Advantages of using a robotic stapler in rectal cancer surgery

Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Rectal Cancer: A Feasibility Study from a European Centre

INTRODUCTION

The role of robotic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) for lateral pelvic nodal disease (LPND) in rectal cancer has yet to be investigated in the Western hemisphere. This study aims to investigate the safety and feasibility of robotic LPLND by utilising a well-established totally robotic TME protocol.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study on 17 consecutive patients who underwent robotic LPLND for LPND ± TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2021. A single docking totally robotic approach from the left hip with full splenic mobilisation was performed using the X/Xi da Vinci platform. All patients underwent a tri-compartmental robotic en bloc excision of LPND with preservation of the obturator nerve and pelvic nerve plexus, leaving a well-skeletonised internal iliac vessel and its branches.

RESULTS

The median operative time was 280 min, which was 40 min longer than our standard robotic TME. The median BMI was 26, and there were no conversions. The median inpatient stay was 7 days with no Clavien-Dindo > 3 complications. One patient (6%) developed local recurrence and metastatic disease within 5 months. The proportion of histologically confirmed LPND was 41%, of which 94% were well to moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. Median pre-operative lateral pelvic node size was significantly higher in positive nodes (14 mm vs. 8 mm (p = 0.01)). All patients had clear resection margins on histology.

DISCUSSION

Robotic LPLND is safe and feasible with good peri-operative and short-term outcomes, with the ergonomic advantages of a robotic TME docking protocol readily transferrable in LPLND.

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.

Stapled fascial suture: ex vivo modeling and clinical implications

BACKGROUND

Recently, in the field of abdominal wall repair surgery, some minimally invasive procedures introduced the use of staplers to provide a retromuscular prosthetic repair. However, to the knowledge of the authors, there are little data in the literature about the outcomes of stapled sutures adoption for midline reconstruction. This study aims to investigate the biomechanics of stapled sutures, simple (stapled), or oversewn (hybrid), in comparison with handsewn suture. From the results obtained, we tried to draw indications for their use in a clinical context.

METHODS

Human cadaver fascia lata specimens, sutured (handsewn, stapled, or hybrid) or not, underwent tensile tests. The data on strength (maximal stress), ultimate strain (deformability), Young's modulus (rigidity), and dissipated specific energy (ability to absorb mechanical energy up to the breaking point) were recorded for each type of specimens and analyzed.

RESULTS

Stapled and hybrid suture showed a significantly higher strength (handsewn 0.83 MPa, stapled 2.10 MPa, hybrid 2.68 MPa) and a trend toward a lower ultimate strain as compared to manual sutures (handsewn 344%, stapled 249%, hybrid 280%). Stapled and hybrid sutures had fourfold higher Young's modulus as compared to handsewn sutures (handsewn 1.779 MPa, stapled 7.374 MPa, hybrid 6.964 MPa). Handsewn and hybrid sutures showed significantly higher dissipated specific energy (handsewn 0.99 mJ-mm3, stapled 0.73 mJ-mm3, hybrid 1.35 mJ-mm3).

CONCLUSION

Stapled sutures can resist high loads, but are less deformable and rigid than handsewn suture. This suggests a safer employment in case of small defects or diastasis (< W1 in accord to EHS classification), where the presumed tissutal displacement is minimal. Oversewing a stapled suture improves its efficiency, becoming crucial in case of larger defects (> W1 in accord to EHS classification) where the expected tissutal displacement is maximal. Hybrid sutures seem to be a good compromise.

Early Experience of Undertaking Robotic Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Resections, Avoiding a Diverting Stoma: Key eHancement of the Anastomosis for No Stoma Technique - A Case Series

Background. Anastomotic leak is a feared complication in rectal cancer surgery, and a proximal diverting stoma to protect the rectal anastomosis is used to minimize its impact. We evaluated a novel technique that uses the da Vinci® robotic platform (Intuitive Surgical) to reinforce the colorectal anastomosis and rectal staple line with sutures, and rectal resection and assessment of the anastomotic perfusion, using our Portsmouth protocol. Methods. During robotic rectal cancer surgery, we used indocyanine green to determine the level of transection and check the vascularity of the circular anastomosis. The distal transverse staple line and circular staple line of the colorectal anastomosis were reinforced with absorbable interrupted stitches (KHANS technique - Key enHancement of the Anastomosis for No Stoma). The integrity of the colorectal/anal anastomosis was also checked using the underwater air-water leak test, with concomitant flexible sigmoidoscopy to visualize the circular staple line. Results. Fifty patients underwent total mesorectal excision for cancer. Using the KHANS technique, we avoided a diverting stoma in all cases. One patient had a radiological leak, leading to a pelvic abscess. In 56% of cases, the anastomosis was within 5 cm of the anal verge. Median length of stay was 5 (3-34) days, with two 30-day readmissions. No 90-day mortality or 30-day reoperations were observed. Conclusion. The KHANS technique appears feasible, successful, and safe in decreasing the incidence of diverting stomas in rectal resections.

The impact of multiple firings on the risk of anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive restorative rectal cancer resection and the impact of anastomotic leakage on long-term survival: a population-based study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the anastomotic leakage (AL) rate and predictors for AL following minimally invasive restorative rectal resection (RRR) among rectal cancer patients managed according to up-to-date standardized treatment. Furthermore, we explored the impact of symptomatic AL on long-term survival.

METHODS

The study cohort was rectal cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive RRR in Central Denmark Region between 2013 and 2017. Data was retrieved from a prospective clinical quality database and supplemented with data from medical records. The AL rate was calculated as the proportion of patients who developed symptomatic AL within 30 days. Predictors for AL were identified through logistic regression. The impact of AL on long-term survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression.

RESULTS

AL occurred in 15.1% of 604 patients. The AL rate for males was 20.1% (95% CI 16.3-24.3) and 5.0% (95% CI 2.4-9.0) for females. Odds ratio (OR) of AL in females vs. males was 0.25 (95% CI 0.12-0.51). The use of at least three firings when transecting the rectum was associated with OR of 2.71 (95% CI 1.17-6.26) for AL. The 5-year survival for patients with vs. those without AL was 76.1% (95%CI 65.1-84.0) and 83.6% (95%CI 79.8-86.7), corresponding to adjusted hazard ratio of 1.43 (95%CI 0.84-2.41).

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic AL is still a challenge in a standardized setting using minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer patients undergoing RRR, especially in men. Multiple firings should be avoided in transection of the rectum with an endoscopic stapler. AL had a statistical non-significant negative impact on survival.

Comparison between robotic‐assisted and laparoscopic sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer

Aim

Sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer include low anterior and intersphincteric resection. In low anterior resection, the distal rectum is divided by a transabdominal approach, which is technically demanding. In intersphincteric resection, a perineal approach is used. We aimed to evaluate whether robotic‐assisted surgery is technically superior to laparoscopic surgery for ultra‐low rectal cancer. We compared the frequency of low anterior resection in cases of sphincter‐preserving operations.

Method

We investigated 183 patients who underwent sphincter‐preserving robotic‐assisted or laparoscopic surgery for ultra‐low rectal cancer (lower border within 5 cm of the anal verge) between April 2010 and March 2020. The frequency of low anterior resection was compared between laparoscopic and robotic‐assisted surgeries. The clinicopathological factors associated with an increase in performing low anterior resection were analyzed by multivariate analyses.

Results

Overall, 41 (22.4%) and 142 (77.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic‐assisted surgery, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. Low anterior resection was done significantly more frequently in robotic‐assisted surgery (67.6%) than in laparoscopic surgery (48.8%) (P = 0.04). Multivariate analyses showed that tumor distance from the anal verge (P < 0.01) and robotic‐assisted surgery (P = 0.02) were significantly associated with an increase in the performance of low anterior resection. The rate of postoperative complications or pathological results was similar between the groups.

Conclusion

Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic‐assisted surgery significantly increased the frequency of low anterior resection in sphincter‐preserving operations for ultra‐low rectal cancer. Robotic‐assisted surgery has technical superiority over laparoscopic surgery for ultra‐low rectal cancer treatment.

Anastomotic leakage in colorectal cancer surgery

The safety of colorectal surgery for oncological disease is steadily improving, but anastomotic leakage is still the most feared and devastating complication from both a surgical and oncological point of view. Anastomotic leakage affects the outcome of the surgery, increases the times and costs of hospitalization, and worsens the prognosis in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. Anastomotic leakage has a wide range of clinical features ranging from radiological only finding to peritonitis and sepsis with multi-organ failure. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin have been identified as early predictors of anastomotic leakage starting from postoperative day 2-3, but abdominal-pelvic computed tomography scan is still the gold standard for the diagnosis. Several treatments can be adopted for anastomotic leakage. However, there is not a universally accepted flowchart for the management, which should be individualized based on patient's general condition, anastomotic defect size and location, indication for primary resection and presence of the proximal stoma. Non-operative management is usually preferred in patients who underwent proximal faecal diversion at the initial operation. Laparoscopy can be attempted after minimal invasive surgery and can reduce surgical stress in patients allowing a definitive treatment. Reoperation for sepsis control is rarely necessary in those patients who already have a diverting stoma at the time of the leak, especially in extraperitoneal anastomoses. In patients without a stoma who do not require abdominal reoperation for a contained pelvic leak, there are several treatment options, including laparoscopic diverting ileostomy combined with trans-anal anastomotic tube drainage, percutaneous drainage or recently developed endoscopic procedures, such as stent or clip placement or endoluminal vacuum-assisted therapy. We describe the current approaches to treat this complication, as well as the clinical tests necessary to diagnose and provide an effective therapy.

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Efficacy of a robotic stapler on symptomatic anastomotic leakage in robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Clinical evidence demonstrating risk factors for anastomotic leakage including robotic staplers has remained limited, even though the use of robotic surgery has increased substantially. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of robotic staplers on symptomatic anastomotic leakage in robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 427 consecutive patients with primary rectal cancer who underwent robotic low anterior resection without diverting stoma were investigated retrospectively. Symptomatic anastomotic leakage was defined as anastomotic leakage of Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ II. We compared the symptomatic anastomotic leakage rates between manual and robotic staplers using propensity score matching and investigated the risk factors for symptomatic anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 168 pairs of manual and robotic stapler cases were selected. The symptomatic anastomotic leakage rate was significantly higher for manual staplers (6.5%) than for robotic staplers (1.2%, p = 0.02). In a multivariate analysis, the use of a manual stapler (p = 0.04, OR 4.86, 95% CI 1.08-21.8) and anastomosis < 4 cm from the anal verge (p < 0.01, OR 4.36, 95% CI 1.48-12.9) were identified as independent risk factors for symptomatic anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic stapler use was associated with a significantly decreased rate of anastomotic leakage in robotic low anterior resection without diverting stoma for rectal cancer.

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Current Evidences and Future Perspectives

Despite the technical limitations of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has short-term advantages over open surgery, but the pathological outcomes reported in randomized clinical trials are still in controversy. Minimally invasive robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) has recently been gaining popularity as robotic surgical systems potentially provide greater benefits than LTME. Compared to LTME, RTME is associated with lower conversion rates and similar or better genitourinary functions, but its long-term oncological outcomes have not been established. Although the operating time of RTME is longer than that of LTME, RTME has a shorter learning curve, is more convenient for surgeons, and is better for sphincter-preserving operations than LTME. The robotic surgical system is a good technical tool for minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer, especially in male patients with narrow deep pelvises. Robotic systems and robotic surgical techniques are still improving, and the contribution of RTME to the treatment of rectal cancer will continue to increase in the future.

The use of robotic or laparoscopic stapler in rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Minimally invasive surgery for total mesorectal excision (TME) remains technically challenging due to poor maneuverability within the pelvis, which makes extremely difficult to introduce a laparoscopic stapler (LS) for the rectal transection. We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic TME after the use of robotic stapler (RS) or LS after robotic TME. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database. Participants who underwent robotic anterior resection were considered following these criteria: (1) studies comparing RS and LS; (2) studies reporting the rate of anastomotic leakage (AL). The primary outcome was the risk of AL. Secondary outcomes included the number of firings of stapler needed. A meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement was performed. A total of 4 studies including 391 patients (LS = 251, RS = 140) were included for analysis. Regarding the number of firings, overall results suggest that the rectal stapling was achieved with less firings in the RS group, but the difference is not significant [risk difference, (95% CI) 0.42 (- 0.13, 0.97)]. There was a 56% increased odds of AL for LS compared with RS; however, this was not statistically significant (OR: 1.56; 95% CI 0.59, 4.14). With the current literature evidence, the present study could not demonstrate a clear benefit of the RS over the LS. Although the development of an AL is multifactorial and unpredictable, our data may suggest that the use of the RS could help reducing the risk of AL. There is a need of future randomized clinical trial to assess the possible benefits of the RS.

The Use of Enhanced Technologies in Robotic Surgery and Its Impact on Outcomes in Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

The main advantage of the robotic approach is the surgical precision that the technology offers. It is particularly useful in rectal cancer as this is a technically challenging procedure. The technological advantage of the robot leads to better postoperative outcomes. Apart from the 3D vision and endowrist instrumentation in comparison to laparoscopy, the options of using fluorescence imaging, endowrist stapler, and table motion have revolutionised the way of performing an anterior resection. Thus, the true benefit of these advances will be the quality of the surgery, which leads to better postoperative outcomes. This article focuses on the current status of applications of new modalities and technology development in robotic rectal surgery. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and cochrane database. The studies included were considered based on the following (1) articles written in English, (2) full text is available, (3) whether the topic is related to the use of novel technologies during robotic rectal surgery, and (4) sample: adult patients and malignant rectal disease. The primary end point was to analyse the current use of technological advances in robotic rectal surgery. Only a few studies are currently available on the use of these different technologies in robotic colorectal surgery. Many of these reports describe promising results, although with short-term outcomes. The use of technologies in robotic colorectal surgery is safe and feasible and can be used together to improve short-term outcomes. Intraoperative fluorescence angiography has demonstrated to reduce the rate of anastomotic leak, whereas the robotic stapler and the table motion simplify anatomic resection.