Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery, and open surgery for lateral lymph-node dissection for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis

This study attempted to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery (LS), robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RS), and open surgery (OS) for lateral lymph-node dissection (LLND) in treatment of rectal cancer through network meta-analysis. Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect cohort studies on outcomes of LS, RS, and OS for LLND for rectal cancer. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was utilized to evaluate the quality of cohort studies. Primary outcomes should at least include one of the following clinical outcome measures: operative time, blood loss, total lymph-node harvest, positive resection margin rate, postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay. A network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA software. Fourteen cohort studies including 8612 patients were eligible for inclusion. The network meta-analysis results showed that, in terms of intraoperative outcomes, the RS group had the longest operative time, while the OS group had the shortest; the LS and RS groups had significantly less blood loss than the OS group. In terms of histological outcomes, there were no significant differences in the total number of lymph nodes harvested and the positive margin rate among the LS, RS, and OS groups (P > 0.05). Regarding postoperative outcomes, the OS group had the highest probability of postoperative complications and the longest hospital stay, followed by the LS group, with the RS group being the lowest. RS was the best method in blood loss, postoperative complication rate, and postoperative hospital stay, followed by LS. OS had the shortest operative time and the highest blood loss.

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.

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes and Long-Term Survival Rates between Patients Who Underwent Robotic and Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision for Right-Sided Colon Cancer

Introduction: Right colon cancer often requires surgical intervention, and complete mesocolic excision (CME) has emerged as a standard procedure. The study aims to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic CME for patients with right colon cancer and 5-year survival rates examined to determine the outcomes. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent CME for right-sided colon cancer between 2014 and 2021 were included in this study. Group differences of age, body mass index, operation time, bleeding amount, total harvested lymph nodes, and postoperative stay were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. Group differences of sex, American Society of Anesthesiology, and tumor, node, and metastasis stage were analyzed by the Chi-squared test. Disease-free and overall survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves with the log-rank Mantel-Cox test. Results: From 109 patients, 74 of them were 1:1 propensity score matched and used for analysis. Total harvested lymph node (P ≤ .001) and estimated blood loss (P = .031) were found to be statistically significant between the groups. We found no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of disease-free and overall survival (P = .27, .86, respectively), and the mortality rate was 9.17%, with no deaths directly attributed to the surgery. Conclusions: Study shows that minimally invasive surgery is a feasible option for CME in right colon cancers, with acceptable overall survival rates. Although the robotic approach has a higher lymph node yield, there was no significant difference in survival rates. Further randomized trials are needed to determine the clinical significance of both approaches.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review of the evidence

Robotics may facilitate the realization of fully minimally invasive right hemicolectomy, including intra-corporeal anastomosis and off-midline extraction, when compared to laparoscopy. Our aim was to compare laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with robotic right hemicolectomy in terms of peri-operative outcomes. MEDLINE was searched for original studies comparing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with robotic right hemicolectomy in terms of peri-operative outcomes. The systematic review complied with the PRISMA 2020 recommendations. Variables related to patients' demographics, surgical procedures, post-operative recovery and pathological outcomes were collected and qualitatively assessed. Two-hundred and ninety-three publications were screened, 277 were excluded and 16 were retained for qualitative analysis. The majority of included studies were observational and of limited sample size. When the type of anastomosis was left at surgeon's discretion, intra-corporeal anastomosis was favoured in robotic right hemicolectomy (4/4 studies). When compared to laparoscopy, robotics allowed harvesting more lymph nodes (4/15 studies), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (5/14 studies), a shorter time to faeces (2/3 studies) and a shorter length of stay (5/14 studies), at the cost of a longer operative time (13/14 studies). Systematic review of existing studies, which are mostly non-randomized, suggests that robotic surgery may facilitate fully minimally invasive right hemicolectomy, including intra-corporeal anastomosis, and offer improved post-operative recovery.

Precision Versus Practicality: A Comprehensive Analysis of Robotic Right Colectomy Versus Laparoscopic Right Colectomy, Future Directions, Biases, Research Gaps, and Their Implications

Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world and second in cancer-related mortality. It is most prevalent in the developed world and is often associated with lifestyle factors along with age and genetics. The inclusion criteria comprised high-level evidence, such as randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews, conducted between 2012 and 2023, that directly compared the two approaches. The review reveals mixed outcomes between robotic right colectomy (RRC) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The robotic approach was associated with longer operative duration and higher costs but with decreased blood loss and quicker recovery compared to laparoscopy. On the other hand, no major differences were observed regarding lymph node retrieval, duration of hospitalization, and surgical complications. Regarding future directions, it is evident that the focus needs to shift beyond the operative parameters and to patient-centered outcomes, which are underreported. Also, more randomized clinical trials are required, focusing on safety, efficacy, and long-term quality of life. Costs-benefit analyses are required to weigh the benefits of robotic surgery against the implementation and practice costs. Additionally, improvements in surgeons' training may be necessary to reduce the operative duration and potentially decrease operational costs. Finally, standardization of research protocols may be necessary to reduce biases.

Novel mobilization of the medial approach without changing the position for robotic right hemicolectomy

Conventional laparoscopic or robotic surgery for right-sided colon cancer often requires intraoperative repositioning and removal of the bowel. Changing positions during robotic surgery can be troublesome and robotic removal of the small intestine carries a risk of unexpected injury because robotic devices have a strong grasping force and no sense of touch. Herein, we introduce a novel mobilization of the medial approach without changing the position for robotic right hemicolectomy. Using this technique, mobilization is performed in counterclockwise succession, allowing all mobilizations and bowel removal to be completed sequentially, without positional change.

Ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease: robotic intracorporeal compared to laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis

Laparoscopy is the first-line approach in ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease. Emerging data has shown better short-term outcomes with robotic right colectomy for cancer when compared to laparoscopic approach. However, robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease has only shown faster return to bowel function. We aimed to evaluate short-term outcomes of ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease between robotic intracorporeal anastomosis (RICA) and laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (LECA). Patients undergoing minimally invasive ileocolic resections for Crohn's disease were retrospectively identified using a prospectively maintained database between 2014 and 2021 in two referral centers. Among the 239 patients, 70 (29%) underwent RICA while 169 (71%) LECA. Both groups were similar according to baseline and preoperative characteristics. RICA was associated with more intraoperative adhesiolysis and longer operative time [RICA: 238 ± 79 min vs. LECA: 143 ± 52 min; p < 0.001]. 30-day postoperative complications were not different between the two groups [RICA: 17/70(24%) vs. LECA: 54/169(32%); p = 0.238]. Surgical site infections [RICA: 0/70 vs. LECA: 16/169(10%); p = 0.004], intra-abdominal septic complications [RICA: 0/70 vs. LECA: 14/169(8%); p = 0.012], and Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications [RICA: 1/70(1%) vs. LECA: 15/169(9%); p = 0.044] were less frequent in RICA. Return to bowel function [RICA: 2.1 ± 1.1 vs. LECA: 2.6 ± 1.2 days; p = 0.002] and length of stay [RICA: 3.4 ± 2.2 vs. LECA: 4.2 ± 2.5 days; p = 0.015] were shorter after RICA, with similar readmission rates. RICA demonstrated better short-term postoperative outcomes than LECA, with reduced Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications, surgical site infections, intra-abdominal septic complications, shorter length of stay, and faster return to bowel function, despite the longer operative time.

Right Colectomy with Intracorporeal Anastomosis: A European Multicenter Propensity Score Matching Retrospective Study of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Procedures

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic (RRC-IA) versus laparoscopic (LRC-IA) right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis using a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis based on a large European multicentric cohort of patients with nonmetastatic right colon cancer.

METHODS

Elective curative-intent RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed between 2014 and 2020 were selected from the MERCY Study Group database. The two PSM-groups were compared for operative and postoperative outcomes, and survival rates.

RESULTS

Initially, 596 patients were selected, including 194 RRC-IA and 402 LRC-IA patients. After PSM, 298 patients (149 per group) were compared. There was no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA in terms of operative time, intraoperative complication rate, conversion to open surgery, postoperative morbidity (19.5% in RRC-IA vs. 26.8% in LRC-IA; p = 0.17), or 5-yr survival (80.5% for RRC-IA and 74.7% for LRC-IA; p = 0.94). R0 resection was obtained in all patients, and > 12 lymph nodes were harvested in 92.3% of patients, without group-related differences. RRC-IA procedures were associated with a significantly higher use of indocyanine green fluorescence than LRC-IA (36.9% vs. 14.1%; OR: 3.56; 95%CI 2.02-6.29; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitation of the present analyses, there is no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed for right colon cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

Incisional hernia rates between intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in minimally invasive ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease

PURPOSE

One-third of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) require multiple surgeries during their lifetime. So, reducing the incisional hernia rate is crucial. We aimed to define incisional hernia rates after minimally invasive ileocolic resection for CD, comparing intracorporeal anastomosis with Pfannenstiel incision (ICA-P) versus extracorporeal anastomosis with midline vertical incision (ECA-M).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort compares ICA-P versus ECA-M from a prospectively maintained database of consecutive minimally invasive ileocolic resections for CD performed between 2014 and 2021 in a referral center.

RESULTS

Of the 249 patients included: 59 were in the ICA-P group, 190 in the ECA-M group. Both groups were similar according to baseline and preoperative characteristics. Overall, 22 (8.8%) patients developed an imaging-proven incisional hernia: seven at the port-site and 15 at the extraction-site. All 15 extraction-site incisional hernias were midline vertical incisions [7.9%; p = 0.025], and 8 patients (53%) required surgical repair. Time-to-event analysis showed a 20% rate of extraction-site incisional hernia in the ECA-M group after 48 months (p = 0.037). The length of stay was lower in the intracorporeal anastomosis with Pfannenstiel incision group [ICA-P: 3.3 ± 2.5 vs. ECA-M: 4.1 ± 2.4 days; p = 0.02] with similar 30-day postoperative complication [11(18.6) vs. 59(31.1); p = 0.064] and readmission rates [7(11.9) vs. 18(9.5); p = 0.59].

CONCLUSION

Patients in the ICA-P group did not encounter any incisional hernias while having shorter hospital length of stay and similar 30-day postoperative complications or readmission compared to ECA-M. Therefore, more consideration should be given to performing intracorporeal anastomosis with Pfannenstiel incision during Ileocolic resection in patients with CD to reduce hernia risk.

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.

Incisional Hernia rates between Intracorporeal and Extracorporeal Anastomosis in Minimally Invasive Ileocolic Resection for Crohn's disease.. [DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2591968/v1]

Purpose: One-third of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) require multiple surgeries during their lifetime. So, reducing the incisional hernia rate is crucial. We aimed to define incisional hernia rates after minimally invasive ileocolic resection for CD, comparing intracorporeal anastomosis with Pfannenstiel incision (ICA-P) versus extracorporeal anastomosis with midline vertical incision (ECA-M). Methods: This retrospective cohort compares ICA-P versus ECA-M from a prospectively maintained database of consecutive minimally invasive ileocolic resections for CD performed between 2014 and 2021 in a referral center. Results: Of the 249 patients included: 59 were in the ICA-P group, 190 in the ECA-M group. Both groups were similar according to baseline and preoperative characteristics. Overall, 22 (8.8%) patients developed an imaging-proven incisional hernia: seven at the port-site and 15 at the extraction-site. All 15 extraction-site incisional hernias were midline vertical incisions [7.9%; p=0.025], and 8 patients (53%) required surgical repair. Time-to-event analysis showed a 20% rate of extraction-site incisional hernia in the ECA-M group after 48 months (p =0.037). The length of stay was lower in the intracorporeal anastomosis with Pfannenstiel incision group [ICA-P: 3.3±2.5 vs. ECA-M: 4.1±2.4 days; p=0.02] with similar 30-day postoperative complication [11(18.6) vs. 59(31.1); p=0.064] and readmission rates [7(11.9) vs. 18(9.5); p=0.59]. Conclusion: Patients in the ICA-P group did not encounter any incisional hernias while having shorter hospital length of stay and similar 30-day postoperative complications or readmission compared to ECA-M. Therefore, more consideration should be given to performing intracorporeal anastomosis with Pfannenstiel incision during Ileocolic resection in patients with CD to reduce hernia risk.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic- versus laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy: A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to retrospectively compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic- and laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent right hemicolectomy with either robotic (46 patients) or laparoscopic (186 patients) surgery between January 2016 and December 2018 were analyzed retrospectively using propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

After matching, the robotic group included 45 patients (out of 46) and the laparoscopic group included 100 patients (out of 186). Compared to the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had shorter median times to first flatus (2 vs. 4 days; p < 0.01) and a liquid diet (4 vs. 5 days; p < 0.01) and shorter median postoperative hospital stays (7 vs. 8 days; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in other short-term or oncological outcomes between the two groups. The 3-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted right hemicolectomy had the advantages of a quick recovery of bowel functions and an earlier postoperative discharge and was non-inferior to laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy in all other outcomes.

Is Robotic Assisted Colorectal Cancer Surgery Equivalent Compared to Laparoscopic Procedures during the Introduction of a Robotic Program? A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis

Simple Summary

The introduction of a robotic program is challenging and requires extensive experience in minimally invasive surgery. Short-term outcomes and oncological quality should not differ between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. To our knowledge, no data on the quality of surgery at the time of introduction of the robotic platform are available. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes and oncological findings of robotic-assisted colorectal resections with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery within the first three years after the introduction of the robotic platform.

Abstract

Background: Robotic surgery represents a novel approach for the treatment of colorectal cancers and has been established as an important and effective method over the last years. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of a robotic program on oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery within the first three years after the introduction. Methods: All colorectal cancer patients from two centers that either received robotic-assisted or conventional laparoscopic surgery were included in a comparative study. A propensity-score-matched analysis was used to reduce confounding differences. Results: A laparoscopic resection (LR Group) was performed in 82 cases, and 93 patients were treated robotic-assisted surgery (RR Group). Patients’ characteristics did not differ between groups. In right-sided resections, an intracorporeal anastomosis was significantly more often performed in the RR Group (LR Group: 5 (26.31%) vs. RR Group: 10 (76.92%), p = 0.008). Operative time was shown to be significantly shorter in the LR Group (LR Group: 200 min (150–243) vs. 204 min (174–278), p = 0.045). Conversions to open surgery did occur more often in the LR Group (LR Group: 16 (19.51%) vs. RR Group: 5 (5.38%), p = 0.004). Postoperative morbidity, the number of harvested lymph nodes, quality of resection and postoperative tumor stage did not differ between groups. Conclusion: In this study, we could clearly demonstrate robotic-assisted colorectal cancer surgery as effective, feasible and safe regarding postoperative morbidity and oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopy during the introduction of a robotic system.

Robotic right colectomy with robotic-sewn anastomosis: a pilot case series

The background of this study is to assess the feasibility, clinical utility and safety of intra-corporeal robotic-sewn anastomosis (ICrA) in completely robotic right hemicolectomy (CRH) for adenocarcinoma. A protocol for completely robotic right hemicolectomy (CRH) and intra-corporeal robotic-sewn anastomosis (ICrA), was established at the authors' institution from January 2012 through December 2017. Univariate and multivariable models were constructed to explore the prognostic significance of clinical and surgical findings. Survival and recurrence analysis were performed using standard univariable and multivariable methods. The study population consisted of 123 patients. The median number of examined lymph nodes (ELN) was 25 (range 1-59), the median number of positive lymph nodes (PLN) was 1 (range 0-21). Mean operative time was 240 min (SD 43.56, range 180-360 min), and conversion to open rate was 0%. Anastomotic leaks rate was 1.6%. The median overall survival was 69 months. This pilot series, in which an intra-corporeal robotic-sewn anastomosis (ICrA) was performed during CRH, demonstrated the safety and feasibility of this approach. Compared to the current standard of care at a high-volume center, ICrA was associated with post-operative surgical outcomes similar to those reported in the literature. These results call for further validation in a prospective and controlled setting to be fully incorporated into clinical practice.

Robotic oncologic colorectal surgery with a new robotic platform (CMR Versius): hope or hype? A preliminary experience from a full-robotic case-series

Background

The present case-series describes the first full-robotic colorectal resections performed with the new CMR Versius platform (Cambridge Medical Robotics Surgical, 1 Evolution Business Park, Cambridge, United Kingdom) by an experienced robotic surgeon.

Methods

In a period between July 2020 and December 2020, patients aged 18 years or older, who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and were fit for minimally invasive surgery, underwent robotic colorectal resection with CMR Versius robotic platform at “Casa di Cura Cobellis” in Vallo della Lucania,Salerno, Italy. Three right colectomies, 2 sigmoid colectomies and 1 anterior rectal resection were performed. All the procedures were planned as fully robotic. Surgical data were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database.

Results

Four patients were male and 2 patients were female with a median (range) age of 66 (47–72) years. One covering ileostomy was created. Full robotic splenic flexure mobilization was performed. No additional laparoscopic gestures or procedures were performed in this series except for clipping and stapling which were performed by the assistant surgeon due to the absence of robotic dedicated instruments. Two ileocolic anastomoses, planned as robotic-sewn, were performed extracorporeally. One Clavien–Dindo II complication occurred due to a postoperative blood transfusion. Median total operative time was 160 (145–294) min for right colectomies, 246 (191–300) min for sigmoid colectomies and 250 min for the anterior rectal resection.

Conclusions

The present series confirms the feasibility of full-robotic colorectal resections while highlighting the strengths and the limitations of the CMR Versius platform in colorectal surgery. New devices will need more clinical development to be comparable to the current standard.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10151-022-02626-9.

Short- and Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic- versus Robotic-Assisted Right Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to revise current comparative literature systematically. Methods: A systematic review of comparative studies published between 2000 to 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term oncological results. Secondary endpoints consist of blood loss, conversion rates, complications, time to first flatus, hospital stay and incisional hernia rate. Results: 25 of 322 studies were considered for data extraction. A total of 16,099 individual patients who underwent RRC (n = 1842) or LRC (n = 14,257) between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRC group (LRC 165.31 min ± 43.08 vs. RRC 207.38 min ± 189.13, MD: −42.01 (95% CI: −51.06−32.96), p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the RRC group (LRC 63.57 ± 35.21 vs. RRC 53.62 ± 34.02, MD: 10.03 (95% CI: 1.61−18.45), p = 0.02) as well as conversion rate (LRC 1155/11,629 vs. RRC 94/1534, OR: 1.65 (1.28−2.13), p < 0.001) and hospital stay (LRC 6.15 ± 31.77 vs. RRC 5.31 ± 1.65, MD: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.29−1.38), p = 0.003). Oncological long-term results did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: The advantages of robotic colorectal procedures were clearly demonstrated. RRC can be regarded as safe and feasible. Most of the included studies were retrospective with a limited level of evidence. Further randomized trials would be suitable.

Predictors of surgical outcomes of minimally invasive right colectomy: the MERCY study

PURPOSE

The optimal approach for minimally invasive (MIS) right colectomy remains under debate. This study aimed to describe surgical trends in the treatment of nonmetastatic right colon cancer and to identify predictors of short-term surgical outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter cohort study of Minimally-invasivE surgery for oncologic Right ColectomY (MERCY) was conducted on patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic right colectomy between 2014 and 2020. Classification tree approach was used to describe the extracorporeal (EA) or intracorporeal (IA) anastomosis choice. Mixed-model regressions were used to identify patient- and surgery-related factors predictive of postoperative outcomes. A questionnaire was used to evaluate the surgeons' perspectives.

RESULTS

The MERCY database comprised 1870 patients; 87.2% underwent laparoscopy, and 68.1% received an EA. A clear surgical trend was noted, with an increasing rate of IA and robotic procedures after 2017. EA represented 41% of anastomoses in centers equipped with a robotic surgical system. Mixed-model regressions (on 1088 patients) showed that age, sex, BMI, comorbidity, robotics, IA, and conversion to open surgery were predictors of surgical outcomes. In particular, IA was a predictor of a shorter time to regular diet and fewer surgical site infections. Based on the questionnaire, IA was the preferred over EA by 72% of surgeons.

CONCLUSION

MIS continues to evolve, with an increasing number of IA being performed in the recent years and when using a robotic surgical system. Understanding the role of predictors of surgical outcomes may help surgeons personalize decision-making among the different MIS options to manage right colon cancer.

Perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive ileocolic resection for complicated Crohn disease: Results from a referral center retrospective cohort

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive ileocolic resection for complicated Crohn disease, defined as penetrating Crohn disease associated with intra-abdominal fistula, abscess, or phlegmon, is challenging. In addition, the impact of the minimally invasive approach on postoperative outcomes is still debated. This study aimed to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive ileocolic resection for complicated versus uncomplicated Crohn disease.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all consecutive adult patients with Crohn disease undergoing minimally invasive ileocolic resection from 2014 to 2021 was performed. Perioperative outcomes were compared between patients with complicated Crohn disease (complicated group) and patients without these lesions (uncomplicated group).

RESULTS

Among the 274 patients undergoing minimally invasive ileocolic resection for Crohn disease, 101 (36.9%) had a robotic approach, and 84 (30.7%) had complicated Crohn disease. Complicated patients were more frequently malnourished (32.1% vs 16.1%, P = .004) and had more frequent previous bowel resections for Crohn disease (22.1% vs 9.5%, P = .002). There were no differences between both groups regarding intraoperative complications (1.1% uncomplicated group vs 2.4% complicated group, P = .463), conversion rate (2.6% uncomplicated group vs 4.8% complicated group, P = .463), postoperative morbidity (27.4% uncomplicated group vs 34.5% complicated group, P = .231), intra-abdominal septic complications (4.2% uncomplicated group vs 7.1% complicated group, P = .309), and length of stay (3.8 ± 2.0 days uncomplicated group vs 4.2 ± 3.0 complicated group, P = .188).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive ileocolic resection for complicated Crohn disease is safe and feasible. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Supplementary Information

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

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a retrospective cohort study of the Binational Colorectal Cancer Database

Robotic right hemicolectomy (RRC) may have technical advantages over the conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) due to higher degrees of rotation, articulation, and tri-dimensional imaging. There is growing literature describing advantages of RRC compared to LRC; however, there is a lack of evidence about safety, oncologic quality of surgery and cost. This study aimed to analyse complication rates, length of stay and nodal harvest in patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer from a prospective Australasian colorectal cancer database. This was a retrospective cohort study using nearest neighbour matching. The Binational Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) provided the data for analysis. The primary outcome was length of stay. Secondary outcomes were harvested lymph node count, anastomotic leak, postoperative haemorrhage, abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, wound infections and non-surgical complications. 4977 patients who underwent robotic (n = 146) or laparoscopic (n = 4831) right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer were included. For RRC, LOS was shorter (5 vs 6.9 days, p = 0.01) and nodal harvest was higher (22 vs 19, p = 0.04). For RRC, surgical complications (5.9% vs 14.2%, p < 0.004) and non-surgical complications (4.6% vs 11.7%, p = 0.007) were lower though there was no difference in return to theatre or inpatient death. Robotic right hemicolectomy is associated shorter LOS and marginally higher lymph node count, though this may reflect anastomotic technique rather than surgical platform. Longer term studies are required to establish differences in overall survival, incisional hernia rates and cost effectiveness.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Discussion

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

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

Supplementary Information

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

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: a nationwide cohort study

PURPOSE

On a national level, the minimally invasive approach is widely adopted in Denmark. The adoption of robotic colorectal surgery is increasing; however, the advantage of a robotic approach in right colectomy is still uncertain. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic right colectomy with laparoscopic right colectomy on a national level.

METHODS

This was a nationwide database study based on data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients from all colorectal centers in Denmark in the period 2014-2018 treated with curative intend in an elective setting with either robotic or laparoscopic right colectomy were identified. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounding, and the groups were compared on demographics, disease characteristics, operative data, and postoperative and pathology outcomes. Reporting was done in accordance with the STROBE statement.

RESULTS

In total, 4002 patients were available for analysis. Propensity score matching in ratio 2:1 identified 718 laparoscopic and 359 robotic cases. After matching, we found a higher lymph node yield in the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic group, (32.5 vs. 28.4, P < 0.001), while radicality, plane of dissection, and pathological disease stages showed no differences. There were no statistical differences in morbidity and mortality. Intracorporeal anastomosis (23.7% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.001) was more commonly performed with a robotic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic approach was associated with a significant higher lymph node yield and with similar postoperative morbidity compared to a laparoscopic approach for right colectomy.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study

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

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for robotic ileocolic resection in Crohn's disease

To date, there is no cohort in the literature focusing on the impact of the type of anastomosis in robotic ileocolonic resections for Crohn's Disease (CD). We aimed to compare short-term postoperative outcomes of robotic ileocolic resection for CD between patients who had intracorporeal (ICA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA). We retrospectively included all consecutive robotic ileocolonic resections for CD at our institution between 2014 and 2020. We compared baseline, perioperative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes between ICA and ECA. The analysis included 89 patients: 71% underwent ICA and 29% ECA. Groups were similar in age, sex, body mass index, smoking, CD duration, Montreal classification, surgical history, and previous CD medical treatments. Return to bowel function was achieved sooner in the ICA group (ICA 1.6 ± 0.7 day, ECA 2.1 ± 0.8 days; p = 0.026) despite longer operative time (ICA 235 ± 79 min, ECA 172 ± 51 min; p < 0.001), but no statistical difference was found regarding ileus rate and length of stay. Overall, 30-day postoperative complication rate was 23.6% (ICA 22.2%, ECA 26.9%; p = 0.635). There were no abdominal septic complications, anastomotic leaks, or severe postoperative complications. In conclusion, robotic ileocolic resection for CD shows acceptable 30 days outcomes for both ICA and ECA. ICA was associated with a faster return to bowel function without impact on the length of stay or 30-day complications. Further studies are needed to confirm the benefits of ICA in the setting of ileocolic resections for CD.

2D vs 3D laparoscopic right colectomy: A propensity score-matching comparison of personal experience with systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefits of laparoscopic approach for right colectomy have been well established. However, the technical difficulty to construct the intra-corporeal anastomosis is still cumbersome.

AIM

To analyze the results of 3D and 2D laparoscopic right colectomy and to compare it to the published series through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy at Umbria2 Hospitals from January 2014 to March 2020 was performed. A systematic review was accomplished comparing 2D and 3D right colectomy.

RESULTS

In the personal series 47 patients of the 2D group were matched to 47 patients of the 3D group. The 3D group showed a favorable trend in terms of mean operative time (170.7 ± 32.9 min vs 183.8 ± 35.4 min; P = 0.053) and a significant lower anastomotic time (16.9 ± 2.3 min vs 19.6 ± 2.9 min, P < 0.001). The complete mesocolic excision (CME) subgroups analysis showed a shorter anastomotic time (16.5 ± 1.8 min vs 19.9 ± 3.0 min; P < 0.001) and operative time (175.0 ± 38.5 min vs 193.7 ± 37.1 min; P = 0.063) in the 3D group. Six studies and our series were included in the meta-analysis with 551 patients (2D group: 291; 3D group: 260).The pooled analysis demonstrated a significant difference in favour of the 3D group regarding the operative time (P < 0.001) and the anastomotic time (P < 0.001) while no differences were identified between groups in terms of blood loss (P = 0.827), LNH yield (P = 0.243), time to first flatus (P = 0.333), postoperative complications (P = 0.718) and length of stay (P = 0.835).

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis results showed that 3D laparoscopic right colectomy shortens operative and anastomotic time without affecting the standard lymphadenectomy. In our series, the advantage of the 3D system becomes evident when CME and/or more complex associated procedure are requested significantly reducing both the total operative and the anastomotic time.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Completely intracorporeal anastomosis in robotic left colonic and rectal surgery: technique and 30-day outcomes

As robotic surgery continues to disseminate into the field of colon and rectal surgery, there is a growing interest in the utilization of intracorporeal anastomosis to potentially improve surgical outcomes. The purpoe of this study was to compare feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections performed with completely intracorporeal anastomosis (CICA) technique to the traditional extracorporeal assisted anastomosis (ECAA) technique. Consecutive series of patients who underwent elective robotic sigmoid or low anterior resections for benign or malignant disease utilizes either CICA or ECAA between August 2017 and November 2019. Surgical complications were assessed until 30 postoperative days and compared between the two groups. A total of 160 patients were identified; 73 (45.6%) in the CICA group and 87 (54.4%) in the ECAA group. Most of the procedures were performed for malignancy (76%). Estimated blood loss was lower in the CICA group (80.7 mL vs. 110.2 mL; p = 0.048), while operative times were longer (5.9 ± SD hours vs. 4.9 ± SD hours; p =  < 0.001). Overall conversion rate was 1.9%, with no conversions in the CICA group. Overall complications occurred in 54 patients (33.8%) with 13 (8.3%) representing major complications. There were no significant differences in 30 day outcomes between the two groups. This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections with CICA. Outcomes for robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections are encouraging regardless of anastomotic technique (CICA vs ECAA).

Intracorporeal stapled ileocolic anastomosis with mechanical closure of the enterotomy after laparoscopic right colectomy for cancer: Keep it Simpler

Laparoscopic colectomy has become the standard practice for colorectal cancer surgery. A variety of techniques are described for anastomosis including extracorporeal and intracorporeal techniques. Intracorporeal anastomosis may be associated with better cosmesis and post-operative recovery. However, the review by Reddavid et al. (J Gastrointest Surg 24:2389-2392, 2020) describing an intracorporeal stapled technique for ileo-colonic anastomosis has several issues. First, the technique for forming intracorporeal anastomoses is not novel and has been previously reported. The conversion rate to open surgery does not relate to anastomosis technique but the difficulty of dissection and tumour stage. Furthermore, performing the technique requires an additional trocar adding to expense. Moreover, utilizing multiple sutures which close the enterostomy prior to stapling does not stand scrutiny when the defect has already been closed. The additional staple firing is a risky strategy particularly if the stapler splits. Thus, it is vital that new techniques promoted to trainees and residents have a sound technical and evidence base, avoid unnecessary expense or risk technical failure.

State-of-the-art colorectal disease: postoperative ileus

PURPOSE

Postoperative Ileus (POI) remains an important complication for patients after abdominal surgery with an incidence of 10-27% representing an everyday issue for abdominal surgeons. It accounts for patients' discomfort, increased morbidity, prolonged hospital stays, and a high economic burden. This review outlines the current understanding of POI pathophysiology and focuses on preventive treatments that have proven to be effective or at least show promising effects.

METHODS

Pathophysiology and recommendations for POI treatment are summarized on the basis of a selective literature review.

RESULTS

While a lot of therapies have been researched over the past decades, many of them failed to prove successful in meta-analyses. To date, there is no evidence-based treatment once POI has manifested. In the era of enhanced recovery after surgery or fast track regimes, a few approaches show a beneficial effect in preventing POI: multimodal, opioid-sparing analgesia with placement of epidural catheters or transverse abdominis plane block; μ-opioid-receptor antagonists; and goal-directed fluid therapy and in general the use of minimally invasive surgery.

CONCLUSION

The results of different studies are often contradictory, as a concise definition of POI and reliable surrogate endpoints are still absent. These will be needed to advance POI research and provide clinicians with consistent data to improve the treatment strategies.