Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparative study of robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a single-center experience

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) surgeries are commonly performed using either robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) or laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS). This study aimed to compare clinical and surgical outcomes between RACS and LCS for CRC patients.

Methods

We included 225 patients from Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital (TJMUCH) between January 2021 and June 2024, divided into RACS (n=82) and LCS (n=143) groups. Data on demographics, clinicopathological variables, surgical parameters, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

RACS was associated with longer surgery durations (median: 218.5 vs. 165 minutes) and greater blood loss (median: 100 vs. 50 mL) compared to LCS (p < 0.001 for both). Additionally, the median hospitalization cost was notably higher for RACS at 117,822 RMB compared to 78,174 RMB for LCS (p < 0.0001). RACS was used more frequently for proctectomy (87.80% vs. 72.48%). No significant differences were found in lymph node dissection (LND), postoperative hospital stay, conversion to open surgery, or postoperative complications between the groups (p > 0.05). Anastomotic leakage was the most common complication in both groups (RACS: 3.66%, LCS: 4.20%), with no significant difference in incidence (p = 0.876). To reduce bias due to surgical site, cases of rectal and sigmoid colon cancer were singled out. Hierarchical analysis showed significant differences still remained in surgical duration, blood loss, and surgical site distribution for proctectomy and sigmoid colon resection (p < 0.001). RACS did not show a clear advantage in surgical field exposure or tissue retraction.

Conclusion

RACS, despite superior visualization, involved longer operative times and more blood loss than LCS. Both techniques had similar clinical outcomes, with LCS offering specific technical advantages.

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.

Short-term Outcomes of Robotic Left Colectomy Reconstructed by Intracorporeal Overlap Anastomosis for Left-sided Colon Cancer: A Single-center Report from Japan

Background/Aim

Surgery for colon cancer requires covering a wide area and performing both tumor resection and precise lymph node dissection. Robotic left-sided colectomy (RLC) has not been thoroughly established due to the rarity of descending colon cancer. Therefore, we investigated 19 patients who underwent RLC for left-sided colon cancer.

Patients and Methods

Between January 2023 and July 2024, a total of 19 consecutive patients underwent robotic radical left colectomy, which included mobilization of the splenic flexure. We compared the intra- and postoperative factors between left-sided colectomy with and without stent placement.

Results

Total operative time (p=0.002), console time (p=0.001), and lymph node harvest time (p=0.001) were significantly different. The total operative time with stent placement was longer than that without stent placement (421.6 vs. 302.0, p<0.01). Console time with stent placement was longer than that without stent placement (315.0 vs. 202.0, p<0.01). More lymph nodes were harvested with stent placement than without (33.1 vs. 11.0, p<0.01).

Conclusion

We did not experience any conversions to open surgery, and two Grade II complications were observed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Both total operative and console times were longer in cases with stent placement compared to those without. Nevertheless, we safely performed robotic left colectomy, regardless of whether the left-sided colon cancer was treated with stent placement, even in cases where the anastomosis overlapped naturally. Our postoperative outcomes showed no anastomosis-related complications. Therefore, RLC reconstruction using an intracorporeal overlap anastomosis is feasible for left-sided colon cancer, both in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

Open vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic pouch excision: unveiling the best approach for optimal outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Despite advantages for patients with ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, and familial adenomatous polyposis, restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis carries a risk of pouch failure, necessitating pouch excision. The traditional open approach is associated with potential complications. Robotic and laparoscopic techniques are emerging, but comparative outcome data are limited.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive adult patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open ileal pouch excision at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, between January 2015 and December 2023. We analyzed data on patient characteristics, perioperative variables, and postoperative outcomes, focusing on short-term complications. Statistical analysis included appropriate tests.

RESULTS

The study included 123 patients: 23 underwent robotic-assisted pouch excision, 12 laparoscopic, and 82 open. The robotic approach had the longest median operative time (334 ± 170 min, p = 0.03). However, it demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss than open (150 ± 200 ml vs. 350 ± 300 ml, p = 0.002) and laparoscopic surgery (250 ± 250 ml, p = 0.005). Robotic and laparoscopic groups required fewer preoperative ureteral stents than the open group (p = 0.001). Additionally, the robotic approach utilized fewer pelvic drainages (p < 0.0001) and had a lower rate of lysis of adhesions > 60 min compared to open surgery (p = 0.003). Robotic procedures had significantly lower 30-day postoperative complications than the open approach (30.4% vs. 65.9%, p = 0.002) while also demonstrating fewer 30-day reoperations than the laparoscopic group (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted pouch excision offered significant benefits, including decreased EBL, reduced need for preoperative ureteral stents, and significantly fewer 30-day postoperative complications compared to open surgery.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of intraperitoneal anastomosis versus extraperitoneal anastomosis in laparoscopic left colectomy

Background

The effectiveness of the anastomosis method for laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) remains inconclusive. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the outcomes between intraperitoneal anastomosis (IPA) and extraperitoneal anastomosis(EPA)in LLC.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WanFangData were systematically searched for relevant literature. The literature was screened independently by two groups, and data were extracted and evaluated for bias. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman5.4 software.

Results

Twelve studies with a total of 1,278 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with the EPA group, the IPA group had less blood loss [odds ratio (OR)=-20.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-27.98-12.65), p<0.00001], a lower overall complication rate [OR=0.45, 95% CI (0.33-0.63), p<0.00001], fewer non-severe complications [OR=0.44, 95% CI (0.30-0.64), p<0.0001], and fewer surgical site infections [OR=0.39, 95% CI (0.21-0.71), p=0.002]. Additionally, a longer operation time appeared in the multicenter and propensity score matching (PSM) subgroups of the IPA group. Furthermore, patients in the IPA group had an earlier exhaust time and shorter hospital stays. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding severe complications, anastomose-related complications, postoperative blood transfusion, ileus, reoperation rate, time to stool, pathologic sample length, and lymph node dissection number.

Conclusion

IPA seems more advantageous than EPA for patients receiving LCC in terms of complications and postoperative recovery and has similar oncological outcomes. However, it may take longer and be more difficult to perform.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails PROSPERO, identifier (CRD4202454391).

Clinical effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic and open surgery: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a review of systematic reviews on the clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery across a mix of intracavity procedures, using evidence mapping to inform the decision makers on the best utilisation of robotic-assisted surgery.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included systematic reviews with randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials describing any clinical outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library from 2017 to 2023.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We first presented the number of systematic reviews distributed in different specialties. We then mapped the body of evidence across selected procedures and synthesised major findings of clinical outcomes. We used a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The overlap of primary studies was managed by the corrected covered area method.

RESULTS

Our search identified 165 systematic reviews published addressing clinical evidence of robotic-assisted surgery. We found that for all outcomes except operative time, the evidence was largely positive or neutral for robotic-assisted surgery versus both open and laparoscopic alternatives. Evidence was more positive versus open. The evidence for the operative time was mostly negative. We found that most systematic reviews were of low quality due to a failure to deal with the inherent bias in observational evidence.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery has a strong clinical effectiveness evidence base to support the expanded use of robotic-assisted surgery in six common intracavity procedures, which may provide an opportunity to increase the proportion of minimally invasive surgeries. Given the high incremental cost of robotic-assisted surgery and longer operative time, future economic studies are required to determine the optimal use of robotic-assisted surgery capacity.

Evaluation of Short-Term Effects on Colorectal Surgery Elective Patients after Implementing a Patient Blood Management Program: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

Introduction: Patients who undergo surgery may require a blood transfusion and patients undergoing major colorectal surgery are more prone to preoperative and perioperative anemia. Blood transfusions have, however, long been associated with inflammatory and oncological complications. We aim to investigate the effects of an optimal implementation of a patient blood management (PBM) program in our hospital. Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed data from two different prospectively maintained databases of all patients undergoing elective major colorectal surgery with either a laparoscopic, open, or robotic approach from January 2017 to December 2022 at two different high-volume colorectal surgery Italian centers: the Colorectal Surgery Unit of Fondazione Policlinico Campus Bio-Medico in Rome and the Colorectal Surgery Unit of Fondazione Cardinale Panico in Tricase (Lecce). Our study compares the first group, also known as pre-PBM (January 2017-December 2018) and the second group, known as post-PBM (January 2021-December 2022). Results: A total of 2495 patients, who satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were included in this study, with, respectively, 1197 patients in the pre-PBM group and 1298 in the post- PBM group. The surgical approach was similar amongst the two groups, while the operative time was longer in the pre-PBM group than in the post-PBM group (273.0 ± 87 vs. 215.0 ± 124 min; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in preparatory Hb levels (p = 0.486), while anemia detection was significantly higher post-PBM (p = 0.007). However, the rate of transfusion was drastically reduced since the implementation of PBM, with p = 0.032 for preoperative, p = 0.025 for intraoperative, and p < 0.001 for postoperative. Conclusions: We confirmed the need to reduce blood transfusions and optimize transfusion procedures to improve short-term clinical outcomes of patients. The implementation of the PBM program was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of perioperative transfusions and an increase in only appropriate transfusions.

Minimally invasive left colectomy with total intracorporeal anastomosis versus extracorporeal anastomosis. A single center cohort study. Stage 2b IDEAL framework for evaluating surgical innovation

PURPOSE

Performing intracorporeal anastomoses in minimally invasive colon surgery appears to provide better short-term outcomes for patients with colon cancer. The aim of the study is to compare surgical aspects and short-term outcomes between intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques in left colectomies with both laparoscopic and robotic approaches and evaluate advantages and disadvantages of intracorporeal anastomosis according to IDEAL framework (Exploration, stage 2b).

METHODS

This is a single center, ambispective cohort study comparing total intracorporeal anastomosis (TIA) and standard surgery with extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). Patients with colon cancer treated by left colectomy, sigmoidectomy and high anterior resection by total intracorporeal anastomosis between May 2020 and January 2023 without exclusion criteria were prospectively included in a standardized database. Short-term outcomes in the group undergoing TIA were compared with a historical EA cohort. The main assessment outcomes were intraoperative complications, postoperative morbidity according to the Clavien-Dindo scale and the comparison of pathological. We conducted a preliminary comparative study within the TIA group between approaches, a primary analysis between the two anastomotic techniques, and a propensity score matched analysis including only the laparoscopic approach, between both anastomotic techniques.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-six patients were included: 103 who underwent TIA, 35 of them with laparoscopic approach and 68 with robotic approach, and a comparison group comprising another 103 eligible consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic EA. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic variables. No statistically significant differences were observed in anastomotic dehiscence. Intraoperative complications are fewer in the TIA group, with a higher C-Reactive Protein levels. Relevant anastomotic bleeding and the number of retrieved lymph nodes were higher in EA group. Nevertheless, no differences were observed in terms of overall morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive left colectomy with intracorporeal resection and anastomosis is technically feasible and safe suing either a laparoscopic or a robotic approach. Clinical data from this cohort demonstrate outcomes comparable to those achieved through the conventional EA procedure in relation to postoperative morbidity and oncological efficacy, with indications suggesting that the utilization of robotic-assisted techniques may play a contributing role in enhancing overall treatment outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review

Robot-assisted general surgery, an advanced technology in minimally invasive procedures, is increasingly employed in elective general surgery, showing benefits over laparoscopy in specific cases. Although laparoscopy remains a standard approach for common acute abdominal conditions, the role of robotic surgery in emergency general surgery remains uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare outcomes in acute general surgery settings for robotic versus laparoscopic surgeries. A PRISMA-compliant systematic search across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. The literature review focused on articles comparing perioperative outcomes of emergency general surgery managed laparoscopically versus robot-assisted. A descriptive analysis was performed, and outcome measures were recorded. Six articles, involving 1,063 patients, compared outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Two articles covered cholecystectomies, while the others addressed ileocaecal resection, subtotal colectomy, hiatal hernia and repair of perforated gastrojejunal ulcers. The level of evidence was low. Laparoscopic bowel resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) had higher complications; no significant differences were found in complications for other operations. Operative time showed no differences for cholecystectomies, but robotic approaches took longer for other procedures. Robotic cases had shorter hospital length of stay, although the associated costs were significantly higher. Perioperative outcomes for emergency robotic surgery in selected general surgery conditions are comparable to laparoscopic surgery. However, recommending robotic surgery in the acute setting necessitates a well-powered large population study for stronger evidence.

Is the robotic revolution stunting surgical skills?

This perspective piece aims to examine the impact of the growing utilization of robotic platforms in general and minimally invasive surgery on surgical trainee experience, skill level, and comfort in performing general surgical and minimally invasive procedures following completion of training. We review current literature and explore the application of robotic surgery to surgical training, where minimum case thresholds and breadth distribution are well defined, and where development of surgical technique is historically gained through delicate tissue handling with haptic feedback rather than relying on visual feedback alone. We call for careful consideration as to how best to incorporate robotics in surgical training in order to embrace technological advances without endangering the surgical proficiency of the surgeons of tomorrow.

Key message

The large-scale incorporation of robotics into general and minimally invasive surgical training is something that most, if not all, trainees must grapple with in today's world, and the proportion of robotics is increasing. This shift may significantly negatively affect trainees in terms of surgical skill upon completion of training and must be approached with an appropriate degree of concern and thoughtfulness so as to protect the surgeons of tomorrow.

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 short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted radical colon cancer surgery using the Kangduo Surgical Robotic System and the Da Vinci Si Robotic System: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been a revolution for colon cancer (CC) patients, with the increasing availability of different competitive robotic systems, but evidence of relevant oncologic outcomes is indeed scarce. Our goal was to compare the surgical quality and short-term oncologic outcomes of the Kangduo Surgical Robotic System and the da Vinci Si Robotic System in patients with CC.

METHODS

These are results from a subcohort of a multicenter randomized controlled noninferiority trial performed in three centers in China. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to undergo surgery using either the KD-SR-01 system (KD group) or the da Vinci Si (DV) robotic system (DV group). Neither investigators nor patients were masked to treatment allocation, but assessment of pathological outcomes was masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was surgical success rate. The secondary endpoints were surgical outcomes, pathologic outcomes, and postoperative outcomes. The study is registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2200063172). Although the long-term follow-up results were not a predefined endpoint for this study, late-stage work is in progress.

RESULTS

A total of 58 CC patients were included in this study, 28 in the KD group and 30 in the DV group. All patients were successfully operated without any intermediate open/conventional laparoscopic surgery and the success rate of surgery was 100%. Assessment of equipment docking task load and intraoperative operating sensation score were similar between the two groups. Adverse events and Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher grade complication rates were comparable between the two groups. Device arm docking time, robotic arm operation time, and intraoperative bleeding were not significantly different between the two groups. Similar results were obtained from postoperative pathological outcomes and internal environment indexes.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of the Kangduo Robotic Surgical System has been proved, operation of the Kangduo Robotic System by experienced surgeons for CC is not less effective than the da Vinci robotic System.

Robotic versus laparoscopic approach for left-sided colon cancer: a nationwide cohort study

AIM

The use of robot-assisted surgery for left-sided colon cancer is increasing in Denmark; however, it is yet to be established if the robotic approach results in improved clinical outcomes compared with the corresponding laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to compare the intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colon cancer at a national level.

METHOD

The study is a nationwide database study based on data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients from all colorectal centres in Denmark treated with surgery with curative intent in an elective setting with either robotic or laparoscopic left colectomy or sigmoidectomy during the period 2014-2019 were included. To adjust for confounding, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed and the groups were compared for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, performance score, year of diagnosis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, left colectomy or sigmoidectomy, tumour localization, use of stoma or stenting and pathological T (pT) category.

RESULTS

A total of 5532 patients were available for analysis, and after PSM in a ratio of 2:1, 1392 laparoscopic and 696 robotic cases were identified. After matching we found a lower conversion rate and a higher lymph node yield in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group (5.8% vs. 11%, p < 0.001 and 27 vs. 24, p < 0.001, respectively). Further, we found a higher proportion of patients with a lymph node yield of 12 or more in the robotic group (97% vs. 94.8%, p = 0.02). Plane of dissection, radicality and pathological disease stages did not differ between the two groups. We found no difference in either overall surgical (13% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.23) or medical (5.6% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.49) postoperative complications and no difference in 30-day (p = 0.369) or 90-day mortality (p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery for left-sided colon cancer was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate and a significantly higher lymph node yield than the laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar in the two groups.

Uptake of robot-assisted colon cancer surgery in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The robot-assisted approach is now often used for rectal cancer surgery, but its use in colon cancer surgery is less well defined. This study aims to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted colon cancer surgery to conventional laparoscopy in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Data on all patients who underwent surgery for colon cancer from 2018 to 2020 were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. All complications, readmissions, and deaths within 90 days after surgery were recorded along with conversion rate, margin and harvested nodes. Groups were stratified according to the robot-assisted and laparoscopic approach.

RESULTS

In total, 18,886 patients were included in the analyses. The operative approach was open in 15.2%, laparoscopic in 78.9% and robot-assisted in 5.9%. The proportion of robot-assisted surgery increased from 4.7% in 2018 to 6.9% in 2020. There were no notable differences in outcomes between the robot-assisted and laparoscopic approach for Elective cT1-3M0 right, left, and sigmoid colectomy. Only conversion rate was consistently lower in the robotic group. (4.6% versus 8.8%, 4.6% versus 11.6%, and 1.6 versus 5.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide study on surgery for colon cancer shows there is a gradual but slow adoption of robotic surgery for colon cancer up to 6.9% in 2020. When comparing the outcomes of right, left, and sigmoid colectomy, clinical outcomes were similar between the robotic and laparoscopic approach. However, conversion rate is consistently lower in the robotic procedures.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a propensity score matched analysis from a bi-centric experience

The advantages of using the robotic platform may not be clearly evident in left colectomies, where the surgeon operates in an "open field" and does not routinely require intraoperative suturing. Current evidences are based on limited cohorts reporting conflicting outcomes regarding robotic left colectomies (RLC). The aim of this study is to report a bi-centric experience with robotic left colectomy in order to help in defining the role of the robotic approach for these procedures. This is a bi-centric propensity score matched study including patients who underwent RLC or laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) between January 1, 2012 and May 1, 2022. RLC patients were matched to LLC patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were conversion to open surgery and 30-day morbidity. In total, 300 patients were included. Of 143 (47.7%) RLC patients, 119 could be matched. After matching, conversion rate (4.2 vs. 7.6%, p = 0.265), 30-day morbidity (16.1 vs. 13.7%, p = 0.736), Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 complications (2.4 vs 3.2%, p = 0.572), transfusions (0.8 vs. 4.0%, p = 0.219), and 30-day mortality (0.8 vs 0.8%, p = 1.000) were comparable for RLC and LLC, respectively. Median operative time was longer for RLC (296 min 260-340 vs. 245, 195-296, p < 0.0001). Early oral feeding, time to first flatus, and hospital stay were similar between groups. RLC has safety parameters as well as conversion to open surgery comparable with standard laparoscopy. Operative time is longer with the robotic approach.

Proctored adoption of robotic hiatus hernia surgery: outcomes and learning curves in a high-volume UK centre

BACKGROUND

The adoption of new surgical technologies is inevitably accompanied by a learning curve. With the increasing adoption of robotic techniques in benign foregut surgery, it is imperative to define optimal learning pathways, to ensure a clinically safe introduction of such a technique. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curve for robotic hiatal hernia repair with a pre-defined adoption process and proctoring.

METHODS

The learning curve was assessed in four surgeons in a high-volume tertiary referral centre, performing over a 100 hiatal hernia repairs annually. The robotic adoption process included simulation-based training and a multi-day wet lab-based course, followed by robotic operations proctored by robotic upper GI experts. CUSUM analysis was performed to assess changes in operating time in sequential cases.

RESULTS

Each surgeon (A, B, C and D) performed between 22 and 32 cases, including a total of 109 patients. Overall, 40 cases were identified as 'complex' (36.7%), including 16 revisional cases (16/109, 14.7%). With CUSUM analysis inflection points for operating time were seen after 7 (surgeon B) to 15 cases (surgeon B).

CONCLUSION

The learning curve for robotic laparoscopic fundoplication may be as little as 7-15 cases in the setting of a clearly organized learning pathway with proctoring. By integrating these organized learning pathways learning curves may be shortened, ensuring patient safety, preventing detrimental outcomes due to longer learning curves, and accelerating adoption and integration of novel surgical techniques.

Should we encourage the use of robotic technologies in complicated diverticulitis? Results of systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Complicated diverticulitis is a common abdominal emergency that often requires a surgical intervention. The systematic review and meta-analysis below compare the benefits and harms of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery in patients with complicated colonic diverticular disease. Methods: The following databases were searched before 1 March 2023: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The internal validity of the selected non-randomized studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. The meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed using RevMan 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom) and Copenhagen Trial Unit Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) software (Copenhagen Trial Unit, Center for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark), respectively. Results: We found no relevant randomized controlled trials in the searched databases. Therefore, we analyzed 5 non-randomized studies with satisfactory internal validity and similar designs comprising a total of 442 patients (184 (41.6%) robotic and 258 (58.4%) laparoscopic interventions). The analysis revealed that robotic surgery for complicated diverticulitis (CD) took longer than laparoscopy (MD = 42 min; 95% CI: [-16, 101]). No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups regarding intraoperative blood loss (MD = -9 mL; 95% CI: [-26, 8]) and the rate of conversion to open surgery (2.17% or 4/184 for robotic surgery vs. 6.59% or 17/258 for laparoscopy; RR = 0.63; 95% CI: [0.10, 4.00]). The type of surgery did not affect the length of in-hospital stay (MD = 0.18; 95% CI: [-0.60, 0.97]) or the rate of postoperative complications (14.1% or 26/184 for robotic surgery vs. 19.8% or 51/258 for laparoscopy; RR = 0.81; 95% CI: [0.52, 1.26]). No deaths were reported in either group. Discussion: The meta-analysis suggests that robotic surgery is an appropriate option for managing complicated diverticulitis. It is associated with a trend toward a lower rate of conversion to open surgery and fewer postoperative complications; however, this trend does not reach the level of statistical significance. Since no high quality RCTs were available, this meta-analysis isnot able to provide reliable conclusion, but only a remarkable lack of proper evidence supporting robotic technology. The need for further evidence-based trials is important.

Robotic versus laparoscopic radical surgery for pediatric congenital biliary dilatation: a comparison of surgical outcomes of a single surgeon's initial experience

PURPOSE

This study aimed to clarify the validity of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) for pediatric patients with congenital biliary dilatation (CBD).

METHODS

We retrospectively compared RAS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) for pediatric CBD performed by the same certified surgeon between 2016 and 2022.

RESULTS

We included 6 RAS and 12 LS cases in this study. One case of RAS with laparotomy was excluded from the analysis. The patients in the two groups had comparable ages and body weights. The median surgery duration, the suture time per stitch, and the time to drain removal were 385 min, 145 s, and 5 days in the RAS group and 370 min (p = 0.28), 177 s (p = 0.03), and 6 days (p = 0.03) in the LS group, respectively. The time to create the Roux-en-Y limb was significantly longer in the RAS group. Postoperative complications occurred in one RAS case and in four LS cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Less anastomotic time per stitch and less time to drain removal suggest that RAS may contribute to accurate suturing and fine intra-pancreatic bile duct dissection. In addition, RAS requiring large movements of forceps in a large surgical field, such as Roux-en-Y creation, is inferior to LS.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience of 629 Consecutive Minimally Invasive Liver Resections

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has the potential to broaden the indications for minimally invasive liver surgery owing to its technical advantages. This paper compares our experience with robotic liver surgery (RLS) with conventional laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS).

METHODS

All consecutive liver resections between October 2011 and October 2022 were selected from our prospective database to be included in this cohort study. Patients who underwent RLS were compared with a LLS group for operative and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 629 patients were selected from our database, including 177 patients who underwent a RLS and 452 patients who had LLS. Colorectal liver metastasis was the main indication for surgery in both groups. With the introduction of RLS, the percentage of open resections decreased significantly (32.6% from 2011 to 2020 vs. 11.5% from 2020 onward, P < 0.001). In the robotic group, redo liver surgery was more frequent (24.3% vs. 16.8%, P = 0.031) and the Southampton difficulty score was higher (4 [IQR 4 to 7] vs. 4 [IQR 3 to 6], P = 0.02). Median blood loss was lower (30 vs. 100 ml, P < 0.001), and postoperative length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the robotic group (median 3 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications. Cost related to the used instruments and LOS was significantly lower in the RLS group (median €1483 vs. €1796, P < 0.001 and €1218 vs. €1624, P < 0.001, respectively), while cost related to operative time was higher (median €2755 vs. €2470, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RLS may allow for a higher percentage of liver resections to be completed in a minimally invasive way with lower blood loss and a shorter LOS.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic colorectal surgery is becoming the preferred surgical approach for colorectal cancer (CRC). It offers several technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy that could improve patient outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared robotic and laparoscopic surgery for CRC using a national cohort of patients.

METHODS

Using the colectomy-targeted ACS-NSQIP database (2015-2020), colorectal procedures for malignant etiologies were identified by CPT codes for right colectomy (RC), left colectomy (LC), and low anterior resection (LAR). Optimal pair matching was performed. "Textbook outcome" was defined as the absence of 30-day complications, readmission, or mortality and a length of stay < 5 days.

RESULTS

We included 53,209 out of 139,759 patients screened for eligibility. Laparoscopic-to-robotic matching of 2:1 was performed for RC and LC, and 1:1 for LAR. The largest standardized mean difference was 0.048 after matching. Robotic surgery was associated with an increased rate of textbook outcomes compared to laparoscopy in RC and LC, but not in LAR (71% vs. 64% in RC, 75% vs. 68% in LC; p < 0.001). Robotic LAR was associated with increased major morbidity (7.1% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.012). For all three procedures, the mean conversion rate of robotic surgery was lower than laparoscopy (4.3% vs. 9.2%; p < 0.001), while the mean operative time was higher for robotic (225 min vs. 177 min; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for CRC offers an advantage over conventional laparoscopy by improving textbook outcomes in RC and LC. This advantage was not found in robotic LAR, which also showed an increased risk of serious complications. The associations highlighted in our study should be considered in the discussion of the surgical management of patients with colorectal cancer.

Application of Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging for Tumor Localization during Robot-Assisted Hepatectomy

The efficacy of indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging for visualizing hepatic tumors in robot-assisted hepatectomy (RAH) should be validated. This study included 30 consecutive patients with 33 collective tumors who underwent RAH. ICG was administered at a dose of 0.5 mg/kg before surgery. ICG fluorescence imaging was performed intraoperatively. In total, 28 patients with a combined total of 31 tumors underwent ICG fluorescence imaging. Further, 26 (84%) tumors were identified on hepatic surfaces prior to hepatic transection. The fluorescence signals of eight tumors were detected on hepatic raw surfaces during parenchymal dissection, thereby enabling surgeons to adjust the transection planes to ensure appropriate surgical margins. One patient with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma tested positive for cancer cells at the dissected stump of the bile duct. However, in all patients in whom ICG fluorescence imaging was used, negative surgical margins were achieved at the site of the dissected hepatic parenchyma. On the other hand, one of two patients with ICG contraindications had a positive surgical margin surrounding the dissected hepatic parenchyma. The median operative time and volume of blood loss were 259 (range: 124-594) min and 150 (range: 1-1150) mL, respectively. ICG fluorescence imaging facilitates the easy identification of hepatic tumors, even in RAH. Hence, it can be useful for confirming appropriate surgical margins.

Robotic and laparoscopic colectomy: propensity score-matched outcomes from a national cancer database

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic and robotic approaches to colonic cancer surgery appear to provide similar outcomes. The present study aimed to compare short-term and survival outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic colectomy for colonic cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective review of patients with stage I-III colonic cancer who underwent laparoscopic or robotic colonic resection was undertaken using data from the National Cancer Database (2013-2019). Patients were matched using the propensity score matching method. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes included conversion to open surgery, duration of hospital stay, 30- and 90-day mortality, unplanned readmission, and positive resection margins.

RESULTS

The original cohort included 40 457 patients with stage I-III colonic adenocarcinoma, with a mean(s.d.) age of 67.4(12.9) years. Some 33 860 (83.7 per cent) and 6597 (17.3 per cent) patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic colectomy respectively. After matching, 6210 patients were included in each group. Robotic colectomy was associated with marginally longer overall survival for women, and patients with a Charlson score of 0, stage II-III disease or left-sided tumours. The robotic group had a significantly lower rate of conversion (6.6 versus 11 per cent; P < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (median 3 versus 4 days) than the laparoscopic group. The two groups had similar rates of 30-day mortality (1.3 versus 1 per cent for laparoscopic and robotic procedures respectively), 90-day mortality (2.1 versus 1.8 per cent), 30-day unplanned readmission (3.7 versus 3.8 per cent), and positive resection margins (2.8 versus 2.5 per cent).

CONCLUSION

In this study population, robotic colectomy was associated with less conversion to open surgery and a shorter hospital stay compared with laparoscopic colectomy.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for left-sided colon cancer: a multicentre study with propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery for right-sided colon and rectal cancer has rapidly increased; however, there is limited evidence in the literature of advantages of robotic left colectomy (RLC) for left-sided colon cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLC versus laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) with complete mesocolic excision (CME) for left-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients who had RLC or LLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer at five hospitals in China between January 2014 and April 2022 were included. A one-to-one propensity score matched analysis was performed to decrease confounding. The primary outcome was postoperative complications occurring within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, overall survival and the number of harvested lymph nodes.

RESULTS

A total of 292 patients (187 male; median age 61.0 [20.0-85.0] years) were eligible for this study, and propensity score matching yielded 102 patients in each group. The clinicopathological characteristics were well-matched between groups. The two groups did not differ in estimated blood loss, conversion to open rate, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, or postoperative length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). RLC was associated with a longer operation time (192.9 ± 53.2 vs. 168.9 ± 52.8 min, p = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between the RLC and LLC groups (18.6% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.856). The total number of lymph nodes harvested in the RLC group was higher than that in the LLC group (15.7 ± 8.3 vs. 12.1 ± 5.9, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival or 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Compared to laparoscopic surgery, RLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer was found to be associated with higher numbers of lymph nodes harvested and similar postoperative complications and long-term survival outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for left-sided colon cancer: a multicentre study with propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for right-sided colon and rectal cancer has rapidly increased; however, there is limited evidence in the literature of advantages of robotic left colectomy (RLC) for left-sided colon cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLC versus laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) with complete mesocolic excision (CME) for left-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients who had RLC or LLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer at 5 hospitals in China between January 2014 and April 2022 were included. A one-to-one propensity score matched analysis was performed to decrease confounding. The primary outcome was postoperative complications occurring within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, overall survival and the number of harvested lymph nodes.

RESULTS

A total of 292 patients (187 males; median age 61.0 [20.0-85.0] years) were eligible for this study, and propensity score matching yielded 102 patients in each group. The clinical-pathological characteristics were well-matched between groups. The two groups did not differ in estimated blood loss, conversion to open rate, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, or postoperative length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). RLC was associated with a longer operation time (192.9 ± 53.2 vs. 168.9 ± 52.8 minutes, p=0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between the RLC and LLC groups (18.6% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.856). The total number of lymph nodes harvested in the RLC group was higher than that in the LLC group (15.7 ± 8.3 vs. 12.1 ± 5.9, p< 0.001). There were no significant differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival or 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to laparoscopic surgery, RLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer was found to be associated with higher numbers of lymph nodes harvested and similar postoperative complications and long-term survival outcomes.

Implementation of a patient blood management in an Italian City Hospital: is it effective in reducing the use of red blood cells?

To evaluate the effect of patient blood management (PBM) since its introduction, we analyzed the need for transfusion and the outcomes in patients undergoing abdominal surgery for different types of tumor pre- and post-PBM. Patients undergoing elective gastric, liver, pancreatic, and colorectal surgery between 2017 and 2020 were included. The implementation of the PBM program was completed on May 1, 2018. The patients were grouped as follows: those who underwent surgery before the implementation of the program (pre-PBM) versus after the implementation (post-PBM). A total of 1302 patients were included in the analysis (445 pre-PBM vs. 857 post-PBM). The number of transfused patients per year decreased significantly after the introduction of PBM. A strong tendency for a decreased incidence of transfusion was evident in gastric and pancreatic surgery and a similar decrease was statistically significant in liver surgery. With regard to gastric surgery, a single-unit transfusion scheme was used more frequently in the post-PBM group (7.7% vs. 55% after PBM; p = 0.049); this was similar in liver surgery (17.6% vs. 58.3% after PBM; p = 0.04). Within the subgroup of patients undergoing liver surgery, a significant reduction in the use of blood transfusion (20.5% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.002) and a decrease in the Hb trigger for transfusion (8.5, 8.2-9.5 vs. 8.2, 7.7-8.4 g/dl; p = 0.039) was reported after the PBM introduction. After the implementation of a PBM protocol, a significant reduction in the number of patients receiving blood transfusion was demonstrated, with a strong tendency to minimize the use of blood products for most types of oncologic surgery.

Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Left Hemicolectomy-Postoperative Inflammation Status, Short-Term Outcome and Cost Effectiveness

Robotic-assisted colon surgery may contain advantages over the laparoscopic approach, but clear evidence is sparse. This study aimed to analyze postoperative inflammation status, short-term outcome and cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic left hemicolectomy. All consecutive patients who received minimal-invasive left hemicolectomy at the Department of Surgery I at the University Hospital of Wuerzburg in 2021 were prospectively included. Importantly, no patient selection for either procedure was carried out. The robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic approaches were compared head to head for postoperative short-term outcomes as well as cost-effectiveness. A total of 61 patients were included, with 26 patients having received a robotic-assisted approach. Baseline characteristics did not differ among the groups. Patients receiving a robotic-assisted approach had a significantly decreased length of hospital stay as well as lower rates of complications in comparison to patients who received laparoscopic surgery (n = 35). In addition, C-reactive protein as a marker of systemic stress response was significantly reduced postoperatively in patients who were operated on in a robotic-assisted manner. Consequently, robotic-assisted surgery could be performed in a cost-effective manner. Thus, robotic-assisted left hemicolectomy represents a safe and cost-effective procedure and might improve patient outcomes in comparison to laparoscopic surgery.