Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection of sigmoid colon cancer: comparative study of long-term oncologic outcomes

A Narrative Review on the Role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Colorectal Cancer Management

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and deep learning in medical practice in the management of colorectal cancer has gathered significant attention in recent years. Colorectal cancer, being the third most common type of malignancy, requires an innovative approach to augment early detection and advanced surgical techniques to reduce morbidity and mortality. With its emerging potential, AI improves colorectal cancer management by assisting with accuracy in screening, pathology evaluation, precision, and postoperative care. Evidence suggests that AI minimizes missed cases during colorectal cancer screening, plays a promising role in pathology and imaging diagnoses, and facilitates accurate staging. In surgical management, AI demonstrates comparable or superior outcomes to laparoscopic approaches, with reduced hospital stays and conversion rates. However, these outcomes are influenced by clinical expertise and other dependable factors, including expertise in implementing AI-based software and detecting possible errors. Despite these advancements, limited multicenter studies and randomized trials restrict the comprehensive evaluation of AI's true potential and integration into standard practice. We used Pubmed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for this review. The final number of articles selected, depending on inclusion and exclusion criteria, is 122. We included papers published in the English language, literature published in the last 10 years, and adult patient populations above 35 years with colorectal cancer. We thoroughly included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and case-control studies. The use of AI paves the way for the adoption of more personalized medicine. This review highlights the advantages of AI at various disease stages for colorectal cancer patients and evaluates its potential for cost-effective implementation in clinical practice.

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resection for the treatment of stage II and III sigmoid colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

Robot-assisted laparoscopic anterior resection is a novel technique. However, evidence in the literature regarding the advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) is insufficient. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLS versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for the treatment of sigmoid colon cancer. We performed a retrospective study at the Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital. Patients diagnosed with sigmoid colon cancer and underwent anterior resection between January 2019 to September 2023 were included in the study. We compared the basic characteristics of the patients and the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients in the two groups. A total of 452 patients were included. Based on propensity score matching, 212 patients (RLS, n = 106; CLS, n = 106) were included. The baseline data in RLS group was comparable to that in CLS group. Compared with CLS group, RLS group exhibited less estimated blood loss (P = 0.015), more harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.005), longer operation time (P < 0.001) and higher total hospitalization costs (P < 0.001). Meanwhile, there were no significant differences in other perioperative or pathologic outcomes between the two groups. For 3-year prognosis, overall survival rates were 92.5% in the RLS group and 90.6% in the CLS group (HR 0.700, 95% CI 0.276-1.774, P = 0.452); disease-free survival rates were 91.5% in the RLS group and 87.7% in the CLS group (HR 0.613, 95% CI 0.262-1.435, P = 0.259). Compared with CLS, RLS for sigmoid colon cancer was found to be associated with a higher number of lymph nodes harvested, similar perioperative outcomes and long-term survival outcomes. High total hospitalization costs of RLS did not translate into better long-term oncology outcomes.

Short-term and long-term efficacy in robot-assisted treatment for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the short-term and long-term therapeutic effects of robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment in patients with mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was employed to retrieve relevant literature from PubMed, NCBI, Medline, and Springer databases, spanning the database inception until August 2023. The focus of this systematic review was on controlled studies that compared the treatment outcomes of robot-assisted (Rob) and conventional laparoscopy (Lap) in the context of mid and low rectal cancer. Data extraction and literature review were meticulously conducted by two independent researchers (HMW and RKG). The synthesized data underwent rigorous analysis utilizing RevMan 5.4 software, adhering to established methodological standards in systematic reviews. The primary outcomes encompass perioperative outcomes and oncological outcomes. Secondary outcomes include long-term outcomes.

RESULT

A total of 11 studies involving 2239 patients with mid and low rectal cancer were included (3 RCTs and 8 NRCTs); the Rob group consisted of 1111 cases, while the Lap group included 1128 cases. The Rob group exhibited less intraoperative bleeding (MD =  -40.01, 95% CI: -57.61 to -22.42, P < 0.00001), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.82, P = 0.02), a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.77 to 3.18, P = 0.001), and a lower CRM positive rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.95, P = 0.04). Additionally, the Rob group had lower postoperative morbidity rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.82, P < 0.0001) and a lower occurrence rate of complications with Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.90, P = 0.02). Further subgroup analysis revealed a lower anastomotic leakage rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.97, P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the analysis of operation time (P = 0.42), occurrence rates of protective stoma (P = 0.81), PRM (P = 0.92), and DRM (P = 0.23), time to flatus (P = 0.18), time to liquid diet (P = 0.65), total hospital stay (P = 0.35), 3-year overall survival rate (P = 0.67), and 3-year disease-free survival rate (P = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment for mid and low rectal cancer yields favorable outcomes, demonstrating both efficacy and safety. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy, patients experience reduced intraoperative bleeding and a lower incidence of complications. Notably, the method achieves comparable short-term and long-term treatment results to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery, thus justifying its consideration for widespread clinical application.

Comparison of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For right colon surgery, there is an increasing body of literature comparing the safety of robotic right colectomy (RRC) with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the safety and efficacy of RRC versus LRC, including homogeneous subgroup analyses for extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and January 2022. Length of hospital stay, operation time, rate of conversion to laparotomy, time to first flatus, number of harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, rate of overall complication, ileus, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, and total costs were measured.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies (RRC: 2772 patients; LRC: 12,469 patients) were evaluated. Regardless of the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter length of hospital stay, lower rate of conversion to laparotomy, shorter time to first flatus, lower rate of overall complications, and a higher number of harvested lymph nodes compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the IA subgroup, RRC had a shorter length of hospital stay, longer operative time, and lower rate of conversion to laparotomy compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes. In the EA subgroup, RRC had a longer operative time, lower estimated blood loss, lower rate of overall complications, and higher total costs compared with LRC, with the other outcomes being similar.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of RRC is superior to LRC, especially when an intracorporeal anastomosis is performed. Most included articles were retrospective, offering low-quality evidence and limited conclusions.

Surgical outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open low anterior resection after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with advanced lower rectal cancer

PURPOSE

We investigated the surgical outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (LAR) for lower rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (pCRT).

METHODS

A total of 175 patients with lower rectal cancer who underwent LAR after pCRT between 2005 and 2020 were stratified into open (OS, n = 65), laparoscopic (LS, n = 64), and robotic surgery (RS, n = 46) groups. We compared the clinical, surgical, and pathological results among the three groups.

RESULTS

The RS and LS groups had less blood loss than the OS group (p < 0.0001). The operating time in the RS group was longer than in the LS and OS groups (p < 0.0001). The RS group had a significantly longer mean distal margin than the LS and OS groups (25.4 mm vs. 20.7 mm and 20.3 mm, respectively; p = 0.026). There was no significant difference in the postoperative complication rate among the groups. The local recurrence rate in the RS group was comparable to those in the LS and OS groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic LAR after pCRT was performed safely for patients with advanced lower rectal cancer. It provided a longer distal margin and equivalent local control rates.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Supplementary Information

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

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

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

Comparison of Non-Oncological Postoperative Outcomes Following Robotic and Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection for Colorectal Malignancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resection for colorectal malignancy. We performed a systematic review using a comprehensive search strategy on several electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Medline, and Google Scholar) in April 2022. Postoperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer were compared using 12 end points. Observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and nonrandomized clinical trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer were included. The statistical analysis was performed using the risk ratio (RR) for categorical variables and the standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables. Sixteen studies involving 2,318 patients were included. The difference in length of hospital stay was significantly shorter with robotic access (SMD = -0.10, 95% CI = -0.19, -0.01, P = 0.04, I2 = 0%). Regarding intra-abdominal abscesses, the analysis showed an advantage in favor of the robotic group, but the result was not statically significant (RR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.28, 1.05, P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). Mechanical obstruction was found to be higher in robotic group, favoring laparoscopic access, but was not significant (RR = 1.91, 95% CI = 0.95, 3.83, P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). There was no difference in time to pass flatus and consume a soft diet. The rates of anastomotic leakage, ileus, wound infection, readmission, mortality, and incisional hernias were similar with both approaches. Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with a shorter hospital stay, with no differences in mortality and postoperative morbidity.

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

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates.

RESULTS

Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5-0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3-60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8-0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7-0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8-3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8-1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.

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.

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.

Optimizing outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery with robotic platforms

Advanced robotic technology makes it easier to perform total mesorectal excision procedures in the narrow pelvis for rectal cancer while maintaining the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer leads to lower conversion rates and faster recovery of urogenital function than conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, longer operative time and high cost are major weaknesses of robotic surgery. To date, most other short-term surgical outcomes, pathologic outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery have not shown significant advantages over laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery is still a valid and highly anticipated surgical approach for rectal cancer because it greatly reduces the surgeon's workload and learning curve. There are also advantages when robotic techniques are applied to technically demanding procedures such as lateral pelvic lymph node dissection or intersphincteric resection. The introduction of new surgical robot systems, including the da Vinci® SP system, is expected to expand the applications of robotic surgery and provide new advantages.

Risk Factors for Prolonged Postoperative Ileus in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) represents a frequent complication following colorectal surgery, affecting approximately 10-15% of these patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perioperative risk factors for PPOI development in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. PubMed, EMBASE, SciELO, and LILACS databases were searched, without language or time restrictions, from inception until December 2018. The keywords used were: Ileus, colon, colorectal, sigmoid, rectal, postoperative, postoperatory, surgery, risk, factors. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Jadad scale were used for bias assessment, while the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for quality assessment of evidence on outcome levels.

RESULTS

Of the 64 studies included, 42 were evaluated in the meta-analysis, comprising 29,736 patients (51.84% males; mean age 62 years), of whom 2844 (9.56%) developed PPOI. Significant risk factors for PPOI development were: male sex (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.25-1.63), age (MD 3.17; 95% CI 1.63-4.71), cardiac comorbidities (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.19-2.00), previous abdominal surgery (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.19, 1.75), laparotomy (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.77-3.44), and ostomy creation (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.04-1.98). Included studies evidenced a moderate heterogeneity. The quality of evidence was regarded as very low-moderate according to the GRADE approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple factors, including demographic characteristics, past medical history, and surgical approach, may increase the risk of developing PPOI in colorectal surgery patients. The awareness of these will allow a more accurate assessment of PPOI risk in order to take measures to decrease its impact on this population.

Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Sigmoid Resection

Background and Objectives:

Published comparisons of minimally invasive approaches to colon surgery are limited. The objective of the current study is to compare the effectiveness of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sigmoid resection.

Methods:

A multicenter retrospective comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes from consecutive robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sigmoid resections performed between 2010 and 2015 by six general and colorectal surgeons, who are experienced in both robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgical techniques and who had >50 annual case volumes for each approach. Baseline characteristics and surgical risk factors between the two groups were balanced using a propensity score methodology with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Mean standardized differences were reported, and in all instances, a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Three hundred thirty-six cases (robotic-assisted, n = 211; laparoscopic, n = 125) met eligibility criteria and were included in the study. Following weighting, patient demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable between the robotic-assisted (n = 344) and laparoscopic (n = 349) groups. The laparoscopic group was associated with shorter operating room and surgical times. The robotic-assisted group had lower estimated blood loss and shorter time to first flatus compared to the laparoscopic group. Rates of complications post discharge to 30 d tended to be lower for the RA group: 5.1% vs 8.6% [p = 0.0657]. The RA group also had lower rates of readmissions and reoperations: 4% vs 8% [p = 0.029] and 0.5% vs 5.1% [p = 0.0003], respectively.

Conclusions:

Robotic-assisted sigmoid colon resection is clinically effective and provides a minimally invasive alternative to the laparoscopic approach with improved intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for colorectal patients.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I² = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (ρ < 0.001, I² = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (ρ < 0.001, I² = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (ρ < 0.001, I² = 94%; REM: MD - 0.77; 95% CI 1.12, - 0.41; day), time to oral diet (ρ < 0.001, I² = 60%; REM: MD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.64, - 0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (ρ = 0.01, I² = 88%; REM: MD - 18.05; 95% CI - 32.24, - 3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (ρ < 0.001, I² = 93%; REM: MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

Working towards clinical effectiveness-a multi-disciplinary approach to robotic surgery

The importance of a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) approach to conventional surgical techniques has strong empirical support. The MDT approach to robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has not been clearly defined, which encourages prospectively poor MDT performance. Poor performance of the MDT approach, allied to the constant evolution of technology-assisted surgery, can generate unacceptable operative and patient outcomes. This review offers a nursing perspective to the complex paradigm of thoracic RAS, demonstrating key indicators to perioperative MDT engagement. This will be achieved by offering a rationale for RAS in pulmonary resection, identifying additional surgeries where utility is demonstrated. Evaluation of the available evidence will synthesize clinical quality indicators, while key strategies in effective MDT development can be summarised. Conclusively, bespoke and experiential knowledge will be shared, based upon the investigatory findings discussed throughout this article. Allied to a recommended developmental framework, this perspective should allow for transfer of knowledge, creation and replication of useful interventions. Lung cancer is an ever-increasing global concern, currently being the co-modal cancer with an estimated 2.09 million cases worldwide. Populations are ageing and with annual global costs of at least $1.16 trillion, effective treatments are required. RAS shows promise in treating large and complex lesions when compared to a video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) approach. A critical indicator being enhanced vision and dexterity in comparison to a VATS approach. Economically, RAS has proven to be an expensive technique, however, when initial purchase costs are excluded, intra-operatively, there are ways to narrow the expense gap and make RAS cheaper. When assessing per hospital stay, exclusive of initial purchase cost, RAS is found to be cheaper than open thoracotomy. This article demonstrates that RAS for pulmonary resection has utility for complex lesions where a VATS approach would be unsuitable. Crucially, as with all complex surgery, the MDT must be performed effectively for optimum patient outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision: A propensity case-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) is expected to have advantages over laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME). The aim is to compare the short-term outcomes between initial cases of L-TME and RTME.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among a total of 168 patients assigned to receive either R-TME (n = 84) or L-TME (n = 84), short term outcomes were compared between the groups by 1:1 propensity score matching of eight variables.

RESULTS

The inter-sphincteric resection rate (42.9% vs. 25%; P = 0.006) and operative time (372.4 ± 102.8 vs. 301 ± 53.6, P = 0.000) were significantly greater in R-TME. The conversion rate, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were similar. The anastomotic leak rate and major surgical complications rates were significantly higher in L-TME (9.5% vs. 1.2%; P = 0.016) and (13.1% vs. 4.8%; P = 0.034) respectively.

CONCLUSION

The oncologic quality and short-term outcomes in the two groups were comparable; however, anastomotic leak rates and major complications were significantly lower in R-TME. For experienced laparoscopic surgeons, robotic sphincter-saving TME is associated with lower morbidity when compared with laparoscopic approach.

Long-Term Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology has been proven to be a safe alternative to conventional laparoscopy with regards to the peri- and postoperative clinical outcomes. Oncological outcomes have been scarcely examined. The purpose of this study was to examine the disease-free survival in relation to the two surgical approaches: robot-assisted surgery and conventional laparoscopy. In addition, all-cause mortality and recurrence-free survival were investigated.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2015, patients, undergoing either laparoscopic or robot-assisted elective, curative-intended surgery for colorectal cancer were included.

RESULTS

A total of 9184 patients underwent surgery in the study period: 5978 patients for colon cancer and 3206 patients for rectal cancer. Among patients with colon cancer, 331 patients (5.5%) underwent robot-assisted surgery, and 449 patients (14.0%) underwent robot-assisted surgery in the rectal cancer group. In the adjusted analyses, the hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival, for patients with colon cancer was 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.18]. For patients with rectal cancer, the adjusted HR was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.06). No difference in all-cause mortality and recurrence-free survival were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated comparable rates of disease-free survival, all-cause mortality, and recurrence-free survival when comparing robot-assisted surgery with conventional laparoscopy in patients with colorectal cancer.

Association between robot-assisted surgery and resection quality in patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Resection quality after robot-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer have not previously been investigated in a nationwide study. The aim of the study was to examine the resection quality in robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Furthermore, 30-day mortality, postoperative complications, and conversion to open surgery were investigated.

METHODS

Patients undergoing either laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 were included. The primary outcome was whether R0 resection was achieved. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, postoperative complications, and conversions to laparotomy.

RESULTS

A total of 8615 and 3934 patients had a diagnosis of colon cancer and rectal cancer respectively. Of the patients with colon cancer, 511 patients underwent robot-assisted surgery and of the patients with rectal cancer, 706 patients underwent robot-assisted surgery. In the multivariate analysis, patients with colon cancer had an odds ratio (OR) = 0.63 (95%CI 0.45-0.88) for receiving R0 resection in the robot-assisted group compared to laparoscopy. For patients with rectal cancer, the OR was 1.20 (95%CI 0.89-1.61). No difference in 30-day mortality or postoperative complications were observed. The OR of conversion to laparotomy was lower in the robot-assisted group compared to the laparoscopic group in both patients with colon - and rectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed significant lower odds of receiving R0 resection in patients with colon cancer undergoing robot-assisted surgery. In patients with rectal cancer the robot-assisted surgery non-significantly increased the odds of receiving R0 resection.

A realist process evaluation of robot-assisted surgery: integration into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration and decision-making

Background

The implementation of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) can be challenging, with reports of surgical robots being underused. This raises questions about differences compared with open and laparoscopic surgery and how best to integrate RAS into practice.

Objectives

To (1) contribute to reporting of the ROLARR (RObotic versus LAparoscopic Resection for Rectal cancer) trial, by investigating how variations in the implementation of RAS and the context impact outcomes; (2) produce guidance on factors likely to facilitate successful implementation; (3) produce guidance on how to ensure effective teamwork; and (4) provide data to inform the development of tools for RAS.

Design

Realist process evaluation alongside ROLARR. Phase 1 – a literature review identified theories concerning how RAS becomes embedded into practice and impacts on teamwork and decision-making. These were refined through interviews across nine NHS trusts with theatre teams. Phase 2 – a multisite case study was conducted across four trusts to test the theories. Data were collected using observation, video recording, interviews and questionnaires. Phase 3 – interviews were conducted in other surgical disciplines to assess the generalisability of the findings.

Findings

The introduction of RAS is surgeon led but dependent on support at multiple levels. There is significant variation in the training provided to theatre teams. Contextual factors supporting the integration of RAS include the provision of whole-team training, the presence of handpicked dedicated teams and the availability of suitably sized operating theatres. RAS introduces challenges for teamwork that can impact operation duration, but, over time, teams develop strategies to overcome these challenges. Working with an experienced assistant supports teamwork, but experience of the procedure is insufficient for competence in RAS and experienced scrub practitioners are important in supporting inexperienced assistants. RAS can result in reduced distraction and increased concentration for the surgeon when he or she is supported by an experienced assistant or scrub practitioner.

Conclusions

Our research suggests a need to pay greater attention to the training and skill mix of the team. To support effective teamwork, our research suggests that it is beneficial for surgeons to (1) encourage the team to communicate actions and concerns; (2) alert the attention of the assistant before issuing a request; and (3) acknowledge the scrub practitioner’s role in supporting inexperienced assistants. It is beneficial for the team to provide oral responses to the surgeon’s requests.

Limitations

This study started after the trial, limiting impact on analysis of the trial. The small number of operations observed may mean that less frequent impacts of RAS were missed.

Future work

Future research should include (1) exploring the transferability of guidance for effective teamwork to other surgical domains in which technology leads to the physical or perceptual separation of surgeon and team; (2) exploring the benefits and challenges of including realist methods in feasibility and pilot studies; (3) assessing the feasibility of using routine data to understand the impact of RAS on rare end points associated with patient safety; (4) developing and evaluating methods for whole-team training; and (5) evaluating the impact of different physical configurations of the robotic console and team members on teamwork.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Is right colectomy a complete learning procedure for a robotic surgical program?

This study analyses the utility of right colectomy as a learning procedure at the beginning of a robotic surgical program. The hypothesis is that right colectomy contains all the technical steps necessary to acquire basic abilities in robotics surgery. The first 23 consecutive robotic right colectomy performed at the beginning of a robotic program were analysed. All surgical times were recorded in the operating room and second checked on a dedicated video-database. Specific robotic times were analysed using CUSUM method to evaluate the learning curve. CUSUM-derived learning phases were compared. Fourteen males and nine females with a mean age of 68.7 (46-84) underwent robotic right colectomy. The mean overall time was 265.3 min (180-320 min), docking time was 7 min (5-12 min), console time was 205.9 min (145-260 min), and anastomotic time was 43.6 (25-60 min). CUSUM analyses identified two learning phases: "starting phase" and "consolidation phase". Interphase comparison confirmed the significant (p < 0.05) differences between the two phases. Robotic technology facilitates the training process in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. At the beginning of the learning curve, right colectomy could represent a complete procedure to be proficient in robotic colorectal surgery.

Robotic Surgery for Colon and Rectal Cancer

Robotic surgery, used generally for colorectal cancer, has the advantages of a three-dimensional surgical view, steadiness, and seven degrees of robotic arms. However, there are disadvantages, such as a decreased sense of touch, extra time needed to dock the robotic cart, and high cost. Robotic surgery is performed using various techniques, with or without laparoscopic surgery. Because the results of this approach are reported to be similar to or less favorable than those of laparoscopic surgery, the learning curve for robotic colorectal surgery remains controversial. However, according to short- and long-term oncologic outcomes, robotic colorectal surgery is feasible and safe compared with conventional surgery. Advanced technologies in robotic surgery have resulted in favorable intraoperative and perioperative clinical outcomes as well as functional outcomes. As the technical advances in robotic surgery improve surgical performance as well as outcomes, it increasingly is being regarded as a treatment option for colorectal surgery. However, a multicenter, randomized clinical trial is needed to validate this approach.

Robotic Versus Open Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Matched Comparison

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatectomy has been suggested to be a safe and effective approach for liver disease; however, studies comparing robotic hepatectomy with the conventional open approach regarding oncologic outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are limited. Accordingly, we performed a matched comparison of surgical and oncological outcomes between robotic and open hepatectomy.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and October 2015, a total of 183 patients underwent robotic hepatectomy and 275 patients underwent open hepatectomy by the same surgical team in our center. Eighty-one newly diagnosed HCC cases in each group were compared under propensity score matching (PSM) in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

With robotic hepatectomy, the conversion rate was 1.6 % and the complication rate was 4.4 %. On PSM, the groups had a comparable percentage of major liver resections (41.9 vs. 39.5 %) and liver cirrhosis (45.7 vs. 46.9 %). Compared with the open group, the robotic group required longer operation times (343 vs. 220 min), shorter hospital stays (7.5 vs. 10.1 days), and lower dosages of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (350 vs. 554 ng/kg). The 3-year disease-free survival of the robotic group was comparable with that of the open group (72.2 % vs. 58.0 %; p = 0.062), as was the 3-year overall survival (92.6 vs. 93.7 %; p = 0.431).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first oncological study comparing robotic liver resection for HCC with open resection. Robotic hepatectomy can be applied for challenging major resections in patients with cirrhotic liver disease with less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays without compromising oncological outcomes.

Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in colorectal surgery comparing with traditional laparoscopic surgery or open surgery

In order to compare the curative effect of the Da Vinci surgical system (DVSS) with laparoscopic surgery (LS) or open surgery for colorectal resection, literature search was conducted in PubMed, Excerpt Medica Database (Embase), and Cochrane library up to January 15, 2016. Odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean difference with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were used as effect size for evaluation of different outcomes. In total, 10 studies consisting of 2767 patients were included for the meta-analysis. As a result, there were no significant differences between DVSS and LS/open surgery in the long-term oncologic outcomes ( p > 0.05). However, DVSS achieved a significantly lower length of hospital stay and estimated blood loss (EBL), but a longer operation time. Moreover, DVSS showed a significantly reduced conversion to open surgery than LS (OR = 0.19, 95% confidence interval: 0.08–0.48). Subgroup analysis indicated that DVSS had different results in rectal adenocarcinoma and colon cancer subgroups on outcomes of conversion to open surgery and operation time. DVSS is superior to LS/open surgery in length of hospital stay and EBL, but needs longer operation time. Long-term outcomes of DVSS are comparable with the other approaches. From long-term perspective, DVSS has an equivalent effect to the other two techniques.

Future of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery is slowly taking over as the preferred operative approach for colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain technically difficult. This article will give an overview of the state of minimally invasive surgery and the many advances that have been made over the last two decades. Specifically, we discuss the introduction of the robotic platform and some of its benefits and limitations. We also describe some newer techniques related to robotics.

Time to Initiation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Colon Cancer: Comparison of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery

BACKGROUND

The time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (TIC) can be used as a recovery parameter after surgery. The effect of laparoscopic or robotic surgery on TIC has not been thoroughly studied. This study aimed to compare the impact of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted surgery on TIC after colon cancer surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent curative resection for stage II or III colon cancer between January 2007 and June 2013 and who received adjuvant chemotherapy from surgeons capable of performing open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgeries were included in this study. Patient demographics, clinicopathologic variables, and TIC were compared among the three groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors affecting TIC.

RESULTS

Of the 252 patients, 40, 161, and 51 patients underwent open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomy, respectively. The postoperative complication rate was lower in the laparoscopic and robotic groups compared to the open group (P = .002). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group compared with the open and robotic groups (P < .001). Multivariate analysis revealed that the operation method was the only factor affecting TIC, with laparoscopic and robotic surgery being favorable (regression coefficient -5.1, 95% confidence interval -7.6 to -2.6; P < .001). However, there was no difference in TIC between the laparoscopic and robotic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and robotic surgeries were associated with shorter TIC. This study demonstrates another benefit of minimally invasive surgery with regard to early initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Robotic surgery is positioned at the cutting edge of minimally invasive management of colorectal cancer. We performed a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (NRCTs) that compared the clinicopathological outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) with those of laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS). Inferences on the feasibility and the relative safety and efficacy have been drawn.

METHODS

A literature search for relevant studies was performed on MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Inter-group differences in the standardized mean differences and relative risk were assessed. Operation times, conversion rates to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), early postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LHS) were compared. Oncologic outcomes assessed were number of lymph nodes harvested and lengths of proximal and distal resection margins.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies (2 RCTs and 22 NRCTs [5 prospective plus 17 retrospective]) with a total of 3318 patients were included. Of these, 1466 (44.18 %) patients underwent RACS and 1852 (55.82 %) underwent LACS. Conversion rates, EBL and LHS were significantly lower, while the operation times and total costs were similar between RACS and LACS. Complication rates and oncological accuracy of resection showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis, RACS appears to be a promising surgical approach with its safety and efficacy comparable to that of LACS in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Further studies are required to evaluate the long-term cost-efficiency as well as the functional and oncologic outcomes of RACS.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Reduction in operative trauma along with an improvement in endoscopic access has undoubtedly occupied surgical minds for at least the past 3 decades. It is not at all surprising that minimally invasive colon surgery has come a long way since the first laparoscopic appendectomy by Semm in 1981. It is common knowledge that the recent developments in video and robotic technologies have significantly furthered advancements in laparoscopic and minimally invasive surgery. This has led to the overall acceptance of the treatment of benign colorectal pathology via the endoscopic route. Malignant disease, however, is still primarily treated by conventional approaches.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This review article is based on a literature search pertaining to advances in minimally invasive colorectal surgery for the treatment of malignant pathology, as well as on personal experience in the field over the same period of time. Our search was limited to level I and II clinical papers only, according to the evidence-based medicine guidelines. We attempted to present our unbiased view on the subject relying only on the evidence available.

CONCLUSION

Focusing on advances in colorectal minimally invasive surgery, it has to be stated that there are still a number of unanswered questions regarding the surgical management of malignant diseases with this approach. These questions do not only relate to the area of boundaries set for the use of minimally invasive techniques in this field but also to the exact modality best suited to the treatment of every particular case whilst maintaining state-of-the-art oncological principles.

Comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes between robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Reports from several case series have described the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery (RS) for colonic cancer. Experience is still limited in robotic colonic surgery, and a few meta-analysis has been conducted to integrate the results for colon cancer specifically. We conducted a systematic review of the available evidence comparing the surgical safety and efficacy of RS with that of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.

Methods

We searched English databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library), and Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi). Dichotomous variables were pooled using the risk ratio, and continuous variables were pooled using the mean difference (MD).

Results

The present study found that the RS group had a shorter time to resumption of a regular diet (MD, –0.62 days; 95% CI, –0.97 to –0.28), first passage of flatus (MD, –0.44 days; 95% CI, –0.66 to –0.23) and defecation (MD, –0.62 days; 95% CI, –0.77 to –0.47). Also, RS was associated with a shorter hospital stay (MD, –0.69 days; 95% CI, –1.12 to –0.26), a lower estimated blood loss (MD, –19.49 mL; 95% CI, –27.10 to –11.89) and a longer proximal margin (MD, 2.29 cm; 95% CI, 1.11-3.47). However, RS was associated with a longer surgery time (MD, 51.00 minutes; 95% CI, 39.38–62.62).

Conclusion

We found that the potential benefits of perioperative and short-term outcomes for RS than for CLS. For a more accurate understanding of RS for colonic cancer patients, robust comparative studies and randomized clinical trials are required.

Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic approaches have become increasingly used for colorectal surgery. The aim of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of robotic colorectal procedures in an adult population.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of articles in both PubMed and Embase comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures was performed. Clinical trials and observational studies in an adult population were included. Approaches were evaluated in terms of operative time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, number of lymph nodes harvested, and perioperative complications. Mean net differences and odds ratios were calculated to examine treatment effect of each group.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighteen articles were identified, and 17 met the inclusion criteria, representing 4,342 patients: 920 robotic and 3,422 in the laparoscopic group. Operative time for the robotic approach was 38.849 minutes longer (95% confidence interval: 17.944 to 59.755). The robotic group had lower estimated blood loss (14.17 mL; 95% confidence interval: -27.63 to -1.60), and patients were 1.78 times more likely to be converted to an open procedure (95% confidence interval: 1.24 to 2.55). There was no difference between groups with respect to number of lymph nodes harvested, length of stay, readmission rate, or perioperative complication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach to colorectal surgery is as safe and efficacious as conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, it is associated with longer operative time and an increased rate of conversion to laparotomy. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted to examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic colorectal surgery before it can be adopted as the new standard of care.

Current status of robotic single-port colonic surgery

INTRODUCTION

The present paper reviews evidence and examines updates in single-port robotic surgery for colonic diseases reported in contemporary studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive online systematic search of PubMed databases was carried out in June 2015, identifying studies conducted on robotic single-port colectomy from 2008 to 2015.

RESULTS

The advantages and disadvantages of several available port-access systems, techniques for configuring robotic arms, and robotic surgical platforms, were presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Current studies show that single-port robotic colectomy is a safe and feasible procedure despite the lack of supporting evidence. Although significant advancements in the development and modification of single-access ports, configuration of robotic arms, and robotic surgical platforms have been achieved in the field of single-port robotic surgery for colonic disease, significant improvements to surgical platforms for single-port robotic surgery are needed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted colectomy and rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Lately, the main technical innovations in the field of colorectal surgery have been the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic techniques; the aim of this study is to investigate the results and the advantages of these two surgical approaches.

METHODS

Twenty-two studies including 1652 laparoscopic and 1120 robotic-assisted resections were analyzed and categorized into right, left, and pelvic resections of the middle/low rectum, aiming to the following outcomes: operating time, blood loss, bowel function recovery, return to oral intake, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs.

RESULTS

The vast majority of the studies were non-randomized investigations (19/22 studies) enrolling small cohorts of patients (median 55.0 laparoscopic and 34.5 robotic-assisted group) with a mean age of 62.2-61.0 years. Funnel plot analysis documented heterogeneity in studies which combined cancers and benign diseases. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a significant difference in favor of laparoscopic procedures regarding costs and operating time (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.686 and 0.493) and in favor of robotic surgery concerning morbidity rate (odds ratio (OR) 0.763), although no benefits were documented when analyzing exclusively randomized trials. When we differentiated approaches by side of resections, a significant difference was found in favor of the laparoscopic group when analyzing operating time in left-sided and pelvic procedures (SMD 0.609 and 0.529) and blood loss in pelvic resections (SMD 0.339).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic techniques were documented as the shorter procedures, which provided lower blood loss in pelvic resections, while morbidity rate was more favorable in robotic surgery. However, these results could not be confirmed when we focused the analysis on randomized trials only.

Laparoscopy Versus Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Initial Experience

Background Minimally invasive approach has gained interest in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study is to analyze the differences between laparoscopy and robotics for colorectal cancer in terms of oncologic and clinical outcomes in an initial experience of a single center. Materials and Methods Clinico-pathological data of 100 patients surgically treated for colorectal cancer from March 2008 to April 2014 with laparoscopy and robotics were analyzed. The procedures were right colonic, left colonic, and rectal resections. A comparison between the laparoscopic and robotic resections was made and an analysis of the first and the last procedures in the 2 groups was performed. Results Forty-two patients underwent robotic resection and 58 underwent laparoscopic resection. The postoperative mortality was 1%. The number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in robotics. The conversion rate was 7.1% for robotics and 3.4% for laparoscopy. The operative time was lower in laparoscopy for all the procedures. No differences were found between the first and the last procedures in the 2 groups. Conclusions This initial experience has shown that robotic surgery for the treatment of colorectal adenocarcinoma is a feasible and safe procedure in terms of oncologic and clinical outcomes, although an appropriate learning curve is necessary. Further investigation is needed to demonstrate real advantages of robotics over laparoscopy.

How Has the Robot Contributed to Colon Cancer Surgery?

Robotic surgery is an emerging field in colorectal surgery and may overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, such as rigid instrumentation, poor ergonomics, and assistant-dependent camera movements and retraction. In addition, robotic-assisted colectomy appears to offer comparable outcomes to laparoscopic colectomy with limited long-term outcomes data. Prolonged operating time, increased costs and learning curve are the major drawbacks of robotic colectomy for colon cancer. Although new robotic platforms promise improved ingenuity through developing technology, the role of the robot in colon cancer surgery is still unclear.

Impact of Robotic Surgery on Decision Making: Perspectives of Surgical Teams

There has been rapid growth in the purchase of surgical robots in both North America and Europe in recent years. Whilst this technology promises many benefits for patients, the introduction of such a complex interactive system into healthcare practice often results in unintended consequences that are difficult to predict. Decision making by surgeons during an operation is affected by variables including tactile perception, visual perception, motor skill, and instrument complexity, all of which are changed by robotic surgery, yet the impact of robotic surgery on decision making has not been previously studied. Drawing on the approach of realist evaluation, we conducted a multi-site interview study across nine hospitals, interviewing 44 operating room personnel with experience of robotic surgery to gather their perspectives on how robotic surgery impacts surgeon decision making. The findings reveal both potential benefits and challenges of robotic surgery for decision making.

A Review of the Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

The goal of this review was to compare long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer. A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Medline (2002-2014). Search terms: laparoscopic, robotic, rectal, colon, surgery, oncologic, and outcomes. Studies comparing overall and disease free survival of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer were included. Meta-analysis was performed using OpenMeta[Analyst] for Windows 8. Five studies were identified reporting on overall survival, disease free survival, lymph node extraction, and distal and circumferential resection margin. Three hundred and seventeen patients underwent robotic resection and 368 underwent laparoscopic resection, with similar demographics. Operative times were longer with robotic resections, with no difference in estimated blood loss (EBL) or length of stay. The disease stage was distributed similarly in both groups. Similar numbers underwent neo-adjuvant therapy. Laparoscopic resection was associated with 3.2 mm larger distal resection margins (p = 0.04) and 2.2 more lymph nodes removed (p = 0.001), but with equivalent circumferential resection margin status. Disease-free and overall survival was equivalent. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer offer comparable overall and disease free survival. Laparoscopic surgery offered a slight advantage in operative time, distal margin, and lymph node yield. Larger, prospective trials are needed to confirm the equivalence of these approaches.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Approach in Colonic Resections for Cancer and Benign Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic colectomy (RC) with laparoscopic colectomy (LC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

Materials and Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to retrieve comparative studies of robotic and laparoscopic colectomy. The databases searched were PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2000 to October 2014. The Odds ratio, Risk difference and Mean difference were used as the summary statistics.

Results

A total of 12 studies, which included a total of 4,148 patients who had undergone robotic or laparoscopic colectomy, were included and analyzed. RC demonstrated a longer operative time (MD 41.52, P<0.00001) and higher cost (MD 2.42, P<0.00001) than did LC. The time to first flatus passage (MD -0.51, P = 0.003) and the length of hospital stay (MD -0.68, P = 0.01) were significantly shorter after RC. Additionally, the intraoperative blood loss (MD -16.82, P<0.00001) was significantly less in RC. There was also a significantly lower incidence of overall postoperative complications (OR 0.74, P = 0.02) and wound infections (RD -0.02, P = 0.03) after RC. No differences in the postoperative ileus, in the anastomotic leak, or in the conversion to open surgery rate and in the number of harvested lymph nodes outcomes were found between the approaches.

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis, mainly based on observational studies, suggests that RC is more time-consuming and expensive than laparoscopy but that it results in faster recovery of bowel function, a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower rates of both overall postoperative complications and wound infections.

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database

BACKGROUND

Until randomized trials mature, large database analyses assist in determining the role of robotics in colorectal surgery. ACS NSQIP database coding now allows differentiation between laparoscopic (LC) and robotic (RC) colorectal procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare LC and RC outcomes by analyzing the ACS NSQIP database.

METHODS

The ACS NSQIP database was queried to identify patients who had undergone RC and LC during 2013. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were identified. Using propensity score matching, abdominal and pelvic colorectal operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 11,477 cases were identified. In the abdomen, 7790 LC and 299 RC cases were identified, and 2057 LC and 331 RC cases were identified in the pelvis. There were significant differences in operative time, conversion to an open procedure in the pelvis, and hospital length of stay. RC operative times were significantly longer in both abdominal and pelvic cases. Conversion rates in the pelvis were less for RC when compared to LC--10.0 and 13.7%, respectively (p = 0.01). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for RC abdominal cases than for LC abdominal cases (4.3 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001) and for RC pelvic cases when compared to LC pelvic cases (4.5 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, wound complications, anastomotic leak, sepsis/shock, or need for reoperation within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

As the robotic platform continues to grow in colorectal surgery and as technical upgrades continue to advance, comparison of outcomes requires continuous reevaluation. This study demonstrated that robotic operations have longer operative times, decreased hospital length of stay, and decreased rates of conversion to open in the pelvis. These findings warrant continued evaluation of the role of minimally invasive technical upgrades in colorectal surgery.

Reduced-port robotic anterior resection for left-sided colon cancer using the Da Vinci single-site(®) platform

BACKGROUND

Single-Site(®) port plus one conventional robotic port, a reduced-port robotic surgery (RPRS) for left-sided colorectal cancer, can enable lymphovascular dissection using the Endowrist(®) function; this allows safe rectal transection through an additional port and maintains the cosmetic advantage of single-incision laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Between August 2014 and December 2014, the study group included 11 patients who underwent a RPRS for left-sided colon cancer.

RESULTS

There was one (9.1%) case of descending colon cancer, six (54.5%) cases of sigmoid colon cancer, and four (36.4%) cases of rectosigmoid colon cancer. The mean total operation time and docking time were 289±77 and 17±7 min. The mean times to soft diet and possible length of stay were 5.6±0.8 and 7.4±0.7 days. The mean total number of lymph nodes harvested was 18.7±7.9. The mean proximal and distal resection margins were 7.8±4.7 and 4.7±2.4 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced-port robotic surgery for left-sided colon cancer using the Single-Site(®) system appears to be feasible and safe using the new robotic single-access platform. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for rectal cancer focusing on short-term outcomes: a propensity score-matching analysis

Although the total cost of robotic surgery (RS) is known to be higher than that of laparoscopic surgery (LS), the cost-effectiveness of RS has not yet been verified. The aim of the study is to clarify the cost-effectiveness of RS compared with LS for rectal cancer.From January 2007 through December 2011, 311 and 560 patients underwent totally RS and conventional LS for rectal cancer, respectively. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed with a ratio of 1:1 to reduce the possibility of selection bias. Costs and perioperative short-term outcomes in both the groups were compared. Additional costs due to readmission were also analyzed.The characteristics of the patients were not different between the 2 groups. Most perioperative outcomes were not different between the groups except for the operation time. Complications within 30 days of surgery were not significantly different. Total hospital charges and patients' bill were higher in RS than in LS. The total hospital charges for patients who recovered with or without complications were higher in RS than in LS, although their short-term outcomes were similar. In patients with complications, the postoperative course after RS appeared to be milder than that of LS. Total hospital charges for patients who were readmitted due to complications were similar between the groups.RS showed similar short-term outcomes with higher costs than LS. Therefore, cost-effectiveness focusing on short-term perioperative outcomes of RS was not demonstrated.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colonic disease: a meta-analysis of postoperative variables

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of studies have been published since the introduction of robotic technology into general surgery. Gastrointestinal surgery is an area of special interest for the robotic surgeon. Colonic surgery can be challenging depending on the disease and the operative approach. We seek to perform a meta-analysis comparing robotic surgery against laparoscopic surgery in this particular field.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE database from January 2001 to July 2013 supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies of key relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were selected for review and for collection of postoperative data (length of stay, time to first flatus and complications).

RESULTS

After careful review, nine studies were considered for analysis. Non-pooled data showed a slight trend toward laparoscopy with increased number of events without statistical significance. Pooled data demonstrated a statistical significance for return to bowel function in the right and mixed robotic colectomy arm (WSMD -0.33, 95 % CI -0.5, -0.1; p < 0.005 and WSMD -0.26, 95 % CI -0.51, 0.0; p = 0.05). Pooled data of length of stay and complications showed no statistical significance between robotic and laparoscopic colonic surgery.

DISCUSSION

Robotic surgery is a comparable option when dealing with colonic disease, either benign or malignant. No difference in complication rate or length of stay was found when comparing the two. Robotic surgery appears to have an advantage over laparoscopy in regards to return of bowel function when dealing with right colectomies.