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

Robotic approach to colonic resection: For some or for all patients?

The robotic approach is rapidly gaining momentum in colorectal surgery. Its benefits in pelvic surgery have been extensively discussed and are well established amongst those who perform minimally invasive surgery. However, the same cannot be said for the robotic approach for colonic resection, where its role is still debated. Here we aim to provide an extensive debate between selective and absolute use of the robotic approach for colonic resection by combining the thoughts of experts in the field of robotic and minimally invasive colorectal surgery, dissecting all key aspects for a critical view on this exciting new paradigm in colorectal surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Robotic surgery is being increasingly used for colorectal cancer surgery. However, its utility versus laparoscopic surgery in older patients is unclear. We systematically examined evidence to assess the differences in short-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in older patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Comparative studies published on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched up to August 30th, 2023.

RESULTS

Seven studies totaling 14,043 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed no difference in the operation time between the robotic and laparoscopic groups. Meta-analysis of ClavienDindo complications showed no difference between the robotic and laparoscopic groups for grades I and II or grades III and IV complications. Similarly, conversion to open surgery, reoperation rates and length of hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups. Readmission rates and mortality rates were significantly lower with robotic surgery.

CONCLUSION

This first meta-analysis comparing outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery in older colorectal cancer patients shows that both approaches result in no difference in operating time, complication rates, conversion to open surgery, reoperation rates, and LOS. Scarce data shows that mortality and readmission rates may be lower with robotic surgery.

Early Single-Center Experience of DaVinci® Single-Port (SP) Robotic Surgery in Colorectal Patients

Background: DaVinci® single-port (SP) robotic surgery offers several benefits compared to traditional multiport laparoscopic or robotic surgeries. One of the main advantages is that it allows for a minimally invasive approach, resulting in a single, smaller incision and reduced trauma to the patient's body, leading to less postoperative pain, faster recovery, and reduced risk of complications. The cosmesis of a single port with minimal visible scarring is also an attractive aspect to the patients; however, many surgeons use an additional port for energy device, stapler use, and drain insertion. Pure single-port surgery with one incision is still rare. Here, we share our experience of our first 10 cases using the SP robotic platform in colorectal surgery. Methods: From May 2023 to December 2023, colorectal patients who underwent SP robotic surgery were analyzed. Placement of the incision was the umbilicus for eight patients, and right lower quadrant for two patients, through which ileostomy maturation was performed. Data on perioperative parameters and postoperative outcomes were analyzed, with a median follow-up of 4.6 months (range 0.6-7.4 months). Results: A total of 10 colorectal patients underwent DaVinci® single-port robotic colorectal surgery at our institution during this period. The patient demographic was four males (40%) and six females (60%) with a median age of 63.5 years (range 50-75 years). Median body mass index (BMI) was 22.89 kg/m2 (range 19.92-26.84 kg/m2). Nine patients were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, and one patient was diagnosed with a rectal gastrointestinal tumor. One patient underwent anterior resection and cholecystectomy simultaneously. Mean operation time was 222 min (range 142-316 min), and mean wound size was 3.25 cm (range 2.5-4.5 cm). Nine patients underwent surgery with single incision through which a single-port trocar was inserted, and one patient had one additional port for drain insertion. Mean hospital stay was 6 days (range 4-8 days) with one postoperative complication of bleeding requiring transfusion, but there was no readmission within 30 days. Conclusions: Overall, our experience with single-port robotic colorectal surgery has been promising. With only one patient with additional port for drain insertion, all nine patients underwent SP-robotic surgery with single incision for colon as well as rectal surgeries. Compared to an average postoperative length of stay of 6.5-8 days in laparoscopic colorectal surgeries reported in literature, SP-robotic surgery 33showed faster recovery of 6 days highlighting its benefits in patient recovery and satisfaction.

Structured training curricula for robotic colorectal surgery in China: does laparoscopic experience affect training effects?

Background

Robotic surgery has been widely adopted for colorectal cancer (CRC). Many surgeons in China have completed structured training programs and have performed robotic colorectal surgeries. This multicenter study aimed to evaluate the training effects of structured training curricula in China for surgeons with different laparoscopic experiences during their initial implementation of robotic colorectal surgery.

Methods

Ten surgeons from five high-volume centers participated in this retrospective study. The baseline characteristics, perioperative data, and pathological outcomes were compared between the first 15 robotic surgeries performed by five surgeons with extensive laparoscopic experience (group A) and the first 15 robotic surgeries performed by five surgeons with limited laparoscopic experience (group B) at each center.

Results

Compared with group B, group A showed shorter operation time (200.9 vs. 254.2 min, P<0.001), less blood loss (100.0 vs. 150.0 mL, P=0.025), and a lower incidence of intraoperative complications (2.7% vs. 21.4%, P=0.015). The reoperation rate (1.3% vs. 5.3%, P=0.036) and postoperative complication rate (6.7% vs. 22.7%, P=0.025) were significantly lower in group A than in group B. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics (e.g., age, sex, and tumor location) and pathological information (e.g., tumor stage, lymph node count, and tumor size) between the two groups. Radical resection (R0) was performed in all cases.

Conclusions

In China, structured training curricula can help surgeons with extensive laparoscopic experience make a smooth transition from laparoscopic to robotic surgery. However, the higher intraoperative and postoperative complication rates indicate that structured training curricula still require further refinement for surgeons with limited laparoscopic experience.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection: Are We There Yet?

Background: Laparoscopy-assisted surgery (LAS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) was first described in 1991 and robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for CRC was first reported in 2002; robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is becoming increasingly popular. However, data comparing its outcomes to other established techniques remain limited to small case series. Our primary goal was to review the mortality outcome difference between laparoscopic versus robotic elective colon resection at a small, community hospital.

Study design: We conducted a retrospective review of 2089 patients at the South Atlantic division for cases who underwent robotic and laparoscopic colectomies at our division in 2014-2018. All cases were elective surgeries and analysis was performed within these two subgroups.

Results: In this study, 306 patients underwent robotic colorectal surgery versus 1783 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery. Readmission rate within 30 days of operation was significantly lower for laparoscopic-assisted colorectal resection (LACR) versus RACS (445.4% vs. 53.9%, p= 0.006). However, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for RACS with a median of three days (interquartile range {IQR}: 2-5) versus four days (IQR: 3-7) for LACR (p=0.0001). There were no significant differences between the two groups for post-operative incisional hernias, anastomotic leaks, post-operative pain control, surgical site infections, or rate of conversion to an open procedure.

Conclusion: Our study showed a similar outcome between LACR and RACS for post-operative incisional hernias, anastomotic leaks, post-operative pain control, surgical site infections, and rate of conversion to an open procedure. Also, our study showed a readmission rate within 30 days of operation was significantly lower for LACR versus RACS. However, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for RACS with a median of three days when compared to LACR. Future research should focus on surgeon-specific variables, such as comfort, ergonomics, distractibility, and ease of use, as other ways to potentially distinguish robotic from laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in elderly patients in terms of recovery time: a monocentric experience

Colorectal cancer has a great socio-sanitary relevance. It represents the third cancer by incidence and mortality. Ageing plays a major role in the development of colorectal cancer and this tumour, in patients aged 65 and older, has gradually increased over the past decade. The robotic technique is considered the evolution of conventional laparoscopy. Few studies evaluate the effects of robotic surgery in elderly patient, and even fewer are those that compare it with laparoscopic surgery in this population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery compared to laparoscopic colorectal surgery in patients older than 65 years. We conducted a retrospective study enrolling 83 elderly patients (age > 65) undergoing robotic and laparoscopic colectomy (32 and 51, respectively) between January 2019 and January 2021. For statistical analysis, p values were calculated using t test and chi-square test. p < 0.05 is the criterion for statistical significance. Statistical analyses were performed with the Number Cruncher Statistical System (NCSS) 2020 data analysis version 20.0.1 (Utah, USA). The operation time was higher in robotic left (p = 0.003, mean time 249.6 vs 211.7 min) and right (p = 0.004, mean time 238.5 vs 183.5 min) hemicolectomy and similar for procedures on rectosigmoid and rectum when compared to laparoscopic technique. In terms of length of hospital stay and recovery of bowel function, these values were significantly lower for robotic group in left hemicolectomy (p = 0.004), rectum (p = 0.003) and rectosigmoid (p = 0.003), while right hemicolectomy was similar in two groups (p = 0.26). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding conversion rate, postoperative complications, length of specimen, number of lymph nodes encountered and oncological results. Colorectal robotic surgery in elderly patients appears as a feasible and safe surgical approach when compared to the laparoscopic one, showing a shorter recovery and a reduction of length of stay with similar oncological outcomes even if with an increase of operating times.