Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review

Low intraoperative end-tidal carbon dioxide levels are associated with improved recurrence-free survival after elective colorectal cancer surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Higher levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) increase the invasive abilities of colon cancer cells in vitro. Studies assessing target values for end-tidal CO2 concentrations (EtCO2) to improve surgical outcome after colorectal cancer surgery are lacking. Therefore, we evaluated whether intraoperative EtCO2 was associated with differences in recurrence-free survival after elective colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery.

DESIGN

Single center, retrospective analysis.

SETTING

Anesthesia records, surgical databases and hospital information system of a tertiary university hospital.

PATIENTS

We analyzed 528 patients undergoing elective resection of colorectal cancer at Heidelberg University Hospital between 2009 and 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

Intraoperative mean EtCO2 values were calculated. The study cohort was equally stratified into low-and high-EtCO2 groups. The primary endpoint measure was recurrence-free survival until last known follow-up. Groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Cox-regression analysis was used to control for covariates. Sepsis, reoperations, surgical site infections and cardiovascular events during hospital stay, and overall survival were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Mean EtCO2 was 33.8 mmHg ±1.2 in the low- EtCO2 group vs. 37.3 mmHg ±1.6 in the high-EtCO2 group. Median follow-up was 3.8 (Q1-Q3, 2.5-5.1) years. Recurrence-free survival was higher in the low-EtCO2 group (log-rank-test: p = .024). After correction for confounding factors, lower EtCO2 was associated with increased recurrence-free survival (HR = 1.138, 95%-CI:1.015-1.276, p = .027); the hazard for the primary outcome decreased by 12.1% per 1 mmHg decrease in mean EtCO2. 1-year and 5-year survival was also higher in the low-EtCO2 group. We did not find differences in the other secondary endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower intraoperative EtCO2 target values in CRC surgery might benefit oncological outcome and should be evaluated in confirmative studies.

Trends in management and outcomes of colon cancer in the United States over 15 years: Analysis of the National Cancer Database

Management of colon cancer has changed over the last few decades. We assessed the trends in management and outcomes using the US National Cancer Database (NCDB). A retrospective analysis of all patients with colonic adenocarcinoma between 2005 and 2019 was conducted. The cohort was divided into three equal time periods: Period 1 (2005-2009), Period 2 (2010-2014), and Period 3 (2015-2019) to examine treatment and outcomes trends. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). The study included 923,275 patients. A significant increase in patients with stage IV disease was noted in Period 3 compared to Period 1 (47.9% vs. 27.9%, respectively), whereas a reciprocal reduction was seen in patients with locally advanced disease (stage II: 20.8%-12%; stage III: 14.5%-7.7%). Use of immunotherapy significantly increased from 0.3% to 7.6%. Mean 5-year OS increased (43.6 vs. 42.1 months) despite the increase in metastatic disease and longer time from diagnosis to definitive surgery (7 vs. 14 days). A reduction in 30-day readmission (5.1%-4.2%), 30- (3.9%-2.8%), and 90-day mortality (7.1%-5%) was seen. Laparoscopic and robotic surgery increased from 45.8% to 53.1% and 2.9% to 12.7%, respectively. Median postoperative length of hospital stay decreased by 2 days. Rate of positive resection margins (7.2%-6%) and median number of examined lymph nodes (14-16) also improved. Minimally invasive surgery and immunotherapy for colon cancer significantly increased in recent years. Patient outcomes including OS improved over time.

The urinary and sexual outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To compare the urinary and sexual outcomes between robot-assisted rectal cancer (RC) surgery (RRCS) and laparoscopic RC surgery (LRCS) using a meta-analysis, searches were conducted of the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was the primary outcome. Eleven studies (790 patients with RRCS and 888 with LRCS) were included. The IPSS scores were significantly lower for RRCS than LRCS from baseline to 3 months (weighted mean difference [WMD] =  - 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 1.8,-0.62, I2 = 89.9%), to 6 months (WMD =  - 1.13, 95% CI: - 1.74, - 0.52, I2 = 93.3%), and to 12 months (WMD =  - 0.93, 95% CI: - 1.59, - 0.26, I2 = 93.8%). The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores were significantly higher for RRCS than LRCS from baseline to 3 months (WMD = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.28, 5.44, I2 = 92.7%). The female sexual function index (FSFI) scores were significantly higher for RRCS than LRCS from baseline to 3 months (WMD = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.87, 1.76, I2 = 0), to 6 months (WMD = 2.36, 95% CI: 1.93, 2.79, I2 = 24.3%), and to 12 months (WMD = 1.67, 95% CI: 0.41, 2.93, I2 = 90.9%). RRCS also achieved a better recovery of the urological and sexual function than LRCS for patients with RC. Larger-scale prospective randomized control trials are needed to verify these results.

Streamlining robotic-assisted abdominoperineal resection

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery has proven to be a safe and feasible approach for the management of rectal cancer, including abdominoperineal resection (APR). However, it often incurs longer operative times and higher costs. This study aimed to overcome these limitations by adopting a synchronous approach utilizing an optimized team composition.

METHODS

Data on patients who underwent robot-assisted APR at our facility between June 2022 and June 2023 were analyzed. The key points of the optimized approach included the following: At the start of the surgery, the surgeon performed an anococcygeal ligament resection from the perineal side while the bedside assistants set up the ports. Then, through console manipulation, the presacral fascia, elevated by previously placed gauze, was easily and safely incised, providing access to the perineal region.

RESULTS

A total of nine patients were included in this study. The median operation time was 231 min, and the intraoperative blood loss was 170 ml. The operation time was reduced to 167.5 min, and the blood loss was 80.5 ml in cases without a trainee. Surgical site infections, classified as Clavien-Dindo grade II complications, were observed in two cases, but no obvious urinary or erectile dysfunction was observed.

CONCLUSION

The study results indicate that the challenges associated with APR can be efficiently addressed without requiring additional personnel by streamlining team composition and the synchronous approach. This optimization strategy minimizes the need for a larger surgical team, while maximizing the utilization of surgical time and resources.

Regional variations and deprivation are linked to poorer access to laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery: a national study in England

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic and now robotic colorectal surgery has rapidly increased in prevalence; however, little is known about how uptake varies by region and sociodemographics. The aim of this study was to quantify the uptake of minimally invasive colorectal surgery (MIS) over time and variations by region, sociodemographics and ethnicity.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of routinely collected healthcare data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics) for all adults having elective colorectal resectional surgery in England from 1 January 2006 to 31 March 2020. Sociodemographics between modalities were compared and the association between sociodemographic factors, region and year on MIS was compared in multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 93,735 patients were included: 52,098 open, 40,622 laparoscopic and 1015 robotic cases. Laparoscopic surgery surpassed open in 2015 but has plateaued; robotic surgery has rapidly increased since 2017, representing 3.2% of cases in 2019. Absolute differences up to 20% in MIS exist between regions, OR 1.77 (95% CI 1.68-1.86) in South Central and OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.72-0.79) in the North West compared to the largest region (West Midlands). MIS was less common in the most compared to least deprived (14.6% of MIS in the most deprived, 24.8% in the least, OR 0.85 95% CI 0.81-0.89), with a greater difference in robotic surgery (13.4% vs 30.5% respectively). Female gender, younger age, less comorbidity, Asian or 'Other/Mixed' ethnicity and cancer indication were all associated with increased MIS.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS has increased over time, with significant regional and socioeconomic variations. With rapid increases in robotic surgery, national strategies for procurement, implementation, equitable distribution and training must be created to avoid worsening health inequalities.

Laparoscopic versus Ultrasound-Guided Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia Management after Radical Prostatectomy: Results from a Single Center Study

(1) Background: Regional anesthesia, achieved through nerve blocks, has gained widespread acceptance as an effective pain management approach. This research aimed to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic (LAP) transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. (2) Methods: From January 2023 to July 2023, 60 consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive radical prostatectomy were selected. Patients were split into two groups receiving ultrasound-guided (US) or laparoscopic-guided TAP block. The primary outcome was a pain score expressed by a 0-10 visual analog scale (VAS) during the first 72 h after surgery. (3) Results: Both LAP-TAP and US-TAP block groups were associated with lower pain scores postoperatively. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in surgery time, blood loss, time to ambulation, length of stay, and pain after surgery (all p > 0.2). In the LAP-TAP block group, the overall operating room time was significantly shorter than in the US-TAP block group (140 vs. 152 min, p = 0.04). (4) Conclusions: The laparoscopic approach, compared to the US-TAP block, was equally safe and not inferior in reducing analgesic drug use postoperatively. Moreover, the intraoperative LAP-TAP block seems to be a time-sparing procedure that could be recommended when patient-controlled analgesia cannot be delivered.

Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

There is still controversy on whether or not robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) have advantages over laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery(LACS).

Materials and methods

The four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library)were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of RACS and LACS in the treatment of colorectal cancer from inception to 22 July 2023.

Results

Eleven RCTs were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Compared with LACS,RACS has significantly longer operation time(MD=5.19,95%CI: 18.00,39.82, P<0.00001), but shorter hospital stay(MD=2.97,95%CI:-1.60,-0.33,P = 0.003),lower conversion rate(RR=3.62,95%CI:0.40,0.76,P = 0.0003), lower complication rate(RR=3.31,95%CI:0.64,0.89,P=0.0009),fewer blood loss(MD=2.71,95%CI:-33.24,-5.35,P = 0.007),lower reoperation rate(RR=2.12, 95%CI:0.33,0.96,P=0.03)and longer distal resection margin(MD=2.16, 95%CI:0.04,0.94, P = 0.03). There was no significantly difference in harvested lymph nodes, the time of first flatus, the time of first defecation,the time of first resume diet, proximal resection margin, readmission rates, mortalities and CRM+ rates between two group.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that RACS is a feasible and safe technique that can achieve better surgical efficacy compared with LACS in terms of short-term outcomes.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447088.

Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Increased Adoption and Improved Outcomes: Is Laparoscopy Still Justified?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rate of postoperative 30-day complications between laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) and robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD).

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggest that minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MI-PD)-either LPD or RPD-is noninferior to open pancreaticoduodenectomy in terms of operative outcomes. However, a direct comparison of the two minimally invasive approaches has not been rigorously performed.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MI-PD were abstracted from the 2014 to 2019 pancreas-targeted American College of Surgeons National Sample Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) dataset. Optimal outcome was defined as absence of postoperative mortality, serious complication, percutaneous drainage, reoperation, and prolonged length of stay (75th percentile, 11 days) with no readmission. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare optimal outcome of RPD and LPD.

RESULTS

A total of 1540 MI-PDs were identified between 2014 and 2019, of which 885 (57%) were RPD and 655 (43%) were LPD. The rate of RPD cases/year significantly increased from 2.4% to 8.4% ( P =0.008) from 2014 to 2019, while LPD remained unchanged. Similarly, the rate of optimal outcome for RPD increased during the study period from 48.2% to 57.8% ( P <0.001) but significantly decreased for LPD (53.5% to 44.9%, P <0.001). During 2018-2019, RPD outcomes surpassed LPD for any complication [odds ratio (OR)=0.58, P =0.004], serious complications (OR=0.61, P =0.011), and optimal outcome (OR=1.78, P =0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RPD adoption increased compared with LPD and was associated with decreased overall complications, serious complications, and increased optimal outcome compared with LPD in 2018-2019.

Clinical outcomes of elective robotic vs laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer utilizing a large national database

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have shown comparable outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic approaches across a range of surgeries; however, these have been limited in size. This study investigates differences in outcomes following robotic (RC) vs laparoscopic (LC) colectomy across several years utilizing a large national database.

METHODS

We analyzed data from ACS NSQIP for patients who underwent elective minimally invasive colectomies for colon cancer from 2012 to 2020. Inverse probability weighting with regression adjustment (IPWRA) incorporating demographics, operative factors, and comorbidities was used. Outcomes included mortality, complications, return to the operating room (OR), post-operative length of stay (LOS), operative time, readmission, and anastomotic leak. Secondary analysis was performed to further assess anastomotic leak rate following right and left colectomies.

RESULTS

We identified 83,841 patients who underwent elective minimally invasive colectomies: 14,122 (16.8%) RC and 69,719 (83.2%) LC. Patients who underwent RC were younger, more likely to be male, non-Hispanic White, with higher body mass index (BMI) and fewer comorbidities (for all, P < 0.05). After adjustment, there were no differences between RC and LC for 30-day mortality (0.8% vs 0.9% respectively, P = 0.457) or overall complications (16.9% vs 17.2%, P = 0.432). RC was associated with higher return to OR (5.1% vs 3.6%, P < 0.001), lower LOS (4.9 vs 5.1 days, P < 0.001), longer operative time (247 vs 184 min, P < 0.001), and higher rates of readmission (8.8% vs 7.2%, P < 0.001). Anastomotic leak rates were comparable for right-sided RC vs LC (2.1% vs 2.2%, P = 0.713), higher for left-sided LC (2.7%, P < 0.001), and highest for left-sided RC (3.4%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic approach for elective colon cancer resection has similar outcomes to its laparoscopic counterpart. There were no differences in mortality or overall complications, however anastomotic leaks were highest after left RC. Further investigation is imperative to better understand the potential impact of technological advancement such as robotic surgery on patient outcomes.

Comparison of robotic camera holders with human assistants in endoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic camera holders can overcome the shortcomings of human assistants, such as shaking and accidental rotation in endoscopic surgery. Robotic camera holder is not affected by the operation time and surgical position and reduces the size of the team. However, there is still controversy over the practicality of robotic camera holders.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The last database search was performed on 30 April 2022. Two reviewers independently reviewed the studies.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies (n = 698, 354 controls and 344 robotic camera holders) were included in our analysis. The results showed that the robotic camera holder significantly outperformed human assistants on the frequency of lens cleaning (SMD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.90 to -0.05) and inappropriate movements (MD, -3.57; 95% CI, -4.93 to -2.21). There was no difference in total operation time (MD, 6.99; 95% CI, -2.47 to 16.72), preparation time (MD, 2.43; 95% CI, -0.32 to 5.18) or blood loss (MD, 34.47; 95% CI, -8.05 to 76.98) between the robotic camera holder and human assistant. However, the robotic camera holder was significantly slower in the core operation (MD, 5.06; 95% CI, 1.18 to 8.94), and surgeons had mixed reviews of robotic systems.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic camera holder provided the surgeon with a highly stable environment. Although the robotic camera holder will not increase the total time, it still needs to improve the core operation time. There is much room for improvement in robotic camera holders. Further development of devices with intuitive control systems and a greater range of motion will be required to accommodate more complex surgeries.

Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some studies have suggested disparities in access to robotic colorectal surgery, however, it is unclear which factors are most meaningful in the determination of approach relative to laparoscopic or open surgery. This study aimed to identify the most influential factors contributing to robotic colorectal surgery utilization.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of published studies that compared the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations in September 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Patients were less likely to undergo robotic versus laparoscopic surgery if they were female (OR = 0.91, 0.84-0.98), older (OR = 1.61, 1.38-1.88), had Medicare (OR = 0.84, 0.71-0.99), or had comorbidities (OR = 0.83, 0.77-0.91). Non-academic hospitals had lower odds of conducting robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.73, 0.62-0.86). Additional disparities were observed when comparing robotic with open surgery for patients who were Black (OR = 0.78, 0.71-0.86), had lower income (OR = 0.67, 0.62-0.74), had Medicaid (OR = 0.58, 0.43-0.80), or were uninsured (OR = 0.29, 0.21-0.39).

CONCLUSION

When determining who undergoes robotic surgery, consideration of factors such as age and comorbid conditions may be clinically justified, while other factors seem less justifiable. Black patients and the underinsured were less likely to undergo robotic surgery. This study identifies nonclinical disparities in access to robotics that should be addressed to provide more equitable access to innovations in colorectal surgery.

Increased cost burden associated with robot-assisted rectopexy: do patient outcomes justify increased expenditure?

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgical techniques have flourished over the years, with refinement in instrumentation and optics allowing for adaptation and increasing utilization across surgical fields. Transabdominal rectopexy with mesh for rectal prolapse may stand to benefit significantly from the use of a robotic platform. However, increased operative times and immediate associated costs of robotic surgery may provide a counterargument to widespread adoption.

METHODS

To determine which approach to the treatment of rectal prolapse, laparoscopic or robotic, is more cost effective and provides better outcomes with fewer complications, a retrospective review was performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from May 2013 to December 2020. Twenty-two patients underwent transabdominal mesh rectopexy through a robot-assisted DaVinci platform (Intuitive Sunnyvale, CA), and thirty through a laparoscopic platform. Main outcome measures included operative, hospital, and total cost as defined by total charges billed. Secondary outcomes included rate of recurrence, intra-operative complications, median operative time, post-operative complications, average hospital length of stay, inpatient pain medication usage, and post-operative functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Cost analysis for robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectopexy demonstrated operating room costs of $46,118 ± $9329 for the robotic group, versus $33,090 ± $15,395 (p = 0.002) for the laparoscopic group. Inpatient hospital costs were $60,723 ± $20,170 vs. $40,798 ± $14,325 (p = 0.001), and total costs were $106,841 ± $25,513 vs. $73,888 ± $28,129 (p ≤ 0.001). When secondary outcomes were compared for the robotic versus laparoscopic groups, there were no differences in any of the aforementioned outcome variables except for operative time, which was 79 min longer in the robotic group (p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted mesh rectopexy demonstrated no clinical benefit over traditional laparoscopic mesh rectopexy, with significantly higher operative and hospital costs. A reduction in the acquisition and maintenance costs for robotic surgery is needed before large-scale adoption and implementation of the robotic platform for this procedure.

Surgeons' physical workload in open surgery versus robot-assisted surgery and nonsurgical tasks

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are common among surgeons, and its prevalence varies among surgical modalities. There are conflicting results concerning the correlation between adverse work exposures and MSD prevalence in different surgical modalities. The progress of rationalization in health care may lead to job intensification for surgeons, but the literature is scarce regarding to what extent such intensification influences the physical workload in surgery. The objectives of this study were to quantify the physical workload in open surgery and compare it to that in (1) nonsurgical tasks and (2) two surgeon roles in robot-assisted surgery (RAS).

METHODS

The physical workload of 22 surgeons (12 performing open surgery and 10 RAS) was measured during surgical workdays, which includes trapezius muscle activity from electromyography, and posture and movement of the head, upper arms and trunk from inertial measurement units. The physical workload of surgeons in open surgery was compared to that in nonsurgical tasks, and to the chief and assistant surgeons in RAS, and to the corresponding proposed action levels. Mixed-effects models were used to analyze the differences.

RESULTS

Open surgery constituted more than half of a surgical workday. It was associated with more awkward postures of the head and trunk than nonsurgical tasks. It was also associated with higher trapezius muscle activity levels, less muscle rest time and a higher proportion of sustained low muscle activity than nonsurgical tasks and the two roles in RAS. The head inclination and trapezius activity in open surgery exceeded the proposed action levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The physical workload of surgeons in open surgery, which exceeded the proposed action levels, was higher than that in RAS and that in nonsurgical tasks. Demands of increased operation time may result in higher physical workload for open surgeons, which poses an increased risk of MSDs. Risk-reducing measures are, therefore, needed.

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery - initial results

INTRODUCTION

The mini invasive procedure in colorectal surgery is gaining ground as an alternative to conventional surgery. Colorectal surgery has significantly evolved since the advent of the automatic stapler devices and subsequently with the minimally invasive approach. The next logical step - the robotic assisted surgery was developed to satisfy surgeons' needs to the area of colorectal surgery and to offer a new and safer method to patients. The evidence for benefits of its use in this area appears to be promising.

Robot-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy in Octogenarians

OBJECTIVE

With increasing age, there is greater need for right-sided colonic resections than its left-sided counterparts. Older age is associated with limited physical and functional status, which carries greater operative risk. Improvements in robotic surgery questions its role, especially in older adults, compared with laparoscopy. The objective is to investigate whether robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) is as safe and effective as laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LHR) in octogenarians (age >80 years).

DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Octogenarians who underwent elective RRH and LRH by the Tweed Colorectal Group over 5 years.

METHODS

Complications within 30 days, age, gender, smoking status, immunocompromised status, presence of diabetes, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score, preoperative Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, mFI-5 (modified frailty index), operative time, method of anastomosis, postoperative length of stay (LOS), need for rehabilitation, and short-term oncologic data using the TNM criteria were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight elective patients were included. LRH and RRH groups had similar median ages, gender distribution, and comorbidities. Across the entire cohort, 61.5% had no 30-day complications. RRH had nonsignificantly shorter operative time but significantly shorter LOS (5 vs 8 days) and fewer minor complications (24.5% vs 34.5%). Major complications and overall complications were not significantly different between the groups. Lower ASA and ECOG status were associated with lower complication rates across both groups. Oncologic resection outcomes were similar for both approaches.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

RRH does not confer an increased risk of complications compared to LRH in the octogenarians and may be a viable alternative in the field of minimally invasive surgery for older patients. Future research should focus on intracorporeal anastomoses, as it is a potential confounder leading to the shorter inpatient LOS shown in our robotic group.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: An Up-To-Date System Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Although minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy has gained worldwide interest, there are limited comparative studies between two minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD), especially the difference in the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes.

Methods

PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before July 2021. Data on operative times, blood loss, overall morbidity, major complications, vascular resection, blood transfusion, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), conversion rate, reoperation, length of hospital stay (LOS), and lymph node dissection were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, the final analysis included 9 retrospective studies comprising 3,732 patients; 1,149 (30.79%) underwent robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD), and 2,583 (69.21%) underwent LPD. The present meta-analysis revealed nonsignificant differences in operative times, overall morbidity, major complications, blood transfusion, POPF, DGE, reoperation, and LOS. Alternatively, compared with LPD, RPD was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.002), less conversion rate (p < 0.00001), less vascular resection (p = 0.0006), and more retrieved lymph nodes (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

RPD is at least equivalent to LPD with respect to the incidence of complication, incidence and severity of DGE, and reoperation and length of hospital stay. Compared with LPD, RPD seems to be associated with less blood loss, lower conversion rate, less vascular resection, and more retrieved lymph nodes.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD2021274057

Systemic inflammatory response in robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer (SIRIRALS): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is being increasingly adopted in treating colorectal cancer, and the transition from laparoscopic surgery to robot-assisted surgery is a trend. The evidence of the benefits of robot-assisted surgery is sparse. However, findings are associated with improved patient-related outcomes and overall morbidity rates compared to laparoscopic surgery. This induction is unclear, considering both surgical modalities are characterized as minimally invasive. This study aims to evaluate the systemic and peritoneal inflammatory stress response induced by robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery for elective colon cancer resections in a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial.

Methods

This study is a single-centre randomized controlled superiority trial with 50 colon cancer participants. The primary endpoint is the level of systemic inflammatory response expressed as serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels between postoperative days one and three. Secondary endpoints include (i) levels of systemic inflammation in serum expressed by a panel of inflammatory and pro-inflammatory cytokines measured during the first three postoperative days, (ii) postoperative surgical and medical complications (30 days) according to Clavien-Dindo classification and Comprehensive Complication Index, (iii) intraoperative blood loss, (iv) conversion rate to open surgery, (v) length of surgery, (vi) operative time, (vii) the number of harvested lymph nodes, and (viii) length of hospital stay. The exploratory endpoints are (i) levels of peritoneal inflammatory response in peritoneal fluid expressed by inflammatory and pro-inflammatory cytokines between postoperative day one and three, (ii) patient-reported health-related quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15), (iii) 30 days mortality rate, (iv) heart rate variability and (v) gene transcript (mRNA) analysis.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first clinical randomized controlled trial to clarify the inflammatory stress response induced by robot-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer resections.

Trial registration This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04687384) on December, 29, 2020, Regional committee on health research ethics, Region of Southern Denmark (N75709) and Data Protection Agency, Hospital Sønderjylland, University Hospital of Southern Denmark (N20/46179).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01355-4.

Safety with Innovation in Colon and Rectal Robotic Surgery

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

Long-term oncologic outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Studies find similar perioperative outcomes between single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colon cancer. However, few have reported long-term outcomes of SILS versus CLS. We aimed to compare long-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes as well as perioperative outcomes between SILS and CLS for colon cancer.

METHODS

A total of 641 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer from July 2009 to September 2014 were eligible for the study. Data from 300 of these patients were used for analysis after propensity score-matching (n = 150 per group). Variables associated with short- and long-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The SILS group had a shorter mean total incision length, less postoperative pain, and a similar mean rate of incisional hernia (2.7% versus 3.3%) compared with the CLS group. The 7-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 92.7% versus 94% (p = 0.673) and 85.3% versus 84.7% (p = 0.688) in the SILS and CLS groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CLS, SILS for colon cancer appeared to be safe in terms of perioperative and long-term postoperative and oncologic outcomes. The results suggested that SILS is a reasonable treatment option for colon cancer for a selected group of patients.

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.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Robotic resections represent a novel approach to treatment of colorectal cancer. The aim of our study was to critically assess the implementation of robotic colorectal surgical program at our institution and to compare it to the established laparoscopically assisted surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was designed to compare outcomes of consecutively operated patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic colorectal resections at a tertiary academic centre from 2019 to 2020. The associations between patient characteristics, type of operation, operation duration, conversions, duration of hospitalization, complications and number of harvested lymph nodes were assessed by using univariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 83 operations met inclusion criteria, 46 robotic and 37 laparoscopic resections, respectively. The groups were comparable regarding the patient and operative characteristics. The operative time was longer in the robotic group (p < 0.001), with fewer conversions to open surgery (p = 0.004), with less patients in need of transfusions (p = 0.004) and lower reoperation rate (p = 0.026). There was no significant difference between the length of stay (p = 0.17), the number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.24) and the overall complications (p = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term results of robotic colorectal resections were comparable to the laparoscopically assisted operations with fewer conversions to open surgery, fewer blood transfusions and lower reoperation rate in the robotic group.

Application of nano-carbon and titanium clip combined labeling in robot-assisted laparoscopic transverse colon cancer surgery

Background

Robot-assisted laparoscopic transverse colon tumor surgery requires precise tumor localization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nano-carbon and titanium clip combination labeling methods in robot-assisted transverse colon tumor surgery.

Methods

From January 2018 to January 2019, the clinical data of 16 patients who come from FuZhou, China underwent preoperative nano-carbon and titanium clip combined with robot-assisted laparoscopic transverse colon cancer surgery were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Of the 16 patients, no signs of abdominal pain, fever, or diarrhea were observed after colonoscopy. Two titanium clips were seen on all of the 16 patients' abdominal plain films. Nano-carbon staining sites were observed during the operation, and no staining disappeared or abdominal cavity contamination. All patients underwent R₀ resection. The average number of lymph nodes harvsted was 18.23 ± 5.04 (range, 9–32). The average time to locate the lesion under the laparoscopic was 3.03 ± 1.26 min (range, 1–6 min), and the average operation time was 321.43 ± 49.23 min (range, 240–400 min). All were consistent with the surgical plan, and there was no intraoperative change of surgical procedure or conversion to open surgery.

Conclusion

Preoperative colonoscopy combined with nano-carbon and titanium clip is safe and effective in robot-assisted transverse colon cancer surgery. A At the same time, the labeling method shows potential in shortening the operation time, ensuring sufficient safety margin and reducing complications.

Improved perioperative outcomes and reduced inflammatory stress response in malignant robot-assisted colorectal resections: a retrospective cohort study of 298 patients

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly implemented for the resection of colorectal cancer, although the scientific evidence for adopting this technique is still limited. This study’s main objective was to compare short-term complication rates, oncological outcomes, and the inflammatory stress response after colorectal resection for cancer performed laparoscopic or robot-assisted.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the robot-assisted approach to laparoscopic surgery for elective malignant colorectal neoplasm. Certified colorectal and da Vinci ® robotic surgeons performed resections at a Danish tertiary colorectal high volume center from May 2017 to March 2019. We analyzed the two surgical groups using uni- and multivariate regression analyses to detect differences in intra- and postoperative clinical outcomes and the inflammatory stress response.

Results

Two hundred and ninety-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Significant differences favoring robot-assisted surgery was demonstrated for; length of hospital stay (4 days, interquartile range (4, 5) versus 5 days, interquartile range (4–7), p < 0.001), and intraoperative blood loss (50 mL, interquartile range (20–100) versus 100 mL, interquartile range (50–150), p < 0.001) compared to laparoscopic surgery. The inflammatory stress response was significantly higher after laparoscopic compared to robot-assisted surgery reflected by an increase in C-reactive protein concentration (exponentiated coefficient = 1.23, 95% confidence interval (1.06–1.46), p = 0.008). No differences between the two groups were found concerning mortality, microradical resection rate, conversion to open surgery, and surgical or medical short-term complication rates.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted surgery is feasible and can be safely implemented for colorectal resections. The robot-assisted approach, when compared to laparoscopic surgery, was associated with improved intra- and postoperative outcomes. Extensive prospective studies are needed to determine the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Robot-assisted Extraperitoneal Para-aortic Lymphadenectomy Is Associated with Fewer Surgical Complications: A Post Hoc Analysis of the STELLA-2 Randomized Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if extraperitoneal para-aortic lymphadenectomy (PALND) using a robot-assisted approach was associated with fewer complications than all other approaches (conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal or extraperitoneal and robot-assisted transperitoneal) without compromising lymph node yield, operative time, or length of stay.

DESIGN

Post hoc analysis of the prospective randomized open-label multicenter trial (STELLA-2).

SETTING

Three academic referral hospitals.

PATIENTS

Two hundred and three eligible patients from the STELLA-2 trial were included.

INTERVENTIONS

The patients were randomized to extraperitoneal or transperitoneal PALND using a minimally invasive approach (either laparoscopic or robot-assisted) for surgical staging of endometrial or ovarian cancer. The minimally invasive approaches were not subjected to randomization.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary end point was evaluated through a composite variable that included at least 1 of the following events: blood loss ≥500 mL during PALND, any intraoperative complication related to PALND, severe postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo ≥grade IIIA), impossibility of completing the procedure, or conversion to laparotomy. Of the 203 patients analyzed, 68 were assigned to the extraperitoneal laparoscopic group (X-L), 62 to the transperitoneal laparoscopic group (T-L), 35 to the extraperitoneal robotic group (X-R), and 38 to the transperitoneal robotic group (T-R). A reduced trend in complications was observed in the extraperitoneal robot-assisted arm when considering the primary end point (X-L: 25.0%, T-L: 24.2%, X-R: 5.7%, T-R: 28.9%; p = .073). In a multivariable analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.09), body mass index (OR 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.16), and waist-to-hip ratio (OR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.12-2.47) were found to independently increase the risk of PALND complications, whereas the extraperitoneal robotic approach (OR 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.64) was an independent protective factor for complication occurrence.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted extraperitoneal PALND is associated with fewer surgical complications, without compromising lymph node retrieval, operative time, or length of stay. Robot-enhanced 3D visualization, surgeon ergonomics, or hemostatic precision could explain our results.

What is the best surgical procedure of transverse colon cancer? An evidence map and minireview

Colorectal cancers comprise a large percentage of tumors worldwide, and transverse colon cancer (TCC) is defined as tumors located between hepatic and splenic flexures. Due to the anatomy and embryology complexity, and lack of large randomized controlled trials, it is a challenge to standardize TCC surgery. In this study, the current situation of transverse/extended colectomy, robotic/ laparoscopic/open surgery and complete mesocolic excision (CME) concept in TCC operations is discussed and a heatmap is conducted to show the evidence level and gap. In summary, transverse colectomy challenges the dogma of traditional extended colectomy, with similar oncological and prognostic outcomes. Compared with conventional open resection, laparoscopic and robotic surgery plays a more important role in both transverse colectomy and extended colectomy. The CME concept may contribute to the radical resection of TCC and adequate harvested lymph nodes. According to published studies, laparoscopic or robotic transverse colectomy based on the CME concept was the appropriate surgical procedure for TCC patients.

Comparison of the short-term operative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes between two types of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: Da Vinci versus Micro Hand S surgical robot

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the difference of two various robotic technology applied in R- Total mesorectal excision (TME).

METHODS

From May 2017 to December 2018, consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent da Vinci R-TME or Micro Hand S R-TME were enrolled. The comparative study was conducted on Short-term Operative, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes between two type of R-TME.

RESULTS

47 patients underwent da Vinci R-TME, and 43 patients underwent Micro Hand S R-TME. No difference occured between two groups in TME completeness, CRM, DRM, CRM involvement and DRM involvement, operative time, blood loss, protective ileostomy, conversion rate, number of retrieved lymph nodes, Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) or Wexner scores. However, the setup time in the Micro Hand S group was longer.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, both da Vinci R-TME and Micro Hand S R-TME achieve excellent TME quality with acceptable morbidity and postoperative function.

National Trends in Robotic Pancreas Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic pancreatic surgery is expanding throughout centers across the country. We investigated national trends in the use and outcomes for robotic-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) and distal pancreatectomy (RDP) for primary pancreatic tumors.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for RPD and RDP performed during three time periods: 2010-2012, 2013-2014, and 2015-2016. These time periods were compared for patient and center factors as well as surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The use of robotic surgery increased during the study period. Most centers performed a low volume of robotic surgery (RPD, 82% of centers averaged < 1 case/year; RDP, 87% averaged < 1 case/year). From the first to last time period, the proportion of cases performed at academic centers decreased (RPD, 83% to 56%; RDP, 77% to 58%, p < 0.001) while patient characteristics remained largely unchanged. For RPD, improvements in mortality (6.7 to 1.8%, p = 0.013) and lymphadenectomy (18 to 21 nodes, p = 0.035) were observed, with no changes in conversion to open surgery, negative margin resections, or readmissions. For RDP, length of stay decreased (7 to 6 days, p = 0.048), but there were no changes in other outcomes. Compared with academic centers, non-academic centers had equivalent rates of conversion to open surgery, negative margins, and 90-day mortality. On multivariate analysis, there was no difference in survival between academic and non-academic centers.

DISCUSSION

Robotic pancreas surgery is expanding to a greater variety of centers nationwide with preservation of key surgical outcomes. These findings support the continued rigorous training and proliferation of qualified robotic pancreas surgeons going forward.

Education and Training in Transanal Endoscopic Surgery and Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision

There is a paradigm shift in surgical training, and new tool and technology are being used to facilitate mastery of the content and technical skills. The transanal procedures for rectal cancer-transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME)-have a distinct learning curve for competence in the procedures, and require special training for familiarity with the "bottom-up" anatomy, procedural risks, and managing complex cases. These procedures have been models for structured education and training, using multimodal tools, to ensure safe implementation of TES and TaTME into clinical practice. The goal of this work was to review the current state of surgical education, the introduction and learning curve of the TES and TaTME procedures, and the established and future models for education of the transanal procedures for rectal cancer.

Outcomes of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: an observational single hospital study of 300 cases

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery attempts to facilitate rectal surgery in the narrow space of the pelvis. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Monocentric retrospective study including 300 patients who underwent robotic (n = 178) or laparoscopic (n = 122) resection between Jan 2009 and Dec 2017 for high, mid and low rectal cancer. The robotic and laparoscopic groups were comparable with regard to pretreatment characteristics, except for sex and ASA status. There were no statistical differences between groups in the conversion rate to open surgery. Surgical morbidity and oncological quality did not differ in either group, except for the anastomosis leakage rate and the affected distal resection margin. There were no differences in overall survival rate between the laparoscopic and robotic group. Robotic surgery could provide some advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery, such as three-dimensional views, articulated instruments, lower fatigue, lower conversion rate to open surgery, shorter hospital stays and lower urinary and sexual dysfunctions. On the other hand, robotic surgery usually implies longer operation times and higher costs. As shown in the ROLARR trial, no statistical differences in conversion rate were found between the groups in our study. When performed by experienced surgeons, robotic surgery for rectal cancer could be a safe and feasible option with no significant differences in terms of oncological outcomes in comparison to laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic-assisted cholecystectomy is superior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the initial training for surgical novices in an ex vivo porcine model: a randomized crossover study

Background

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) potentially reduces workload and shortens the surgical learning curve compared to conventional laparoscopy (CL). The present study aimed to compare robotic-assisted cholecystectomy (RAC) to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the initial learning phase for novices.

Methods

In a randomized crossover study, medical students (n = 40) in their clinical years performed both LC and RAC on a cadaveric porcine model. After standardized instructions and basic skill training, group 1 started with RAC and then performed LC, while group 2 started with LC and then performed RAC. The primary endpoint was surgical performance measured with Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) score, secondary endpoints included operating time, complications (liver damage, gallbladder perforations, vessel damage), force applied to tissue, and subjective workload assessment.

Results

Surgical performance was better for RAC than for LC for total OSATS (RAC = 77.4 ± 7.9 vs. LC = 73.8 ± 9.4; p = 0.025, global OSATS (RAC = 27.2 ± 1.0 vs. LC = 26.5 ± 1.6; p = 0.012, and task specific OSATS score (RAC = 50.5 ± 7.5 vs. LC = 47.1 ± 8.5; p = 0.037). There were less complications with RAC than with LC (10 (25.6%) vs. 26 (65.0%), p = 0.006) but no difference in operating times (RAC = 77.0 ± 15.3 vs. LC = 75.5 ± 15.3 min; p = 0.517). Force applied to tissue was similar. Students found RAC less physical demanding and less frustrating than LC.

Conclusions

Novices performed their first cholecystectomies with better performance and less complications with RAS than with CL, while operating time showed no differences. Students perceived less subjective workload for RAS than for CL. Unlike our expectations, the lack of haptic feedback on the robotic system did not lead to higher force application during RAC than LC and did not increase tissue damage. These results show potential advantages for RAS over CL for surgical novices while performing their first RAC and LC using an ex vivo cadaveric porcine model.

Registration number

researchregistry6029

Graphic abstract

Effective implementation and adaptation of structured robotic colorectal programme in a busy tertiary unit

BACKGROUND

Safety and feasibility of robotic colorectal surgery has been reported as increasing over the last decade. However safe implementation and adaptation of such a programme with comparable morbidities and acceptable oncological outcomes remains a challenge in a busy tertiary unit. We present our experience of implementation and adaptation of a structured robotic colorectal programme in a high-volume center in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Two colorectal surgeons underwent a structured robotic colorectal training programme consisting of time on simulation console, dry and wet laboratory courses, case observation, and initial mentoring. Data were collected on consecutive robotic colorectal cancer resections over a period of 12 months and compared with colorectal cancer resections data of the same surgeons' record prior to the adaptation of the new technique. Patient demographics including age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (ASA), Clavien-Dindo grading, previous abdominal surgeries, and BMI were included. Short-term outcomes including conversion to open, length of stay, return to theatre, 30- and 90-days mortality, blood loss, and post-operative analgesia were recorded. Tumour site, TNM staging, diverting stoma, neo-adjuvant therapy, total mesorectal excision (TME) grading and positive resection margins (R1) were compared. p values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Ninety colorectal cancer resections were performed with curative intent from June 2018 to June 2020. Thirty robotic colorectal cancer resections (RCcR) were performed after adaption of programme and were compared with 60 non-robotic colorectal cancer resections (N-RCcR) prior to implementation of technique. There was no conversion in the RCcR group; however, in N-RCcR group, five had open resection from start and the rest had laparoscopic surgery. In laparoscopic group, there were six (10.9%) conversions to open (two adhesions, three multi-visceral involvements, one intra-operative bleed). Male-to-female ratio was 20:09 in RCcR group and 33:20 in N-RCcR groups. No significant differences in gender (p = 0.5), median age (p = 0.47), BMI (p = 0.64) and ASA scores (p = 0.72) were present in either groups. Patient characteristics between the two groups were comparable aside from an increased proportion of rectal and sigmoid cancers in RCcR group. Mean operating time, and returns to theaters were comparable in both groups. Complications were fewer in RCcR group as compared to N-RCcR (16.6% vs 25%). RCcR group patients have reduced length of stay (5 days vs 7 days) but this is not statistically significant. Estimated blood loss and conversion to open surgery was significantly lesser in the robotic group (p < 0.01). The oncological outcomes from surgery including TNM, resection margin status, lymph node yield and circumferential resection margin (for rectal cancers) were all comparable. There was no 30-day mortality in either group.

CONCLUSION

Implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery is safe and effective in a busy tertiary center through a structured training programme with comparable short-term survival and oncological outcomes during learning curve.

The Impact of Conversion to Laparotomy in Rectal Cancer : A National Cancer Database Analysis of 57 574 Patients

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the effect of conversion from minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to laparotomy in rectal cancer is limited. This study examines the impact of conversion from laparoscopic or robotic-assisted techniques to open resection on oncologic outcomes in a large population database.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2016 was reviewed for all cases of invasive adenocarcinoma of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction managed surgically. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts by approach: laparoscopic/robotic (MIS), converted proctectomy (CP), and open proctectomy (OP). Kaplan-Meier estimation was used for unadjusted survival analysis, followed by adjusted multivariable Cox-Proportional Hazards regression. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The inclusion criteria identified 57 574 patients cases of adenocarcinoma of the rectum managed surgically. Of these patients, 23 579 (41.0%) underwent MIS, 3591 (6.2%) CP, and 30 404 (52.8%) OP. Five-year overall survival was greater in the MIS (70.4%) versus CP and OP (64.4% and 61.4%). No differences were detected for positive margins, 30-day, or 90-day mortality between CP and OP. MIS and CP approaches were significantly associated with increased odds of 12 or more regional lymph nodes examined and decreased overall mortality hazard compared with OP (all respective significant P < .05).

DISCUSSION

While similar odds of positive margins and short-term mortality is seen in patients whose procedure converts to laparotomy compared with planned laparotomy, both short-term and long-term oncologic benefit is seen in those who undergo a minimally invasive approach. Thus, a minimally invasive approach should be attempted for patients with rectal cancer.

NASA-Task Load Index Differentiates Surgical Approach: Opportunities for Improvement in Colon and Rectal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Surgeon workload, or human "cost" of performing a procedure, is not well understood in light of emerging surgical technologies. This pilot study quantified surgeon workload for colorectal procedures and identified patient, surgeon, and procedural factors impacting workload.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Innovative technologies and procedures in surgery have generally been promoted for the advancement of patient care. The resulting surgeon workload is poorly studied with little knowledge of the contributing factors impacting workload.

METHODS

Surgeons completed NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) questionnaires to self-assess workload following abdominopelvic colon and rectal procedures. Corresponding patient data were retrieved from the medical record. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and ANOVA were performed to compare surgeon and patient factors, procedure type, and surgical approach on workload overall and by subscales.

RESULTS

Seven attending surgeons rated 238 surgeries, of which 218 (92%) had corresponding patient data. Surgeon experience and patient demographics had inconsistent effects on workload. A statistically significant 3-way interaction was identified among disease process, procedure type, and surgical approach on workload (F(9, 146) = 2.17, P = 0.027), but was limited to open procedures for neoplasia and inflammatory bowel disease patients. Proctectomy and colectomy procedures compared across open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches showed significant differences in overall workload and subscales, where the robotic procedures required significantly less mental demand, physical demand, and effort, than open or laparoscopic (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient characteristics, disease process, and surgical experience had inconsistent effects on surgeon workload. Major differences in workload were identified for procedure type and surgical approach, where robotic procedures required less mental demand, physical demand, and effort.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Sigmoid Colectomy: Analysis of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Database

Minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy via the laparoscopic approach (LA) has numerous benefits. We seek to compare outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic sigmoid colectomies. We analyzed the data using the National Inpatient Sample database between 2008 and 2014. Utilization and outcome measures were compared. The seven-year average number of patients who underwent elective sigmoid colectomy in the United States from 2008 to 2014 was estimated to be 197,053. Of these, 95.1 per cent were conducted using the LA. The mean age was 58.33 + 13.6 years and 58.23 + 12.8 years in laparoscopic and robotic approaches, respectively. No significant differences existed in respect to morbidities. Postoperative complications were comparable with respect to other complications. Length of hospital stay was statistically significantly shorter in the robot-assisted approach compared with the LA (mean 4.8 + 4 vs 5.7 + 5 days, respectively, P < 0.001). Patients who underwent robotic surgery had significantly higher total hospital charges than those who underwent laparoscopic surgery (median $45,057 vs $57,871 USD, P < 0.001). The advent of robot-assisted surgery has provided more options for patients and surgeons. Compared with laparoscopy, robot-assisted sigmoid colectomy has no clinical advantages in morbidity and mortality. However, the robotic approach has a significantly higher total charge to the patient.

Robotic sphincter saving rectal cancer surgery: A learning curve analysis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer - a systematic review

AIM

Minimally invasive surgical approaches for cancer of the right colon have been well described with significant patient and equivalent oncological benefits. Robotic surgery has advanced in its ability to provide multi-quadrant abdominal access, leading the surgical community to widen its application outside of the pelvis to other abdominal compartments. Globally it is being realized that a patient's surgical episode of care is becoming the epicentre of cancer treatment. In order to establish the role of robotic surgery in a patient's episode of care, 'successful patient-oriented surgical' parameters in right hemicolectomy for malignancy were measured. The objective was to examine the rates of successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) compared to laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) for cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE (Ovid: 1946-present), PubMed (NCBI), Embase (Ovid: 1966-present) and Cochrane Library was conducted using PRISMA for parameters of successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in RRH and LRH for malignancy alone. The parameters measured included postoperative ileus, anastomotic complication, surgical wound infection, length of stay (LOS), incisional hernia rate, conversion to open, margin status, lymph node harvest and overall morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

There were 15 studies which included 831 RRH patients and 3241 LRH patients, with a median age of 62-74 years. No study analysed the concept of successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative ileus, with less time to first flatus in RRH (2.0-2.7 days, compared with 2.5-4.0 days, P < 0.05). Anastomotic leak rate in one study reported a significant increase in LRH compared to RRH (P < 0.05, 0% vs 8.3%). Significantly decreased LOS following RRH was outlined in six studies. One study reported a significantly higher rate of incisional hernias following LRH with extracorporeal anastomoses compared to RRH with intracorporeal anastomoses. Overall rates of conversion to open surgery were less with RRH (0%-3.9% vs 0%-18%, P < 0.001, 0.05). One study outlined significantly higher rates of incomplete resection with an open right hemicolectomy compared with minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic resections, with positive margin rates of 2.3%, 0.9% and 0% respectively (P < 0.001). Two studies reported significantly higher lymph node harvest in RRH (P < 0.05). Overall morbidity and 30-day mortality were comparable in both approaches.

CONCLUSION

Thirty-day morbidity and mortality were comparable between the two approaches, with patients undergoing RRH having lower anastomotic complications, increased lymph node harvest, and reduced LOS, conversion to open and incisional hernia rates in a number of studies. There are limited data on surgical approach and impact on quality of life and what patients deem successful surgical outcomes. There is a further need for a randomized controlled trial examining successful patient-oriented outcomes in right hemicolectomy for malignancy.

Workplace absenteeism amongst patients undergoing open vs. robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, and partial colectomy

BACKGROUND

There is controversy regarding the widespread uptake of robotic surgery across several surgical disciplines. While it has been shown to confer clinical benefits such as decreased blood loss and shorter hospital stays, some argue that the benefits of this technology do not outweigh its high cost. We performed a retrospective insurance-based analysis to investigate how undergoing robotic surgery, compared to open surgery, may impact the time in which an employed individual returns to work after undergoing major surgery.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of US adults with employer-sponsored insurance using claims data from the MarketScan database who underwent either open or robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy/myomectomy, and partial colectomy from 2012 to 2016. We performed multiple regression models incorporating propensity scores to assess the effect of robotic vs. open surgery on the number of absent days from work, adjusting for demographic characteristics and baseline absenteeism.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 1157 individuals with employer-sponsored insurance, those undergoing open surgery, compared to robotic surgery, had 9.9 more absent workdays for radical prostatectomy (95%CI 5.0 to 14.7, p < 0.001), 25.3 for hysterectomy/myomectomy (95%CI 11.0-39.6, p < 0.001), and 29.8 for partial colectomy (95%CI 14.8-44.8, p < 0.001) CONCLUSION: For the three major procedures studied, robotic surgery was associated with fewer missed days from work compared to open surgery. This information helps payers, patients, and providers better understand some of the indirect benefits of robotic surgery relative to its cost.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Case-Control Outcome Analysis and Surgical Resident Training Implications

Background

The robotic approach in surgery is becoming more widely used in many subspecialties. Robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures provide potential improvements in clinical outcomes due to improved visualization and enhanced surgical ergonomics. In this study, we measured and compared outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the conventional laparoscopic technique, as well as the implications for the training of surgical residents.

Method

We compared a total of 244 patients undergoing minimally invasive cholecystectomies performed by one surgeon between July 2013 and June 2016 examining relevant clinical outcomes including operative room (OR) time, length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission to the hospital, post-operative emergency department (ED) visits, and post-operative pain between laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A chi-square test and Student’s t-test were used to compare these variables between the two groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used using gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) as variables.

Results

From the total number of procedures of 244, 144 were included in the laparoscopic group and 100 in the robot-assisted group. The robot-assisted patients had a shorter post-operative LOS (mean: 0.8 vs. 1.6 days; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the OR time (mean: 64.8 vs. 65.0 minutes; p = 0.945), readmissions (4.0% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.830), post-operative ED visits (7.0% vs. 7.6%; p = 0.851), or post-operative pain (13.0% vs. 21.3%; p= 0.137). Robotic cholecystectomy patients were younger (mean: 46 vs. 52 years; p = 0.023) and had lower BMIs (mean: 31 vs. 33; p = 0.038). Because of these differences, we compared the two groups using PSM that confirmed the shorter LOS in the robotic group (mean: 0.9 vs. 1.9; p = 0.009).

Conclusions

These results demonstrate that robotic cholecystectomies can reduce LOS for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, without increasing OR time. Increased surgeon experience with robotic procedures and improved OR efficiency will allow greater opportunities for resident participation. Robotic training curricula need to be employed and objectively evaluated to improve surgical resident skill acquisition and provide earlier and progressive clinical participation in robotic procedures.

A comparative analysis of outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic elective (procto-) colectomies for benign and malignant disease

Laparoscopy has emerged as a common alternative to the open approach for colorectal operations. Robotic surgery has many advantages, but cost and outcomes are an area of study. There are no randomized-controlled trials of all techniques. The present study evaluated a cohort of veterans undergoing (procto-) colectomy for benign or malignant colorectal disease. This is a single-institution retrospective review. We compared open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary endpoints included morbidity, operative times, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), conversion rate, and the learning curve (LC). Subgroup analyses were undertaken for: (1) right hemicolectomies (RHC) and (2) by specific surgeons most familiar with each approach. The cohort included 390 patients (men = 95%, White = 70.8%, BMI = 29.3 ± 6.4 kg/m², age = 63.7 ± 10.2 years) undergoing (open = 117, laparoscopic = 168, and robotic = 105), colorectal operations for colorectal adenocarcinoma (52.8%) and benign disease. Thirty-day morbidity was similar across all techniques (open = 46.2%, laparoscopic = 42.9%, and robotic = 38.1%; NS). EBL and LOS were decreased with minimally invasive techniques compared to open. Operative time was longer in robotic, but equalized to laparoscopic after 90 cases. The learning curve was reduced to 20 when performed by the surgeon most familiar with the robot. EBL and operative time independently predicted complications for the entire cohort. The best technique for colorectal operations rests on the surgeon's experience, but minimally invasive techniques are gaining momentum over open colectomies. Robotic colectomy is emerging as a non-inferior approach to laparoscopy in terms of outcomes, while maintaining all its technical advantages.

An observational study of patho-oncological outcomes of various surgical methods in total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a single center analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) with or without neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the treatment for rectal cancer (RC). Recently, the use of conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic-assisted surgery (RS) has been on a steady increase cases. However, various oncological outcomes from different surgical approaches are still under investigation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study comprising 300 consecutive RC patients who underwent various techniques of TME (RS, n = 88; LS, n = 37; Open surgery, n = 175) at a single center of real world data to compare the pathological and oncological outcomes, with a median follow-up of 48 months.

RESULTS

Upon multivariate analysis, histologic grade (P = 0.016), and stage (P < 0.001) were the independent factors of circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis determined RS, early pathologic stage, negative CRM involvement, and pathologic complete response to be significantly associated with better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (all P < 0.05). Multivariable analyses observed the surgical method (P = 0.037), histologic grade (P = 0.006), and CRM involvement (P = 0.043) were the independent factors of DFS, whereas histologic grade (P = 0.011) and pathologic stage (P = 0.022) were the independent prognostic variables of OS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study determined that RS TME is feasible because it has less CRM involvement and better oncological outcomes than the alternatives have. The significant factors influencing CRM and prognosis depended on the histologic grade, tumor depth, and pre-operative CCRT. RS might be an acceptable option owing to the favorable oncological outcomes for patients with RC undergoing TME.

Surgeons' posture and muscle strain during laparoscopic and robotic surgery

Background

It is assumed that conventional laparoscopy (LAP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) differ in terms of the surgeon's comfort. This study compared muscle workload, work posture and perceived physical exertion of surgeons performing LAP or RALS.

Methods

Colorectal surgeons with experience in advanced LAP and RALS performed one of each operation. Bipolar surface electromyography (EMG) recordings were made from forearm, shoulder and neck muscles, and expressed relative to EMG maximum (%EMGmax). The static, median and peak levels of muscle activity were calculated, and an exposure variation analysis undertaken. Postural observations were carried out every 10 min, and ratings of perceived physical exertion before and after surgery were recorded.

Results

The study included 13 surgeons. Surgeons performing LAP showed higher static, median, and peak forearm muscle activity than those undertaking RALS. Muscle activity at peak level was higher during RALS than LAP. Exposure variation analysis demonstrated long-lasting periods of low-level intensity muscle activity in the shoulders for LAP, in the forearms for RALS, and in the neck for both procedures. Postural observations revealed a greater need for a change in work posture when performing LAP compared with RALS. Perceived physical exertion was no different between the surgical modalities.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive surgery requires long-term static muscle activity with a high physical workload for surgeons. RALS is less demanding on posture.

Simultaneous robotic surgery with low anterior resection and prostatectomy/hysterectomy

Cooperation with multiple departments is essential for the treatment of patients with rectal cancer and other pelvic cancers. In our department, we experienced two cases of rectal cancer that underwent robotic low anterior resection (LAR) and simultaneous resection of other pelvic organs (case 1 with prostatectomy and case 2 with hysterectomy) using the da Vinci Xi system. Here, we show the precise procedures of these two robotic surgeries. Under general anesthesia and lithotomy position, five da Vinci ports were symmetrically placed along the umbilical horizontal line with a 7 cm interval, and a 5 mm AirSeal Access Port was added in the right or left upper quadrant. Patients were placed with 22-degree Trendelenburg and 8-degree tilt to the right. The operators used the center port on the umbilicus as a camera port and chose the docking arms with either two-left-one-right or one-left-two-right setting depending on their preference. This port setting was quite useful for the operators from multiple departments to change the docking arms, even if their preference may be different. Moreover, assistants could use the remaining two ports to provide a well-expanded and safer surgical field. "With a familiar view" and "with a wide view" are our two concepts to safely perform extended pelvic surgeries. We have employed this symmetrical horizontal port site position as a general setting for usual rectal surgeries.

Comparison of Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic-Assisted Colon Cancer Surgery Using a Joystick-Guided Endoscope Holder (Soloassist II) or a Human Assistant

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted colon cancer surgery in the Soloassist II-assisted (SA) group and in the human-assisted (HA) group.

Methods

A total of 76 patients with colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy and anterior resection performed by a single surgeon between January 2017 and May 2018 were recruited from the consecutively enrolled registry and retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Of 76 patients, 43 underwent surgery with human assistance and 33 underwent surgery using the Soloassist II system. The clinicopathologic characteristics were not statistically different between the 2 groups. In both HA and SA groups, no statistical difference was observed between operation time (220.23 ± 47.83 minutes vs. 218.03 ± 38.22 minutes, P = 0.829), total number of harvested lymph nodes (20.42 ± 10.86 vs. 20.24 ± 8.21, P = 0.938), and other parameters of short-term outcomes (length of hospital stay, blood loss, open conversion, time to flatus, time to soft diet, and complication events). Subgroup analyses did not show statistical differences.

Conclusion

Soloassist II can reduce the participation of a human assistant during surgery and is not inferior to human assistance in laparoscopic-assisted colon cancer surgery. Thus, it is a feasible instrument in laparoscopic-assisted colon cancer surgery that can provide positive short-term outcomes.

Cost analysis of single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer: A propensity score-matching analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Although many studies have demonstrated similar perioperative outcomes for single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colon cancer, few have directly compared the costs of them. We aimed to compare costs between SILS and CLS for colon cancer.

METHODS

We analyzed the clinical outcomes and overall hospital costs of patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer from July 2009 to September 2014 at our institution; 288 were used for analysis after propensity score matching. The total hospital charge, including fees for the operation, anesthesia, preoperative diagnosis, and postoperative management was analyzed.

RESULTS

The total hospital charges were similar in both groups ($8770.40 vs. $8352.80, P = 0.099). However, the patients' total hospital bill was higher in the SILS group than in the CLS group ($4184.82 vs. $3735.00, P < 0.001) mainly due to the difference of the cost of access devices. There was no difference in the additional costs associated with readmission due to late complications between the two groups ($2383.08 vs. $2288.33, P = 0.662). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for total incision length in 'total hospital charge' and patient's bill and government's bill in 'cost of instruments and supplies' were -$107.08/1 cm, -$109.70/1 cm, and $80.64/1 cm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

SILS for colon cancer yielded similar costs as well as perioperative and long-term outcomes compared with CLS. Therefore, SILS can be considered a reasonable treatment option for colon cancer for selective patients.