Optimizing outcomes in colorectal surgery: cost and clinical analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches to colon resection

Is the NICE procedure the great equalizer for patients with high BMI undergoing resection for diverticulitis?

BACKGROUND

By 2030, projections indicate that nearly half of USS adults will be obese, with 29 states exceeding a 50% obesity rate. High Body Mass Index (BMI) presents particular challenges in treating diverticulitis, including worsened symptoms and increased risk of surgical complications. The Robotic Natural orifice Intracorporeal Anastomosis with Transrectal Extraction (NICE) procedure has been developed for colorectal surgeries to tackle these challenges. This study evaluates the efficacy of the Robotic NICE procedure in achieving comparable surgical outcomes in patients with both high and normal BMI.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study assessed the outcomes of robotic-assisted colectomy utilizing the NICE technique in patients with diverticulitis, dividing them into two groups based on BMI: high BMI (≥ 30 kg/m^2) and non-high BMI (< 30 kg/m^2).

RESULTS

Among the 194 patients analyzed, the incidence of complicated diverticulitis was significantly higher in the high BMI group (60.5%) compared to the non-high BMI group (39%; p = 0.003).The high BMI group had higher ASA scores, indicating sicker patients. The high BMI group also had a significantly higher rate of unplanned operations within 30 days (7.9% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.034). However, no significant differences were observed in the length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, or ICU admission rates between the two groups. Binary logistic regression highlighted the length of stay as a significant predictor of postoperative complications (Odds Ratio: 1.9686, 95% CI: 1.372-2.825, p < 0.001). Other factors, including age, operative time, and gender, did not significantly predict complications.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that the Robotic NICE procedure can mitigate some of the challenges typically associated with conventional minimally invasive surgery in which abdominal wall incision is made, providing consistent outcomes regardless of BMI. Further research is needed to explore long-term benefits, aiming to establish this approach as a standard for managing diverticulitis in our patient population.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining prominence in colorectal procedures owing to advantages like three-dimensional vision and enhanced dexterity, particularly in rectal surgery. Although recent reviews report similar outcomes between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and RS, this study investigates the evolving trends in outcomes over time, paralleling the increasing experience in RS.

METHODS

A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted of randomised controlled trials exploring postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing RS or LS for colorectal pathology. The primary outcome measure was postoperative complications. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Randomised controlled trials were identified from the PubMed®, Embase® and CINAHL® (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases via the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

RESULTS

Of 491 articles screened, 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of postoperative complications revealed no significant difference between RS and LS (relative risk [RR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.18, p=0.72). Meta-regression analysis of postoperative complications demonstrated a significant trend favouring RS over time (yearly change in Ln(RR): -0.0620, 95% CI: -0.1057 to -0.0183, p=0.005). Secondary outcome measures included operative time, length of stay, blood loss, conversion to open surgery, positive circumferential resection margins and lymph nodes retrieved. The only significant findings were shorter operative time favouring LS (mean difference: 41.48 minutes, 95% CI: 22.15 to 60.81 minutes, p<0.001) and fewer conversions favouring RS (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.85, p=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

As experience in RS grows, evidence suggests an increasing safety profile for patients. Meta-regression revealed a significant temporal trend with complication rates favouring RS over LS. Heterogeneous reporting of complications hindered subgroup analysis of minor and major complications. LS remains quicker. Rising adoption of RS coupled with emerging evidence is expected to further elucidate its clinical efficacy.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Adults Aged 75 Years and Older: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery has been increasingly adopted in colorectal cancer resection.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to compare the inpatient outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection in patients aged 75 years and older.

DESIGN

A retrospective, population-based study.

SETTINGS

This study analyzed data from the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2018.

PATIENTS

Patients with colorectal cancer aged 75 years and older and who underwent robot-assisted or conventional laparoscopic resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, and total hospital costs were assessed.

RESULTS

Data from 14,108 patients were analyzed. After adjustment, any postoperative complications (adjusted OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99; p = 0.030) and prolonged length of stay (adjusted OR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91; p = 0.001) were significantly less in the robotic than the laparoscopic group. In addition, robotic surgery was associated with significantly higher total hospital costs (26.06 USD greater cost; 95% CI, 21.35-30.77 USD; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

The analysis was limited by its retrospective and observational nature, potential coding errors, and the lack of intraoperative factors, such as operative time, laboratory measures, and information on surgeons' experience.

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States, in patients with colorectal cancer aged 75 years and older who were undergoing tumor resections, compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery is associated with better inpatient outcomes in terms of complication rate and risk of prolonged length of stay. This finding is especially true among patients with colon cancer. However, robotic surgery is associated with higher total hospital costs. See Video Abstract .

RESULTADOS DE LA CIRUGA ASISTIDA POR ROBOT FRENTE A LA CIRUGA LAPAROSCPICA PARA EL CNCER COLORRECTAL EN ADULTOS AOS DE EDAD UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO POR PUNTUACIN DE PROPENSIN DE LA MUESTRA NACIONAL DE PACIENTES HOSPITALIZADOS DE ESTADOS UNIDOS

ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía asistida por robot se ha adoptado cada vez más en la resección del cáncer colorrectal.OBJETIVO:El estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar los resultados hospitalarios de la resección del cáncer colorrectal asistida por robot versus la laparoscópica convencional en pacientes ≥ 75 años.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de base poblacional.AJUSTES:Este estudio analizó datos de la Muestra Nacional de Pacientes Hospitalizados de Estados Unidos de 2005 a 2018.PACIENTES:Pacientes con cáncer colorrectal ≥ 75 años y sometidos a resección laparoscópica convencional o asistida por robot.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se evaluaron las complicaciones posoperatorias, la duración prolongada de la estancia hospitalaria y los costos hospitalarios totales.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron datos de 14.108 pacientes. Después del ajuste, cualquier complicación posoperatoria (aOR = 0,87; IC del 95 %: 0,77-0,99, p = 0,030) y duración prolongada de la estancia hospitalaria (aOR = 0,78; IC del 95 %: 0,67-0,91, p = 0,001) fueron significativamente menores en el grupo robótico que el grupo laparoscópico. Además, la cirugía robótica se asoció con costos hospitalarios totales significativamente mayores ($26,06 USD mayor costo; IC 95%: 21,35-30,77 USD, p < 0,001).LIMITACIONES:El análisis estuvo limitado por su naturaleza retrospectiva y observacional, posibles errores de codificación y la falta de factores intraoperatorios como el tiempo operatorio, medidas de laboratorio e información sobre la experiencia de los cirujanos.CONCLUSIONES:En Estados Unidos, los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal ≥ 75 años que se sometieron a resecciones tumorales, en comparación con la cirugía laparoscópica convencional, la cirugía robótica se asocia con mejores resultados hospitalarios en términos de tasa de complicaciones y riesgo de estadía prolongada, especialmente entre pacientes con cáncer de colon. Sin embargo, la cirugía robótica se asocia a costes hospitalarios totales más elevados. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Comparison of early surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection reported by a busy district general hospital in England

Robotic platforms provide a stable tool with high-definition views and improved ergonomics compared to laparoscopic approaches. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the intra- and short-term postoperative results of oncological resections performed robotically (RCR) and laparoscopically (LCR) at a single centre. Between February 2020 and October 2022, retrospective data on RCR were compared to LCR undertaken during the same period. Parameters compared include total operative time, length of stay (LOS), re-admission rates, 30-day morbidity. 100 RCR and 112 LCR satisfied inclusion criteria. There was no difference between the two group's demographic and tumour characteristics. Overall, median operative time was shorter in LCR group [200 vs. 247.5 min, p < 0.005], but this advantage was not observed with pelvic and muti-quadrant resections. There was no difference in the rate of conversion [5(5%) vs. 5(4.5%), p > 0.95]. With respect to perioperative outcomes, there was no difference in the overall morbidity, or mortality between RCR and LCR, in particular requirement for blood transfusion [3(3%) vs. 5(4.5%), p 0.72], prolonged ileus [9(9%) vs. 15(13.2%), p 0.38], surgical site infections [5(4%) vs. 5(4.4%), p > 0.95], anastomotic leak [7(7%) vs. 5(4.4%), p 0.55], and re-operation rate [9(9%) vs. 7(6.3%), p 0.6]. RCR had shorter LOS by one night, but this did not reach statistical significance. No difference was observed in completeness of resection but there was a statically significant increase in lymph node harvest in the robotic series. Robotic approach to oncological colorectal resections is safe, with comparable intra- and peri-operative morbidity and mortality to laparoscopic surgery.

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.

The rise of robotic colorectal surgery: better for patients and better for surgeons

Robotic colorectal surgery represents a major technological advancement in the treatment of patients with colorectal disease. Several recent randomized controlled trials comparing robotic colorectal surgery with laparoscopic surgery have demonstrated improved short-term patient outcomes in the robotic group. Whilst the primary focus of research in robotic surgery has been on patient outcomes, the robotic platform also provides unparalleled benefits for the surgeon, including improved ergonomics and surgeon comfort, with the potential to reduce occupational injuries and prolong career longevity. It is becoming clear that robotic surgical systems improve patient outcomes and may provide significant benefits to the surgical workforce.

Laparoscopy and laparotomy for patients with transverse colon cancer: comparative analysis of short-term surgical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the treatment of transverse colon cancer.

METHODS

Data from 100 patients with transverse colon cancer treated in our hospital from January 2018 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed in this study. According to the treatment methods, these patients were assigned into two groups: a laparotomy group (n=50) and a laparoscopy group (n=50). The intraoperative parameters, postoperative recovery, incidences of complications, postoperative pain, quality of life (QoL) score, postoperative serum inflammatory cytokine (hs-CRP, TNF-α, and IL-6) levels, and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) were analyzed and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in number of resected lymph nodes between the two groups. The operation time and intraoperative bleeding in the laparoscopy group were significantly less than those in the laparotomy group (P<0.05). The hospital stay, duration of gastrointestinal function recovery, and time of first postoperative flatus in the laparoscopy group were significantly shorter than those in the laparotomy group (all P<0.001). Moreover, the incidence of overall complications in the laparoscopy group was significantly lower than that in the laparotomy group (P<0.05). Compared with those in the laparotomy group, the VAS score was obviously lower and the QoL score was significantly higher in the laparoscopy group (all P<0.001). Patients in the laparoscopy group exhibited lower levels of postoperative hs-CRP, TNF-α and IL-6 in contrast to those in the laparotomy group (P<0.05). In additional, there was no significant difference in the PNI level before surgery between two groups. After surgery, the PNI level in the laparoscopy group was obviously higher than that in the laparotomy group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is superior to laparotomy in treatment of transverse colon cancer through achieving better intraoperative outcomes, promoting postoperative recovery, reducing the incidence of complications and inflammatory reactions, alleviating postoperative pain, and improving therapeutic effects.

Ethical, Legal, and Financial Considerations of Artificial Intelligence in Surgery

Machine learning systems have become integrated into some of the most vital decision-making aspects of humanity, including hiring decisions, loan applications, and automobile safety, to name just a few. As applications increase in both gravity and complexity, the data quality and algorithmic interpretability of the systems must rise to meet those challenges. This is especially vital for navigating the nuances of health care, particularly among the high stakes of surgical operations. In addition to inherent ethical challenges of enabling a "black box" system to influence decision-making in patient care, the creation of biased datasets leads to biased algorithms with the power to perpetuate discrimination and reinforce disparities. Transparency and responsibility are paramount to the implementation of artificial intelligence in surgical decision-making and autonomous robotic surgery. Machine learning has been permeating health care across diverse clinical and surgical contexts but continues to face sizable obstacles, including apprehension from patients and providers alike. To integrate the technology fully while upholding standard of care and patient-provider trust, one must acknowledge and address the ethical, financial, and legal implications of using artificial intelligence for patient care.

Factors affecting the learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery

Learning related to robotic colorectal surgery can be measured by surgical process (such as time or adequacy of resection) or patient outcome (such as morbidity or quality of life). Time based metrics are the most commonly used variables to assess the learning curve because of ease of analysis. With analysis of the learning curve, there are factors which need to be considered because they may have a direct impact on operative times or may be surrogate markers of clinical effectiveness (unrelated to times). Variables which may impact on operation time include surgery case mix, hybrid technique, laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery experience, robotic surgical simulator training, technology, operating room team, and case complexity. Multidimensional analysis can address multiple indicators of surgical performance and include variables such as conversion rate, complications, oncological outcome and functional outcome. Analysis of patient outcome and/or global assessment of robotic skills may be the most reliable methods to assess the learning curve.

Comparison of health-care utilization and expenditures for minimally invasive vs. open colectomy for benign disease

BACKGROUND

Adoption of minimally invasive approaches continues to increase, and there is a need to reassess outcomes and cost. We aimed to compare open versus minimally invasive colectomy short- and long-term health-care utilization and payer/patient expenditures for benign disease.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of IBM^® MarketScan^® Database patients who underwent left or right colectomy for benign disease between 2013 and 2018. Outcomes included total health-care expenditures, resource utilization, and direct workdays lost up to 365 days following colectomy. The open surgical approach (OS) was compared to minimally invasive colectomy (MIS) with subgroup analysis of laparoscopic (LS) and robotic (RS) approaches using inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

Of 10,439 patients, 2531 (24.3%) had open, 6826 (65.4%) had laparoscopic, and 1082 (10.3%) had robotic colectomy. MIS patients had shorter length of stay (LOS; mean difference, - 1.71, p < 0.001) and lower average total expenditures (mean difference, - $2378, p < 0.001) compared with open patients during the index hospitalization. At 1 year, MIS patients had lower readmission rates, and fewer mean emergency and outpatient department visits than open patients, translating into additional savings of $5759 and 2.22 fewer days missed from work for health-care visits over the 365-day post-discharge period. Within MIS, RS patients had shorter LOS (mean difference, - 0.60, p < 0.001) and lower conversion-to-open rates (odds ratio, 0.31 p < 0.001) during the index hospitalization, and lower hospital outpatient visits (mean difference, - 0.31, p = 0.001) at 365 days than LS.

CONCLUSION

MIS colectomy is associated with lower mean health-care expenditures and less resource utilization compared to the open approach for benign disease at index operation and 365-days post-discharge. Health-care expenditures for LS and RS are similar but shorter mean LOS and lower conversion-to-open surgery rates were observed at index operation for the RS approach.