Laparoscopic vs. robotic rectal cancer surgery and the effect on conversion rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies

[Robotic Colorectal Surgery: Analysis of the First Three Years of Activity in a Hospital of the Portuguese National Health Service]

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly accepted and used in colorectal surgery. Several studies report that robotic surgery may provide advantages over 'conventional' laparoscopy, namely in rectal surgery. This paper provides an account of the first three years of experience with robotic surgery in the Unidade de Patologia Colorretal of the Unidade Local de Saúde S. José.

METHODS

Variables were defined to develop a prospective database containing the data of consecutive patients operated by three internationally certified colorectal surgeons using the Da Vinci Xi® system between November 2019 and October 2022. The database was converted into an anonymized version that was used for this study. The analysis was performed on the data of all the patients operated during this period.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were included, 47 male, median age 70 years, and median BMI 26 kg/m2 . ASA score was II in 53.7% and III in 41.3% of pa- tients. Of the total, 97.6% had malignant or potentially malignant disease. Operative procedures consisted of 34 colectomies proximal to the splenic flexure, 20 distal colectomies and 26 anterior resections. There were two synchronous resections of liver metastases. Early perioperative outcomes and histopathological results were analyzed: median operative time: 300 minutes; median estimated blood loss: 50 mL; conversion rate: 2.5%; median days until first bowel movement: three days; median length of hospital stay: six days; complication rate: 20%, of which 5% were Clavien III and 0% Clavien IV/V; anastomotic leak rate: 2.5%; 30-day readmission rate: 1.3%; median lymph nodes resected: 20; R0 resection rate: 100%; mesorectal integrity rate: 95,8% complete/near complete.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that the adoption of robotic colorectal surgery in our center was safe and resulted in similar or improved short-term clinical outcomes and histopathological results when compared to those described in the literature.

Peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes of robotic versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparative outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (rTME) and trans-anal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in patients with low rectal cancer were evaluated.

METHODS

A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Comparative studies of rTME versus TaTME for low rectal cancer were included. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, including anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, and Clavien-Dindo complication rate. Total operative time, conversion to open surgery, intra-operative blood loss, intensive therapy unit (ITU) and total hospital length of stay (LOS), oncological outcomes and functional outcomes were the other evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies with a total number of 3025 patients divided between rTME (n = 1881) and TaTME (n = 1144) groups were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups for total operative time (P = 0.39), conversion to open surgery (P = 0.29) and intra-operative blood loss (P = 0.62). Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complication rate (P = 0.47), anastomotic leak (P = 0.89), rates of re-operation (P = 0.62) and re-admission (P = 0.92), R0 resections (P = 0.52), ITU LOS (P = 0.63) and total hospital LOS (P = 0.30) also showed similar results between the two groups. However, the rTME group had higher rates of total harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.04) and complete total mesorectal excision (TME) resections (P = 0.05). Albeit with a limited dataset, the Wexner and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) scores showed better functional results in the rTME group compared with the TaTME group (P = 0.0009 and P = 0.00001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Compared with TaTME, rTME seems to provide better functional outcomes, higher lymph node yield and more complete TME resections with a similar post-operative complications profile.

Urinary and sexual function after robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of the study was to compare the protective effects of robotic rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS) on urinary and sexual function of patients. We conducted a systematic search in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase for studies comparing the impact of RRCS and LRCS on urinary function and sexual function. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and the Female Sexual Function Index(FSFI) were used to evaluate the urinary function and sexual function of patients. A total of 13 studies comprising 1964 patients were included in this meta-analysis, including 3 randomized controlled trials, 5 retrospective cohort studies, 3 prospective cohort studies, and 2 propensity score-matched studies. Nine hundred and fifty-nine patients underwent RRCS and 1005 patients underwent LRCS. Statistical analysis of the IPSS scores indicated urinary function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively [mean difference (MD), - 1.06, 95% CI - 1.85 to - 0.28; and MD, - 0.96, 95% CI - 1.60 to - 0.32; and MD, - 1.09, 95% CI - 1.72 to - 0.46]. Statistical analysis of the IIEF-5 scores indicated male sexual function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively (MD, 1.76, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.72; and MD, 1.83, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.33; and MD, 1.05, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.01). Statistical analysis of the FSFI scores indicated female sexual function was significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group at 6 and 12 months postoperatively (MD, 2.86; 95% CI 1.38 to 4.35; and MD, 4.19; 95% CI 1.85 to 6.54). RRCS is more favorable than LRCS in preserving the urinary and sexual function of patients with rectal cancer.

Outcomes in robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in a newly established colorectal tertiary center: a retrospective comparative cohort study

The robotic platform matches or surpasses laparoscopic surgery in postoperative results. However, limited date and slow adoption are noticed in the middle east. We aimed to report outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare it to larger more experienced centers. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data between 2021 and 2023 of 107 patients who had robotic-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery was included in the study. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and the quality of oncological specimen. Of 107 patients, 57 were in the robotic and 50 were in the laparoscopic surgery groups. Overall, there were no significant differences in overall morbidity (46.8 vs. 53.2%, p = 0.9), serious morbidity (10.5 vs. 8%, p = 0.7), or mortality (0 vs. 4%, p = 0.2). Regarding oncological outcomes, there were no significant difference between the two groups regarding the number of lymph node harvested (17.7 ± 6.9 vs 19.0 ± 9.7, p = 0.5), R0 resections (92.7 vs. 87.1%, p = 0.5), and the rate of complete mesorectal excision (92.7 vs. 71.4%, p = 0.19). The study found that the robotic group had an 86% reduction in conversion rate to open surgery compared to the laparoscopic group, despite including more obese and physically dependent patients (OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.7, p = 0.01). Robotic surgery appears to be a safe and effective as laparoscopic surgery in smaller colorectal surgery programs led by fellowship-trained robotic surgeons, with outcomes comparable to those of larger programs.

Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancers

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery (RS) is experiencing major development, particularly in the context of rectal cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize data from the literature, focusing specifically on the safety and effectiveness of robotic surgery in mid-low rectal cancers, based on the hypothesis that that robotic surgery can find its most rational indication in this anatomical location.

METHOD

The meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA 2000 recommendations, including all randomized trials that compared robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) that were found in the Medline-PICO, Cochrane Database, Scopus and Google databases. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane Handbook method and the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE method. The analysis was carried out with R software Version 4.2-3 using the Package for Meta-Analysis "meta" version 6.5-0.

RESULTS

Eight randomized trials were included (with a total of 2342 patients), including four that focused specifically on mid-low rectal cancer (n=1,734 patients). No statistically significant difference was found for overall morbidity, intra-operative morbidity, anastomotic leakage, post-operative mortality, quality of mesorectal specimen, and resection margins. The main differences identified were a lower conversion rate for RS (RR=0.48 [0.24-0.95], p=0.04, I2=0%), and a longer operative time for RS (mean difference=39.11min [9.39-68.83], p<0.01, I2=96%). The other differences had no real clinical relevance, i.e., resumption of flatus passage (5hours earlier after RS), and lymph node dissection (one more lymph node for LS).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis does not confirm the initial hypothesis and does not show a statistically significant or clinically relevant benefit of RS compared to LS for mid-low rectal cancer.

Implementation of a robotic surgical practice in inflammatory bowel disease

Robotics adoption has increased in colorectal surgery. While there are well-established advantages and standardised techniques for cancer patients, the use of robotic surgery in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has not been studied yet. To evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for IBD patients. Prospectively data in IBD patients having robotic resection at Guy's and St Thomas' hospital. All resections performed by a single colorectal surgeon specialised in IBD, utilising DaVinci platform. July 2021 to January 2023, 59 robotic IBD cases performed, 14 ulcerative colitis (UC) and 45 Crohn's disease (CD). Average age; CD patients 35, UC 33 years. Average Body mass index (BMI); 23 for CD and 26.9 for UC patients. In total, we performed 31 ileo-caecal resections (ICR) with primary anastomosis (18 Kono-S anastomosis, 6 mechanical anastomosis and 7 ileo-colostomy), of those 4 had multivisceral resections (large bowel, bladder, ovary). Furthermore, 14 subtotal colectomy (1 emergency), 8 proctectomy, 3 panproctocolectomy and 3 ileoanal J pouch. 18 of the 45 patients (45.0%) with Crohn's disease had ongoing fistulating disease to other parts of the GI tract (small or large bowel). ICR were performed using different three ports position, depending on the anatomy established prior to surgery with magnetic resonance images (MRI). One patient had conversion to open due to anaesthetic problems and one patient required re-operation to refashion stoma. 98.0% cases completed robotically. Median Length of hospital stay (LOS) was 7 days for CD and 7 for UC cases, including LOS in patients on pre-operative parenteral nutrition. Robotic colorectal techniques can be safely used for patients with IBD, even with fistulating disease. Future research and collaborations are necessary to standardize technique within institutions.

Risk factors and clinical significance of subcutaneous emphysema after robot-assisted laparoscopic rectal surgery: a single-center experience

Subcutaneous emphysema (SE) is a complication of laparoscopic surgery, potentially resulting in severe respiratory failure. No reports to date have focused on SE during robot-assisted (RA) rectal surgery. We aimed to reveal the risk factors and clinical significance of SE after RA/laparoscopic rectal surgery. We retrospectively reviewed 221 consecutive patients who underwent RA/laparoscopic rectal surgery. The occurrence of SE was evaluated on postoperative radiographs. Laparoscopic surgery was performed in 120 patients and RA in 101. SE developed in 55 (24.9%) patients. Logistic regression analysis identified RA surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 4.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.13-11.22, p < 0.001), higher age (OR: 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.11, p < 0.001), lower body mass index (BMI) (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.93, p = 0.004), thinner subcutaneous layer (OR: 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.98, p = 0.02), and lateral lymph node dissection (OR: 9.43, 95% CI 2.44-36.42, p < 0.001) as risk factors for SE. Maximum end-tidal CO2 was significantly higher in the SE than the non-SE cohort (p < 0.001). There was no difference in postoperative complication rate or length of hospital stay. Lower BMI (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-0.97, p = 0.02) and thinner subcutaneous layer (OR: 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.97, p = 0.01) were predictive factors in the RA cohort. SE occurs more frequently in RA compared with laparoscopic surgery. SE has a modest impact on short-term outcomes, but may occasionally cause severe problems. The indication of RA surgery should be considered carefully in high-risk elderly patients.

Ensuring communication redundancy and establishing a telementoring system for robotic telesurgery using multiple communication lines

Assuring communication redundancy during the interruption and establishing appropriate teaching environments for local surgeons are essential to making robotic telesurgery mainstream. This study analyzes robotic telesurgery with telementoring using standard domestic telecommunication carriers. Can multiple carriers guarantee redundancy with interruptions? Three commercial optical fiber lines connected Hirosaki University and Mutsu General Hospitals, 150 km apart. Using Riverfield, Inc. equipment, Hirosaki had a cockpit, while both Mutsu used both a cockpit and a surgeon's console. Experts provided telementoring evaluating 14 trainees, using objective indices for operation time and errors. Subjective questionnaires addressed image quality and surgical operability. Eighteen participants performed telesurgery using combined lines from two/three telecommunication carriers. Manipulation: over 30 min, lines were cut and restored every three minutes per task. Subjects were to press a switch when noticing image quality or operability changes. Mean time to task completion was 1510 (1186-1960) seconds: local surgeons alone and 1600 (1152-2296) seconds for those under remote instructor supervision, including expert intervention time. There was no significant difference (p = 0.86). The mean error count was 0.92 (0-3) for local surgeons and 0.42 (0-2) with remote instructors. Image quality and operability questionnaires found no significant differences. Results communication companies A, B, and C: the A/B combination incurred 0.17 (0-1) presses of the environment change switch, B/C had 0, and C/A received 0.67 (0-3), showing no significant difference among provider combinations. Combining multiple communication lines guarantees communication redundancy and enables robotic telementoring with enhanced communication security.

Comparative analysis of short-term outcomes and oncological results between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer by multiple surgeon implementation: a propensity score-matched analysis

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly common for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. However, the use and implementation of robotic surgery remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery, focusing on pathological results and disease-free survival (DFS), in our cohort with initial robotic experience by multiple surgeon implementation. This retrospective study enrolled 571 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer, who were treated with chemoradiotherapy and surgery between January 2015 and December 2021. Surgical outcomes after RAS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) were compared using a propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis. After matching, 200 patients (100 in each group) were included. The median operative time was significantly longer in the RAS group than in the LS group (p < 0.001). The conversion and morbidity rates were similar between the groups. A significantly higher rate of complete mesorectal excision (92% vs. 72%; p = 0.001) and number of lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.009) was observed in the RAS group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding circumferential and distal resection margin involvement. The 3-year overall and disease-free survival rate was similar between the two groups (p = 0.849 and p = 0.582, respectively). Two patients in the LS group developed local recurrence and 27 patients (15.4%) developed metastatic disease. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor stage III was the only factor associated with disease-free survival (HR, 9.34; (95% CI 1.13-77.1), p = 0.038). RAS and LS showed similar outcomes in terms of perioperative, anatomopathological, and disease-free survival, after multiple surgeon implementations.

Analysis of 10 years of open, laparoscopic, and robotic rectal surgeries in the community setting

Background

Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the US. Many of these patients will require operations. Although there is significant data in the literature that supports minimally invasive colorectal operations in the academic setting, few studies have examined their performance in community hospitals.

Methods

Data was collected from a high-volume, university-affiliated, community center. Our Cancer Registry Database was queried to include any patients that had rectal surgery at our institution from 2010 to 2020. One hundred-twenty-two patients were identified and reviewed retrospectively. Main outcome measures include estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, time to first bowel movement, oncologic resection, length of stay (LOS), survival, and cost analysis.

Results

Both robotic and laparoscopic operations resulted in lower average EBL, less blood transfusions, and less time to first bowel movement (p = 0.003, 0.006, 0.003, respectively). There was no significant difference in ability to achieve R0 resection, adequate lymph node retrieval, and adequate total mesorectal excision (TME, p = 0.856, 0.489, 0.500, respectively). LOS was significantly shorter for minimally invasive operations, 4.35 vs 8.48 days, and average survival was longest for laparoscopic operations at 7.19 years as compared to 5.55 years for open operations (p < 0.001, 0.026, respectively). Cost was lowest for robotic operations (0.003).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive rectal operations, especially robotic, lead to better short- and long-term outcomes, equivalent oncologic resection, and are more cost-effective as compared to open operations even in the community setting, supporting continued performance and growth of robotic colorectal operations in the community setting.

Key message

Although there is significant data in the literature that supports minimally invasive colorectal operations in the academic setting, few studies have examined their performance in community hospitals as this study does. This study found that minimally invasive rectal operations, especially robotic, lead to better short- and long-term outcomes, equivalent oncologic resection, and are more cost-effective as compared to open operations even in the community setting, supporting continued performance and growth of robotic colorectal operations in the community setting.

Evaluation of an established colorectal robotic programme at an NHS district general hospital: audit of outcomes and systematic review of published data

INTRODUCTION

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) offers potential advantages over traditional surgical approaches. This study aimed to assess outcomes from a district general hospital (DGH) robotic colorectal programme against published data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The robotic programme was established following simulator, dry/wet lab training, and proctoring. We performed a case series analysing technical, patient, and oncological outcomes extracted from a prospective database of colorectal RAS cases (2015-2022). A registered systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42022300773; PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE) of single-centre colorectal series from established robotic centres (n>200 cases) was completed and compared to local data using descriptive summary statistics. Risk of bias assessment was performed using an adapted version of the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-two RAS cases were performed including 122 anterior resections, 56 APERs, 19 rectopexies, and 15 Hartmann's procedures. The median duration was 325 (IQR 265-400) min. Blood loss was < 100 ml in 97% of cases with 2 (0.9%) cases converted to open. Complications (Clavien-Dindo 3-5) occurred in 19 (8%) patients, with 3 (1.3%) deaths in < 30 days. Length of stay was 7 (IQR 5-11) days. In 169 rectal cancer cases, there were 9 (5.3%) cases with a positive circumferential or distal margin and lymph node yield of 17 (IQR 13-24). A systematic review of 1648 abstracts identified 13 studies from established robotic centres, totaling 4930 cases, with technical, patient, and oncological outcomes comparable to our own case series.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes from our robotic colorectal programme at a UK DGH are comparable with the largest published case series from world-renowned centres. Training and proctoring together with rolling audit must accompany the expansion of robotic surgery to safeguard outcomes.

Short-term outcomes and costs analysis of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy-a retrospective single-center analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted surgery is an alternative technique for patients undergoing minimal invasive cholecystectomy (CHE). The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus robotic CHE, previously described as the major disadvantage of the robotic system, in a single Austrian tertiary center.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center analysis was carried out of all patients who underwent an elective minimally invasive cholecystectomy between January 2010 and August 2020 at our tertiary referral institution. Patients were divided into two groups: robotic-assisted CHE (RC) and laparoscopic CHE (LC) and compared according to demographic data, short-term postoperative outcomes and costs.

RESULTS

In the study period, 2088 elective minimal invasive cholecystectomies were performed. Of these, 220 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. One hundred ten (50%) patients underwent LC, and 110 patients RC. There was no significant difference in the mean operation time between both groups (RC: 60.2 min vs LC: 62.0 min; p = 0.58). Postoperative length of stay was the same in both groups (RC: 2.65 days vs LC: 2.65 days, p = 1). Overall hospital costs were slightly higher in the robotic group with a total of €2088 for RC versus €1726 for LC.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is a safe and feasible alternative to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Since there are no significant clinical and cost differences between the two procedures, RC is a justified operation for training the whole operation team in handling the system as a first step procedure. Prospective randomized trials are necessary to confirm these conclusions.

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.

A novel training program: laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer can be trained simultaneously

Background

Current expectations are that surgeons should be technically proficient in minimally invasive low anterior resection (LAR)-both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery. However, methods to effectively train surgeons for both approaches are under-explored. We aimed to compare two different training programs for minimally invasive LAR, focusing on the learning curve and perioperative outcomes of two trainee surgeons.

Methods

We reviewed 272 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic LAR by surgeons A and B, who were novices in conducting minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Surgeon A was trained by first operating on 80 cases by laparoscopy and then 56 cases by robotic-assisted surgery. Surgeon B was trained by simultaneously performing 80 cases by laparoscopy and 56 by robotic-assisted surgery. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) method was used to evaluate the learning curves of operative time and surgical failure.

Results

For laparoscopic surgery, the CUSUM plots showed a longer learning process for surgeon A than surgeon B (47 vs. 32 cases) for operative time, but a similar trend in surgical failure (23 vs. 19 cases). For robotic surgery, the plots of the two surgeons showed similar trends for both operative times (23 vs. 25 cases) and surgical failure (17 vs. 19 cases). Therefore, the learning curves of surgeons A and B were respectively divided into two phases at the 47th and 32nd cases for laparoscopic surgery and at the 23rd and 25th cases for robotic surgery. The clinicopathological outcomes of the two surgeons were similar in each phase of the learning curve for each surgery.

Conclusions

For surgeons with rich experience in open colorectal resections, simultaneous training for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted LAR of rectal cancer is safe, effective, and associated with accelerated learning curves.

Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery for Marsupialization of Chronic Abscess Cavity After Colorectal Anastomosis

Anastomotic leaks are one of the most feared and morbid complications after colorectal anastomosis. Management of leaks depends on the severity of the leak and focuses on controlling sepsis and saving the anastomosis. The lower the anastomosis, the more amenable it is to transanal approaches for salvage. However, when a complication exists higher up in the rectum, the surgeon is more limited in the ability to visualize and intervene. With the advent of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) and the advancement of endoscopic procedures, there are now more options for surgeons to visualize and intervene in anastomotic colorectal leaks. Prior reports have described the use of TAMIS for the management of anastomotic leaks in the acute phase. However, this same approach can be useful in the management of chronic leaks. This report highlights the benefit of TAMIS to allow visualization and marsupialization of a chronic abscess cavity following an anastomotic leak.

Evaluation of the advantages of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colorectal cancer increases with aging. Curative-intent surgery based on a minimally invasive concept is expected to bring survival benefits to elderly patients (aged over 80 years) with colorectal cancer who are frequently with fragile health status and advanced tumors. The study explored survival outcomes in this patient population who received robotic or laparoscopic surgery and aimed to identify an optimal surgical option for those patients.

METHODS

We retrieved the clinical materials and follow-up data on elderly patients with colorectal carcinoma who received robotic or laparoscopic surgery in our institution. The pathological and surgical outcomes were compared to examine the efficacy and safety of the two approaches. The DFS (disease-free survival) and OS (overall survival) results at 3 years after surgery were assessed to explore the survival benefits.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients were screened for the study, including 55 in the robotic group and 56 in the laparoscopic group. The demographic details were generally similar between the two groups. No statistically significant difference in the number of removed lymph nodes was observed between the two approaches, with a median of 15 versus 14 (P = 0.053). The intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced by robotic technique when compared to the laparoscopic approach, with a mean of 76.9 ml versus 161.6 ml (P = 0.025). There were no significant differences in operation time, conversion, postoperative complications and recovery, and long-term outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery was prized for elderly patients with colorectal cancer who developed anemia and/or hematological conditions.

Hartmann's Reversal is More Complex Than Elective Left Colectomy

BACKGROUND

Hartmann's reversal (HR) is associated with significant technical complexity and morbidity. The decision to perform HR is difficult and up to 50% of patients with colostomies do not undergo a reversal. To better guide surgeons and patients with this decision, we sought to assess the surgical risks and outcomes of HR as compared to elective left colectomy (LC).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective database at a tertiary medical center. Patients undergoing elective Hartmann's reversal and left colectomy between January 2014 and November 2021 were identified. We compared preoperative variables, intraoperative events, and short-term postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

135 patients were identified: 30 HR and 105 LC. There were no significant differences in demographics or preoperative comorbidities between HR and LC. There were more open and fewer robotic cases in HR (23.3% vs 2.9%, P < .0001; 46.6% vs 76.0%, P < .01). Total operative time was significantly longer in HR than LC (261.8 vs 211.7 minutes, P = .02). There was a significantly higher percentage of intraoperative complications in HR (13.3% vs 1.9%, P < .01). There was a significantly higher rate of minor postoperative complications in HR than LC (46.7% vs 26.7%, P = .04), but not major (6.7% vs 5.8%, P = .85). Time to first flatus/bowel movement was significantly longer in HR than LC (3.6 vs 2.5 days, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Hartmann's reversal is a more technically challenging operation than elective left colectomy and is associated with significantly higher rates of intraoperative and minor postoperative complications. Future studies should focus on mitigating these risk factors to optimize patient outcomes.

Implementation of robotic rectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional nationwide study

AIM

An increasing number of centers have implemented a robotic surgical program for rectal cancer. Several randomized controls trials have shown similar oncological and postoperative outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic resections. While introducing a robot rectal resection program seems safe, there are no data regarding implementation on a nationwide scale. Since 2018 robot resections are separately registered in the mandatory Dutch Colorectal Audit. The present study aims to evaluate the trend in the implementation of robotic resections (RR) for rectal cancer relative to laparoscopic rectal resections (LRR) in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2020 and to compare the differences in outcomes between the operative approaches.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2018 and 2020 were selected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. The data included patient characteristics, disease characteristics, surgical procedure details, postoperative outcomes. The outcomes included any complication within 90 days after surgery; data were categorized according to surgical approach.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2020, 6330 patients were included in the analyses. 1146 patients underwent a RR (18%), 3312 patients a LRR (51%), 526 (8%) an open rectal resection, 641 a TaTME (10%), and 705 had a local resection (11%). The proportion of males and distal tumors was higher in the RR compared to the LRR. Over time, the proportion of robotic procedures increased from 15% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 13-16%) in 2018 to 22% (95% CI 20-24%) in 2020. Conversion rate was lower in the robotic group [4% (95% CI 3-5%) versus 7% (95% CI 6-8%)]. Anastomotic leakage rate was similar with 16%. Defunctioning ileostomies were more common in the RR group [42% (95% CI 38-46%) versus 29% (95% CI 26-31%)].

CONCLUSION

Rectal resections are increasingly being performed through a robot-assisted approach in the Netherlands. The proportion of males and low rectal cancers was higher in RR compared to LRR. Overall outcomes were comparable, while conversion rate was lower in RR, the proportion of defunctioning ileostomies was higher compared to LRR.

Advantages of the umbilical minilaparotomy-first approach in robotic rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Since 2018, we have performed robotic rectal cancer surgery at our institution via the umbilical mini-laparotomy-first approach. In the present technical note, we introduce the advantages of this approach.

METHODS

In this approach, a 3-cm mini-laparotomy and the wound protector attachment are performed prior to port placement for the da Vinci^® Xi system. During robotic surgery, the assistant can adjust the location of the camera port within the wound protector.

RESULTS

This approach is only different from the standard port placement in terms of the timing of minilaparotomy; therefore, there is no additional cost. This approach has several advantages. 1: Intraabdominal adhesion around the umbilicus can be dissected under direct vision. 2: Robot arm collision can be diminished. 3: The diverting stoma can be located just at the preoperative stoma-site marking. 4: The da Vinci^® camera is less likely to be dirty. 5: Assistant ports can be added through the wound protector. However, sometimes interference between the wound protector extends inside the abdomen and other ports can be a problem, especially in small patients. A smaller-size wound protector is thus recommended in such cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The umbilical minilaparotomy-first approach in robotic rectal cancer surgery is a simple and feasible technique with great advantages for not only ensuring successful robotic surgery but also reducing the stoma-associated complications.

The Mesentery in Robot-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision

In recent decades, surgery for rectal cancer has evolved from an operation normally performed under poor vision with a lot of blood loss, relatively high morbidity, and mortality to a safer operation. Currently, minimally invasive rectal procedures are performed with limited blood loss, reduced morbidity, and minimal mortality. The main cause is better knowledge of anatomy and adhering to the principle of operating along embryological planes. Surgery has become surgery of compartments, more so than that of organs. So, rectal cancer surgery has evolved to mesorectal cancer surgery as propagated by Heald and others. The focus on the mesentery of the rectum has led to renewed attention to the anatomy of the fascia surrounding the rectum. Better magnification during laparoscopy and improved optimal three-dimensional (3D) vision during robot-assisted surgery have contributed to the refinement of total mesorectal excision (TME). In this chapter, we describe how to perform a robot-assisted TME with particular attention to the mesentery. Specific points of focus and problem solving are discussed.

The impact of robotic surgery on a tertiary care colorectal surgery program, an assessment of costs and short term outcomes: A Canadian perspective

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for colorectal pathology has gained interest as it can overcome technical challenges and limitations of traditional laparoscopic surgery. A lack of training and costs have been cited as reasons for limiting its use in Canada. The objective of this paper was to assess the impact of robotic surgery on outcomes and costs in a Canadian setting.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing left sided colorectal surgery ("Pre-Robotic Phase" n = 145 vs. "Post Robotic Phase" n = 150) and a single tertiary care centre in Ontario, Canada. Utilization and success of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), length of stay, complications and hospital costs were compared. Univariate and Multivariate analysis was used for these comparisons.

RESULTS

Characteristics, diagnosis and type of resection were similar between groups. Robotic Implementation resulted in higher rates of successful MIS (i.e. attempt at MIS without conversion) (85% vs. 47%, P < 0.001), shorter mean length of stay (4.7 days vs. 8.4 days, P < 0.001), and similar mean operative times (3.9 h vs. 3.9 h, P = 0.93). Emergency Department visits were fewer in the Robotic Phase (24% vs. 34%, P = 0.04), with no difference in readmission, anastomotic leak or unplanned reoperation. After robotic implementation, the mean total hospital costs decreased, but this was not statistically significant (-$1453, 95% CI -$3974 to +$1068, P = 0.25). Regression analysis, adjusting for age, gender, obesity, ASA and procedure showed similar findings (Robotic Phase -$657, 95% CI -$3038 to +$1724, vs Pre Robotic Phase [Reference], P = 0.59).

INTERPRETATION

Implementation of a robotic colorectal surgery program in a Canadian tertiary care centre showed improved clinical outcomes, without a significant increase in the cost of care. Although this study is from a single institution, we have demonstrated that robotic colorectal surgery is feasible and can be cost effective in the right setting.

Operative and Survival Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Elderly and Very Elderly Patients: A Study in a Tertiary Hospital in South Korea

Materials and Methods

Data of all patients ≥75 years who underwent a robotic-assisted curative resection in Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, between January 2007 and January 2021 were extracted from a prospectively maintained colorectal cancer database. Patients were subdivided into the three groups according to the age: youngest-old (YO: 75–80 years), middle-old (MO: 81–85), and oldest-old (OO: ≥86 years). Intraoperative findings, postoperative, and oncological outcomes were compared between the groups.

Results

Seventy-six consecutive patients (female 52.6%) were included; mean age was 80 years (SD 0.33); mean body mass index (BMI), 23.8 20.9 kg/m² (SD 3.58); mean total operative time, 279 min (SD 80.93); mean blood loss, 186 ml (SD 204.03); mean postoperative length of stay, 14 days (SD 12.03). Major complications were seen in 2.1% of patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 0%. Average number of lymph node harvested was 20.9 (SD 12.33). Postoperative complications were not statistically different between the groups. Mean follow-up time for cancer-specific survival (CSS) was 99.28 months for the YO, 72.11 months for MO, and 31.25 months for OO groups (p = 0.045). The CSS rates at 5 years were 27.0%, 21.0%, and 0%, respectively. Recurrence risk was 10.50 times higher in the OO group than the others (adjusted HR, 95% CI 1.868–59.047, p = 0.008). In the multivariable analysis, TNM stage was not a risk factor for CSS in all groups. The number of the harvested nodes was a protective factor for recurrence (HR of 0.932, 95% CI 0.875–0.992, p = 0.027) and CSS (HR of 0.928, 95% CI 0.861–0.999, p = 0.047) in elderly patients.

Conclusion

Robotic surgery is highly feasible in elderly and very elderly colorectal cancer patients, providing a favorable operative safety profile and an acceptable cancer-specific survival outcome.

Diverting stomas reduce reoperation rates for anastomotic leak but not overall reoperation rates within 30 days after anterior rectal resection: a national cohort study

PURPOSE

A diverting stoma is commonly formed to reduce the rate of anastomotic leak following anterior resection with anastomosis, although some studies question this strategy. The aim of this study was to assess the leak rates and overall complication burden after anterior resection with and without a diverting stoma.

METHODS

A 5-year national cohort with prospectively registered data of patients who underwent elective anterior resection for rectal cancer located < 15 cm from the anal verge. Data were retrieved from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. Primary end point was relaparotomy or relaparoscopy for anastomotic leak within 30 days from index surgery. Secondary endpoints were postoperative complications including reoperation for any cause.

RESULTS

Some 1018 patients were included of whom 567 had a diverting stoma and 451 had not. Rate of reoperation for anastomotic leak was 13 out of 567 (2.3%) for patients with diverting stoma and 35 out of 451 (7.8%) (p > 0.001) for patients without. In multivariable analyses not having a diverting stoma (aOR 3.77, c.i 1.97-7.24, p < 0.001) was associated with increased risk for anastomotic leak. However, there were no differences in overall reoperation rates following anterior resection with or without diverting stoma (9.3% vs 10.9%, p = 0.423), and overall complication rates were similar. Reoperation was associated with increased mortality irrespective of the main intraoperative finding.

CONCLUSION

Diverting stoma formation after anterior resection is protective against reoperation for anastomotic leak but does not affect overall rates of reoperation or complications within 30 days.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic technique for the treatment of left-sided colonic diverticular disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive surgery has been universally accepted as a valid option for the treatment of diverticular disease, provided specific expertise is available. Over the last decade, there has been a growing interest in the application of robotic approaches for diverticular disease. We aimed at evaluating whether robotic colectomy may offer some advantages over the laparoscopic approach for surgical treatment of diverticular disease by meta-analyzing the available data from the medical literature.

METHODS

The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Web Of Sciences electronic databases were searched for literature up to December 2020. Inclusion criteria considered all comparative studies evaluating robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for diverticulitis eligible. The conversion rate to the open approach was evaluated as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The data of 4177 patients from nine studies were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy compared to those who underwent surgery with a robotic approach had a significantly higher risk of conversion into an open procedure (12.5% vs. 7.4%, p < 0.00001) and abbreviated hospital stay (p < 0.0001) at the price of a longer operating time (p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the robotic approach offers significant advantages in terms of conversion rate and shortened hospital stay for the treatment of diverticular disease. However, because of the lack of available evidence, it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions.

Robotic Intersphincteric Resection for Low Rectal Cancer: Technical Controversies and a Systematic Review on the Perioperative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes

Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is the ultimate anus-sparing technique for low rectal cancer and is considered an oncologically safe alternative to abdominoperineal resection. The application of the robotic approach to ISR (RISR) has been described by few specialized surgical teams with several differences regarding approach and technique. This review aims to discuss the technical aspects of RISR by evaluating point by point each surgical controversy. Moreover, a systematic review was performed to report the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of RISR. Postoperative morbidities after RISR are acceptable. RISR allows adequate surgical margins and adequate oncological outcomes. RISR may result in severe bowel and genitourinary dysfunction affecting the quality of life in a portion of patients.

[Structured Implementation and Modular In-house Training as Key Success Factors in Robotically Assisted Surgery - Evaluation Using the Example of Colorectal Surgery]

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate the applicability of structured implementation of robotic assisted surgery (RAS) and to evaluate a modular training procedure during the implementation phase in in-house mentoring.

METHOD

Execution of a self-defined PDCA (PDCA: Plan-Do-Check-Act) implementation cycle accompanied by prospective data collection of patient characteristics, operation times, complications, conversion rates and postoperative length of stay of a modularly defined training operation (robotic assisted rectosigmoid resection - RARSR).

RESULTS

Evaluation of 100 consecutive cases distributed among 3 trainees and an in-house mentor as internal control group. Presentation of qualitatively safe and successful implementation with a short learning curve of the training operation with balanced patient characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Structured implementation enables the safe introduction of RAS in visceral surgery. In this context, modular training operations can facilitate the adoption of RAS by users under everyday conditions. For the first time, we demonstrate this within an in-house mentoring approach.

Robotic and robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of short-term and long-term results

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer (RC) is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. This study conducted a meta-analysis of rectal cancer surgery for short-term and long-term outcome by Robotic and robotic-assisted surgery (RS) vs laparoscopic surgery (LS).Pubmed, Embase, Ovid, CNKI, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of short-term and long-term effect between RS and LS for RC were selected. Lymph node harvested, operation time, hospital stay, circumferential resection margins（CRM), complications, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year DFS parameters were evaluated. All data were performed by Review Manager 5.3 software. Nine studies were collected that included 1436 cases in total, 716 (49.86%) in the RS group, 720(50.14%) in the LS group. Compared with LS, RS was associated with longer operation time (MD 35.19, 95%CI [7.57, 62.81]; P = 0.01), but similar hospital stay (MD -0.43, 95%CI [-0.87,0.01]; P = 0.05).Lymph node harvested, CRM, complications, 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS had no significance difference between RS and LS groups（MD -0.67，95%CI[-1.53，0.19]；P = 0.13；MD 0.86，95%CI[0.54,1.37]；P = 0.52；MD 0.97，95%CI [0.73,1.29]；P = 0.86；MD 0.94，95%CI[0.60,1.48]；P = 0.79；MD 0.88，95%CI[0.52,1.47]；P = 0.61 respectively）.RS is feasible and safe for RC. It has an advantage in short -term outcome and a similar effect in long-term outcome compared with LS.

Technical essential aspects in robotic colorectal surgery: mastering the Da Vinci Si and Xi platforms

BACKGROUND

laparoscopy surgery has many proven clinical advantages over conventional surgery and more recently, robotic surgery has been the emerging platform in the minimally invasive era. In the colorectal field, although overcoming limitations of standard laparoscopy, robotic surgery still faces challenging situations even by the most experienced colorectal surgeons. This study reports essentials technical aspects and comparison between Da Vincis Si and Xi platforms aiming to master and maximize efficiency whenever performing robotic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

this study overviews the most structured concepts and practical applications in robotic colorectal surgery in both Si and Xi Da Vinci platforms. Possible pitfalls are emphasized and step-wise approach is described from port placement and docking process to surgical technique. We also present data collected from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

our early experience includes forty-four patients following a standardized total robotic left-colon and rectal resection. Guided information and practical applications for a safe and efficient robotic colorectal surgery are described. We also present illustrations and describe technical aspects of a standardized procedure.

CONCLUSION

performing robotic colorectal surgery is feasible and safe in experienced surgeons hands. Although the Da Vinci Xi platform demonstrates greater versatility in a more user-friendly design with technological advances, the correct mastery of technology by the surgical team is an essential condition for its fully robotic execution in a single docking approach.

Postoperative complications observed with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer: An updated meta-analysis of recently published studies

BACKGROUND

This is an updated meta-analysis comparing the postoperative complications observed with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) for the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

Cochrane central, MEDLNE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), Google Scholar, Web of Science and http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies (published after the year 2015), comparing robotic versus LS for the treatment of rectal cancer. The postoperative outcomes were considered as the endpoints in this analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used to carry out the statistical analysis. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the results following data analysis.

RESULTS

A total number of 22,744 participants were included in this study whereby 9178 participants were assigned to the robotic surgery and 13,566 participants were assigned to the LS group. The time period of patients' enrollment varied from years 2007 to 2017. Our results showed that overall complications (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71-1.17; P = .45), wound complications (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.64-1.04; P = .09), anastomotic leak (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.88-1.42; P = .37), anastomotic bleeding (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.29-2.64; P = .82), stoma-related complications (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.24-3.21; P = .85), intra-abdominal abscess (RR: 0.53. 95% CI: 0.22-1.31; P = .17), urinary tract infection (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.53-1.66; P = .83), enterocolitis (RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.38-4.71; P = .64), reoperation (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.46-1.54; P = .58), and mortality (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.34-1.62; P = .46) were not significantly different between robotic-assisted versus LS for rectal cancer. Postoperative ileus (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.81-1.81; P = .34), readmission (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.75-1.83; P = .48), and urinary retention (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.21-1.23; P = .14) were also similarly manifested.

CONCLUSIONS

In this updated meta-analysis, both robotic and laparoscopic surgeries were equally effective for the treatment of rectal cancer. Similar postoperative complications were observed. However, our analysis was restricted only to postoperative outcomes, parameters such as duration of surgery were not taken into consideration.

Update on Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

The minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer with Total Mesorectal Excision is a complex and challenging procedure due to technical and anatomical issues which could impair postoperative, oncological and functional outcomes, especially in a defined subgroup of patients. The results from recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery are still conflicting and trans-anal bottom-up approaches have recently been developed. Robotic surgery represents the latest consistent innovation in the field of minimally invasive surgery that may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy thanks to an enhanced dexterity, especially in deep narrow operative fields such as the pelvis. Results from population-based multicenter studies have shown the potential advantages of robotic surgery when compared to its laparoscopic counterpart in terms of reduced conversions, complication rates and length of stay. Costs, often advocated as one of the main drawbacks of robotic surgery, should be thoroughly evaluated including both the direct and indirect costs, with the latter having the potential of counterbalancing the excess of expenditure directly related to the purchase and maintenance of robotic equipment. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required to better delineate the advantages of the robotic platform, especially in the subset of most complex and technically challenging patients from both an anatomical and oncological standpoint.

Malfunction Events in the US FDA MAUDE Database: How Does Robotic Gynecologic Surgery Compare with Other Specialties?

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To review malfunction events (MEs) related to the use of the da Vinci robot reported to the United States Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience in the last 10 years and compare gynecologic surgery with other surgical specialties.

DESIGN

A retrospective review.

SETTING

Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database.

PATIENTS

Reports from 2010 to 2020 with keywords "Davinci" and "Intuitive".

INTERVENTIONS

Report review.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There were 679 reports included in the final analysis. Most MEs occurred intraoperatively (81.7%) and were related to robotic instrument malfunction (84.5%), and 30% required an instrument switch to complete the procedure. Conversion to open and laparoscopic surgery was required in 3.1% and 1.3% of MEs, respectively. Injury to the patient occurred in 15.6% of MEs. Of the reported injuries to patients, 6.6% were related to robotic malfunction, 49.2% to instrument malfunction, and 18% to surgeon or staff misuse of the robotic system, and 15.6% were complications inherent to the procedure, not related to the robotic system. Of all the reported MEs, 4.4% were related to robot malfunction, 1.5% to console malfunction, 73.3% to Intuitive accessory malfunction, 11.2% to other accessory malfunction, 4% to surgeon or staff misuse of robotic system, and 3% to complications inherent to the procedure. Comparison between gynecologic surgery and other surgical specialties showed that 14.4% of issues were solved intraoperatively in gynecologic surgery vs 13.7% in other specialties (p = .185). The procedure was completed robotically in 85.2% in gynecologic surgery vs 84% in other specialties, laparoscopically 4.6% vs 3.7%, and open in 10.2% vs 12.4%, respectively (p = .883). In gynecologic surgery, reported MEs were made by patients in 14.8% vs 4.8% in other specialties, manufacturer in 78.4% vs 74.2%, and operating room staff in 2.3% vs 16.1%, respectively (p = .007). Injury to patient was similar in gynecologic surgery compared with other specialties (35.1% vs 23.4%, p = .122). Gynecologic and other specialty MEs did not state the need for procedure rescheduling (0% vs 0%).

CONCLUSION

Most reported robotic MEs occurred intraoperatively, were related to robotic instrument malfunctions, and required an instrument switch. Most surgeries are completed robotically, but conversion to either an open or laparoscopic approach was reported in 4.4%. Of the 114 reported injuries, 47.4% were Clavien-Dindo grade III+. There were no differences noted in patient injury between gynecologic surgery and other specialties.

Robotic surgery in colon cancer: current evidence and future perspectives – narrative review

In the last 10 years, surgery has been developing towards minimal invasiveness; therefore, robotic surgery represents the consequent evolution of laparoscopic surgery. Worldwide, surgeons’ performances have been upgraded by the ergonomic developments of robotic systems, leading to several benefits for patients. The introduction into the market of the new Da Vinci Xi system has made it possible to perform all types of surgery on the colon, an in selected cases, to combine interventions in other organs or viscera at the same time. Optimization of the suprapubic surgical approach may shorten the length of hospital stay for patients who undergo robotic colonic resection. From this perspective, single-port robotic colectomy, has reduced the number of robotic ports needed, allowing a better anesthetic outcome and faster recovery. The introduction on the market of new surgical robotic systems from multiple manufacturers is bound to change the landscape of robotic surgery and yield high-quality surgical outcomes.

Lower conversion rate with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy; a national cohort study

Background

Conversion from laparoscopic to open access colorectal surgery is associated with a poorer postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to assess conversion rates and outcomes after standard laparoscopic rectal resection (LR) and robotic laparoscopic rectal resection (RR).

Methods

A national 5-year cohort study utilizing prospectively recorded data on patients who underwent elective major laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. Data were retrieved from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. Primary end point was conversion rate. Secondary end points were postoperative complications within 30 days and histopathological results. Chi-square test, two-sided T test, and Mann–Whitney U test were used for univariable analyses. Both univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the relations between different predictors and outcomes, and propensity score matching was performed to address potential treatment assignment bias.

Results

A total of 1284 patients were included, of whom 375 underwent RR and 909 LR. Conversion rate was 8 out of 375 (2.1%) for RR compared with 87 out of 909 (9.6%) for LR (p < 0.001). RR was associated with reduced risk for conversion compared with LR (aOR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10–0.46). There were no other outcome differences between RR and LR. Factors associated with increased risk for conversion were male gender, severe cardiac disease and BMI > 30. Conversion was associated with higher rates of major complications (20 out of 95 (21.2%) vs 135 out of 1189 (11.4%) p = 0.005), reoperations (13 out of 95 (13.7%) vs 93 out of 1189 (7.1%) p = 0.020), and longer hospital stay (median 8 days vs 6 days, p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Conversion rate was lower with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy. Conversions were associated with higher rates of postoperative complications.

Does conversion during minimally invasive rectal surgery for cancer have an impact on short-term and oncologic outcomes? Results of a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive rectal surgery (MIRS) for cancer provides better recovery for similar oncologic outcomes over open approach, conversion is still required in 10% and its impact on short-term and long-term outcomes remains unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of conversion on postoperative and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing MIRS for cancer.

METHODS

From June 2011 to March 2020, we reviewed 257 minimally invasive rectal resections for cancer recorded in a prospectively maintained database, with 192 robotic and 65 laparoscopic approaches. Patients who required conversion to open (Conversion group) were compared to those who did not have conversion (No conversion group) in terms of short-term, histologic, and oncologic outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the risk factors for postoperative morbidity were performed.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (7%) required conversion. The conversion rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopic approach than in the robotic approach (16.9% vs 3.6%, p < 0.01). Among the 4 reactive conversions, 3 (75%) were required during robotic resections. Patients in the Conversion group had a higher morbidity rate (83.3% vs 43.1%, p = 0.01) and more severe complications (38.9%, vs 18.8%, p = 0.041). Male sex [HR = 2.46, 95%CI (1.41-4.26)], total mesorectal excision [HR = 2.89, 95%CI (1.57-5.320)], and conversion (HR = 4.87, 95%CI [1.34-17.73]) were independently associated with a higher risk of overall 30-day morbidity. R1 resections were more frequent in the Conversion group (22.2% vs 5.4%, p = 0.023) without differences in the overall (82.7 ± 7.0 months vs 79.4 ± 3.3 months, p = 0.448) and disease-free survivals (49.0 ± 8.6 months vs 70.2 ± 4.1 months, p = 0.362).

CONCLUSION

Conversion to laparotomy during MIRS for cancer was associated with poorer postoperative results without impairing oncologic outcomes. The high frequency of reactive conversion due to intraoperative complications in robotic resections confirmed that MIRS for cancer is a technically challenging procedure.

Simultaneous Robot Assisted Colon and Liver Resection for Metastatic Colon Cancer

Introduction

Simultaneous robot assisted colon and liver resections are being performed more frequently at present due to the expanded adoption of the robotic platform for surgical management of metastatic colon cancer. However, this approach has not been studied in detail with only case series available in the literature. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current body of evidence on the feasibility of performing simultaneous robotic colon and liver resections.

Methods

A systematic review was performed through PubMed to identify relevant articles describing simultaneous colon and liver resections for metastatic colon cancer.

Results

A total of 28 patients underwent simultaneous resections robotically with an average operative time of 420.3 minutes and average blood loss of 275.6 ml. Postoperative stay was 8.6 days on average with all cases achieving negative surgical margins.

Conclusions

Robotic simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer with liver metastases is technically feasible and seems oncologically equivalent to open or laparoscopic surgery. Further studies are urgently needed to assess benefits of robotic surgery in the patient population.

State of the art robotic distal pancreatectomy: a review of the literature

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy has become increasingly used in practice. While laparoscopic approach is the most commonly used technique, robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has emerged as a safe, feasible and effective approach for distal pancreatectomy. Most studies have shown that RDP improved perioperative surgical outcomes and has equivalent oncologic outcomes to open technique. Widespread adoption is limited by a steep learning curve, higher costs and the need for institutional training protocols in place for safe integration of the platform into practice.

Postoperative Complications Associated With Intra- Versus Extracorporeal Anastomosis for Laparoscopic Right Colectomy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the postoperative complications of intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) and extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC).

BACKGROUND

Although several studies have compared postoperative complications of ICA and ECA after LRC, most were retrospective studies.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive electronic search of the literature to identify studies that compared postoperative complications between ICA and ECA in patients who underwent LRC. We performed meta-analysis using random-effects models to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of experiencing complications, and we analyzed heterogeneity using I² statistics.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies consist of randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and propensity score matching studies involving a total of 3219 patients who underwent LRC were included. Among 1377 patients who received ICA, 255 (18.5%) had postoperative complications, whereas among 1652 patients who received ECA, 373 (22.6%) had such complications. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that ICA was associated with a significantly reduced risk of postoperative complications (RR, .73; 95% CI: .57-.95; P = .02; I² = 57%) compared with ECA. Although there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in risk of anastomotic leakage (RR, .67; 95% CI: .39-1.17; P = .16; I² = 8%), there was a significant difference between them in risk of surgical site infection (RR, .50; 95% CI: .34-.71; P = .0002; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with a reduced risk of postoperative complications compared with ECA in patients undergoing LRC.

[Robotic-assisted surgery of rectal cancer-Technique, limitations and results]

BACKGROUND

The number of oncological robotic-assisted rectal cancer resections is rapidly increasing in Germany and worldwide; however, the indications, technique and potential limitations of this surgical technique are still discussed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The standardized modular surgical technique, the results in our clinic and the currently published evidence are presented.

RESULTS

The procedure should be divided into seven modules in terms of standardization and teaching. After the learning curve there are principally no limitations or contraindications. The robotic-assisted approach is superior to open surgery in the following points: blood loss, lymph node harvest, negative circumferential resection margin (CRM), complication rate and length of hospital stay. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy the conversion rate and postoperative sexual and bladder function disorders are decreased. The operating time is longer.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted rectal cancer resection is firmly established and standardized. The technique is superior to open surgery and conventional laparoscopy in some important aspects and is developing into the standard for this disease.

[Evidence in minimally invasive oncological surgery of the colon and rectum]

An essential component of the treatment of colorectal cancer is a resection of the tumor-bearing segment of the bowels. After the development of minimally invasive procedures the feasibility and safety in oncological, colorectal surgery was questioned. The broad study situation for colon cancer over the last years showed predominantly consistent benefits during the perioperative phase and non-inferiority concerning long-term oncological outcomes. The implementation of laparoscopic rectal resection was more hesitant due to the complexity of the procedure and insufficient study data; however, overall the short-term benefits seem to be maintained and laparoscopic rectal resection is thought to be noninferior to open resection in the long run even though findings on the quality of the resected specimen are heterogeneous. Accordingly, most guidelines now include a recommendation of laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer. The limitation with respect to an achievable oncological equivalency of resection takes account of the complexity and the requirements of the intervention only in the setting of rational selection of patients and sufficient experience of the surgeon.

The risk of conversion in minimally invasive oncological abdominal surgery. Meta-analysis of randomized evidence comparing traditional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted techniques

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to investigate the risk of conversion associated with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP) versus robot-assisted surgery (ROB) in patients undergoing abdominal oncological surgery. Possible differences between ROB and LAP on postoperative overall and major morbidity, operative time, and length of hospitalization were also assessed.

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials of LAP versus ROB surgery in patients with abdominal malignancy. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Central registries through September 2020. Risk of bias was estimated concerning randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases.

RESULTS

A total of 1867 patients from 12 trials were included in this review. The rate of conversion was significantly higher for LAP than for ROB patients (10 trials, 1447 participants, p = 0.03, OR = 0.56 [0.33, 0.95]). There was a nonsignificant advantage of ROB over LAP on the rate of overall postoperative morbidity (12 trials, 1867 participants, p = 0.32, OR = 0.83) and major morbidity (7 trials, 792 participants, p = 0.87, OR= 0.93). ROB was also associated with prolonged operative time and abbreviated postoperative hospitalization as compared to LAP (p = 0.002, MD = 27.87, and p = 0.04, MD = -0.57, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the available highest level of evidence, the application of ROB decreases the incidence of unplanned conversion into an open procedure as compared to standard LAP in the setting of oncological minimally invasive surgery.

State of the art in robotic rectal surgery: marginal gains worth the pain?

After their first introduction in the 1990s to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, especially in confined spaces such as the pelvis, telemanipulators (i.e., master-slave manipulators) have gained popularity and acceptance among gastrointestinal surgeons. These complex, interventional surgical devices use multiple technologies, such as 3-D advanced imaging, tremor reduction and 7-degree movement. Superior instrument dexterity, stable precise vision and accessibility to narrow confined spaces make these devices well suited for colorectal surgery. The drive for innovations in the field of surgical robotics will leverage novel robots driven by data, image integration, and artificial intelligence. However, if this vision is to be realized, lessons must be learned from the current literature and clinical trials. The feasibility and safety of robotic rectal surgery is now well established; increasing evidence suggests that when compared to laparoscopic rectal surgery, robotic approaches might offer superior peri-operative outcomes. Notably, the marginal gains achieved with the use of robotics in rectal cancer surgery are linked with structured training and standardization of operative techniques. With decreasing costs and wider availability of new systems, it is foreseeable that robotic surgical systems will be an integral part of colorectal practice.

Robotic Surgery in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Surgery is considered a cornerstone of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment. In the last years, robotic surgery has seen an increase in adoption rates for both benign and malignant diseases.

OBJECTIVE

This work aims to review the current applications of robotic surgery in IBD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Minimally-invasive techniques have been applied to the treatment of IBD for more than 20 years. Investments in surgical digital and robotic platforms are increasingly arising, with an estimate of getting doubled within the next 5 years. Robotic surgery represents the newest technology available to reduce the impact of surgery on patients affected by IBD, and may theoretically be even more effective than other minimally-invasive techniques given the lower rate of conversion to open surgery as compared to laparoscopy according to many large retrospective series. Data on robotic surgery applied to IBD are still scarce and initial experiences in high-volume centers from retrospective series suggested that robotic surgery may achieve similar results when compared to laparoscopy. A new wave of robotics incorporating artificial intelligence is awaited to empower the capability of IBD surgeon in terms of intraoperative decision-making beyond technical skill enhancement.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer

Minimally invasive surgery has demonstrated many benefits in general surgery, particularly in colon and rectal procedures. On the other hand, it has some limitations that must be taken into account, especially technical drawback. Robotic surgery has incorporated many improvements to overcome this disadvantage, such as 3D visualization, articulating instruments assisting complex and precise movements. As a result, robotic colorectal surgery shows less intraoperative blood loss, shorter time to oral tolerance and initial flatus (particularly associated with "Enhanced Recovery After Surgery" protocol), less conversion rate to open surgery, shortened hospital stay, and longer distal margins compared to laparoscopic and open surgery. This approach also shows a shorter learning curve. Some studies suggest that it could decrease perioperatively or 30 days after the intervention's mortality, raise overall survival, reduce wound infection, and improve functional results, while others show no significant difference. However, it lengthens surgical time. Otherwise, the studies included do not show statistically significant changes in the number of resected lymph nodes and anastomotic leaks. Economic costs remain one of the major concerns, although to date there are no large-scale studies that have evaluated this aspect from a global point of view. Robotic surgery represents a qualitative leap in surgical instruments and, although there is no strong evidence in favor of the use of robotic surgery over laparoscopic or open surgery, there is enough evidence to support its use in colorectal surgery, with potential advantages for patients.

Hospital robotic use for colorectal cancer care

The use of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer continues to increase. However, not all organizations offer patients the option of robotic intervention. This study seeks to understand organizational characteristics associated with the utilization of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. We conducted a retrospective study of hospitals identified in the United States, State of Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset, and linked data for those hospitals with the American Hospital Association Survey, Area Health Resource File and the Health Community Health Assessment Resource Tool Set. The study population included all robotic surgeries for colorectal cancer patients in 159 hospitals from 2013 to 2015. Logistic regressions identifying organizational, community, and combined community and organizational variables were utilized to determine associations. Results indicate that neither hospital competition nor disease burden in the community was associated with increased odds of robotic surgery use. However, per capita income (OR 1.07 95% CI 1.02, 1.12), average total margin (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.001, 1.02) and large-sized hospitals compared to small hospitals (OR: 5.26, 95% CI 1.13, 24.44) were associated with increased odds of robotic use. This study found that market conditions within the U.S. State of Florida are not primary drivers of hospital use of robotic surgery. The ability for the population to pay for such services, and the hospital resources available to absorb the expense of purchasing the required equipment, appear to be more influential.

[Robotic Assisted Proctocolectomy with Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis in a Case of Suspected Hereditary Polyposis]

BACKGROUND

Various forms of hereditary polyposis have been described in the literature. Classical familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a rare, autosomal dominantly inherited disease which is caused by a germline mutation in the adenomatous polyposis coli gene (APC). Patients with this diagnosis successively develop multiple polyps of the colon. Left untreated, FAP almost inevitably leads to malignant transformation.

INDICATION

We present the case of a 37-year-old patient with histologically confirmed, stenotic adenocarcinoma of the descending colon and an initially suspected hereditary polyposis due to multiple polyps in the descending and sigmoid colon.

METHODS

The video describes the preoperative imaging as well as endoscopic findings and demonstrates the technique of a two-stage, robotically assisted proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and the creation of a temporary loop ileostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to the surgical treatment of classic FAP, restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) with ileal J-pouch construction can be regarded as an established standard procedure, despite controversy regarding various technical aspects. Minimally invasive strategies should be considered as an equivalent option compared to conventional techniques.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Operative Technique and Review of the Literature

The number of patients undergoing robotic surgery for rectal cancer has rapidly increased in Japan, since the government approved the procedure for national insurance coverage in April 2018. Robotic surgery has the potential to overcome some limitations of laparoscopic surgery, especially in the narrow pelvis, providing a three-dimensional view, articulated instruments, and a stable camera platform. Although meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate the superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery with respect to the short-term clinical outcomes, the published findings suggest that robotic surgery may be potentially beneficial for patients who are obese, male, or patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. The safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for lateral lymph node dissection, the standard procedure for locally advanced lower rectal cancer in Japan, have been demonstrated in some retrospective studies. However, additional prospective, randomized trials are required to determine the actual benefits of robotic surgery to ameliorate the urogenital and oncological outcomes. The cost of this approach is a long-standing principal concern. A literature search showed that the cost of robotic surgery for rectal cancer was 1.3-2.5 times higher per patient than that for the laparoscopic approach. We herein describe our surgical technique using a da Vinci Surgical System (S/Si/Xi) with 10 years of experience in performing robotic surgery. We also review current evidence regarding short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes, lateral lymph node dissection, and the cost of the procedure.