimally invasive surgery is now considered the standard of care.

•

Cost of minimally invasive surgery is offset by the better outcomes due to less complications and shorter hospital stay.

•

TaTME requires two working teams and two sets of instruments which increases the total cost.

•

Robotic surgery in obese patients demonstrated superior results when it comes to hospital stay and overall complications.

•

Well conducted clinical trials looking at cost effectiveness of new technologies in colorectal surgery are needed.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery is still debatable. Robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair has no clear clinical benefit over laparoscopic repair. We performed a comprehensive cost-analysis comparison between the two approaches for evaluation of their cost-effectiveness in a large healthcare system in the Western United States.

METHODS

Health records in 32 hospitals were queried for procedural costs of inguinal hernia repairs between January 2015 and March 2017. Elective robotic-assisted or laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repairs were included. Cost calculations were done using a utilization-based costing model. Total cost included: fixed cost, which comprises medical device and personnel costs, and variable cost, which comprises disposables and reusable instruments costs. Other outcome measures were length of stay (LOS), conversion to open, and operative times. Statistics were done using t test for continuous variables and χ² test for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 2405 cases, 734 robotic-assisted (633 Primary: 101 recurrent) and 1671 laparoscopic (1471 Primary: 200 recurrent), were included. The average total cost was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the robotic-assisted group ($5517) compared to the laparoscopic group ($3269). However, the average laparoscopic variable cost ($1105) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the robotic-assisted cost ($933). Whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups for LOS and conversion to open, average operative times were significantly higher in the robotic-assisted group (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis for primary and recurrent inguinal hernias matched the overall results.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair has a significantly higher cost and significantly longer operative times, compared to the laparoscopic approach. The study has shown that only fixed cost contributes to the cost difference between the two approaches. Medical device cost plus the longer operative times are the main factors driving the cost difference. Laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair is more cost-effective compared to a robotic-assisted approach.

Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current state and future perspective

Interest in minimally invasive surgery has increased in recent decades. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) was introduced as the latest advance in minimally invasive surgery. RALS has the potential to provide better clinical outcomes in rectal cancer surgery, allowing for precise dissection in the narrow pelvic space. In addition, RALS represents an important advancement in surgical education with respect to use of the dual-console robotic surgery system. Because the public health insurance systems in Japan have covered the cost of RALS for rectal cancer since April 2018, RALS has been attracting increasingly more attention. Although no overall robust evidence has yet shown that RALS is superior to laparoscopic or open surgery, the current evidence supports the notion that technically demanding subgroups (patients with obesity, male patients, and patients treated by extended procedures) may benefit from RALS. Technological innovation is a constantly evolving field. Several companies have been developing new robotic systems that incorporate new technology. This competition among companies in the development of such systems is anticipated to lead to further improvements in patient outcomes as well as drive down the cost of RALS, which is one main concern of this new technique.

Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon's experience

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted surgery by the da Vinci Si appears to benefit rectal cancer surgery in selected patients, but still has some limitations, one of which is its high costs. Preliminary studies have indicated that the use of the new da Vinci Xi provides some added advantages, but their impact on cost is unknown. The aim of the present study is to compare surgical outcomes and costs of rectal cancer resection by the two platforms, in a single surgeon's experience.

METHODS

From April 2010 to April 2017, 90 robotic rectal resections were performed, with either the da Vinci Si (Si-RobTME) or the da Vinci Xi (Xi-RobTME). Based on CUSUM analysis, two comparable groups of 40 consecutive Si-RobTME and 40 consecutive Xi-RobTME were obtained from the prospectively collected database and used for the present retrospective comparative study. Data costs were analysed based on the level of experience on the proficiency-gain curve (p-g curve) by the surgeon with each platform.

RESULTS

In both groups, two homogeneous phases of the p-g curve were identified: Si1 and Xi1: cases 1-19, Si2 and Xi2: cases 20-40. A significantly higher number of full RAS operations were achieved in the Xi-RobTME group (p < 0.001). A statistically significant reduction in operating time (OT) during Si2 and Xi2 phase was observed (p < 0.001), accompanied by reduced overall variable costs (OVC), personnel costs (PC) and consumable costs (CC) (p < 0.001). All costs were lower in the Xi2 phase compared to Si2 phase: OT 265 versus 290 min (p = 0.052); OVC 7983 versus 10231.9 (p = 0.009); PC 1151.6 versus 1260.2 (p = 0.052), CC 3464.4 versus 3869.7 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience confirms a significant reduction of costs with increasing surgeon's experience with both platforms. However, the economic gain was higher with the Xi with shorter OT, reduced PC and CC, in addition to a significantly larger number of cases performed by the fully robotic approach.