Short-term postoperative outcomes following robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis are equivalent

Navigating Progress: 8-Year Single-Center Experience With Minimally Invasive Proctectomy and IPAA

BACKGROUND

IPAA has become the criterion standard for treating ulcerative colitis, familial adenomatous polyposis, and selected cases of Crohn's colitis. Robotic surgery promises improved postoperative outcomes and decreased length of stay. However, few studies have evaluated the benefits of robotic IPAA compared to laparoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare short-term 30-day postoperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study from a single, high-volume center.

SETTINGS

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (tertiary referral center for IBD).

PATIENTS

All adult patients undergoing minimally invasive proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy between January 2015 and April 2023.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Thirty-day complications, hospital length of stay, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, 30-day readmission, and 30-day reoperation.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventeen patients were included in the study; 107 underwent robotic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy, whereas 110 had laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy. Operating time was significantly longer in the robotic group (263 ± 38 vs 228 ± 75 minutes, p < 0.0001). The robotic group also had lower estimated blood loss (81.5 ± 77.7 vs 126.8 ± 111.0 mL, p = 0.0006) as well as fewer conversions (0% vs 8.2%, p = 0.003). Patients in the robotic group received more intraoperative fluids (3099 ± 1140 vs 2472 ± 996 mL, p = 0.0001). However, there was no difference in length of stay, 30-day morbidity, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, rate of diverting loop ileostomy closure at 3 months, and surgical IPAA complication rate after ileostomy closure.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design, single-center study, potential bias because of the novelty of the robotic approach, and lack of long-term and quality-of-life outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic proctectomy with IPAA and diverting loop ileostomy may offer advantages in terms of estimated blood loss and conversion rate while maintaining the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Further research is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes. See Video Abstract .

NAVEGANDO EL PROGRESO EXPERIENCIA DE OCHO AOS EN UN SOLO CENTRO CON PROCTECTOMA MNIMAMENTE INVASIVA Y ANASTOMOSIS ANALBOLSA ILEAL

ANTECEDENTES:La anastomosis anal-bolsa ileal (IPAA) se ha convertido en el estándar de oro para el tratamiento de la colitis ulcerosa, la poliposis adenomatosa familiar y casos seleccionados de colitis de Crohn. La cirugía robótica promete mejores resultados posoperatorios y una menor duración de la estancia hospitalaria. Sin embargo, pocos estudios han evaluado los beneficios de la IPAA robótica en comparación con la laparoscopia.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados postoperatorios a corto plazo a 30 días de la proctectomía robótica versus laparoscópica con IPAA e ileostomía en asa de derivación.DISEÑO:Estudio observacional retrospectivo de un único centro de gran volumen.AJUSTES:Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota (centro terciario de referencia para EII).PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes adultos sometidos a proctectomía mínimamente invasiva con IPAA y DLI entre Enero de 2015 y Abril de 2023.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS:Complicaciones a los 30 días, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, pérdida de sangre estimada, tasa de conversión, reingreso a los 30 días y reoperación a los 30 días.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron en el estudio 217 pacientes; 107 se sometieron a proctectomía robótica con IPAA y DLI, mientras que 110 se sometieron a proctectomía laparoscópica con IPAA y DLI. El tiempo operatorio fue significativamente mayor en el grupo robótico (263 ± 38 minutos versus 228 ± 75 minutos, p < 0,0001); la pérdida de sangre estimada (EBL) fue menor en el grupo robótico (81,5 ± 77,7 ml versus 126,8 ± 111,0 ml, p = 0,0006), así como el número de conversiones (0% versus 8,2%, p = 0,003). Los pacientes del grupo robótico recibieron más líquidos intraoperatorios (3099 ± 1140 ml versus 2472 ± 996 ml, p = 0,0001). Sin embargo, no hubo diferencias en la duración de la estancia hospitalaria, la morbilidad a los 30 días, el reingreso a los 30 días, la reoperación a los 30 días, la tasa de cierre del DLI a los tres meses y la tasa de complicaciones quirúrgicas de la IPAA después del cierre de la ileostomía.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, estudio unicéntrico, posible sesgo debido a la novedad del enfoque robótico, falta de resultados a largo plazo y de calidad de vida.CONCLUSIONES:La proctectomía robótica con IPAA y DLI puede ofrecer ventajas en términos de EBL y tasa de conversión, manteniendo al mismo tiempo los beneficios de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva. Se necesita más investigación para evaluar los resultados a largo plazo. (Traducción-Dr. Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Extensive Colitis and Smoking Are Associated With Postoperative Complications Within 30 Days of Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Our understanding of outcomes after proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis (UC) is largely based on analyses of selected populations. We created a state-level registry to evaluate the epidemiology of IPAA surgery and pouch-related outcomes across the major healthcare systems performing these surgeries in our state.

METHODS

We created a retrospective cohort of all patients undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA for UC at 1 of 4 centers between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. The primary outcomes of this study were the rate of complications and all-cause readmissions within the first 30 days of the final stage of IPAA surgery.

RESULTS

During the study period, 177 patients underwent IPAA surgery with 66 (37%) experiencing a complication within 30 days. After adjusting for the number of stages in IPAA surgery, patients with extensive UC (odds ratio, 3.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-9.33) and current or former smokers (odds ratio, 2.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-6.45) were more likely to experience a complication. Among all patients, 57 (32%) required readmission within 30 days. The most common reasons for readmission were ileus/small bowel obstruction (22%), peripouch abscess (19%), and dehydration (16%).

CONCLUSION

In this first state-level examination of the epidemiology of IPAA for UC, we demonstrated that the complication rate after IPAA for UC was 37%, with one-third of patients being readmitted within 30 days. Extensive disease at the time of colectomy appears to be an indicator of more severe disease and may portend a worse prognosis after IPAA.

The Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Current Trends and Future Directions

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) provides superior results in the surgical treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). There exist various minimally invasive procedures, each possessing its own set of benefits and drawbacks. This literature review outlines these methodologies and underscores their importance in enhancing the outcomes of patients with IBD. A grand total of 192 studies were carefully chosen and succinctly summarized. Conventional multiport laparoscopy is the most widely used MIS for IBD, with single-incision laparoscopy showing even better results. Robotic surgery offers comparable results but at higher costs and longer operation times. In the future, there will be widespread acceptance of single-incision laparoscopy and robotic surgery due to improved training and reduced expenses. Further research into the technology's utility in different IBD presentations could increase its usage.

State of the Art: Pouch Surgery in the 21st Century

BACKGROUND

An ileoanal pouch with IPAA is the preferred method to restore intestinal continuity in patients who require a total proctocolectomy. Pouch surgery has evolved during the past decades thanks to increased experience and research, changes in the medical management of patients who require an ileal pouch, and technological innovations.

OBJECTIVE

To review the main changes in pouch surgery over the past 2 decades, with a focus on staging, minimally invasive and transanal approaches, pouch design, and anastomotic configuration.

RESULTS

The decision on the staging approach depends on the patient's conditions, their indication for surgery, and the risk of anastomotic leak. A minimally invasive approach should be performed whenever feasible, but open surgery still has a role in this technically demanding operation. Transanal IPAA may be performed in experienced centers and may reduce conversion to open surgery in the hostile pelvis. The J-pouch is the easiest, fastest, and most commonly performed design, but other designs may be used when a J-pouch is not feasible. A stapled anastomosis without mucosectomy can be safely performed in the majority of cases, with a low incidence of rectal cuff neoplasia and better functional outcomes than handsewn. Finally, Crohn's disease is not an absolute contraindication to an ileoanal pouch, but pouch failure may be higher compared to other indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Many technical nuances contribute to the success of an ileoanal pouch. The current standard of care is a laparoscopic J-pouch with double-stapled anastomosis, but this should not be seen as a dogma, and the optimal approach and design should be tailored to each patient. See video from symposium.

Current Management of Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis: New Insights on the Surgical Approaches

Acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) is a life-threatening medical emergency with considerable morbidity. Despite recent advances in medical IBD therapy, colectomy rates for ASUC remain high. A scoping review of published articles on ASUC was performed. We collected data, such as general information of the disease, diagnosis and initial assessment, and available medical and surgical treatments focusing on technical aspects of surgical approaches. The most relevant articles were considered in this scoping review. The management of ASUC is challenging; currently, personalized treatment for it is unavailable. Sequential medical therapy should be administrated, preferably in high-volume IBD centers with close patient monitoring and indication for surgery in those cases with persistent symptoms despite medical treatment, complications, and clinical worsening. A total colectomy with end ileostomy is typically performed in the acute setting. Managing rectal stump is challenging, and all individual and technical aspects should be considered. Conversely, when performing elective colectomy for ASUC, a staged surgical procedure is usually preferred, thus optimizing the patients' status preoperatively and minimizing postoperative complications. The minimally invasive approach should be selected whenever technically feasible. Robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) has shown similar outcomes in terms of safety and postoperative morbidity. The transanal approach to ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (Ta-IPAA) is a recent technique for creating an ileal pouch-anal anastomosis via a transanal route. Early experiences suggest comparable short- and medium-term functional results of the transanal technique to those of traditional approaches. However, there is a need for additional comparative outcomes data and a better understanding of the ideal training and implementation pathways for this procedure. This manuscript predominantly explores the surgical treatment of ASUC. Additionally, it provides an overview of currently available medical treatment options that the surgeon should reasonably consider in a multidisciplinary setting.

Transanal ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of technical approaches and clinical outcomes

PURPOSE

Transanal minimally invasive surgery has theoretical advantages for ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery. We performed a systematic review assessing technical approaches to transanal IPAA (Ta-IPAA) and meta-analysis comparing outcomes to transabdominal (abd-IPAA) approaches.

METHODS

Three databases were searched for articles investigating Ta-IPAA outcomes. Primary outcome was anastomotic leak rate. Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, post operative morbidity, and length of stay (LoS). Staging, plane of dissection, anastomosis, extraction site, operative time, and functional outcomes were also assessed.

RESULTS

Searches identified 13 studies with 404 unique Ta-IPAA and 563 abd-IPAA patients. Anastomotic leak rates were 6.3% and 8.4% (RD 0, 95% CI -0.066 to 0.065, p = 0.989) and conversion rates 2.5% and 12.5% (RD -0.106, 95% CI -0.155 to -0.057, p = 0.104) for Ta-IPAA and abd-IPAA. Average LoS was one day shorter (MD -1, 95% CI -1.876 to 0.302, p = 0.007). A three-stage approach was most common (47.6%), operative time was 261(± 60) mins, and total mesorectal excision and close rectal dissection were equally used (49.5% vs 50.5%). Functional outcomes were similar. Lack of randomised control trials, case-matched series, and significant study heterogeneity limited analysis, resulting in low to very low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis demonstrated the feasibility and safety of Ta-IPAA with reduced LoS, trend towards less conversions, and comparable anastomotic leak rates and post operative morbidity. Though results are encouraging, they need to be interpreted with heterogeneity and selection bias in mind. Robust randomised clinical trials are warranted to adequately compare ta-IPAA to transabdominal approaches.

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.

Short-term outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery: a propensity score match study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery offers improved short-term outcomes over open surgery but can be technically challenging. Robotic surgery has been increasingly used for IPAA surgery, but there is limited evidence supporting its use. This study aims to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic IPAA procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic IPAA surgery at 3 centres, from 3 countries, between 2008 and 2019 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for gender, previous abdominal surgery, ASA grade (I, II vs III, IV) and procedure performed (proctocolectomy vs completion proctectomy). Their short-term outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients were identified (73 laparoscopic, 16 robotic). The 16 patients that received robotic surgery were matched with 15 laparoscopic patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated short-term outcomes. Length of stay trend was higher for laparoscopic surgery (9 vs 7 days, p = 0.072) CONCLUSION: Robotic IPAA surgery is safe and feasible and offers similar short-term outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Length of stay may be lower for robotic IPAA surgery, but further larger scale studies are required in order to demonstrate this.

Pediatric colorectal robotic surgery

Robotic colorectal surgery allows adult and pediatric surgeons to overcome the technical limitations of laparoscopic surgery. It also provides improved ergonomics in the field of surgery. Robotic surgery has several advantages in colorectal operations that require complex minimally invasive skills including anorectal malformations, Hirschsprung disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. In this section, we discuss the key aspects of colorectal surgery where robotic instrumentation seems ideal.

Ileal reservoir-associated complications in ulcerative colitis versus familial adenomatous polyposis: Impact on patient quality of life

BACKGROUND

Proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir is the surgical procedure of choice for patients with ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate long-term postoperative complications (1994-2019) in patients operated for familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and ulcerative colitis (UC) and the degree of satisfaction with the procedure.

METHODS

Observational study based on the analysis of a retrospective database with prospective follow-up in 115 consecutive patients: 79 with UC and 36 with FAP. A total of 88 patients were followed up, 60 with UC and 28 with PFA.

RESULTS

48 males (54.4%) with a mean age of 44.8 ± 10.6 years were evaluated. Indications for surgery were intractable disease in 54 patients (47%), dysplasia/cancer in 43 (37%), severe bleeding in 4 (4%) and perforation in 3 (3%). A proctectomy and mucosectomy of the rectal stump was performed in 67 (76.1%), and a double stapling technique in 21. A protective ileostomy was performed in all patients with UC and FAP. No differences were found in early complications between the two groups. Late complications showed a higher rate of reservoritis in UC patients compared to FAP (44.9 vs. 14.3%, p = 0.001), with more refractory reservoritis in the UC group (13.3 vs. 0%, p = 0.04) with no differences in bowel obstruction, strictures, or anastomotic fistulas. Overall satisfaction and adaptation were considered good in 87% of UC patients and only 57% in the FAP group (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Proctocolectomy with ileal reservoir has comparable morbidity and mortality, except for the higher rate of reservoritis in patients with a history of UC, despite this contingency there is a better quality of life and greater acceptance of surgery in UC patients than in FAP patients.

Robotic Surgery for the Ileal Pouch

BACKGROUND

A robotic approach to total colectomy/proctectomy and ileal pouch reconstruction would seem to be a sensible use of the platform's enhanced reach, visualization, and dexterity.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to discuss current published data for robotic ileal pouch surgery.

STUDY SELECTION

The study selection included a paucity of published data to date, representing early learning curves and case series with small numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

Current robotic platforms may offer advantages, particularly in the low pelvis beyond what is found with a laparoscopic approach.

Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Proctectomy with Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis for Ulcerative Colitis: An Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes from a Tertiary Referral Center

Background: Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery is gaining popularity, but limited data are available on the safety, efficacy, and cost of robotic-assisted restorative proctectomy with the construction of an ileal pouch and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods: A retrospective study was conducted comparing consecutively performed robotic-assisted and laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA between 1 January 2016 and 31 September 2021. In total, 67 adult patients with medically refractory UC without proven dysplasia or carcinoma underwent surgery: 29 operated robotically and 38 laparoscopically. Results: There were no differences between both groups regarding postoperative complications within 30 days according to Clavien-Dindo classification’ grades 1−5 (51.7% vs. 42.1%, p = 0.468) and severe grades 3b−5 (17.2% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.485). Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with an increased urinary tract infection rate (n = 7, 24.1% vs. n = 1, 2.6%; p = 0.010) and longer operative time (346 ± 65 min vs. 281 ± 66 min; p < 0.0001). Surgery costs were higher when operated robotically (median EUR 10.377 [IQR EUR 4.727] vs. median EUR 6.689 [IQR EUR 3.170]; p < 0.0001), resulting in reduced total inpatient profits (median EUR 110 [IQR EUR 4.971] vs. median EUR 2.853 [IQR EUR 5.386]; p = 0.001). Conclusion: Robotic-assisted proctectomy with IPAA can be performed with comparable short-term clinical outcomes to laparoscopy but is associated with a longer duration of surgery and higher surgery costs. As experience increases, some advantages may become evident regarding operative time, postoperative recovery, and length of stay. The robotic procedure might then become cost-efficient.

A Single-Center Experience of Transanal Proctectomy With IPAA for IBD

BACKGROUND

Restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA is the standard procedure in ulcerative colitis patients with medical refractory disease or dysplasia and select patients with IBD unclassified or Crohn's disease. A variety of minimally invasive techniques have become increasingly utilized, including the transanal IPAA. Unfortunately, despite its growing popularity, there is a lack of high-quality data for the transanal approach.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes, including complication rates, during our initial experience with the transanal approach.

DESIGN

The study design was a single-center prospective case series.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

The study included patients with ulcerative colitis, IBD unclassified, and Crohn's disease undergoing 2- or 3-stage restorative proctocolectomy with IPAA.

INTERVENTIONS

Consecutive patients after November 2016 undergoing restorative proctocolectomy with transanal approach were compared with a historic cohort of patients who underwent an open approach before October 2016.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was early and late anastomotic leak rates during our learning curve. Secondary outcomes included postoperative clinical measures.

RESULTS

The study group consisted of 100 open and 65 transanal approach patients. Median (interquartile range) estimated blood loss was lower with the transanal approach (100 [50-150] vs 150 [100-250] mL; p = 0.007), and hospital stay was lower in the transanal group by 2 days ( p < 0.001). There was a significantly higher rate of anastomotic leaks with the transanal approach compared with the open approach (n = 7 [11%] vs n = 2 [2%] respectively; p = 0.03). There were fewer, but statistically insignificant, anastomotic complications in the third tertile, which was later in our learning curve.

LIMITATIONS

The study was nonrandomized with consecutive assignment, introducing possible selection and chronology biases.

CONCLUSION

Restorative proctocolectomy with the transanal approach was associated with lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay but a significantly higher anastomotic leak rate. The transanal minimally invasive approach for pouch surgery offers some advantages but carries a steep learning curve. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B842 .

EXPERIENCIA DE UN SOLO CENTRO DE PROCTECTOMA TRANSANAL CON ANASTOMOSIS ILEOANAL CON RESERVORIO ILEAL PARA ENFERMEDAD INFLAMATORIA INTESTINAL

ANTECEDENTES:La proctocolectomía restaurativa con anastomosis ileoanal con reservorio ileal es el procedimiento estándar en pacientes con colitis ulcerativa con enfermedad médica refractaria o displasia y pacientes seleccionados con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal no clasificada o enfermedad de Crohn. Se ha utilizado cada vez más una variedad de técnicas mínimamente invasivas, incluido el enfoque de anastomosis ileoanal con reservorio ileal transanal. Desafortunadamente, a pesar de su creciente popularidad, hay falta de datos de alta calidad para el enfoque transanal.OBJETIVO:Investigar los resultados clínicos, incluidas las tasas de complicaciones, durante nuestra experiencia inicial con el enfoque transanal.DISEÑO:Serie de casos prospectivos de un solo centro.AJUSTES:Centro de referencia terciario.PACIENTES:Pacientes con ulcerativa, enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal no clasificada y enfermedad de Crohn sometidos a proctocolectomía restaurativa de 2 o 3 etapas con anastomosis ileoanal con reservorio ileal.INTERVENCIONES:Pacientes consecutivos después de noviembre del 2016 sometidos a proctocolectomía restaurativa con abordaje transanal fueron comparados con una cohorte histórica que se sometieron a un abordaje abierto antes de octubre del 2016.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La principal medida de resultado fueron las tasas de fuga anastomótica temprana y tardía durante nuestra curva de aprendizaje. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron medidas clínicas postoperatorias.RESULTADOS:El grupo de estudio estuvo formado por 100 pacientes con abordaje abierto y 65 por vía transanal. La media de pérdida sanguínea estimada fue menor con el abordaje transanal (100 [50-150] vs 150 [100-250] mL; p = 0.007) y la estancia hospitalaria fue menor en el grupo transanal por 2 días ( p < 0.001). Hubo una tasa significativamente mayor de fugas anastomóticas con el abordaje transanal en comparación con el abordaje abierto (n = 7 [11%] vs n = 2 [2%] respectivamente, p = 0.03). Hubo menos complicaciones anastomóticas, pero estadísticamente insignificantes, en el tercer tercil, posterior en nuestra curva de aprendizaje.LIMITACIONES:Estudio no randomizado con asignación consecutiva que presenta posibles sesgos de selección y cronología.CONCLUSIÓNES:La proctocolectomía restaurativa con abordaje transanal se asoció a una menor pérdida sanguínea y estancia hospitalaria más corta, pero con una tasa de fuga anastomótica significativamente mayor. El abordaje transanal mínimamente invasivo para cirugía de reservorio ofrece algunas ventajas, pero conlleva a una curva de aprendizaje pronunciada. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B842 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon ).

Robotic multiquadrant colorectal procedures: A single-center experience and a systematic review of the literature

Purpose

Robotic surgery has been progressively implemented for colorectal procedures but is still limited for multiquadrant abdominal resections. The present study aims to describe our experience in robotic multiquadrant colorectal surgeries and provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature investigating the outcomes of robotic total proctocolectomy (TPC), total colectomy (TC), subtotal colectomy (STC), or completion proctectomy (CP) compared to laparoscopy.

Methods

At our institution 16 consecutive patients underwent a 2- or 3-stage totally robotic total proctocolectomy (TPC) with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. A systematic review of the literature was performed to select studies on robotic and laparoscopic multiquadrant colorectal procedures. Meta-analyses were used to compare the two approaches.

Results

In our case series, 14/16 patients underwent a 2-stage robotic TPC for ulcerative colitis with a mean operative time of 271.42 (SD:37.95) minutes. No conversion occurred. Two patients developed postoperative complications. The mean hospital stay was 8.28 (SD:1.47) days with no readmissions. Mortality was nil. All patients underwent loop-ileostomy closure, and functional outcomes were satisfactory. The literature appraisal was based on 23 retrospective studies, including 736 robotic and 9,904 laparoscopic multiquadrant surgeries. In the robotic group, 36 patients underwent STC, 371 TC, 166 TPC, and 163 CP. Pooled data analysis showed that robotic TC and STC had a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.17;95% CI, 0.04–0.82; p = 0.03) than laparoscopic TC and STC. The robotic approach was associated with longer operative time for TC and STC (MD = 104.64;95% CI, 18.42–190.87; p = 0.02) and TPC and CP (MD = 38.8;95% CI, 18.7–59.06; p = 0.0002), with no differences for postoperative complications and hospital stay. Reports on urological outcomes, sexual dysfunction, and quality of life were missing.

Conclusions

Our experience and the literature suggest that robotic multiquadrant colorectal surgery is safe and effective, with low morbidity and mortality rates. Nevertheless, the overall level of evidence is low, and functional outcomes of robotic approach remain largely unknown.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022303016.

Equivalency of short-term perioperative outcomes after open, laparoscopic and robotic ileal anal pouch anastomosis. Does procedure complexity override operative approach?

Background

Ileal pouch anal anastomosis is the treatment of choice for patients with chronic ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis undergoing a proctocolectomy and desiring bowel continuity. It is a technically complex operation associated with significant morbidity and may be performed by an open, laparoscopic, or robotic approach. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the comparative perioperative outcomes between these 3 techniques outside of institutional studies.

Methods

The NSQIP targeted proctectomy data set was used to identify patients who underwent open, laparoscopic, and robotic ileal pouch anal anastomosis between 2016 and 2019. Thirty-day outcomes between different surgical approaches were compared using univariate and multivariable analysis.

Results

During the study period, 1,067 open, 971 laparoscopic, and 341 robotic ileal pouch anal anastomosis were performed. The most frequent indications were inflammatory bowel disease (64%), malignancy (18%), and familial adenomatous polyposis (7%). Mean age of the cohort was 43 ± 15 years with 43% female and 76% with body mass index ≤ 30 kg/m². Overall morbidity was 26.8% for the entire cohort with 4% anastomotic leak, 6% reoperation, 21% ileus, and 21% readmission rate. After adjusting for available confounders, operative approach was not associated with better short-term outcomes, including length of stay, overall morbidity, anastomotic leak, reoperation, incidence of ileus, and 30-day readmissions.

Conclusion

Ileal pouch anal anastomosis continues to be associated with significant postoperative morbidity regardless of operative approach. Patient-related advantages in terms of perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic platforms compared to open surgery are less pronounced in complex operations such as ileal pouch anal anastomosis.

•

Ileal anal pouch anastomosis is a technically complex operation associated with significant postoperative 30-day morbidity.

•

Postoperative morbidity is similar between open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.

•

In complex operations such as ileal anal pouch anastomosis, the short-term perioperative advantages of minimally invasive approaches may not be clinically evident.

Robotic Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis

Subtotal colectomy (STC) or total proctocolectomy (TPC) and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed in two or three stages remain the procedure of choice for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Minimally invasive laparoscopic approaches for STC and IPAA have been established for over a decade, having been shown to reduce postoperative pain, length of stay, and improve fertility. However "straight-stick" laparoscopy has ergonomic and visual disadvantages in the pelvis, which may contribute to IPAA failure. The robotic platform was developed to overcome these limitations. Robotic STC is associated with lower conversion rates and earlier return of bowel function with acceptably longer operative time (mean, 28 minutes) than laparoscopic STC. The robotic approach has also been shown in case series to be safe in urgent settings. Robotic IPAA is associated with lower blood loss and length of stay than laparoscopic IPAA. Robotic TPC/IPAA has been shown in small case series to be safe and feasible despite longer operating times.

Laparoscopic robotic-assisted restorative proctocolectomy and ileal J-pouch-anorectal anastomosis in children

PURPOSE

Total proctocolectomy with ileal J-pouch-anorectal anastomosis (IPAA) remains the preferred surgical treatment for ulcerative colitis (UC) in children. Considering the well-known advantages of minimally invasive approach, and its main application for the deep pelvis, robotic surgery may be used in UC reconstructive procedures. The aim of the study is to report our experience with Robotic IPAA in children.

METHODS

Single surgeon experience on Robotic IPAA were prospectively included. Data on patient demographics, surgical details, complications, and length of stay (LOS), were collected.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were included. Median age was 13.2 years, median body weight 45 kg. Median operative time was 240 min. Median LOS was 7 days and mean follow-up time 1 year. No intraoperative complication occurred. Five postoperative complications happened: 3 minors treated conservatively (CD I-II), 2 majors needing reintervention under anesthesia (CD IIIb). No mortality was observed.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary experience reveals that Robotic IPAA is a safe and feasible option for the surgical treatment of UC in children. A bigger patient sample and a long-term follow-up are needed to confirm our findings.

Robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a curative and cancer preventative procedure in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). It can be technically difficult laparoscopically, and hence the robotic platform has been suggested as a way to enable minimally invasive surgery in more patients. This systematic review examines robotic proctectomy or proctocolectomy with IPAA. A limited meta-analysis was performed on data comparing the robotic approach to laparoscopy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for case series of robotic IPAA procedures and studies comparing the robotic to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data examined includes operating time, conversion to open, length of stay, complications, blood loss, return of bowel function, reoperation rate and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Five non-randomised studies compared robotic to laparoscopic techniques; one compared robotic to open surgery and three case series are included. Operating time was significantly longer in robotic cases. Estimated blood loss was significantly less in three of four studies which reported this; hospital stay was significantly less in two. There were nonsignificant reductions in complications and readmission rates. Pooled analysis of four papers with adequate data showed a nonstatistically significant trend to less complications in robotic procedures. Three studies assessed functional and quality of life outcomes, with little difference between the platforms.

CONCLUSIONS

Available data suggests that the robotic platform is safe to use for IPAA procedures. There is minimal evidence for clinical advantages, but with little data to base decisions and significant potential for improvements in technique and cost-effectiveness, further use of the platform for this operation is warranted. It is vital that this occurs within an evaluation framework.

[Minimally invasive and robot-assisted surgery for chronic inflammatory bowel disease : Current status and evidence situation]

The majority of cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can be treated by minimally invasive surgery. The advantages of standard laparoscopic approaches compared to open surgery with respect to short-term and long-term outcome parameters have been adequately proven with evidence level 1 for ileocecal resection in Crohn's disease. For many other indications there are at least several larger registry or case-control studies that have shown advantages for laparoscopy. For robot-assisted surgery the feasibility has principally been demonstrated for IBD, whereby at least for ulcerative colitis limited data suggest comparable results to the standard laparoscopic approach. Single port approaches have so far not been able to demonstrate any relevant advantages in IBD surgery. Major advantages for transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for performing restorative proctocolectomy could not be demonstrated in two larger case-controlled studies but it was at least shown to be a comparable alternative to standard laparoscopy. Overall, it seems unlikely that the recently described new laparoscopic approaches will result in measurable advantages for the patient in comparison to standard laparoscopy as the access trauma is not significantly changed. In general, the indications to perform minimally invasive surgery must always be based on the basic principles of IBD surgery and contraindications have to be considered in individual cases as the advantages of laparoscopic approaches are levelled out in the long run.

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.

Inflammatory bowel disease position statement of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR): ulcerative colitis

The Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR) promoted the project reported here, which consists of a Position Statement of Italian colorectal surgeons to address the surgical aspects of ulcerative colitis management. Members of the society were invited to express their opinions on several items proposed by the writing committee, based on evidence available in the literature. The results are presented, focusing on relevant points. The present paper is not an alternative to available guidelines; rather, it offers a snapshot of the attitudes of SICCR surgeons about the surgical treatment of ulcerative colitis. The committee was able to identify some points of major disagreement and suggested strategies to improve the quality of available data and acceptance of guidelines.

[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.

Essential updates 2018/2019: Colorectal (benign): Recent updates (2018-2019) in the surgical treatment of benign colorectal diseases

This review outlines current topics on the surgical treatment of benign colorectal diseases, with a focus on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and diverticulitis. Treatment options for IBD and diverticulitis have evolved in the last few years as a result of medical advances in technology and new clinical trials. Therefore, treatment options and strategies need to be updated to provide optimal care for patients. The purpose of this review is to elucidate recent global trends and update the surgical treatment strategy for IBD and diverticulitis based on literature published in the past 2 years. Prevalence of IBD, including ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, has increased over the last few decades. During this period, many new medical therapies were introduced for the treatment of IBD, including biological therapy, immunomodulators, and leukocyte apheresis therapy. As a result, new surgical strategies for IBD are required. In order to improve surgical outcomes in IBD patients, the influence of preoperative treatment on postoperative complications needs to be considered. The incidence of diverticulitis is also increasing with lifestyle changes and increasing numbers of older people. For diverticulitis with perforation and generalized peritonitis, surgery is the gold standard. Elective surgery after conservative treatment of diverticulitis is also an option because of high recurrence rates. With an increase in diverticulitis, systematic strategies are essential for an appropriate approach to diverticulitis, taking into account various factors, including the patient's background.