Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision: is there a learning curve?

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.

The role of Da Vinci Xi robotic simulation curriculum in enhancing skills in robotic colorectal surgery

Robotic surgery in comparison to open and laparoscopic surgery allows better ergonomics, three-dimensional vision, and seven-degree freedom of movement. This ensures fast recovery, fewer postoperative complications, and safe oncological resections. Robotic surgery has revolutionized the field of colorectal surgery, providing surgeons with enhanced precision, dexterity, and visualization. To ensure safe and successful outcomes, surgeons must acquire competency and proficiency in robotic surgical techniques. Robotic simulation exercises have emerged as a valuable tool for training and skill development in robotic colorectal surgery. This research paper explores the importance and relationship between robotic simulation exercises and the acquisition of skills and competency required for carrying out safe colorectal surgery using a robotic platform. The authors discuss the benefits of virtual simulation-based training using the Da Vinci Xi skill simulator, and the evidence supporting its effectiveness in colorectal surgery. In this article, emphasis has been made on some important Da Vinci Xi skill simulator exercises for enhancing skills in robotic colorectal surgery.

Learning curve for robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicentre, prospective study

AIM

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly important in colorectal surgery. Recognition of the short, safe learning curve (LC) could potentially improve implementation. We evaluated the extent and safety of the LC in robotic resection for rectal cancer.

METHOD

Consecutive rectal cancer resections (January 2018 to February 2021) were prospectively included from three French centres, involving nine surgeons. LC analyses only included surgeons who had performed more than 25 robotic rectal cancer surgeries. The primary endpoint was operating time LC and the secondary endpoint conversion rate LC. Interphase comparisons included demographic and intraoperative data, operating time, conversion rate, pathological specimen features and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

In 174 patients (69% men; mean age 62.6 years) the mean operating time was 334.5 ± 92.1 min. Operative procedures included low anterior resection (n = 143) and intersphincteric resection (n = 31). For operating time, there were two or three (centre-dependent) LC phases. After 12-21 cases (learning phase), there was a significant decrease in total operating time (all centres) and an increase in the number of harvested lymph nodes (two centres). For conversion rate, there were two or four LC phases. After 9-14 cases (learning phase), the conversion rate decreased significantly in two centres; in one centre, there was a nonsignificant decrease despite the treatment of significantly more obese patients and patients with previous abdominal surgery. There were no significant differences in interphase comparisons.

CONCLUSION

The LC for RAS in rectal cancer was achieved after 12-21 cases for the operating time and 9-14 cases for the conversion rate. RAS for rectal cancer was safe during this time, with no interphase differences in postoperative complications and circumferential resection margin.

The robotic learning curve for a newly appointed colorectal surgeon

Robotic colorectal surgery allows for better ergonomics, superior retraction, and fine movements in the narrow anatomy of the pelvis. Recent years have seen the uptake of robotic surgery in all pelvic surgeries specifically in low rectal malignancies. However, the learning curve of robotic surgery in this cohort is unclear as established training pathways are not formalized. This study looks at the experience and learning curve of a single laparoscopic trained surgeon in performing safe and effective resections, mainly for low rectal and anal malignancies using the da Vinci robotic system by evaluating metrics related to surgical process and patient outcome. A serial retrospective review of the robotic colorectal surgery database, in the University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire (UHCW), was undertaken. All 48 consecutive cases, performed by a recently qualified colorectal surgeon, were included in our study. The surgical process was evaluated using both console and total operative time recorded in each case along with the adequacy of resections performed; in addition, patient-related outcomes including intraoperative and postoperative complications were analyzed to assess differences in the learning curve. Forty eight sequential recto-sigmoid resections were included in the study performed by a single surgeon. The cases were divided into four cohorts in chronological order with comparable demographics, tumour stage, location, and complexity of the operation (mean age 65, male 79%, and female 29%). The results showed that the mean console time dropped from 3 to 2.5 h, while total operative time dropped from 6 h to 5.5 h as the surgeon became more experienced; however, this was not found to be statistically significant. In addition, no significant difference in pathological staging was seen over the study period. No major intra-op and post-op complications were observed and no 30-day mortality was recorded. Moreover, after 30 cases, the learning curve developed the plateau phase, suggesting the gain of maximum proficiency of skills required for robotic colorectal resections. The learning curve in robotic rectal surgery is short and flattens early; complication rates are low during the learning curve and continue to decrease with time. This shows that with proper training and proctoring, new colorectal surgeons can be trained in a short time to perform elective colorectal pelvic resections.

Assessing the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicenter study considering procedural safety, pathological safety, and efficiency

PURPOSE

Evidence regarding the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision is scarce and of low quality. Case-mix is mostly not taken into account, and learning curves are based on operative time, while preferably clinical outcomes and literature-based limits should be used. Therefore, this study aims to assess the learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed in four Dutch centers. The primary aim was to assess the safety of the individual and institutional learning curves using a RA-CUSUM analysis based on intraoperative complications, major postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome (positive circumferential margin or incomplete TME specimen). The learning curve for efficiency was assessed using a LC-CUSUM analysis for operative time. Outcomes of patients before and after the learning curve were compared.

RESULTS

In this study, seven participating surgeons performed robot-assisted total mesorectal excisions in 531 patients. Learning curves for intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome did not exceed predefined literature-based limits. The LC-CUSUM for operative time showed lengths of the learning curve ranging from 12 to 35 cases. Intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological outcomes did not differ between patients operated during and after the learning curve.

CONCLUSION

The learning curve of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and compound pathological outcome did not exceed predefined limits and is therefore suggested to be safe. Using operative time as a surrogate for efficiency, the learning curve is estimated to be between 12 and 35 procedures.

Seniority of the assistant surgeon and perioperative outcomes in robotic-assisted proctectomy for rectal cancer

The background of this study is to evaluate the impact of the assistant surgeon's in robotic-assisted proctectomy (RAP) on perioperative outcomes. A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent RAP for rectal adenocarcinoma between 2011 and 2020 was conducted. Patient cohort was divided into three groups based on the assistant surgeon's training level: post-graduate years (PGY) 1-3 surgical residents (Group 1), PGY 4-5 surgical residents (Group 2), and board-certified general surgeons (Group 3). Overall, 175 patients were included in the study: 29 patients (17%) in Group 1, 84 (48%) in Group 2, and 62 (35%) in Group 3. The median tumor distance from the anal verge was 8 cm in all groups (p = 0.73). The median operative time was similar across all groups: 290, 291, and 281 min in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p = 0.69). In a multivariable analysis, the lack of association between assistant training level and procedure time maintained when adjusting for the year of operation (p = 0.84). Patients operated with junior residents as assistant surgeons (Group 1) had a more postoperative complications (p = 0.01) and a slightly longer hospital length of stay [7 days, interquartile range (IQR) 3], compared to those operated by assistant surgeons that were senior residents or attendings (6 IQR 2.5, and 6 IQR 2 in Groups 2 and 3, respectively; p = 0.02). Conversion rates (p = 0.12), intraoperative complications (p = 0.39), major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3; p = 0.32), 30-day readmission (p = 0.45), and mortality (p = 0.99) were similar between the groups. Robotic-assisted proctectomy performed with the assistance of a junior resident was found to be correlated with worse postoperative outcomes compared to more experienced assistants. No difference was seen in intraoperative outcomes.

Impact of surgeon and hospital factors on length of stay after colorectal surgery systematic review

Background

Although length of stay (LOS) after colorectal surgery (CRS) is associated with worse patient and system level outcomes, the impact of surgeon and hospital-level factors on LOS after CRS has not been well investigated. The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence for the impact of surgeon and hospital-level factors on LOS after CRS.

Methods

A comprehensive database search was conducted using terms related to LOS and CRS. Studies were included if they reported the effect of surgeon or hospital factors on LOS after elective CRS. The evidence for the effect of each surgeon and hospital factor on LOS was synthesized using vote counting by direction of effect, taking risk of bias into consideration.

Results

A total of 13 946 unique titles and abstracts were screened, and 69 studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were retrospective and assessed a total of eight factors. Surgeon factors such as increasing surgeon volume, colorectal surgical specialty, and progression along a learning curve were significantly associated with decreased LOS (effect seen in 87.5 per cent, 100 per cent, and 93.3 per cent of studies respectively). In contrast, hospital factors such as hospital volume and teaching hospital status were not significantly associated with LOS.

Conclusion

Provider-related factors were found to be significantly associated with LOS after elective CRS. In particular, surgeon-related factors related to experience specifically impacted LOS, whereas hospital-related factors did not. Understanding the mechanisms underlying these relationships may allow for tailoring of interventions to reduce LOS.

The learning curve of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment of rectal carcinoma is surgical resection according to the total mesorectal excision principle, either by open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal technique. No clear consensus exists regarding the length of the learning curve for the minimal invasive techniques. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the learning curve of minimal invasive TME.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for studies with the primary or secondary aim to assess the learning curve of either laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal TME for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was length of the learning curve per minimal invasive technique. Descriptive statistics were used to present results and the MINORS tool was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

45 studies, with 7562 patients, were included in this systematic review. Length of the learning curve based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, or a composite endpoint using a risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis was 50 procedures for the laparoscopic technique, 32-75 procedures for the robot-assisted technique and 36-54 procedures for the transanal technique. Due to the low quality of studies and a high level of heterogeneity a meta-analysis could not be performed. Heterogeneity was caused by patient-related factors, surgeon-related factors and differences in statistical methods.

CONCLUSION

Current high-quality literature regarding length of the learning curve of minimal invasive TME techniques is scarce. Available literature suggests equal lengths of the learning curves of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal TME. Well-designed studies, using adequate statistical methods are required to properly assess the learning curve, while taking into account patient-related and surgeon-related factors.

Teaching and Training Surgeons in Robotic Colorectal Surgery

Robotic surgery is becoming more popular among practicing physicians as a new modality with improved visualization and mobility (1-2). As patients also desire minimally invasive procedures with quicker recoveries, there is a desire for new surgical residents and fellows to pursue robotic techniques in training (3-4). To develop a new colorectal robotics training program, an institution needs a well-formulated plan for the trainees and mentors with realistic expectations. The development of a robotics training program has potential obstacles, including increased initial cost, longer operative times, and overcoming learning curves. We have devised a four-phase training protocol for residents in colorectal surgical fellowship. Each of these phases attempts to create a curricular framework that outlines logical progression and sets expectations for trainees, Program Directors, and residency faculty. Phase zero begins prior to fellowship and is preparatory. Phase one focuses on an introduction to robotics with learning bedside console troubleshooting and simulation exercises. Phase Two prioritizes operative experience and safety while completing steps independently in a progressive fashion. Phase Three polishes the resident prior to graduation for future practice. We recommend frequent evaluation and open-mindedness while establishing a focused robotics program. The end goal is to graduate fellows with an equivalency certificate who can continue to practice colorectal robotic surgery.

Safety with Innovation in Colon and Rectal Robotic Surgery

Robotic colorectal surgery has been touted as a possible way to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and has shown promise in rectal resections, thus shifting traditional open surgeons to a minimally invasive approach. The safety, efficacy, and learning curve have been established for most colorectal applications. With this and a robust sales and marketing model, utilization of the robot for colorectal surgery continues to grow steadily. However, this disruptive technology still requires standards for training, privileging and credentialing, and safe implementation into clinical practice.

Comprehensive Learning Curve of Robotic Surgery: Discovery From a Multicenter Prospective Trial of Robotic Gastrectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the complication-based learning curve and identify learning-associated complications of robotic gastrectomy.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

With the increased popularity of robotic surgery, a sound understanding of the learning curve in the surgical outcome of robotic surgery has taken on great importance. However, a multicenter prospective study analyzing learning-associated morbidity has never been conducted in robotic gastrectomy.

METHODS

Data on 502 robotic gastrectomy cases were prospectively collected from 5 surgeons. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis was applied to visualize the learning curve of robotic gastrectomy on operation time and complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-five cases, on average, were needed to overcome complications and operation time-learning curve sufficiently to gain proficiency in 3 surgeons. An additional 23 cases were needed to cross the transitional phase to progress from proficiency to mastery. The moderate complication rate (CD ≥ grade II) was 20% in phase 1 (cases 1-25), 10% in phase 2 (cases 26-65), 26.1% in phase 3 (cases 66-88), and 6.4% in phase 4 (cases 89-125) (P < 0.001). Among diverse complications, CD ≥ grade II intra-abdominal bleeding (P < 0.001) and abdominal pain (P = 0.01) were identified as major learning-associated morbidities of robotic gastrectomy. Previous experience on laparoscopic surgery and mode of training influenced progression in the learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study suggesting that technical immaturity substantially affects the surgical outcomes of robotic gastrectomy and that robotic gastrectomy is a complex procedure with a significant learning curve that has implications for physician training and credentialing.

Competency-Based Education in Minimally Invasive and Robotic Colorectal Surgery

Minimally invasive and robotic techniques have become increasingly implemented into surgical practice and are now an essential part of the foundational skills of training colorectal surgeons. Over the past 5 years there has been a shift in the surgical educational paradigm toward competency-based education (CBE). CBE recognizes that trainees learn at different rates but regardless, are required to meet a competent threshold of performance prior to independent practice. Thus, CBE attempts to replace the traditional "time" endpoint of training with "performance." Although conceptually sensible, implementing CBE has proven challenging. This article will define competence, outline appropriate assessment tools to assess technical skill, and review the literature on the number of cases required to achieve competence in colorectal procedures while outlining the barriers to implementing CBE.

Potential urinary function benefits of initial robotic surgery for rectal cancer in the introductory phase

We aimed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of initial robotic surgery for rectal cancer in the introduction phase. This study retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent initial robotic surgery (n = 36) vs. patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 95) for rectal cancer. We compared the clinical and pathological characteristics of patients using a propensity score analysis and clarified short-term outcomes, urinary function, and sexual function at the time of robotic surgery introduction. The mean surgical duration was longer in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the conventional laparoscopy group (288.4 vs. 245.2 min, respectively; p = 0.051). With lateral pelvic lymph node dissection, no significant difference was observed in surgical duration (508.0 min for robot-assisted laparoscopy vs. 480.4 min for conventional laparoscopy; p = 0.595). The length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the conventional laparoscopy group (15 days vs. 13.0 days, respectively; p = 0.026). Conversion to open surgery was not necessary in either group. The International Prostate Symptom Score was significantly lower in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the conventional laparoscopy group. Moderate-to-severe symptoms were more frequently observed in the conventional laparoscopy group compared with the robot-assisted laparoscopy group (p = 0.051). Robotic surgery is safe and could improve functional disorder after rectal cancer surgery in the introduction phase. This may depend on the surgeon’s experience in performing robotic surgery and strictly confined criteria in Japan.

Impact of laparoscopic surgical experience on the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has advantages in terms of the ergonomic design and expectations of shortening the learning curve, which may reduce the number of patients with adverse outcomes during a surgeon's learning period. We investigated the differences in the learning curves of robotic surgery and clinical outcomes for rectal cancer among surgeons with differences in their experiences of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic surgery for colorectal cancer were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were divided into five groups by surgeons, and their clinical outcomes were analyzed. The learning curve of each surgeon with different volumes of laparoscopic experience was analyzed using the cumulative sum technique (CUSUM) for operation times, surgical failure (open conversion or anastomosis-related complications), and local failure (positive resection margins or local recurrence within 1 year).

RESULTS

A total of 662 patients who underwent robotic low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer were included in the analysis. Number of laparoscopic LAR cases performed by surgeon A, B, C, D, and E prior to their first case of robotic surgery were 403, 40, 15, 5, and 0 cases, respectively. Based on CUSUM for operation time, surgeon A, B, C, D, and E's learning curve periods were 110, 39, 114, 55, and 23 cases, respectively. There were no significant differences in the surgical and oncological outcomes after robotic LAR among the surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the limited impact of laparoscopic surgical experience on the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery, which was greater than previously reported curves.

Robotic sphincter saving rectal cancer surgery: A learning curve analysis

BACKGROUND

Longer operation time is one of the major obstacles in front of the proposed benefits of robotic rectal surgery. We intended to evaluate the learning process for robotic surgery in sphincter saving rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

The learning curve was evaluated using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method. The variable evaluated for learning curve calculation was the operative time.

RESULTS

The learning curve was divided into two phases: initial 52 operations comprised phase 1 and the following 44 operations represented phase 2. Interphase comparisons showed that phase 2 patients had shorter operation times (323.3 ± 102.8 vs. 379.9 ± 108.7 min, p = 0.011), less blood loss (37.2 ± 51.0 vs. 87.7 ± 124.8 mL, p = 0.009), longer distal resection margins (4.5 ± 4.3 vs. 2.5 ± 1.7 cm, p = 0.008), and higher rates of grade 3 mesorectal completeness (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this study, we saw that the cut-off level in the learning curve of a laparoscopically experienced surgeon could be beyond the numbers reported in the literature.

Impact of robotic learning curve on histopathology in rectal cancer: A pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

A beneficial impact of robotic proctectomy on circumferential resection margin (CRM) is expected due to the robot's articulating instruments in the pelvis. There are however concerns about a negative impact on the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) due to the lack of tactile feedback. The aim of this study was to assess whether surgeons' learning curve impacted CRM and TME quality.

METHODS

In a multicenter study, individual patient data of robotic proctectomy for resectable rectal cancer were pooled. Patients were stratified into two phases of surgeons' learning curve. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to determine the transition from learning phase (LP) to plateau phase (PP), which were compared. CRM was microscopically measured in mm by pathologists. TME quality was classified by pathologists as complete, nearly complete or incomplete. T-test and Chi-squared tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively.

RESULTS

235 patients underwent robotic proctectomy by five surgeons. 83 LP patients were comparable to 152 PP patients for age (p = 0.20), gender (67.5% vs. 65.1% males; p = 0.72), BMI (p = 0.82), cancer stage (p = 0.36), neoadjuvant chemoradiation (p = 0.13), distance of tumor from anal verge (5.8 ± 4.4 vs. 5.5 ± 3.3; p = 0.56). CRM did not differ (7.7 ± 11.4 mm vs. 8.4 ± 10.3 mm; p = 0.62). The rate of complete TME quality was significantly improved in PP patients as compared to LP patients (73.5% vs. 92.1%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

While learning had no impact on circumferential resection margins, the quality of TME significantly improved during surgeons' plateau phase as compared to their learning phase.

Can better surgical outcomes be obtained in the learning process of robotic rectal cancer surgery? A propensity score-matched comparison between learning phases

BACKGROUND

Although studies of robotic rectal cancer surgery have demonstrated the effects of learning on operation time, comparisons have failed to demonstrate differences in clinicopathological outcomes between unadjusted learning phases. This study aimed to investigate the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery for clinicopathological outcomes and compare surgical outcomes between adjusted learning phases. Study design We enrolled 506 consecutive patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent robotic resection by a single surgeon between 2007 and 2018. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) for surgical failure was used to analyze the learning curve. Surgical failure was defined as the occurrence of any of the following: conversion to open surgery, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3a), insufficient number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs), or R1 resection. Comparisons between learning phases analyzed by RA-CUSUM were performed before and after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

In RA-CUSUM analysis, the learning curve was divided into two learning phases: phase 1 (1st-177th cases, n = 177) and phase 2 (178th-506th cases, n = 329). Before matching, patients in phase 2 had deeper tumor invasion and higher rates of positive LNs on pretreatment images and preoperative chemoradiotherapy. After matching, phase 1 (n = 150) and phase 2 (n = 150) patients exhibited similar clinical characteristics. Phase 2 patients had lower rates of surgical failure overall and these components: conversion to open surgery, severe complications, and insufficient harvested LNs.

CONCLUSIONS

For robotic rectal cancer surgery, surgical outcomes improved after the 177th case. Further studies by other robotic surgeons are required to validate our results.

Colorectal Cancer Surgery Using the Da Vinci Xi and Si Systems: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes

Purpose. Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer is an emerging technique. Potential benefits as compared with the conventional laparoscopic surgery have been demonstrated. However, experience with the previous da Vinci Si robotic system revealed several unsolved problems. The novel features of the new da Vinci Xi increase operational flexibility and maneuverability and are expected to facilitate the performance of multiquadrant surgery. Methods. Between December 2011 and May 2015, 120 patients with colon or rectal cancer were operated on using the Si robotic system (the Si group). Between May 2015 and October 2017, 60 more patients with colon or rectal cancer were operated on using the Xi robotic system (the Xi group). The clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes of these 2 groups of patients were compared. Results. The 2 groups of patients were comparable with regard to baseline clinical characteristics, types of resection performed, and the proportion of patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. The statuses of resection margin, the numbers of lymph nodes harvested, and the rates of postoperative complications were also similar between the 2 groups. Nevertheless, a lower rate of diverting ileostomy, a shorter operation time, less estimated blood loss, and a faster postoperative recovery was observed in the Xi group. Conclusions. Colorectal cancer surgery using the Xi robotic system was associated with improved perioperative outcomes. These benefits may be attributed to its improved, more user-friendly design.

Short-Term Outcomes with Robotic Right Colectomy

Few series have reported on the impact of robotic right colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy. Even fewer have reported on the outcomes of intracorporeal anastomoses. The aim of our study was to determine the impact of robotic surgery on short-term operative outcomes in patients undergoing right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. One hundred and fourteen consecutive patients who underwent a right colectomy by two colorectal surgeons between 2012 and 2017 were included. Patients were separated into two groups: laparoscopic technique with extracorporeal anastomosis (n = 87) and robotic technique with intracorporeal anastomosis (n = 27). Univariate analysis was performed to determine differences in outcomes. Differences between cohorts were only identified with regard to gender (62 vs 37%, P = 0.022) and year of surgery. In comparison with laparoscopy, robotic colectomy resulted in a shorter time of GI recovery (1.3 ± 0.6 vs 3 ± 1.1, P < 0.0001), lower rates of postoperative ileus (4 vs 28%, P = 0.007), lower overall morbidity (26 vs 52%, P = 0.019), less blood loss ( P = 0.001), 50 per cent lower narcotic use, and longer operative time (255 ± 66 vs 139 ± 49, P < 0.001). Despite longer operative time, robotic surgery improved GI recovery, significantly lowered oral morphine equivalent usage, and decreased short-term complications.

Appraisal and Current Considerations of Robotics in Colon and Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology aims to obviate some of the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, yet the role of robotics in colorectal surgery is still largely undefined and varies with respect to its application in abdominal versus pelvic surgery.

METHODS

With this review, we aimed to highlight current developments in colorectal robotic surgery. We systematically searched the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. We critically reviewed the available literature on the use of robotic technology in colon and rectal surgery.

RESULTS

Robotic colorectal surgery is oncologically safe and has short-term outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopy, with potential benefits in rectal surgery. It has a shorter learning curve but increased operative times and costs. It offers potential advantages in the resection of rectal cancer, due to lower conversion rates. There is also a trend toward better outcomes in anastomotic leak rates, circumferential margin positivity, and perseveration of autonomic function.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy remains technically challenging and conversion rates are still high. Therefore, most cases of colorectal surgery are still performed open. Robotic surgery aims to overcome the limits of the laparoscopic technique. This new technology has many advantages in terms of articulating instruments, advanced three-dimensional optics, surgeon ergonomics, and improved accessibility to narrow spaces, such as the pelvis. However, further studies are needed to assess long-term results and benefits.

Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and the effect of learning curve

Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is safe and can accelerate recovery without compromising oncological outcomes. However, such a surgery is technically demanding, limiting its application in nonspecialized centers. The operational features of a robotic system may facilitate overcoming this limitation. Studies have reported the potential advantages of robotic surgery. However, only a few of them have featured the application of this surgery in patients with advanced rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (nCRT).From January 2012 to April 2015, after undergoing nCRT, 40 patients with mid or low rectal cancer were operated using the robotic approach at our institution. Another 38 patients who were operated using the conventional laparoscopic approach were matched to patients in the robotic group by sex, age, the body mass index, and procedure. All operations were performed by a single surgical team. The clinicopathological characteristics and short-term outcomes of these patients were compared. To assess the effect of the learning curve on the outcomes, patients in the robotic group were further subdivided into 2 groups according to the sequential order of their procedures, with an equal number of patients in each group. Their outcome measures were compared.The robotic and laparoscopic groups were comparable with regard to pretreatment characteristics, rectal resection type, and pathological examination result. After undergoing nCRT, more patients in the robotic group exhibited clinically advanced diseases. The complication rate was similar between the 2 groups. The operation time and the time to the resumption of a soft diet were significantly prolonged in the robotic group. Further analysis revealed that the difference was mainly observed in the first robotic group. No significant difference was observed between the second robotic and laparoscopic groups.Although the robotic approach may offer potential advantages for rectal surgery, comparable short-term outcomes may be achieved when laparoscopic surgery is performed by experienced surgeons. However, our results suggested a shorter learning curve for robotic surgery for rectal cancer, even in patients who exhibited more advanced disease after undergoing nCRT.

Evolving application of minimally invasive cancer operations at a tertiary cancer center

BACKGROUND

Patients and providers are increasingly interested in the utilization, safety, and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). We reviewed 11 years of MIS resections (laparoscopic and robotic) for intra-abdominal malignancies.

METHODS

Patients who underwent gastrectomy, distal pancreatectomy, hepatic resection, and colorectal resection between 2004 and 2014 were identified. Cases were categorized as open, laparoscopic, and robotic based on the initial operation approach. Diagnostic laparoscopies were excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 10 039 patients who underwent the above procedures, between 2004 and 2014, 2832 (28%) were MIS. In 2004, 12% (100/826) of all resections were performed with MIS approaches, rising to 23% (192/821) of all resections by 2009 and 44% (484/1092) in 2014. The number of open resections has remained largely stable: 726 (88% of all resections) in 2004 and 608 (56% of all resections) in 2014. Initially, laparoscopy experienced incremental adoption. Robotic surgery was implemented in 2009 and is currently the dominant MIS approach, accounting for 76% (368/484) of all MIS resections in 2014. Overall mortality has remained less than 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

While maintaining patient safety, utilization of MIS techniques has increased substantially since 2004, particularly for gastric and colorectal resections. Since 2009 robotic surgery is the predominant MIS approach.

Learning curve in robotic rectal cancer surgery: current state of affairs

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery offers multiple advantages for surgeons, and it seems to yield the same clinical outcomes as regards the short-time follow-up of patients compared to conventional laparoscopy. This surgical approach emerges as a technique aiming at overcoming the limitations posed by rectal cancer and other surgical fields of difficult access, in order to obtain better outcomes and a shorter learning curve.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of robot-assisted rectal surgery was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The search was conducted in October 2015 in PubMed, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for articles published in the last 10 years and pertaining the learning curve of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. It consisted of the following key words: "rectal cancer/learning curve/robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery".

RESULTS

A total of 34 references were identified, but only 9 full texts specifically addressed the analysis of the learning curve in robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery, 7 were case series and 2 were non-randomised case-comparison series. Eight papers used the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method, and only one author divided the series into two groups to compare both. The mean number of cases for phase I of the learning curve was calculated to be 29.7 patients; phase II corresponds to a mean number 37.4 patients. The mean number of cases required for the surgeon to be classed as an expert in robotic surgery was calculated to be 39 patients.

CONCLUSION

Robotic advantages could have an impact on learning curve for rectal cancer and lower the number of cases that are necessary for rectal resections.

The Learning Curve of Robotic-Assisted Low Rectal Resection of a Novice Rectal Surgeon

BACKGROUND

With the increasing availability of the surgical robotic system, the young generation colorectal surgeons may learn robotic-assisted rectal surgery upfront. There are currently very limited studies evaluating the learning curve of novice rectal surgeons.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the learning curve of a surgeon who had limited experience in open and laparoscopic rectal surgery.

METHODS

Thirty-nine consecutive robotic-assisted total mesorectal excisions were performed from March 2013 to October 2014. All cases were performed by a single surgeon whose prior experience in open or laparoscopic low rectal cancer resections was <5 cases. The learning curve was analyzed using the cumulative sum method.

RESULTS

Thirty-four low anterior resections, four abdomino-perineal resections, and one Hartmann's operation were performed. The mean total operating time was 397.2 ± 184.3 min. There was no conversion. The major complication rate was 10.3 %. When total operating time was analyzed with the CUSUM method, three phases could be identified. They are the initial eight cases, middle 17 cases, and the final 14 cases. The first phase consisted of more proximal tumors (86.3 ± 20.7 vs. 58.0 ± 34.9 mm from anal verge, p = 0.04) and was associated with a shorter total operating time (243.5 ± 38.0 vs. 540.9 ± 133.4 min, p = 0.000) and less estimated blood loss (81.3 ± 25.9 vs. 168.8 ± 99.5 ml, p = 0.02) compared to the second phase. When the third phase is compared with the first and second phase, it has shorter total operating time (310.6 ± 164.5 vs. 44 5.7 ± 179.8 min, p = 0.03). Complications rate were 12.5, 17.6, and 0 % for phase one, two, and three respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the learning curve for a novice rectal surgeon was 25 cases. This is comparable to those who have already mastered the technique with laparoscopic or open approach. Surgical robotic system may have a role in shortening the learning curve for low rectal resection.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Right Colectomy for Colon Cancer: Analysis of the Initial Simultaneous Learning Curve of a Surgical Fellow

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery was introduced to overcome laparoscopic drawbacks. This study aimed to compare the learning curve of robotic-assisted right colectomy (RRC) versus laparoscopic-assisted right colectomy (LRC) for colon cancer with respect to operative times and perioperative outcomes. In addition, the health-related costs associated with both procedures were analyzed and compared.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2015, 30 consecutive patients underwent RRC and 50 patients LRC for colon cancer. All procedures were performed by a surgical fellow novice in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The operative time and the cumulative sum method were used to evaluate the learning curve of RRC versus LRC.

RESULTS

The mean operative times were 200.5 minutes for RRC and 204.1 minutes for LRC (P = .408) and showed a significant decrease over consecutive procedures (P < .0001). The number of cases necessary to identify a drop in the operative time was 16 for RRC and 25 for LRC. RRC procedures were associated with significantly reduced blood loss (P = .012). Two patients (4%) in the LRC group were converted to laparotomy, whereas no conversion was required in the RRC group. Surgery-related costs were significantly more expensive for RRC, but when combined with the hospitalization-related costs, LRC and RRC did not differ (P = .632).

CONCLUSIONS

Both robotic and laparoscopic operative times decrease rapidly with practice. However, RRC is associated with a faster learning curve than LRC. The simultaneous development of these two minimally invasive approaches appears to be safe and feasible with acceptable health-related costs.

Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal cancer were identified for this meta-analysis. Compared with ORCS, RRCS is associated with a lower estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −139.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −159.11 to −120.86; P < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay length (MD: −2.10, 95% CI: −3.47 to −0.73; P = 0.003), lower intraoperative transfusion requirements (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.05), shorter time to flatus passage (MD: −0.97, 95% CI = −1.06 to −0.88, P < 0.00001), and shorter time to resume a normal diet (MD: −1.71.95% CI = −3.31 to −0.12, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications, oncologic clearance, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the two groups. However, RRCS was associated with a longer operative time. RRCS is safe and effective.

A review on robotic surgery in rectal cancer

Robotic surgery has the upper hand when compared to the laparoscopic approach in terms of superior visualisation, flexibility in movement, steadiness and accessibility to confined anatomical spaces. Nevertheless, limitations still exist with regards to cost, reduced tactile sensation, time-consuming setup and a significant learning curve to achieve. Although studies have shown better or at least comparable outcomes between the robotic and laparoscopic approach, the limitations mentioned result in poor penetrance among centres and surgeons. Advancements in robotic surgery technology and attaining the acquired skillset will translate into better clinical outcomes for patients.

Robotic-laparoscopic rectal cancer excision versus traditional laparoscopy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Robotic surgery has been advocated for the radical excision of rectal cancer. Most data supporting its use have been reported from European and Asian centers, with a paucity of data from the United States documenting clear advantages of the robotic technique. This study compares the short-term outcome of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic (group 1) or robotic (group 2) rectal cancer excision at a single institution over a 2-year period were retrospectively reviewed. The main outcome measures were operative time, blood loss, conversion rates, number of lymph nodes, margin positivity, length of hospital stay, complications, and readmission rates.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were analyzed. The median operative time was shorter in group 1 than that in group 2 (240 minutes vs 260 minutes, P=.04). No difference was noted in blood loss, transfusion rates, intraoperative complications, or conversion rates. There was no difference in circumferential or distal margin positivity. The median length of stay was shorter in group 1 (5 days vs 6 days, P=.05). The 90-day complication rate was similar in both groups (33% vs 43%, P=.75), but there was a trend toward more anastomotic leaks in group 1 (14% vs 0%, P=.23). Similarly, a non-statistically significant trend toward a higher readmission rate was noted in group 1 (24% vs 5%, P=.18).

CONCLUSION

Robotic rectal cancer excision yielded a longer operative time and hospital length of stay, although immediate oncologic results were comparable. The need for randomized data is critical to determine whether the added resource utilization in robotic surgery is justifiable.

Dealing with robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current status and perspectives

The laparoscopic approach for treatment of rectal cancer has been proven feasible and oncologically safe, and is able to offer better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures, mainly in terms of reduced length of hospital stay and time to return to working activity. In spite of this, the laparoscopic technique is usually practised only in high-volume experienced centres, mainly because it requires a prolonged and demanding learning curve. It has been estimated that over 50 operations are required for an experienced colorectal surgeon to achieve proficiency with this technique. Robotic surgery enables the surgeon to perform minimally invasive operations with better vision and more intuitive and precise control of the operating instruments, thus promising to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with standard laparoscopy. It has high-definition three-dimensional vision, it translates the surgeon’s hand movements into precise movements of the instruments inside the patient, the camera is held and moved by the first surgeon, and a fourth robotic arm is available as a fixed retractor. The aim of this review is to summarise the current data on clinical and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer, focusing on short- and long-term results, and providing original data from the authors’ centre.

Shifting Paradigms in Minimally Invasive Surgery: Applications of Transanal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Surgery

Since the advent of laparoscopy, minimally invasive techniques such as single port laparoscopy, robotics, endoscopically assisted laparoscopy, and transanal endoscopic surgery continue to revolutionize the field of colorectal surgery. Transanal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) represents a further paradigm shift by combining the advantages of these earlier techniques to reduce the size and number of abdominal incisions and potentially optimize rectal dissection, especially with respect to performance of an oncologically adequate total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Since the first experimental report of transanal rectosigmoid resection in 2007, the potential impact of transanal NOTES in colorectal surgery has been extensively investigated in experimental models and recently transitioned to clinical application. There have been 14 clinical trials of transanal TME (taTME) for rectal cancer that have demonstrated the feasibility and preliminary oncologic safety of this approach in carefully selected patients, with results comparable to outcomes after laparoscopic and open TME, including cumulative intraoperative and postoperative complication rates of 5.5 and 35.5%, respectively, 97.3% rate of complete or near-complete specimens, and 93.6% rate of negative margins. Transanal NOTES has also been safely applied to proctectomy and colectomy for benign indications. The consensus among published series suggests that taTME is most safely performed with transabdominal assistance by surgeons experienced with laparoscopic TME, transanal endoscopic surgery, and sphincter-preserving techniques including intersphincteric resection. Future applications of transanal NOTES may include evolution to a pure endoscopic transanal approach for TME, colectomy, and sentinel lymph node biopsy for rectal cancer, with a potential role for robotic assistance.

SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci ® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA)

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci(®) Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is a computer-assisted (robotic) surgical system designed to enable and enhance minimally invasive surgery. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared computer-assisted surgical systems for use by trained physicians in an operating room environment for laparoscopic surgical procedures in general, cardiac, colorectal, gynecologic, head and neck, thoracic and urologic surgical procedures. There are substantial numbers of peer-reviewed papers regarding the da Vinci(®) Surgical System, and a thoughtful assessment of evidence framed by clinical opinion is warranted.

METHODS

The SAGES da Vinci(®) TAVAC sub-committee performed a literature review of the da Vinci(®) Surgical System regarding gastrointestinal surgery. Conclusions by the sub-committee were vetted by the SAGES TAVAC Committee and SAGES Executive Board. Following revisions, the document was evaluated by the TAVAC Committee and Executive Board again for final approval.

RESULTS

Several conclusions were drawn based on expert opinion organized by safety, efficacy, and cost for robotic foregut, bariatric, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, colorectal surgery, and single-incision cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrointestinal surgery with the da Vinci(®) Surgical System is safe and comparable, but not superior to standard laparoscopic approaches. Although clinically acceptable, its use may be costly for select gastrointestinal procedures. Current data are limited to the da Vinci(®) Surgical System; further analyses are needed.

Robotic surgery vs conventional laparoscopy for the treatment of rectal cancer: Review of the literature

Laparoscopic surgery has established itself as a safe and effective alternative to open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer. However, laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer, and in particular of the lower rectum, remains challenging in view of the limitations of operating in the confined pelvic space, limited movement of instruments with fixed tips, assistant-dependant two-dimensional view, easy camera fogging, and poor ergonomics. The introduction of robotic surgery and its application in particular to pelvic surgery, has potentially resolved many of these issues. To define the role of robotic surgery in total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, a review of the current literature was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google databases, identifying clinical trials comparing short-term outcomes of conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with the robotic approach. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is a safe alternative to conventional laparoscopy. However, randomised trials are needed to clearly establish its role.

Current status of robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A bird's eye view

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer is now widely performed via the laparoscopic approach and has been validated in randomized controlled trials to be oncologically safe with better perioperative outcomes than open surgery including shorter length of stay, earlier return of bowel function, better cosmesis, and less analgesic requirement. Laparoscopic surgery, however, has inherent limitations due to two-dimensional vision, restricted instrument motion and a very long learning curve. Robotic surgery with its superb three-dimensional magnified optics, stable retraction platform and 7 degrees of freedom of instrument movement offers significant benefits during Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) including ease of operation, markedly lower conversion rates and better quality of the specimen in addition to shorter (steeper) learning curves. This review summarizes the current evidence for the adoption of robotic TME for rectal cancer with supporting data from the literature and from the authors' own experience. All relevant articles from PubMed using the search terms listed below and published between 2000 and 2014 including randomized trials, meta-analyses, prospective studies, and retrospective reviews with substantial numbers were included.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

A Comparative Study of Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Conventional laparoscopic surgery is the treatment of choice for many abdominal procedures. To further reduce surgical trauma, new minimal invasive procedures such as single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) and robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) have emerged. The aim of this study was to compare the early results of SPLS versus RALS in the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients who had undergone SPLS (n = 36) or RALS (n = 56) in the period between 2010 and 2012. Operative and short-term oncological outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The RALS group had fewer patients with low rectal cancer and more patients with mid-rectal tumors (P = .017) and also a higher rate of intraoperative complications (14.3% vs 0%, P = .021). The rate of postoperative complications did not differ (P = .62). There were no differences in circumferential resection margins, distal resection margins, or completeness of the mesorectal fascia. The RALS group had a larger number of median harvested lymph nodes (27 vs 13, P = .001). The SPLS group had fewer late complications (P = .025). There were no locoregional recurrences in either of the groups. There was no difference in median follow-up time between groups (P = .58).

CONCLUSION

Both SPLS and RALS may have a role in rectal surgery. The short-term oncological outcomes were similar, although RALS harvested more lymph nodes than the SPLS procedure. However, SPLS seems to be safer with regard to intraoperative and late postoperative complications.

Is the learning curve of robotic low anterior resection shorter than laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer?: a comparative analysis of clinicopathologic outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries

As robotic surgery was developed with ergonomic designs, there are expectations that the technical advantages of robotic surgery can shorten the learning curve. However, there is no comparative study, so far, to evaluate the learning curve between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgeries. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the learning curve of robotic low anterior resection (LAR) with laparoscopic LAR for rectal cancer.Patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic LAR by a single surgeon were compared retrospectively (robot n = 89 vs laparoscopy n = 89). Cumulative sum (CUSUM) was used to evaluate the learning curve. The patients were divided into phase 1 (initial learning curve period) and phase 2 (post-learning curve period). The perioperative clinicopathologic characteristics were compared by phases and surgical procedures.According to CUSUM, the learning curve of robotic LAR was the 44th case and laparoscopic LAR was the 41st case. The learning phases were divided as follows: phase 1 (cases 1-41) versus phase 2 (cases 42-89) in the laparoscopic group, and phase 1 (cases 1-44) versus phase 2 (cases 45-89) in the robotic group. Comparison between phase 1 and phase 2 in each type of surgery showed no significant difference for the perioperative outcomes. Comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries in each phase showed similar perioperative results. Pathologic outcomes were not significantly different in both procedures and phases.The learning curve of robotic LAR for rectal cancer was similar to laparoscopic LAR, and the clinicopathologic outcomes were similar in both the procedures.

Learning curve for robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: use of the cumulative sum method

BACKGROUND

Few data are available to assess the learning curve for robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the learning curve for robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer by a surgeon at a single institute.

METHODS

From December 2011 to August 2013, a total of 80 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer performed by the same surgeon were included in this study. The learning curve was analyzed using the cumulative sum method. This method was used for all 80 cases, taking into account operative time.

RESULTS

Operative procedures included anterior resections in 6 patients, low anterior resections in 46 patients, intersphincteric resections in 22 patients, and abdominoperineal resections in 6 patients. Lateral lymph node dissection was performed in 28 patients. Median operative time was 280 min (range 135-683 min), and median blood loss was 17 mL (range 0-690 mL). No postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo classification Grade III or IV were encountered. We arranged operative times and calculated cumulative sum values, allowing differentiation of three phases: phase I, Cases 1-25; phase II, Cases 26-50; and phase III, Cases 51-80.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggested three phases of the learning curve in robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. The first 25 cases formed the learning phase.

Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction-colectomy: A systematic review

Over the last 20 years, laparoscopic colorectal surgery has shown equal efficacy for benign and malignant colorectal diseases when compared to open surgery. However, a laparoscopic approach reduces postoperative morbidity and shortens hospital stay. In the quest to optimize outcomes after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, reduction of access trauma could be a way to improve recovery. To date, one method to reduce access trauma is natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE). NOSE aims to reduce access trauma in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The specimen is delivered via a natural orifice and the anastomosis is created intracorporeally. Different methods are used to extract the specimen and to create a bowel anastomosis. Currently, specimens are delivered transcolonically, transrectally, transanally, or transvaginally. Each of these NOSE-procedures raises specific issues with regard to operative technique and application. The presumed benefits of NOSE-procedures are less pain, lower analgesia requirements, faster recovery, shorter hospital stay, better cosmetic results, and lower incisional hernia rates. Avoidance of extraction site laparotomy is the most important characteristic of NOSE. Concerns associated with the NOSE-technique include bacterial contamination of the peritoneal cavity, inflammatory response, and postoperative outcomes, including postoperative pain and the functional and oncologic outcomes. These issues need to be studied in prospective randomized controlled trials. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the role of NOSE in minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

Quality of total mesorectal excision and depth of circumferential resection margin in rectal cancer: a matched comparison of the first 20 robotic cases

AIM

There are concerns about the impact of robotic proctectomy on the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and the impact of laparoscopic proctectomy on the depth of the circumferential resection margin (CRM). The aim of this study was to compare the first 20 consecutive robotic proctectomies performed in our unit with matched series of open and laparoscopic proctocolectomy performed by the same surgeon.

METHOD

Data on the first 20 consecutive patients treated with robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer, <12 cm from the anal verge, by the senior author (RB) were extracted from a prospectively maintained database. Groups of patients treated with open and laparoscopic proctectomy, matched for age, gender and body mass index (BMI) with those undergoing robotic proctectomy, were selected. The quality of the TME was judged as complete, nearly complete or incomplete. CRM clearance was reported in millimetres. Physiological parameters and operative severity were assessed.

RESULTS

Age (P = 0.619), Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Morbidity and Mortality (POSSUM) score (P = 0.657), operative severity score (P = 0.977), predicted mortality (P = 0.758), comorbidities (P = 0.427), previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.941), tumour height (P = 0.912), location (P = 0.876), stage (P = 0.984), neoadjuvant chemoradiation (P = 0.625), operating time (P = 0.066), blood loss (P = 0.356), ileostomy (P = 0.934), conversion (P = 0.362), resection type (P = 1.000), flatus (P = 0.437), diet (P = 0.439), length of hospital stay (P = 0.978), complications (P = 0.671), reoperations (P = 0.804), reinterventions (P = 0.612), readmissions (P = 0.349), tumour size (P = 0.542; P = 0.532; P = 0.238), distal margin (P = 0.790), nodes harvested (P = 0.338) and pathology stage (P = 0.623) did not differ among the three groups. The quality of TME showed a trend to be lower following robotic surgery, although this was not statistically significant [open 95/5/15 (complete/nearly complete/incompete) vs laparoscopic 95/5/15 vs robotic 80/5/15; P = 0.235], but the degree of clearance at the CRM was significantly greater in robotic patients [open 8 (0-30) mm vs laparoscopic 4 (0-30) mm vs robotic 10.5 (1-30) mm; P = 0.02].

CONCLUSION

The study reports no statistically significant difference between open and laparoscopic techniques in the quality of TME during the learning curve of robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer and demonstrates an improved CRM.

Simultaneous development of laparoscopy and robotics provides acceptable perioperative outcomes and shows robotics to have a faster learning curve and to be overall faster in rectal cancer surgery: analysis of novice MIS surgeon learning curves

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy offers some evidence of benefit compared to open rectal surgery. Robotic rectal surgery is evolving into an accepted approach. The objective was to analyze and compare laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgery learning curves with respect to operative times and perioperative outcomes for a novice minimally invasive colorectal surgeon.

METHODS

One hundred and six laparoscopic and 92 robotic LAR rectal surgery cases were analyzed. All surgeries were performed by a surgeon who was primarily trained in open rectal surgery. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Operative time and CUSUM plots were used for evaluating the learning curve for laparoscopic versus robotic LAR.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic versus robotic LAR outcomes feature initial group operative times of 308 (291-325) min versus 397 (373-420) min and last group times of 220 (212-229) min versus 204 (196-211) min-reversed in favor of robotics; major complications of 4.7 versus 6.5 % (NS), resection margin involvement of 2.8 versus 4.4 % (NS), conversion rate of 3.8 versus 1.1 (NS), lymph node harvest of 16.3 versus 17.2 (NS), and estimated blood loss of 231 versus 201 cc (NS). Due to faster learning curves for extracorporeal phase and total mesorectal excision phase, the robotic surgery was observed to be faster than laparoscopic surgery after the initial 41 cases. CUSUM plots demonstrate acceptable perioperative surgical outcomes from the beginning of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial robotic operative times improved with practice rapidly and eventually became faster than those for laparoscopy. Developing both laparoscopic and robotic skills simultaneously can provide acceptable perioperative outcomes in rectal surgery. It might be suggested that in the current milieu of clashing interests between evolving technology and economic constrains, there might be advantages in embracing both approaches.

Clinical competence in the surgery of rectal cancer: the Italian Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The literature continues to emphasize the advantages of treating patients in "high volume" units by "expert" surgeons, but there is no agreed definition of what is meant by either term. In September 2012, a Consensus Conference on Clinical Competence was organized in Rome as part of the meeting of the National Congress of Italian Surgery (I Congresso Nazionale della Chirurgia Italiana: Unità e valore della chirurgia italiana). The aims were to provide a definition of "expert surgeon" and "high-volume facility" in rectal cancer surgery and to assess their influence on patient outcome.

METHOD

An Organizing Committee (OC), a Scientific Committee (SC), a Group of Experts (E) and a Panel/Jury (P) were set up for the conduct of the Consensus Conference. Review of the literature focused on three main questions including training, "measuring" of quality and to what extent hospital and surgeon volume affects sphincter-preserving procedures, local recurrence, 30-day morbidity and mortality, survival, function, choice of laparoscopic approach and the choice of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The difficulties encountered in defining competence in rectal surgery arise from the great heterogeneity of the parameters described in the literature to quantify it. Acquisition of data is difficult as many articles were published many years ago. Even with a focus on surgeon and hospital volume, it is difficult to define their role owing to the variability and the quality of the relevant studies.

Use of robotics in colon and rectal surgery

The pace of innovation in the field of surgery continues to accelerate. As new technologies are developed in combination with industry and clinicians, specialized patient care improves. In the field of colon and rectal surgery, robotic systems offer clinicians many alternative ways to care for patients. From having the ability to round remotely to improved visualization and dissection in the operating room, robotic assistance can greatly benefit clinical outcomes. Although the field of robotics in surgery is still in its infancy, many groups are actively investigating technologies that will assist clinicians in caring for their patients. As these technologies evolve, surgeons will continue to find new and innovative ways to utilize the systems for improved patient care and comfort.

Is prior laparoscopy experience required for adaptation to robotic rectal surgery?: Feasibility of one-step transition from open to robotic surgery

PURPOSE

The objective of this study is to ascertain the impact of laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) experience on the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery (RRS). Whether LCS experience is mandatory on overcoming the learning curve of RRS or not remains undetermined.

METHODS

Before starting the robotic procedure, surgeon A had a limited experience of less than 30 LCS cases, whereas surgeon B had performed more than 300 cases of LCS. From the beginning, 100 consecutive, unselected RRS cases performed by each of the two surgeons were retrospectively analyzed (groups A and B). Perioperative surgical and oncologic outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Clinicopathological characteristics between the two groups were similar. One case in group A was converted to open surgery. Mean operation time was shorter in group A than that of group B (272 vs. 344 min, p < 0.001). Overall perioperative morbidity rates were not different between the two groups (17.0 vs. 10.0 %, p = 0.214). There was no difference of circumferential resection margin positivity rate and retrieved lymph node numbers. In group A, the operation time decreased with a steep slope until 17 cases on the moving average curve. The slope in group B maintained a steady state and showed no remarkable changes throughout the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

A one-step transition from open to robotic rectal cancer surgery can be achieved without having extensive prior laparoscopic experience.

Analysis of conversion factors in robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgical management of rectal cancer has a series of advantages which might facilitate the surgical approach to the pelvic cavity and reduce conversion rates. The aim of the present study is to identify independent factors for conversion during robotic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A total of 67 patients underwent preoperative CT scan in order to obtain a three-dimensional image of the pelvis, the tumour and prostate. We measured maximum and minimum ilio-iliac, sacral promontory-pubis, coccyx-pubis diameters and maximum lateral axis. Further variables under consideration were age, BMI and use of neoadjuvant therapy. We recorded short-term follow-up outcomes of the resected tumour.

RESULTS

The present study included 67 patients (39 males) with an average age of 65.11 ± 10.30 years and a BMI of 27.70 ± 3.97 kg/m(2). Operative procedures included nine abdominoperineal resections and 58 low anterior resections. There were 15 (22.38 %) conversions. Mean operating time was 192.2 ± 42.73 min. Minimum ilio-iliac, maximum ilio-iliac, promontory-pubic and coccyx-pubis diameter as well as maximum lateral axis were 100.38 ± 7.65, 107.10 ± 10.01, 109.97 ± 9.20, 105.61 ± 9.27 and 129.01 ± 9.94 mm, respectively. Mean tumour volume was 37.06 ± 44.08 cc; mean prostate volume was 42.07 ± 17.49 cc. The univariate analysis of the variables showed a correlation between conversion and BMI and minimum ilio-iliac and coccyx-pubis diameters (p = 0.004, 0.047, 0.046). In the multivariate analysis, the only independent predictive factor for conversion was the BMI (p = 0.004).No correlation was found between conversion and sex, age, tumour volume or the rest of pelvic diameters.

CONCLUSION

BMI is an independent factor for conversion in robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. Brief review and personal remarks

The current standard treatment for rectal cancer is based on a multimodality approach with preoperative radiochemotherapy in advanced cases and complete surgical removal through total mesorectal excision (TME). The most frequent surgical approach is traditional open surgery, as laparoscopic TME requires high technical skill, a long learning curve, and is not widespread, still being confined to centers with great experience in minimally invasive techniques. Nevertheless, in several studies, the laparoscopic approach, when compared to open surgery, has shown some better short-term clinical outcomes and at least comparable oncologic results. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer is an emerging technique, which could overcome some of the technical difficulties posed by standard laparoscopy, but evidence from the literature regarding its oncologic safety and clinical outcomes is still lacking. This brief review analyses the current status of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer therapy, focusing on oncologic safety and the new robotic approach.

Future directions in surgery for colorectal cancer: the evolving role of transanal endoscopic surgery

SUMMARY 

The morbidity associated with radical surgery for rectal cancer has launched a revolution in increasingly less-invasive methods of resection, including a recent resurgence in transanal endoscopic surgical approaches. The next evolution in transanal surgery for rectal cancer is natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). To date, 14 series of transanal NOTES total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer have been published (n = 76). Overall, the intraoperative and postoperative complication rates of 8 and 28%, respectively, compare favorably to those expected from laparoscopic and open TME. Short-term follow-up after NOTES TME has yielded no cancer recurrence in average-risk patients. High-risk patients have cancer recurrence rates similar to those after laparoscopic TME. Overall, these early data support transanal NOTES TME as a safe and viable alternative to conventional TME. Advances in instrumentation, surgical expertise and neoadjuvant treatment may expand current indications for NOTES even further.