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

Training and assessment for colorectal surgery and appendicectomy- a systematic review

AIM

There is currently an increased focus on competency-based training, in which training and assessment play a crucial role. The aim of this systematic review is to create an overview of hands-on training methods and assessment tools for appendicectomy and colon and rectal surgery procedures using either an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach.

METHOD

A systematic review of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. We conducted the last search on 9 March 2023. All published papers describing hands-on training, evaluation of performance data and development of assessment tools were eligible. The quality of studies and the validity evidence of assessment tools are reported.

RESULTS

Fifty-one studies were identified. Laparoscopic assessment tools are abundant, but the literature still lacks good-quality assessment tools for open appendicectomy, robotic colectomy and open rectal surgery. Overall, there is a lack of discussion regarding the establishment of pass/fail standards and the consequences of assessment. Virtual reality simulation is used more for appendicectomy than colorectal procedures. Only a few of the studies investigating training were of acceptable quality. There is a need for high-quality studies in open and robotic-assisted colon surgery and all approaches to rectal surgery.

CONCLUSION

This review provides an overview of current training methods and assessment tools and identifies where more research is needed based on the quality of the studies and the current validity evidence.

National trends and feasibility of a robotic surgical approach in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Research on the utilization of robotic surgical approaches in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is limited. The aims of this study were to identify temporal trends in robotic utilization and compare the safety of a robotic to laparoscopic operative approach in patients with IBD.

METHODS

Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for IBD were identified using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database (2013-2021). Temporal trends of robotic utilization were assessed from 2013 to 2021. Primary (30-day overall and serious morbidity) and secondary (unplanned conversion to open) outcomes were assessed between 2019 and 2021, when robotic utilization was highest. Multivariable logistic regression was performed.

RESULTS

The use of a robotic approach for colectomies and proctectomies increased significantly between 2013 and 2021 (p < 0.001), regardless of disease type. A total of 6016 patients underwent MIS for IBD between 2019 and 2021. 2234 (37%) patients had surgery for UC [robotic 430 (19.3%), lap 1804 (80%)] and 3782 (63%) had surgery for CD [robotic 500 (13.2%), lap 3282 (86.8%)]. For patients with UC, there was no difference in rates of overall morbidity (22.6% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.39), serious morbidity (11.4% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.60) or conversion to open (1.5% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.38) between the laparoscopic and robotic approaches, respectively. There was no difference in overall morbidity between the two groups in patients with CD (lap 14.0% vs robotic 16.4%, p = 0.15), however the robotic group exhibited higher rates of serious morbidity (7.3% vs. 11.2%, p < 0.01), shorter LOS (3 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001) and lower rates of conversion to an open procedure (3.8% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.02). Adjusted analysis showed similar results.

CONCLUSION

The use of the robotic platform in the surgical management of IBD is increasing and is not associated with an increase in 30-day overall morbidity compared to a laparoscopic approach.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic colorectal surgery is becoming the preferred surgical approach for colorectal cancer (CRC). It offers several technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy that could improve patient outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared robotic and laparoscopic surgery for CRC using a national cohort of patients.

METHODS

Using the colectomy-targeted ACS-NSQIP database (2015-2020), colorectal procedures for malignant etiologies were identified by CPT codes for right colectomy (RC), left colectomy (LC), and low anterior resection (LAR). Optimal pair matching was performed. "Textbook outcome" was defined as the absence of 30-day complications, readmission, or mortality and a length of stay < 5 days.

RESULTS

We included 53,209 out of 139,759 patients screened for eligibility. Laparoscopic-to-robotic matching of 2:1 was performed for RC and LC, and 1:1 for LAR. The largest standardized mean difference was 0.048 after matching. Robotic surgery was associated with an increased rate of textbook outcomes compared to laparoscopy in RC and LC, but not in LAR (71% vs. 64% in RC, 75% vs. 68% in LC; p < 0.001). Robotic LAR was associated with increased major morbidity (7.1% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.012). For all three procedures, the mean conversion rate of robotic surgery was lower than laparoscopy (4.3% vs. 9.2%; p < 0.001), while the mean operative time was higher for robotic (225 min vs. 177 min; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for CRC offers an advantage over conventional laparoscopy by improving textbook outcomes in RC and LC. This advantage was not found in robotic LAR, which also showed an increased risk of serious complications. The associations highlighted in our study should be considered in the discussion of the surgical management of patients with colorectal cancer.

A Review of Robotic Surgery in Colorectal Surgery

Colorectal surgery is a treatment for colorectal lesions. Technological advancements have given the rise to robotic colorectal surgery, a procedure that limits excessive blood loss via 3D pin-point precision capabilities during surgeries. The aim of this study is to review robotic surgery in colorectal treatment procedures in order to dictate its ultimate merits. This is a literature review utilising PubMed and Google Scholar; it only includes case studies and case reviews related to robotic colorectal surgeries. Literature reviews are excluded. We incorporated abstracts from all articles and full publications were examined to compare the benefits of robotic surgery in colorectal treatments. The number of articles reviewed was 41 literature spanning from 2003 to 2022. We found that robotic surgeries yielded finer marginal resections, greater amounts of lymph node resections and earlier recovery of bowel functions. The patients also spent less time in hospital after surgery. The obstacles on the other hand are it costs longer operative hours and further training, which is expensive. Studies show robotic approach is a choice for treating rectal cancer. However further studies would be needed to conclude the best approach. This is especially true with patients treated for anterior colorectal resections. Based on the evidence it's safe to say that the upsides outweigh the downsides, but advancements and further research in robotic colorectal surgeries are still necessary to reduce operative hours and cost. Surgical societies should also take the initiative and set up effective training programmes for colorectal robotic surgeries, as trained physicians result in better treatment outcomes.

Effect of Surgical Humidification on Inflammation and Peritoneal Trauma in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Pre-clinical studies indicate that dry-cold-carbon-dioxide (DC-CO2) insufflation leads to more peritoneal damage, inflammation and hypothermia compared with humidified-warm-CO₂ (HW-CO2). Peritoneum and core temperature in patients undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery were compared.

METHODS

Sixty-six patients were randomized into laparoscopic groups; those insufflated with DC-CO2 or HW-CO2. A separate group of nineteen patients undergoing laparotomy were randomised to conventional surgery or with the insertion of a device delivering HW-CO2. Temperatures were monitored and peritoneal biopsies and bloods were taken at the start of surgery, at 1 and 3 h. Further bloods were taken depending upon hospital length-of-stay (LOS). Peritoneal samples were subjected to scanning electron microscopy to evaluate mesothelial damage.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic cases experienced a temperature drop despite Bair-Hugger^TM use. HW-CO2 restored normothermia (≥ 36.5 °C) by 3 h, DC-CO2 did not. LOS was shorter for colon compared with rectal cancer cases and if insufflated with HW-CO2 compared with DC-CO2; 5.0 vs 7.2 days, colon and 11.6 vs 15.4 days rectum, respectively. Unexpectedly, one third of patients had pre-existing damage. Damage increased at 1 and 3 h to a greater extent in the DC-CO2 compared with the HW-CO2 laparoscopic cohort. C-reactive protein levels were higher in open than laparoscopic cases and lower in both matched HW-CO2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective RCT is in accord with animal studies while highlighting pre-existing damage in some patients. Peritoneal mesothelium protection, reduced inflammation and restoration of core-body temperature data suggest benefit with the use of HW-CO2 in patients undergoing CRC surgery.

Predictors and Consequences of Unplanned Conversion to Open During Robotic Colectomy: An ACS-NSQIP Database Analysis

Robotic-assisted surgery has become a desired modality for performing colectomy; however, unplanned conversion to an open procedure may be associated with worse outcomes. The purpose of this study is to examine predictors and consequences of unplanned conversion to open in a large, high fidelity data set. A retrospective analysis of 11 061 robotic colectomies was conducted using the American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) 2012-2017 database. Predictors of conversion and the effect of conversion on outcomes were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression resulting in risk-adjusted odds ratios of conversion and morbidity/mortality. Overall, 10 372 (93.8%) patients underwent successful robotic colectomy, and 689 (6.2%) had an unplanned conversion. Predictors of conversion included age ≥ 65 years, male gender, obesity, functional status not independent, American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) classification IV-V, non-oncologic indication, emergency case, smoking, recent weight loss, bleeding disorder, and preoperative organ space infection. Conversion is an independent risk factor for mortality, overall morbidity, cardiac morbidity, pulmonary morbidity, renal morbidity, venous thromboembolism morbidity, wound morbidity, sepsis, bleeding, readmission, return to the operating room, and extended length of stay (LOS). Unplanned conversion to open during robotic colectomy is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality.

The art of robotic colonic resection: a review of progress in the past 5 years

Surgery is developing in the direction of minimal invasiveness, and robotic surgery is becoming increasingly adopted in colonic resection procedures. The ergonomic improvements of robot promote surgical performance, reduce workload for surgeons and benefit patients. Compared with laparoscopy-assisted colon surgery, the robotic approach has the advantages of shorter length of hospital stay, lower rate of conversion to open surgery, and lower rate of intraoperative complications for short-term outcomes. Synchronous robotic liver resection with colon cancer is feasible. The introduction of the da Vinci Xi System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has introduced more flexibility to colonic operations. Optimization of the suprapubic surgical approach may shorten the length of hospital stay for patients who undergo robotic colonic resection. Single-port robotic colectomy reduces the number of robotic ports for better looking and faster recovery. Intestinal anastomosis methods using totally robotic surgery result in shorter time to bowel function recovery and tolerance to a solid diet, although the operative time is longer. Indocyanine green is used as a tracer to assess blood supplementation in the anastomosis and marks lymph nodes during operation. The introduction of new surgical robots from multiple manufacturers is bound to change the landscape of robotic surgery and yield high-quality surgical outcomes. The present article reviews recent advances in robotic colonic resection over the past five years.

Outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease in Veteran patients

The robotic platform for cholecystectomy has been extensively studied in comparison to its laparoscopic counterpart with acceptable outcomes. However, wide acceptance of a robotic approach to cholecystectomy has been limited by increased operative room (OR) times and substantially higher cost. This is a single-institution retrospective review of Veteran patients presenting for elective laparoscopic (LC) and robotic (RC) cholecystectomies for benign biliary disease at the Dallas VA Medical Center. The primary goal was to interrogate 30-day morbidity as well as operative room times, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital length of stay (LOS), and conversion rates. The entire cohort included 612 patients (age = 55.1 ± 12.9 years, men = 77.9%, BMI = 31.2 ± 6.3 kg/m²) undergoing elective cholecystectomy (LC = 441 and RC = 171) for benign biliary disease (biliary colic = 78.8%, history of biliary pancreatitis = 7.8%, history of cholecystitis = 5.7%). Univariate analysis comparing LC and RC showed the two groups to be of similar age (55.4 ± 12.4 vs. 54.4 ± 14.2 years; p = 0.4), male gender (79.4% vs. 74.3%, p = 0.2), and BMI (31.1 ± 6.4 vs. 31.5 ± 6.3 kg/m²; p = 0.5). Except for dyslipidemia (LC = 48.3% vs. RC = 36.8%; p = 0.01), both groups had the same rate of co-morbid conditions. ASA level III and IV (LC = 60.1 vs. RC = 69.0%, p = 0.04) was higher in the RC group. Both groups underwent surgical intervention for similar indications (biliary colic LC = 80.5% vs. RC = 74.3; p = 0.1). Hospital LOS (1.7 ± 3.2 vs. 0.3 ± 0.9 days, p < 0.001), EBL (32.3 ± 52.3 vs. 17.0 ± 43.1; p = 0.001), and conversion to open (6.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.001) were all superior with the robotic platform. Thirty-day overall morbidity (9.8% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.4), skin-to-skin OR time (84.5 ± 33.5 vs. 88.0 ± 35.3 min, p = 0.2), and total OR time (129.2 ± 36.8 vs. 129.7 ± 39.7, p = 0.9) were similar between the LC and RC groups. Despite being older and having more comorbidities, Veteran patients undergoing robotic cholecystectomy experienced equivalent OR time and a moderate improvement in conversion rate, EBL, and hospital LOS compared to those undergoing conventional laparoscopy, therein demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the robotic platform for this patient population.