Is robotic right colectomy economically sustainable? a multicentre retrospective comparative study and cost analysis

Robotic ambulatory colorectal resections: a systematic review

Colorectal surgery has progressed greatly via minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic and robotic. With the advent of ERAS protocols, patient recovery times have greatly shortened, allowing for same day discharges (SDD). Although SDD have been explored through laparoscopic colectomy reviews, no reviews surrounding robotic ambulatory colorectal resections (RACrR) exist to date. A systematic search was carried out across three databases and internet searches. Data were selected and extracted by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria included robotic colorectal resections with a length of hospital stay of less than one day or 24 h. 4 studies comprising 136 patients were retrieved. 56% of patients were female and were aged between 21 and 89 years. Main surgery indications were colorectal cancer and recurrent sigmoid diverticulitis (43% each). Most patients had low anterior resections (48%). Overall, there was a 4% complication rate postoperatively, with only 1 patient requiring readmission due to postoperative urinary retention (< 1%). Patient selection criteria involved ASA score cut-offs, nutritional status, and specific health conditions. Protocols employed shared similarities including ERAS education, transabdominal plane blocks, early removal of urinary catheters, an opioid-sparing regime, and encouraged early oral intake and ambulation prior to discharge. All 4 studies had various follow-up methods involving telemedicine, face-to-face consultations, and virtual ward teams. RACrRs is safe and feasible in a highly specific patient population; however, further high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to draw more significant conclusions. Several limitations included small sample size and the potential of recall bias due to retrospective nature of 2 studies.

Outcome of Colorectal Robotic Surgery in Newly Established Robotic Surgery Center: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

The robotic platform compared to laparoscopy has proven to have similar postoperative outcomes, however its adoption in the Middle East has been slow and there is limited data regarding outcomes with its use in small newly established robotic colorectal programs. Our aim was to report our experience and outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare them to larger, more experienced centers.

METHODS

This is retrospective review of data collected between November 2021 and March 2023 from a tertiary health care referral center. The series included 51 patients who had elective or urgent robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who had emergency surgery were excluded. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and quality of oncological specimen.

RESULTS

The overall morbidity was 31.4% (n = 16 patients). Only 9.8% (n = 5) had serious morbidity of which three required interventions under general anesthesia. The median length of hospital stay was 6 days (IQR = 4), and there was no mortality. Of 17 rectal cancer resections, 88% had complete mesorectal excision, 15 of them were R0 resections, median lymph node harvested was 14 (IQR = 7) and two cases were converted to open. All the colon cancer resections had R0 resection, median lymph nodes harvested was 21 (IQR = 4) and none were converted to open.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery at a newly established center in a small country, when led by fellowship trained robotic colorectal surgeons, is safe and effective in terms of morbidity, mortality, conversion to open and specimen pathological quality.

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

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

Robotic hernia repair: the trainee "Drag" factor-a single-surgeon 9-year experience

PURPOSE

The use of robotic assisted surgery is increasing but training residents in its use may be associated with increased operative time and cost. The objective of this study is to compare the operative time of robotic incisional/ventral hernia repair (RIVHR) and robotic inguinal hernia repair (RIHR) when performed with and without a resident or fellow trainee.

METHODS

A review of prospectively collected data was performed on all patients who underwent RIVHR and RIHR by a single surgeon over a 9-year period (2014-2023). Study variables included presence of trainee (resident or fellow), procedure time, console time, and recurrent hernia. Primary outcomes include procedure time and console time.

RESULTS

A total of 402 surgeries were included for analysis. Residents assisted in 190 (47%) of the procedures, while fellows assisted in 97 (24%), and 115 (29%) were performed without a trainee. Median (IQR) console times in RIVHR assisted by fellows was 102 (72-145) minutes, compared to 90 (71-129) minutes among surgeries assisted by residents and 65 (52-82) minutes among surgeries performed without a trainee (p < 0.0001), a similar trend was observed for RIHR. The duration of hernia repair assisted by trainees was significantly longer than surgeries performed without a trainee.

CONCLUSION

Operative time for RIVHR and RIHR is significantly lower when performed without a trainee. However, RIHR assisted by residents showed a consistent decrease in operative time over the 9-year period.

Abdominal Wall Hernias-State of the Art of Laparoscopic versus Robotic Surgery

Abdominal wall hernia repair, a common surgical procedure, includes various techniques to minimize postoperative complications and enhance outcomes. This review focuses on the comparison between laparoscopic and robotic approaches in treating inguinal and ventral hernias, presenting the ongoing situation of this topic. A systematic search identified relevant studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic approaches for inguinal and ventral hernias. Randomized control trials, retrospective, and prospective studies published after 1 January 2000, were included. Search terms such as hernia, inguinal, ventral, laparoscopy, robotic, and surgery were used. A total of 23 articles were included for analysis. Results indicated similar short-term outcomes for robotic and laparoscopic techniques in inguinal hernia repair, with robotic groups experiencing less postoperative pain. However, longer operative times and higher costs were associated with robotic repair. Robotic ventral hernia repair demonstrated potential benefits, including shorter hospital stay, lower recurrence and lower reoperation rates. While robotic surgery offers advantages such as shorter hospital stays, faster recovery, and less postoperative pain, challenges including costs and training requirements need consideration. The choice between laparoscopic and robotic approaches for abdominal wall hernias should be tailored based on individual surgeon expertise and resource availability, emphasizing a balanced evaluation of benefits and challenges.

Intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis after minimally invasive right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

As part of the wide adoption of minimally invasive surgery, intracorporeal anastomosis is becoming increasingly common. The benefits of minimally invasive versus open right colectomy are well known although the additional benefits of an intracorporeal anastomosis, performed laparoscopically or robotically, are unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the current literature comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in the setting of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA and AMSTAR methods. Studies included were randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies, between January 1 2010 and July 1 2021, comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis with laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Four groups were identified: laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (L-ECA), laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (L-ICA), robotic extracorporeal anastomosis (R-ECA), and robotic intracorporeal anastomosis (R-ICA). Operative time, rate of conversion to an open procedure, surgical site infection, reoperation within 30 days, postoperative complications within 30 days, and length of hospital stay were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one retrospective cohort studies were included in the final analysis. R-ICA and R-ECA had comparable operative times, but a robotic approach required more time than laparoscopic (68 min longer, p < 0.00001). Conversion to open surgery was 55% less likely in the R-ICA group vs. L-ICA, and up to 94% less likely in the R-ICA group in comparison to the R-ECA group. Length of hospital stay was shorter for R-ICA by a half day vs. R-ECA, and up to 1 day less vs. L-ECA. There were no differences in postoperative complications, reoperations, or surgical site infections, regardless of approach. However, the included studies all had high risks of bias due to confounding variables and patient selection.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with shorter length of hospitalization and decreased rate of conversion to open surgery, compared to either laparoscopic or extracorporeal robotic approaches. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the true impact of robotic approach and intracorporeal anastomosis in right colectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer: A Narrative Review and Description of the Technique

Robotic surgery may offer significant advantages for treating extraperitoneal rectal cancer. Although laparoscopy has been shown to be safe and effective, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) remains technically challenging and is still performed in selected centers. Robotic anterior resection (RAR) may overcome the drawback of conventional laparoscopy, providing high-quality surgery with favorable oncological outcomes. Moreover, recent data show how RAR offers clinical and oncological benefits when affording difficult TMEs, such as low and advanced rectal tumors, in terms of complication rate, specimen quality, recurrence rate, and survival. This series aims to review the most recent and relevant literature, reporting mid- and long-term oncological outcomes and focusing on minimally invasive RAR for low rectal cancer.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision: a retrospective multicenter study with propensity score matching

Objective

During the past decade, the concept of complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been developed in an attempt to minimize recurrence for right-sided colon cancer. This study aims to compare outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME for right-sided colon cancer.

Methods

We performed a retrospective multicenter propensity score matching study. From July 2016 to July 2021, 382 consecutive patients from different Chinese surgical departments were available for inclusion out of an initial cohort of 412, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME. Data of all patients were retrospectively collected and reviewed. Of these, 149 cases were performed by a robotic approach, while the other 233 cases were done by laparoscopy. Propensity score matching was applied at a ratio of 1:1 to compare perioperative, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes between the robotic and the laparoscopic groups (n = 142).

Results

Before propensity score matching, there were no statistical differences regarding the sex, history of abdominal surgery, body mass index (BMI), American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system, tumor location, and center between groups (p > 0.05), while a significant difference was observed regarding age (p = 0.029). After matching, two comparable groups of 142 cases were obtained with equivalent patient characteristics (p > 0.05). Blood loss, time to oral intake, return of bowel function, length of stay, and complications were not different between groups (p > 0.05). The robotic group showed a significantly lower conversion rate (0% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.03), but a longer operative time (200.9 min vs. 182.3 min, p < 0.001) and a higher total hospital cost (85,016 RMB vs. 58,266 RMB, p < 0.001) compared with the laparoscopic group. The number of harvested lymph nodes was comparable (20.4 vs. 20.5, p = 0.861). Incidence of complications, mortality, and pathologic outcomes were similar between groups (p > 0.05). The 2-year disease-free survival rates were 84.9% and 87.1% (p = 0.679), and the overall survival rates between groups were 83.8% and 80.7% (p = 0.943).

Conclusion

Despite the limitations of a retrospective analysis, the outcomes of robotic right hemicolectomy with CME were comparable to the laparoscopic procedures with fewer conversions to open surgery. More clinical advantages of the robotic surgery system need to be further confirmed by well-conducted randomized clinical trials with large cohorts of patients.

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.

Determining the value proposition of surgical care in CMS star rated hospitals

BACKGROUND

CMS Hospital Quality Star ratings reflect the quality of care given to patients. It is hypothesized that increased Star-rating is associated with higher cost and that the value proposition is diminished.

METHODS

This study used the Florida AHCA inpatient dataset, CY2019. Partial colectomy was selected as a representative inpatient surgical procedure. Analysis was performed on this data to compare high and low Star-rated hospitals.

RESULTS

Total costs were equivalent among all Star levels on initial analysis. In a propensity matched comparison with 1 Star, 5 Star hospitals had significantly lower length-of-stay and ICU, anesthesia, radiology and lab costs, and conversely, had higher total (+2%), operating room and med-surg supply costs.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that total colectomy costs are functionally equivalent among the CMS 1- and 5- Star categories. The results indicate that higher CMS Star ratings fulfill the value proposition and indeed offer higher quality without significantly increased cost.

Robotic versus laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) approaches to bilateral hernia repair: a multicenter retrospective study using propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Since the introduction of minimally invasive surgery, new techniques like transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair have progressively gained acceptance for the treatment of groin hernia. Laparoscopic TAPP (LTAPP) is recommended for bilateral repairs. Likewise, the introduction of robotic platforms has promised additional surgical benefits for robotic TAPP (RTAPP), which are yet to be confirmed. This study compared multicenter data obtained from patients undergoing bilateral inguinal hernia repair with RTAPP, performed during the preliminary learning curve period, versus conventional LTAPP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All consecutive bilateral inguinal hernia patients from four Italian centers between June 2015 and July 2020 were selected. A propensity score model was used to compare patients treated with LTAPP versus RTAPP, considering sex, age, body mass index, current smoking status, overall comorbidity, hernia classification (primary or recurrent), and associated procedures as covariates. After matching, intraoperative details and postoperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 275 LTAPP and 40 RTAPP were performed. After matching, 80 and 40 patients were allocated to the LTAPP and RTAPP cohorts, respectively. No intraoperative complications or conversion to open surgery occurred. However, a longer operative time was recorded in the RTAPP group (79 ± 21 versus 98 ± 29 min; p < 0.001). Postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores (p = 0.13) did not differ and complication rates were similar. There were no clinical recurrences in either group, with mean follow-up periods of 52 ± 14 (LTAPP) and 35 ± 8 (RTAPP) months. A statistical difference in length of hospital stay was found between the groups (1.05 ± 0.22 vs 1.50 ± 0.74 days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this patient population, outcomes for bilateral inguinal hernia repair appear comparable for RTAPP and LTAPP, except for a shorter recovery after laparoscopic surgery. A longer operative time for robotic surgery could be attributable to the learning curve period of each center.

Cost analysis of training residents in robotic-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

Use of robotic-assisted surgery is increasing, and resident involvement may lead to higher costs. We investigated whether senior resident involvement in noncomplex robotic cholecystectomy (RC) and inguinal hernia (RIH) would take more time and cost more when compared to non-robotic cholecystectomy (NRC) and inguinal hernia repair (NRIH).

METHODS

We extracted surgery duration and total cost of NRC, NRIH, RC, and RIH from 7/2016 to 6/2020 with senior resident (PGY4-5) involvement. We excluded complex cases as well as prisoner cases and those with new faculty and research residents. We assessed differences between robotic and non-robotic cases in surgery duration and total cost per minute, using one-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

We included 1608 cases (non-robotic 1145 vs. robotic 463). On average, RC cases with a senior resident took less time than NRC (179.4 < 185.8, p = 0.401); surgery duration of RIH cases was similar with NRIH cases. The total cost per minute of RC cases with a senior resident on average was $9.30 higher than NRC cases for each minute incurred in the operating room but did not lead to a significant change in overall cost. RIH cases, on the other hand, cost less per minute than NRIH cases (114.1 < 126.5, p = 0.399).

CONCLUSION

Training in robotic surgery is important. Noncomplex RC and RIH involving senior residents were not significantly longer nor did they incur significantly more cost than non-robotic procedures. Senior resident training in noncomplex robotic surgery can be efficient and can be included in the residency curriculum.

Robotic, self-propelled, self-steerable, and disposable colonoscopes: Reality or pipe dream? A state of the art review

Robotic colonoscopes could potentially provide a comfortable, less painful and safer alternative to standard colonoscopy. Recent exciting developments in this field are pushing the boundaries to what is possible in the future. This article provides a comprehensive review of the current work in robotic colonoscopes including self-propelled, steerable and disposable endoscopes that could be alternatives to standard colonoscopy. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these systems currently in development and highlight the technical readiness of each system to help the reader understand where and when such systems may be available for routine clinical use and get an idea of where and in which situation they can best be deployed.

Assessment of blood perfusion quality in laparoscopic colorectal surgery by means of Machine Learning

An innovative algorithm to automatically assess blood perfusion quality of the intestinal sector in laparoscopic colorectal surgery is proposed. Traditionally, the uniformity of the brightness in indocyanine green-based fluorescence consists only in a qualitative, empirical evaluation, which heavily relies on the surgeon’s subjective assessment. As such, this leads to assessments that are strongly experience-dependent. To overcome this limitation, the proposed algorithm assesses the level and uniformity of indocyanine green used during laparoscopic surgery. The algorithm adopts a Feed Forward Neural Network receiving as input a feature vector based on the histogram of the green band of the input image. It is used to (i) acquire information related to perfusion during laparoscopic colorectal surgery, and (ii) support the surgeon in assessing objectively the outcome of the procedure. In particular, the algorithm provides an output that classifies the perfusion as adequate or inadequate. The algorithm was validated on videos captured during surgical procedures carried out at the University Hospital Federico II in Naples, Italy. The obtained results show a classification accuracy equal to \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$99.9\%$$\end{document}99.9%, with a repeatability of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$1.9\%$$\end{document}1.9%. Finally, the real-time operation of the proposed algorithm was tested by analyzing the video streaming captured directly from an endoscope available in the OR.

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

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

Robotic left-stapled total intracorporeal bowel anastomosis versus stapled partial extracorporeal anastomosis: operative technical description and outcomes

Background

Although there is extensive literature on robotic total intracorporeal anastomosis (TICA) for right colon resection, left total ICA using the da Vinci Xi robotic platform has only been described in short case series previously. In this study, we report on the largest cohort of robotic left total ICA, provide a description of our institution’s techniques, and compare outcomes to robotic left partial extracorporeal anastomosis (PECA).

Methods

Patients who underwent robotic left colectomy for any underlying pathology from July 1, 2016 through April 30, 2020 were identified by procedure code. A technical description is provided for two unique techniques performed at our institution. Outcomes included operative time, length of stay, supply cost, post-operative ileus, post-operative morbidity and mortality and need for complete mobilization of the splenic flexure.

Results

From a review of our institution’s data, 83 robotic TICA cases were identified and 76 robotic PECA cases were identified. Common procedures included low anterior resection, sigmoidectomy, left hemicolectomy, and rectopexy with resection. TICA was associated with significantly shorter intraoperative time compared to PECA.

Conclusions

Our series shows that TICA is a safe and feasible technique that does not increase the risk of adverse outcomes. Using either the anvil-forward or anvil-backward technique, we were able to reliably reproduce this method in a total of 83 patients undergoing left colon resection for either benign or malignant diseases.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09048-6.

Comparison of health-care utilization and expenditures for minimally invasive vs. open colectomy for benign disease

BACKGROUND

Adoption of minimally invasive approaches continues to increase, and there is a need to reassess outcomes and cost. We aimed to compare open versus minimally invasive colectomy short- and long-term health-care utilization and payer/patient expenditures for benign disease.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of IBM^® MarketScan^® Database patients who underwent left or right colectomy for benign disease between 2013 and 2018. Outcomes included total health-care expenditures, resource utilization, and direct workdays lost up to 365 days following colectomy. The open surgical approach (OS) was compared to minimally invasive colectomy (MIS) with subgroup analysis of laparoscopic (LS) and robotic (RS) approaches using inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

Of 10,439 patients, 2531 (24.3%) had open, 6826 (65.4%) had laparoscopic, and 1082 (10.3%) had robotic colectomy. MIS patients had shorter length of stay (LOS; mean difference, - 1.71, p < 0.001) and lower average total expenditures (mean difference, - $2378, p < 0.001) compared with open patients during the index hospitalization. At 1 year, MIS patients had lower readmission rates, and fewer mean emergency and outpatient department visits than open patients, translating into additional savings of $5759 and 2.22 fewer days missed from work for health-care visits over the 365-day post-discharge period. Within MIS, RS patients had shorter LOS (mean difference, - 0.60, p < 0.001) and lower conversion-to-open rates (odds ratio, 0.31 p < 0.001) during the index hospitalization, and lower hospital outpatient visits (mean difference, - 0.31, p = 0.001) at 365 days than LS.

CONCLUSION

MIS colectomy is associated with lower mean health-care expenditures and less resource utilization compared to the open approach for benign disease at index operation and 365-days post-discharge. Health-care expenditures for LS and RS are similar but shorter mean LOS and lower conversion-to-open surgery rates were observed at index operation for the RS approach.

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.

Segmental transverse colectomy. Minimally invasive versus open approach: results from a multicenter collaborative study

The role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of transverse colon cancer is still controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the advantages of a totally laparoscopic technique comparing open versus laparoscopic/robotic approach. Three hundred and eighty-eight patients with transverse colon cancer, treated with a segmental colon resection, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, tumor stage, operative time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and recovery outcomes were recorded. Recurrences and death were also evaluated during the follow-up. No differences were found between conventional and minimally invasive surgery, both for oncological long-term outcomes (recurrence rate p = 0.28; mortality p = 0.62) and postoperative complications (overall rate p = 0.43; anemia p = 0.78; nausea p = 0.68; infections p = 0.91; bleeding p = 0.62; anastomotic leak p = 0.55; ileus p = 0.75). Nevertheless, recovery outcomes showed statistically significant differences in favor of minimally invasive surgery in terms of time to first flatus (p = 0.001), tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.017), time to first mobilization (p = 0.001) and hospital stay (p = 0.004). Compared with laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.005) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001). Finally, anastomosis evaluation confirmed the superiority of intracorporeal approach which showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.003) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001); moreover, we recorded a statistical difference in favor of intracorporeal approach for infection rate (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.001) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03). Minimally invasive approach is safe and effective as the conventional open surgery, with comparable oncological results but not negligible advantages in terms of recovery outcomes. Moreover, we demonstrated that robotic approach may be considered a valid option and an intracorporeal anastomosis should always be preferred.

Transversus abdominis release (TAR) for ventral hernia repair: open or robotic? Short-term outcomes from a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare early postoperative outcomes after transversus abdominis release (TAR) for ventral hernia repair with open (oTAR) and robotic (rTAR) approach.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify comparative studies until October 2020. A meta-analysis of postoperative short-term outcomes was performed including complications rate, operative time, length of stay, surgical site infection (SSI), surgical site occurrence (SSO), SSO requiring intervention (SSOPI), systemic complications, readmission, and reoperation rates as measure outcomes.

RESULTS

Six retrospective studies were included in the analysis with a total of 831 patients who underwent rTAR (n = 237) and oTAR (n = 594). Robotic TAR was associated with lower risk of complications rate (9.3 vs 20.7%, OR 0.358, 95% CI 0.218-0.589, p < 0.001), lower risk of developing SSO (5.3 vs 11.5%, OR 0.669, 95% CI 0.307-1.458, p = 0.02), lower risk of developing systemic complications (6.3 vs 26.5%, OR 0.208, 95% CI 0.100-0.433, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (SMD - 4.409, 95% CI - 6.000 to - 2.818, p < 0.001) but longer operative time (SMD 53.115, 95% CI 30.236-75.993, p < 0.01) compared with oTAR. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of SSI, SSOPI, readmission, and reoperation rates.

CONCLUSION

Robotic TAR improves recovery by adding the benefits of minimally invasive procedures when compared to open surgery. Although postoperative complications appear to decrease with a robotic approach, further studies are needed to support the real long-term and cost-effective advantages.

Long splenic flexure carcinoma requiring laparoscopic extended left hemicolectomy with CME and transverse-rectal anastomosis: technique for a modified partial Deloyers in 5 steps to achieve enough reach and preserving middle colic vessels

Introduction

This How-I-Do-It article presents a modified Deloyers procedure by mean of the case of a 67-year-old female with adenocarcinoma extending for a long segment and involving the splenic flexure and proximal descending colon who underwent a laparoscopic left extended hemicolectomy (LELC) with derotation of the right colon and primary colorectal anastomosis.

Background

While laparoscopic extended right colectomy is a well-established procedure, LELC is rarely used (mainly for distal transverse or proximal descending colon carcinomas extending to the area of the splenic flexure). LELC presents several technical challenges which are demonstrated in this How-I-Do-It article.

Technique and methods

Firstly, the steps needed to mobilize the left colon and procure a safe approach to the splenic flexure are described, especially when a tumor is closely related to it. This is achieved by mobilization and resection of the descending colon, while maintaining a complete mesocolic excision to the level of the duodenojejunal ligament for the inferior mesenteric vein and flush to the aorta for the inferior mesenteric artery. Subsequently, we depict the adjuvant steps required to enable a primary anastomosis by trying to mobilize the transverse colon and release as much of the mesocolic attachments at the splenic flexure area. Finally, we present the rare instance when a laparoscopic derotation of the ascending colon is required to provide a tension-free anastomosis. The resection is completed by delivery of the fully derotated ascending colon and hepatic flexure through a suprapubic mini-Pfannenstiel incision. The primary colorectal anastomosis is subsequently fashioned in a tension-free way and provides for a quick postoperative recovery of the patient.

Results

This modified Deloyers procedure preserves the middle colic since the fully mobilized mesocolon allows for a tension-free anastomosis while maintaining better blood supply to the mobilized stump. Also, by eliminating the need for a mesenteric window and the transposition of the caecum, we allow the small bowel to rest over the anastomosis and the mobilized transverse colon and reduce the possibility of an internal herniation of the small bowel into the mesentery.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic derotation of the right colon and a partial, modified Deloyers procedure preserving the middle colic vessels are feasible techniques in experienced hands to provide primary anastomosis after LELC with improved functional outcome. Nevertheless, it is important to consider anatomical aspects of the left hemicolectomy along with oncological considerations, to provide both a safe oncological resection along with good postoperative bowel function.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-021-02240-7.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Partial Mesorectal Excision for Cancer of the High Rectum: A Single-Center Study with Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of robotic surgery for partial mesorectal excision (PME) in patients with high rectal cancer (RC) remains unexplored. This study aimed to compare the operative and postoperative outcomes of robotic (R-PME) versus laparoscopic (L-PME) PME for high RC.

METHODS

This was a single-center propensity score cohort study of consecutive patients diagnosed with RC in the high rectum (>10 to 15 cm from the anal verge) who underwent surgery between September 2012 and May 2019.

RESULTS

Of 131 selected patients (50 R-PME and 81 L-PME), 88 were matched using propensity score (44 per group). Operative and postoperative variables were similar between R-PME and L-PME patients, except for operative time (220 min and 190 min, respectively; p < 0.0001). No conversion was needed. Overall morbidity was 15.9%; 4 patients (4.5%) developed anastomotic leakage. The mean hospital stay was 7.25 days for R-PME vs. 7.64 days for L-PME (p = 0.597). R0 resection was achieved in 100% of R-PME and 90.9% of L-PME (p = 0.116). Only 3 patients (1 R-PME, 2 L-PME) received a permanent stoma (p = 1). No group differences were observed for overall or disease-free survival rates at 5 years. The costs of R-PME were significantly higher than those of L-PME.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive surgery can be performed safely for PME in high RC. No difference can be detected between R-PME and L-PME for both short- and long-term outcomes, leaving the choice of the surgical approach to the surgeon's experience. Specific health economic studies are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for RC.

Residents' Views on the Impact of Robotic Surgery on General Surgery Education

OBJECTIVE

The use of the da Vinci Robot has been fast growing in general surgery in the United States over the past decade. While the financial cost of robot-assisted procedures has been studied, there has been limited research on the educational cost of the robotic approach on general surgery trainees, and their surgical skills.

DESIGN

Analysis of anonymous educational survey responses collected from residents, in addition to case logs which were used as a retrospective review for the 5 years preceding the survey.

SETTING

One thousand bed, tertiary care hospital general surgery residency program.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four enrolled general surgery residents in 2018.

RESULTS

There has been a rapid expansion in the use of robotics in general surgery. In 2017 the total number of general surgery cases using the da Vinci robot increased 6 fold over that in 2013 (23 cases in 2013, 136 in 2017), while both open and laparoscopic procedures have witnessed about a 33% drop in the case volume during those years. Almost all residents would prefer a residency program which offers the da Vinci robot for care and training (95%), however, 38% of general surgery residents reported that the presence of robotic-assisted surgery had a "detrimental" effect on their surgical training. Senior residents were more likely to report a "detrimental" effect (56% vs 27%). A third of the residents believe that robotic surgery is impeding their ability to learn open and laparoscopic surgical techniques, and only 25% denied a negative impact. Senior residents are more likely to report this negative impact (67% vs 13%).

CONCLUSIONS

Reforms in residency curricula need to be in place to accommodate the expansion of the use of the robotic platform in general surgery. A subjective survey of the residents suggests that robotic surgery can potentially impede the development of residents' open and laparoscopic surgical skills.

Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for advanced lower rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic strategies to suppress local recurrence, including lateral lymph node metastasis, are important to improve the curability of rectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to clarify the advantages of robotic-assisted laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection (RALLD), comparing its short-term outcomes with those of laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection (LLLD). There are some retrospective reports comparing RALLD or LLLD and open lateral lymph node dissection (OLLD), but few reports comparing RALLD and LLND to each other.

METHODS

From November 2014 to August 2020, we compared the short-term outcomes in 40 patients who underwent RALLD and 55 patients who underwent LLLD.

RESULTS

The total operative time was significantly longer in the RALLD group than in the LLLD group (p < 0.001). However, lateral dissection time was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.661). The postoperative hospital time was shorter in the RALLD group than in the LLLD group (p < 0.048). No significant differences were identified in the rates of postoperative bleeding, incisional surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, urinary disfunction, urinary infection, or small bowel obstruction between the groups. However, anastomotic leakage was significantly lower in the RALLD group than in the LLLD group (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term outcomes of RALLD indicate it is feasible, and RALLD may be a useful modality for lower rectal cancer.

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

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) versus robotic right colectomy (RRC) using homogeneous subgroup analyses for extra-corporeal anastomosis (EA) and intra-corporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2020 for prospective or retrospective studies comparing LRC versus RRC on at least one short- or long-term outcome. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes included operative and pathological results, survival, and total costs. LRC and RRC were compared using three homogeneous subgroups: without distinction by the type of anastomosis, EA only, and IA only. Pooled data analyses were performed using mean difference (MD) and random effects model.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 448 studies were selected. The included patients were 21,397 for the LRC group and 2796 for the RRC group. Regardless for the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter LOS, lower blood loss, lower conversion rate, shorter time to flatus, and lower overall complication rate compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the EA subgroup, RRC showed similar LOS, longer operative time, and higher costs compared with LRC, the other outcomes being similar. In the IA subgroup, RRC showed shorter LOS and longer operative time compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most included articles are retrospective, providing low-quality evidence and limiting conclusions. The more frequent use of the IA seems to explain the advantages of RRC over LRC.

Robotic or three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and intracorporeal anastomosis? A propensity score-matching study comparison

BACKGROUND

We describe our preliminary experience in complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) and intracorporeal anastomosis for right colon cancer, comparing the robotic and the three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational clinical cohort study on patients who underwent radical curative surgical resection of right colon cancer with CME from January 2014 to June 2019. Propensity scores were calculated by bivariate logistic regression, including the following variables: age, BMI, and size of tumor.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients underwent CME with CVL: 26 by means of robot-assisted surgery and 29 by means of 3D laparoscopic procedure. There were not statistically significant differences about all the intra- and postoperative outcomes (operative time, length of the specimen, time to bowel canalization, time to soft oral intake, length of hospital stay, postoperative complication, number of retrieved lymph nodes, number of positive lymph nodes and lymph node ratio) between the robotic and the 3D laparoscopic approach. After the matching procedure, 20 patients of the robotic group and 20 patients of the 3D laparoscopic group were selected for the analysis. There were no differences in any of the analyzed variables between the two groups except for longer operative time in the robotic group (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The 3D vision revealed an important advantage in order to achieve the correct identification of surgical anatomy allowing a safe and effective right colectomy with CME, CVL, and intracorporeal anastomosis, either using laparoscopic or with robotic approach, providing similar short-term outcomes. Taking into account the high costs and the longer operative time of robotic procedure, the 3D laparoscopy could be considered in performing right colectomy with CME, while the robotic approach should be considered as a first choice approach for challenging situations (obese patient, complex associated procedures).

Does a 3D laparoscopic approach improve surgical outcome of mininvasive right colectomy? A retrospective case-control study

Laparoscopy has gained wide acceptance due its benefits for patients. However, advanced laparoscopic procedures are still challenging. One critical issue is lack of stereoscopic vision. Despite its diffusion, the totally laparoscopic approach for right hemicolectomy (TLRC) is still debated due to its difficulty, particularly for fashioning of the ileocolic anastomosis. The aim of this multicenter study is to investigate whether 3D vision offers any advantages on surgical performance over 2D vision during TLRC. All data of consecutive patients who underwent elective TLRC for cancer at three Italian surgical centers with either 2D or 3D technology from January 2013 to December 2018 were retrieved from a computer-maintained database. A case-matched analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method was performed. After matching, a total of 106 patients were analyzed with 53 patients in each group. Mean operative time was significantly longer for 2D-TLRC than for 3D-TLRC (153.2 ± 52.4 vs. 131 ± 51 min, p = 0.029) and a statistically significant difference in anastomosing time (p = 0.032, 19.2 ± 5.9 min vs. 21.7 ± 6.2 min for 3D and 2D group, respectively) was also recorded. No difference in the median number of harvested nodes (23 ± 11 vs. 21 ± 7 for 3D and 2D group, respectively; p = 0.48) was found. Neither intraoperative complications nor conversions occurred in the two groups. In conclusion, 3D vision appears to improve the performance of a TLRC by reducing operative time and making intracorporeal anastomosis easier. Prospective randomized studies are required to determine the real beneficial effects.

The Financial Burden of Setting up a Pediatric Robotic Surgery Program

Background and Objectives: Robotic surgery is currently at the forefront of both adult and pediatric treatment. The main limit in the wide adoption of this technology is the high cost of purchasing and running the robotic system. This report will focus on the costs assessment of running a robotic program in a pediatric surgery center in Romania. Materials and Methods: In 12 months we performed 40 robot-assisted procedures in children. We recorded and analyzed data regarding their age, gender, pathological condition and comorbidities, surgical procedure, time of surgery, complications, hospital stay and related costs, medication, robotic instruments and consumables, additional cost, and income per case received from the National Insurance Company (NIC). Results: Mean cost per case was €3260.63 (€1880.07 to €9851.78) and was influenced by type of the procedure, intraoperative incidents, postoperative complication, and non-scheduled reinterventions (p < 0.05). The direct costs for operating the surgical robot were relatively constant, regardless of the surgical procedure (mean €1579.81). The reimbursement from the NIC ranged from 5% to 56% (mean 16.9%) of the total cost per case. Conclusion: In Romania, a pediatric surgery robotic program is not cost-efficient and cannot operate relying solely onto the health insurance system.