1
|
Kazama K, Numata M, Mushiake H, Sugano N, Godai T, Higuchi A, Ishiguro T, Atsumi Y, Shinoda S, Saito A. Multicenter prospective study on anastomotic leakage after right-sided colon cancer surgery with laparoscopic intracorporeal overlap anastomosis (KYCC 2101). Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2024; 8:836-844. [PMID: 39229568 PMCID: PMC11368488 DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12831] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2024] [Revised: 05/10/2024] [Accepted: 05/14/2024] [Indexed: 09/05/2024] Open
Abstract
Aim Intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) is becoming increasingly popular and replacing extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) for reconstruction in laparoscopic and robotic surgery for right-sided colon cancer (LSRCC). Intracorporeal overlap anastomosis (IOA) is the most widely used IA technique. This study aimed to examine the safety of IOA by investigating its short-term results during the implementation phase. Methods This multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted by the Kanagawa Yokohama Colorectal Cancer (KYCC) Study Group. Patients with stage 1-3 colon cancer who planned to undergo LSRCC with IOA reconstruction were eligible. The incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL) of Clavien-Dindo (C-D) grade ≥3 was evaluated as the primary endpoint, and other surgical outcomes and postoperative complications of C-D grades ≥2 were the secondary endpoints. Results A total of 127 patients were enrolled, of whom 120 were finally analyzed. The incidence of C-D grade ≥2 complications was 8.3%. The incidence of C-D grade ≥3 AL was 0.8%. This trend was lower than that reported in previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and acceptable. Additionally, 1.7% of the patients developed abdominal abscesses, and no cases of anastomotic stenosis were observed. The median operative time was 257 min, and the reconstruction procedure required 32 min. Stapler closure of the enterotomy and facility experience of more than 30 cases were associated with a shorter reconstruction time during IOA. Conclusion IOA is feasible and can be safely performed during the implementation phase in patients undergoing LSRCC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Keisuke Kazama
- Department of SurgeryYokohama City UniversityYokohamaJapan
| | - Masakatsu Numata
- Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryYokohama City University Medical CenterYokohamaJapan
| | - Hiroyuki Mushiake
- Department of SurgerySaiseikai Yokohama City Nanbu HospitalYokohamaJapan
| | - Nobuhiro Sugano
- Department of SurgeryHiratsuka Kyosai HospitalHiratsukaJapan
| | - Teni Godai
- Department of SurgeryFujisawa Shounandai HospitalFujisawaJapan
| | - Akio Higuchi
- Department of SurgeryYokohama Minami Kyosai HospitalYokohamaJapan
| | | | - Yosuke Atsumi
- Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryYokohama City University Medical CenterYokohamaJapan
| | - Satoru Shinoda
- Department of Biostatistics, School of MedicineYokohama City UniversityYokohamaJapan
| | - Aya Saito
- Department of SurgeryYokohama City UniversityYokohamaJapan
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Negrut RL, Cote A, Caus VA, Maghiar AM. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Colon Cancer: Efficacy, Safety, and Outcomes-A Focus on Studies from 2020-2024. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:1552. [PMID: 38672635 PMCID: PMC11048614 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16081552] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2024] [Revised: 04/10/2024] [Accepted: 04/16/2024] [Indexed: 04/28/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of colon cancer has significantly advanced over the years. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the operative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of colon cancer, focusing on operative time, hospital stay, conversion rates, anastomotic leak rates, and total number lymph node harvested. METHODS Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic search across four databases up to January 2024, registering our protocol with PROSPERO (CRD42024513326). We included studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for colon cancer, assessing operative time, hospital length of stay, and other perioperative outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist. Statistical analysis utilized a mix of fixed and random-effects models based on heterogeneity. RESULTS A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 50,771 patients, with 21.75% undergoing robotic surgery and 78.25% laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery was associated with longer operative times (SMD = -1.27, p < 0.00001) but shorter hospital stays (MD = 0.42, p = 0.003) compared to laparoscopic surgery. Conversion rates were significantly higher in laparoscopic procedures (OR = 2.02, p < 0.00001). No significant differences were found in anastomotic leak rates. A higher number of lymph nodes was harvested by robotic approach (MD = -0.65, p = 0.04). Publication bias was addressed through funnel plot analysis and Egger's test, indicating the presence of asymmetry (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS The choice of surgical method should be individualized, considering factors such as surgeon expertise, medical facilities, and patient-specific considerations. Future research should aim to elucidate long-term outcomes to further guide the clinical decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roxana Loriana Negrut
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Doctoral School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Oradea, 410087 Oradea, Romania; (R.L.N.)
- County Clinical Emergency Hospital Bihor, 410087 Oradea, Romania
| | - Adrian Cote
- Department of Surgical Disciplines, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Oradea, 410073 Oradea, Romania
| | - Vasile Aurel Caus
- Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Oradea, 410087 Oradea, Romania
| | - Adrian Marius Maghiar
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Doctoral School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Oradea, 410087 Oradea, Romania; (R.L.N.)
- Department of Surgical Disciplines, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Oradea, 410073 Oradea, Romania
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zheng J, Zhao S, Chen W, Zhang M, Wu J. Comparison of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 2023:10.1007/s10151-023-02821-2. [PMID: 37184773 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02821-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2022] [Accepted: 05/04/2023] [Indexed: 05/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND For right colon surgery, there is an increasing body of literature comparing the safety of robotic right colectomy (RRC) with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the safety and efficacy of RRC versus LRC, including homogeneous subgroup analyses for extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA). METHODS PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and January 2022. Length of hospital stay, operation time, rate of conversion to laparotomy, time to first flatus, number of harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, rate of overall complication, ileus, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, and total costs were measured. RESULTS Forty-two studies (RRC: 2772 patients; LRC: 12,469 patients) were evaluated. Regardless of the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter length of hospital stay, lower rate of conversion to laparotomy, shorter time to first flatus, lower rate of overall complications, and a higher number of harvested lymph nodes compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the IA subgroup, RRC had a shorter length of hospital stay, longer operative time, and lower rate of conversion to laparotomy compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes. In the EA subgroup, RRC had a longer operative time, lower estimated blood loss, lower rate of overall complications, and higher total costs compared with LRC, with the other outcomes being similar. CONCLUSION The safety and efficacy of RRC is superior to LRC, especially when an intracorporeal anastomosis is performed. Most included articles were retrospective, offering low-quality evidence and limited conclusions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jianchun Zheng
- Department of Emergency, The Second Hospital of Jiaxing: The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, China
| | - Shuai Zhao
- Department of General Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Medical School of Nanjing University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Wei Chen
- Department of Emergency, The Second Hospital of Jiaxing: The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, China
| | - Ming Zhang
- Department of Emergency, The Second Hospital of Jiaxing: The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, China
| | - Jianxiang Wu
- Department of Emergency, The Second Hospital of Jiaxing: The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, China.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Baek SK. Extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis for right colon cancer surgery. JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY 2022; 25:91-96. [PMID: 36177372 PMCID: PMC9494010 DOI: 10.7602/jmis.2022.25.3.91] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2022] [Revised: 09/09/2022] [Accepted: 09/11/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
Laparoscopic right colectomy is currently considered the standard treatment for right colon cancer. After excision of the right colon, minimally invasive options for ileocolonic anastomosis include extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA). However, the choice of anastomotic technique remains debated. As the entire IA is performed in the abdominal cavity, it is known for its advantages of a faster intestinal recovery and small incision. However, IA is time-consuming and technically difficult, limiting its widespread use. Recently, the robotic approach has increased the adoption of intracorporeal anastomotic techniques owing to the benefits of endowrist-articulated instruments and staplers. Except for a small incision and faster bowel recovery, the outcomes of the two anastomoses methods are inconsistent. To date, there has been no clear conclusion regarding whether IA or EA should be used to treat right colon cancer. This review aimed to investigate the current evidence relating to intraoperative outcomes and short-term postoperative results between both anastomotic approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seong Kyu Baek
- Department of Surgery, Keimyung University Dongsan Medical Center, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Right colectomy from open to robotic - a single-center experience with functional outcomes in a learning-curve setting. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2022; 407:2915-2927. [PMID: 35678902 PMCID: PMC9640414 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-022-02576-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2022] [Accepted: 05/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/03/2022]
Abstract
Purpose Right colectomy (RC) is a frequently performed procedure. Beneath standard conventional open surgery (COS), various minimally invasive techniques had been introduced. Several advantages had recently been described for robotic approaches over COS or conventional laparoscopy. Nevertheless, novel minimally invasive techniques require continuous benchmarking against standard COS to gain maximum patient safety. Bowel dysfunction is a frequent problem after RC. Together with general complication rates postoperative bowel recovery are used as surrogate parameters for postoperative patient outcome in this study. Methods Retrospective, 10-year single-center analysis of consecutive patients who underwent sequentially either COS (n = 22), robotic-assisted (ECA: n = 39), or total robotic surgery (ICA: n = 56) for oncologic RC was performed. Results The conversion from robotic to open surgery rate was low (overall: 3.2%). Slightly longer duration of surgery had been observed during the early phase after introduction of the robotic program to RC (ECA versus COS, p = 0.044), but not anymore thereafter (versus ICA). No differences were observed in oncologic parameters including rates of tumor-negative margins, lymph node-positive patients, and lymph node yield during mesocolic excision. Both robotic approaches are beneficial regarding postoperative complication rates, especially wound infections, and shorter length of in-hospital stay compared with COS. The duration until first postoperative stool is the shortest after ICA (COS: 4 [2–8] days, ECA: 3 [1–6] days, ICA: 3 [1–5] days, p = 0.0004). Regression analyses reveal neither a longer duration of surgery nor the extent of mesocolic excision, but the degree of minimally invasiveness and postoperative systemic inflammation contribute to postoperative bowel dysfunction, which prolongs postoperative in-hospital stay significantly. Conclusion The current study reflects the institutional learning curve of oncologic RC during implementation of robotic surgery from robotic-assisted to total robotic approach without compromises in oncologic results and patient safety. However, the total robotic approach is beneficial regarding postoperative bowel recovery and general patient outcome.
Collapse
|
6
|
Yamauchi S, Hanaoka M, Iwata N, Masuda T, Tokunaga M, Kinugasa Y. Robotic-assisted Surgery: Expanding Indication to Colon Cancer in Japan. J Anus Rectum Colon 2022; 6:77-82. [PMID: 35572487 PMCID: PMC9045855 DOI: 10.23922/jarc.2021-073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2021] [Accepted: 11/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
In recent years, robotic-assisted surgery has demonstrated remarkable progress as a minimally invasive procedure for colorectal cancer. While there have been fewer studies investigating robotic-assisted surgery for the treatment of colon cancer than rectal cancer, evidence regarding robotic-assisted colectomy has been accumulating due to increasing use of the procedure. Robotic-assisted colectomy generally requires a long operative time and involves high costs. However, as evidence is increasingly supportive of its higher accuracy and less invasive nature compared to laparoscopic colectomy, the procedure is anticipated to improve the ratio of conversion to laparotomy and accelerate postoperative recovery. Robotic-assisted surgery has also been suggested for a specific level of effectiveness in manipulative procedures, such as intracorporeal anastomosis, and is increasingly indicated as a less problematic procedure compared to conventional laparoscopy and open surgery in terms of long-term oncological outcomes. Although robotic-assisted colectomy has been widely adopted abroad, only a limited number of institutions have been using this procedure in Japan. Further accumulation of experience and studies investigating surgical outcomes using this approach are required in Japan.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shinichi Yamauchi
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University
| | - Marie Hanaoka
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University
| | - Noriko Iwata
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University
| | - Taiki Masuda
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University
| | - Masanori Tokunaga
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University
| | - Yusuke Kinugasa
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Tschann P, Szeverinski P, Weigl MP, Rauch S, Lechner D, Adler S, Girotti PNC, Clemens P, Tschann V, Presl J, Schredl P, Mittermair C, Jäger T, Emmanuel K, Königsrainer I. Short- and Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic- versus Robotic-Assisted Right Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med 2022; 11:2387. [PMID: 35566512 PMCID: PMC9103048 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092387] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2022] [Revised: 04/15/2022] [Accepted: 04/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to revise current comparative literature systematically. Methods: A systematic review of comparative studies published between 2000 to 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term oncological results. Secondary endpoints consist of blood loss, conversion rates, complications, time to first flatus, hospital stay and incisional hernia rate. Results: 25 of 322 studies were considered for data extraction. A total of 16,099 individual patients who underwent RRC (n = 1842) or LRC (n = 14,257) between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRC group (LRC 165.31 min ± 43.08 vs. RRC 207.38 min ± 189.13, MD: −42.01 (95% CI: −51.06−32.96), p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the RRC group (LRC 63.57 ± 35.21 vs. RRC 53.62 ± 34.02, MD: 10.03 (95% CI: 1.61−18.45), p = 0.02) as well as conversion rate (LRC 1155/11,629 vs. RRC 94/1534, OR: 1.65 (1.28−2.13), p < 0.001) and hospital stay (LRC 6.15 ± 31.77 vs. RRC 5.31 ± 1.65, MD: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.29−1.38), p = 0.003). Oncological long-term results did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: The advantages of robotic colorectal procedures were clearly demonstrated. RRC can be regarded as safe and feasible. Most of the included studies were retrospective with a limited level of evidence. Further randomized trials would be suitable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Tschann
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
| | - Philipp Szeverinski
- Institute of Medical Physics, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria;
- Private University in the Principality of Liechtenstein, 9495 Triesen, Liechtenstein
| | - Markus P. Weigl
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
| | - Stephanie Rauch
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
| | - Daniel Lechner
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
| | - Stephanie Adler
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
| | - Paolo N. C. Girotti
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
| | - Patrick Clemens
- Department of Radio-Oncology, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria;
| | - Veronika Tschann
- Department of Internal Medicine II, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria;
| | - Jaroslav Presl
- Department of Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; (J.P.); (P.S.); (T.J.); (K.E.)
| | - Philipp Schredl
- Department of Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; (J.P.); (P.S.); (T.J.); (K.E.)
| | - Christof Mittermair
- Department of Surgery, St. John of God Hospital, Teaching Hospital of Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria;
| | - Tarkan Jäger
- Department of Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; (J.P.); (P.S.); (T.J.); (K.E.)
| | - Klaus Emmanuel
- Department of Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; (J.P.); (P.S.); (T.J.); (K.E.)
| | - Ingmar Königsrainer
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
| |
Collapse
|