Robotic assisted rectopexy

Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders better than laparoscopic approach at the beginning of the experience? A retrospective single-center study

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative results of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for pelvic floor disorders at the beginning of the surgical experience.

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2022, the first 30 laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexies and the first 30 robotic ventral mesh rectopexies at the beginning of the experience of 2 surgeons were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative (demographic characteristics, surgical indication, conversion rate, operative time), and postoperative (complications, length of stay, unplanned reintervention) data were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Conversion rate was lower (0 vs 17%, p = 0.05), but the operative time was significantly longer (182 [146-290] vs 150 [75-240] minutes, p < 0.0001) during robotic procedure when compared with laparoscopic approach. In terms of learning curve, the number of procedures to obtain the same operative time between the 2 approaches was 15. Postoperative results were similar between groups, in terms of pain (visual analogic scale = 2 [0-8] vs 4 [0-9], p = 0.07), morbidity (17 vs 3%, p = 0.2), and unplanned reintervention (1 vs 0%, p = 0.99). Mean length of stay was significantly reduced after robotic approach when compared with laparoscopic approach (3 [2-10] vs 5 [2-11] days, p < 0.01). Functional results were better after robotic than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy, with higher satisfaction rate (93 vs 75%, p = 0.05), and reduced recurrence rate (0 vs 14%, p = 0.048).

CONCLUSION

Despite longer operative time at the beginning of the learning curve, robotic ventral mesh rectopexy was associated with similar or better perioperative results than laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy.

Technical modifications for cost optimization in robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy: an initial experience

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy is considered a valid option in the treatment of rectal prolapse. However, it involves higher costs than the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study is to determine if less expensive robotic surgery for rectal prolapse can be safely performed.

METHODS

This study was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy at Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli" IRCCS, Rome, from 7 November 2020 to 22 November 2021. The cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources in patients undergoing robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with the da Vinci Xi Surgical Systems was analyzed before and after technical modifications, including the reduction of robotic arms and instruments, and the execution of a double minimal peritoneal incision at the pouch of Douglas and sacral promontory (instead of the traditional inverted J incision).

RESULTS

Twenty-two robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexies were performed [21 females, 95.5%, median age 62.0 (54.8-70.0) years]. After an initial experience performing traditional robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in four patients, we adopted technical modifications in other cases. No major complication or conversion to open surgery occurred. In total, mean cost of hospitalization, surgical procedure, robotic materials, and operating room resources was €6995.5 ± 1058.0, €5912.7 ± 877.0, €2797.6 ± 545.6, and €2608.3 ± 351.5, respectively. Technical modifications allowed a significant reduction in the overall cost of hospitalization (€6604.5 ± 589.5 versus €8755.0 ± 906.4, p = 0.001), number of robotic instruments (3.1 ± 0.2 versus 4.0 ± 0.8 units, p = 0.026), and operating room time (201 ± 26 versus 253 ± 16 min, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering our preliminary results, robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy with appropriate technical modifications can be cost-effective and safe.

Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment

Rectal prolapse is a condition that can cause significant social impairment and negatively affects quality of life. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, with the aim of restoring the anatomy and correcting the associated functional disorders. During recent decades, laparoscopic abdominal procedures have emerged as effective tools for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with the advantages of faster recovery, lower morbidity, and shorter length of stay. Robotic surgery represents the latest evolution in the field of minimally invasive surgery, with the benefits of enhanced dexterity in deep narrow fields such as the pelvis, and may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal prolapse is feasible and safe. It could reduce complication rates and length of hospital stay, as well as shorten the learning curve, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required on long-term functional outcomes and recurrence rates.

Essential advances in surgical and adjuvant therapies for colorectal cancer 2018-2019

Surgical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy are the only treatment modalities for localized colorectal cancer that can obtain a "cure." The goal in surgically treating primary colorectal cancer is complete tumor removal along with dissection of systematic D3 lymph nodes. Adjuvant treatment controls recurrence and improves the prognosis of patients after they undergo R0 resection. Various clinical studies have promoted the gradual spread and clinical use of new surgical approaches such as laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME). Additionally, the significance of adjuvant chemotherapy has been established and it is now recommended in the JSCCR (the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum) guideline as a standard treatment. Herein, we review and summarize current surgical treatment and adjuvant chemotherapy for localized colorectal cancer and discuss recent advances in personalized medicine related to adjuvant chemotherapy.

Long-term outcomes of robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for external rectal prolapse

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays in Europe, laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is the gold standard treatment of external rectal prolapse (ERP). The benefits of robot ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) are not clearly defined. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the long-term results of RVMR. The secondary objective was to determine predictive factors of recurrence.

DESIGN

Monocentric, retrospective study. Data, both pre-operative and peri-operative, were collected, and follow-up data were assessed prospectively by a telephone questionnaire. The study was performed in a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

Between August 2007 and August 2017, we evaluate all consecutive patients who underwent RVMR for ERP by three different surgeons. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate perceived by patients. Secondary outcome were functional results based on Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom score for constipation and Wexner score for incontinence, compared before and after surgery.

RESULTS

During the study period 96 patients (86 women) underwent RVMR. The mean age was 62.3 years (range 16-90). Twelve patients had a history of ERP repair. Sixty-nine patients were analyzed for long-term outcomes with a mean follow-up of 37 months (range 2.3-92 months). Recurrence rate was 12.5%. After surgery, constipation was significantly reduced: 44 patients were constipated before surgery versus 23 after surgery. Six patients described de novo constipation (6.25%). Fecal incontinence was significantly reduced: 59 patients were incontinent before surgery versus 14 after surgery. No predictive factor for recurrence was identified after multivariate analysis. No mesh related complications were related.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, RVMR presents good long-term functional result and a recurrence rate similar to LVMR as published in the literature. The rate of mesh related complications seems lower.

Right colectomy: consecutive 100 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique for malignancy. Cumulative experience in a single centre

Robotic-assisted resections prove beneficial in overcoming potential limitation of laparoscopy, but clear evidences on patient's benefits are still lacking. We report our experience on 100 consecutive patients who underwent right colectomy with either robotic or laparoscopic approaches. Data were prospectively collected on a dedicated database (ASA score, age, operative time, conversion rate, re-operation rate, early complications, length of stay, and pathological results). Median total operative time was 160 min in LS group (IQR = 140-180) and 204 min for RS group (IQR = 180-230). Median time to first flatus was 2.5 days for LS group (IQR = 2 - 3) and 2 days for RS group (IQR = 1-2). Length of stay (median) was 8 days in LS group (IQR = 6-10) and 5 days in RS group (IQR = 5-7). No statistically significant difference was found between the 2 groups when the number of harvested nodes, the anastomotic leakage and the postoperative bleeding were analyzed. The 30-day mortality was 0% in LS and RS groups. Conversion rate for LS group was 14% (7/50 pts) and for RS group was 0% (0/50). Minimally invasive surgery is a feasible and safe technique. The RS may overcome some technical limitations of laparoscopic surgery and it achieves the same oncological results compared to LS but with higher costs. The lower conversion rate allows to expect better clinical outcomes and lower complication rate.

Appraisal and Current Considerations of Robotics in Colon and Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology aims to obviate some of the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, yet the role of robotics in colorectal surgery is still largely undefined and varies with respect to its application in abdominal versus pelvic surgery.

METHODS

With this review, we aimed to highlight current developments in colorectal robotic surgery. We systematically searched the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. We critically reviewed the available literature on the use of robotic technology in colon and rectal surgery.

RESULTS

Robotic colorectal surgery is oncologically safe and has short-term outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopy, with potential benefits in rectal surgery. It has a shorter learning curve but increased operative times and costs. It offers potential advantages in the resection of rectal cancer, due to lower conversion rates. There is also a trend toward better outcomes in anastomotic leak rates, circumferential margin positivity, and perseveration of autonomic function.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy remains technically challenging and conversion rates are still high. Therefore, most cases of colorectal surgery are still performed open. Robotic surgery aims to overcome the limits of the laparoscopic technique. This new technology has many advantages in terms of articulating instruments, advanced three-dimensional optics, surgeon ergonomics, and improved accessibility to narrow spaces, such as the pelvis. However, further studies are needed to assess long-term results and benefits.

Surgical options for full-thickness rectal prolapse: current status and institutional choice

Full-thickness rectal prolapse (FTRP) is generally believed to result from a sliding hernia through a pelvic fascial defect, or from rectal intussusception. The currently accepted cause is a pelvic floor disorder. Surgery is the only definitive treatment, although the ideal therapeutic option for FTRP has not been determined. Auffret reported the first FTRP surgery using a perineal approach in 1882, and rectopexy using conventional laparotomy was first described by Sudeck in 1922. Laparoscopy was first used by Bermann in 1992, and laparoscopic surgery is now used worldwide; robotic surgery was first described by Munz in 2004. Postoperative morbidity, mortality, and recurrence rates with FTRP surgery are an active research area and in this article we review previously documented surgeries and discuss the best approach for FTRP. We also introduce our institution's laparoscopic surgical technique for FTRP (laparoscopic rectopexy with posterior wrap and peritoneal closure). Therapeutic decisions must be individualized to each patient, while the surgeon's experience must also be considered.

Robotic ventral rectopexy: Initial experience in an Indian tertiary health-care centre and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive ventral rectopexy is a well-described technique for management of rectal prolapse. Robotic system has proven its advantage for surgeries in the pelvis. Applying this technique, ventral rectopexy can be done more precisely with minimal recurrence. With growing experience, the operative duration and cost of robotic ventral rectopexy can be reduced with better outcome. Few case studies have been described in literature with no study from Indian subcontinent. We describe a series of eight cases of robotic ventral rectopexy done for rectal prolapse in a tertiary health-care centre of India.

METHODS

A total of 8 patients were operated for complete rectal prolapse during the period from August 2015 to April 2016. da Vinci Si robotic surgical system was used with prolene or permacol mesh for ventral rectopexy. All patients were prospectively followed for a period minimum of 3 months. Pre- and intra-operative findings were recorded along with post-operative outcome.

RESULTS

Out of eight patients, prolene mesh was used in five patients and permacol mesh (porcine collagen) in three patients. Mean operative time (console time) was 177 min and mean total time was 218 min. Mean blood loss was 23.7 ml. Functional outcome was satisfactory in all patients. There was no significant complication in any patient with mean hospital stay of 2.2 days. With average follow-up of 8.8 months, no patient had recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Robotic ventral rectopexy is a safe technique for rectal prolapse with excellent result in terms of functional outcome, recurrence and complications. With experience, the duration and cost can be comparable to laparoscopic technique.

Future of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery is slowly taking over as the preferred operative approach for colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain technically difficult. This article will give an overview of the state of minimally invasive surgery and the many advances that have been made over the last two decades. Specifically, we discuss the introduction of the robotic platform and some of its benefits and limitations. We also describe some newer techniques related to robotics.

Is robotic ventral mesh rectopexy better than laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation? A meta-analysis

Ventral mesh rectopexy is an approach in the treatment of internal and external rectal prolapse and rectocele. Our aim was to assess whether robotic surgery confers any significant advantages over laparoscopy, and the associated complication rate. Two reviewers performed a literature search using MEDLINE and PubMed databases for studies comparing robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. Five prospective, non-randomised studies were identified and included. A total of 244 patients (101 robotic and 143 laparoscopic) were included in the analysis. Operative time was shorter with laparoscopic surgery, mean weighted difference 27.94 [confidence interval (CI) 19.30-36.57; p < 0.00001]. The conversion rate was not significantly different between groups. There was a trend towards a reduction in length of inpatient stay and early post-operative complications in the robotic group; however, these did not reach statistical significance. Recurrence rates were similar between groups (odds ratio 0.91, CI 0.32-2.63; p = 0.87). Functional results were comparable between groups. Early studies show that robotic ventral rectopexy is a safe option compared to the laparoscopic approach, with overall comparable results. There appeared to be a trend towards a reduction in length of inpatient stay and post-operative complications. These perceived benefits may offset the longer operative times and outlay costs. Larger randomised controlled trials are needed to further evaluate clinical value and cost-effectiveness.

Surgical management of rectal prolapse: The role of robotic surgery

The robotic technique as a safe approach in treatment of rectal prolapse has been widely reported during the last decade. Although there is limited clinical data regarding the benefits of robotic surgery, the safety of robotic surgery in rectal prolapse treatment has been cited by several authors. Also, the robotic approach helps overcome some of the laparoscopic approach challenges with purported advantages including improved visualization, more precise dissection, easier suturing, accurate identification of anatomic structures and fewer conversions to open surgery which can facilitate the conduct of technically challenging cases. These advantages can make robotic surgery ideally suited for minimally invasive ventral rectopexy. Currently, with greater surgeon experience in robotic surgery, the length of the procedure and the recurrence rate with the robotic approach are decreasing and short term outcomes for robotic rectal prolapse seem on par with laparoscopic and open techniques in recent studies. However, the high cost of robotic procedures is still an important issue. The benefits of a robotic approach must be weighed against the higher cost. More research is needed to better understand if the increased cost is justified by an improvement in outcomes. Also, published articles comparing long term outcomes of the robotic approach with other approaches are very limited at this time and further clinical trials are indicated to affirm the role of robotic surgery in the treatment of rectal prolapse.

Short-term outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Is robotic superior?

PURPOSE

Short term morbidity, functional outcome, recurrence and quality of life outcomes after robotic assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) were compared.

METHODS

This study includes 51 consecutive patients having operations for external rectal prolapse (ERP) in a tertiary centre between October 2009 and December 2012. Of these, 17 patients had RVMR and 34 underwent LVMR. The groups were matched for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades. The same operative technique and mesh was used and follow up was 12 months. Data was collected on patient demographics, surgery duration, blood loss, duration of hospital stay and operative complications. Functional outcomes were measured using the faecal incontinence severity index (FISI) and Wexner faecal incontinence scoring. Quality of life was scored using SF36 questionnaires pre and postoperatively.

RESULTS

All patients were female except three (median 59, range 25-89). There was one laparoscopic converted to open procedure. RVMR procedures were longer in duration (p = 0.013) but with no difference in blood loss between the groups. The average duration of stay was 2 days in both groups. There were six minor postoperative complications in LVMR procedures and none in the RVMR group. Pre and postoperative Wexner and FISI scoring were significantly lower in the RVMR group (p = 0.042 and p = 0.024, respectively). SF-36 questionnaires showed better scoring in physical and emotional component in RVMR group (p = 0.015). There was no recurrence in either group during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LVMR and RVMR are similar in terms of safety and efficacy. Although not randomized, this data may suggest a better functional outcome and quality of life in patients having RVMR for ERP.

Rectal prolapse: an overview of clinical features, diagnosis, and patient-specific management strategies

Rectal prolapse can present in a variety of forms and is associated with a range of symptoms including pain, incomplete evacuation, bloody and/or mucous rectal discharge, and fecal incontinence or constipation. Complete external rectal prolapse is characterized by a circumferential, full-thickness protrusion of the rectum through the anus, which may be intermittent or may be incarcerated and poses a risk of strangulation. There are multiple surgical options to treat rectal prolapse, and thus care should be taken to understand each patient's symptoms, bowel habits, anatomy, and pre-operative expectations. Preoperative workup includes physical exam, colonoscopy, anoscopy, and, in some patients, anal manometry and defecography. With this information, a tailored surgical approach (abdominal versus perineal, minimally invasive versus open) and technique (posterior versus ventral rectopexy +/- sigmoidectomy, for example) can then be chosen. We propose an algorithm based on available outcomes data in the literature, an understanding of anorectal physiology, and expert opinion that can serve as a guide to determining the rectal prolapse operation that will achieve the best possible postoperative outcomes for individual patients.

Robotics in general surgery: an evidence-based review

Since its introduction, robotic surgery has been rapidly adopted to the extent that it has already assumed an important position in the field of general surgery. This rapid progress is quantitative as well as qualitative. In this review, we focus on the relatively common procedures to which robotic surgery has been applied in several fields of general surgery, including gastric, colorectal, hepato-biliary-pancreatic, and endocrine surgery, and we discuss the results to date and future possibilities. In addition, the advantages and limitations of the current robotic system are reviewed, and the advanced technologies and instruments to be applied in the near future are introduced. Such progress is expected to facilitate the widespread introduction of robotic surgery in additional fields and to solve existing problems.

Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology has been applied to colorectal surgery over the last decade. The aim of this review is to analyze the outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery systematically and to provide objective information to surgeons.

METHODS

Studies were searched and identified using PubMed and Google Scholar from Jan 2001 to Feb 2013 with the search terms "robot," "robotic," "colon," "rectum," "colorectal," and "colectomy." Appropriate data in the studies about the outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine publications were included in this review and composed of 39 case series, 29 comparative studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial. Most of the studies reported that robotic surgery showed a longer operation time, less estimated blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, lower complication and conversion rates, and comparable oncologic outcomes compared to laparoscopic or open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colorectal surgery is a safe and feasible option. Robotic surgery showed comparable short-term outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery or open surgery. However, the long operation time and high cost are the limitations of robotic surgery.

Long-term outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse in elderly patients

AIM

Full-thickness rectal prolapse is common in the elderly, but there are no particular practice guidelines for its surgical management. We evaluated retrospectively the perioperative and long-term clinical results and function in elderly and younger patients with complete rectal prolapse after robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy (RALR).

METHOD

Seventy-seven patients who underwent RALR between 2002 and 2010 were divided into Group A (age < 75 years, n = 59) and Group B (age > 75 years, n = 18). Operative time, intra- and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, short-term and long-term outcomes, recurrence rate and degree of satisfaction were evaluated.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups regarding operation time, conversion, morbidity or length of hospital stay. At a median follow-up of 51.8 (5-115) months, there was no difference in the improvement of faecal incontinence, recurrence and the degree of satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy is safe in patients aged over 75 years and gives similar results to those in patients aged < 75 years.

Is robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy superior to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the management of obstructed defaecation?

AIM

Function, morbidity and recurrence of symptoms after robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) for pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) were compared.

METHOD

Forty-four patients operated on for PFD with RVMR were compared with 74 of 144 patients who had had LVMR performed between 2008 and 2011. The groups were matched for age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists status and previous hysterectomy. The same surgical technique and type of mesh were used. Early postoperative morbidity and function [obstructed defaecation syndrome (ODS), incontinence scores (CCF) and sexual activity] were compared.

RESULTS

Operation time was longer in RVMR compared with LVMR (191 ± 26 vs 163 ± 39 min; P = 0.0002). RVMR showed less blood loss (8 ± 34 vs 42 ± 88 ml; P = 0.012) and fewer early complications (2% vs 11%; P = 0.019). ODS and CCF scores improved in both groups. Patients after RVMR reported a better improvement in digitation, straining and satisfaction after defaecation. There was a statistically significant difference in the postoperative ODS score in favour of RVMR (P = 0.004). Sexually active patients in both groups reported a similar improvement. There was no difference in early recurrence (P = 0.692).

CONCLUSION

Although not a randomized comparison, this study shows that ventral mesh rectopexy performed by the robot was followed by better function then LVMR.

Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in the treatment of rectal prolapse: a matched-pairs study of operative details and complications

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy has been proven to be safe and effective in the treatment of rectal prolapse or intussusception. Robotic-assisted surgery may offer potential benefits to this operation. This study describes the comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic ventral rectopexy in terms of clinical parameters, operative details, postoperative complications and short-term outcomes.

METHODS

Twenty patients operated on for rectal prolapse or intussusception using the Da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale CA, USA) were prospectively followed for 3 months. The cases were pair-matched with laparoscopically operated controls from registry files.

RESULTS

Mean operating time was 159 min (standard deviation; ±37 SD) and 153 min (±33 SD) and mean total time in the operating theatre 231 min (±39 SD) and 234 min (±41 SD) for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic operations, respectively. Mean blood loss was 25 ml (±49 SD) in robotic-assisted and 37 ml (±50 SD) in laparoscopic procedures. There was one (5 %) significant complication in each group. Mean length of hospital stay was 3.1 (±2 SD) and 3.3 (±1.3 SD) days for the robotic-assisted and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The subjective benefit rate was the same in both groups: 16/20 (80 %). One patient in the robotic-assisted group continued to have symptoms of obstructed defecation, and there was one recurrence of prolapse in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is safe, feasible and not more time consuming than the laparoscopic technique even at the beginning of the learning curve. The short-term results are comparable with those of laparoscopy. We found no arguments to support the routine use of robotic assistance in rectopexy operations.

Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for total rectal prolapse is safe and feasible. Small series proved clinical and functional short-term results comparable with conventional laparoscopy. No long-term results have been reported yet.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of the study was to evaluate long-term functional and anatomic results of robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy. The secondary objective was to evaluate the learning curve of this procedure.

DESIGN

Monocentric study data, both preoperative and perioperative, were collected prospectively, and follow-up data were assessed by a telephone questionnaire.

SETTINGS

The study was performed in an academic center by 3 different surgeons.

PATIENTS

We evaluated all of the consecutive patients who underwent a robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy between June 2002 and August 2010.

INTERVENTION

Rectopexy was performed with 2 anterolateral meshes or with 1 ventral mesh, and in 9 patients a sigmoidectomy was associated with rectopexy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The actuarial recurrence rate was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

During the study period, 77 patients underwent a robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy, and the mean age was 59.9 years (range, 23-90 y). Average operating time was 223 minutes (range, 100-390 min); the learning curve was completed after 18 patients were seen. Two patients died of causes unrelated to surgery at 5 and 24 months. There were 5 conversions (6%) to open procedure. Overall morbidity was low and concerned only 8 patients (10.4%). Mean follow-up time was 52.5 months (range, 12-115 mo). Recurrences have been observed in 9 patients (12.8%). Preoperatively, 24 (34%) of the patients had constipation. Postoperatively, constipation disappeared for 12 (50%) of 24 and constipation appeared for 11 (24%) of 46 patients. Fecal incontinence decreased after surgery from Wexner score 10.5 to 5.1 of 20.

LIMITATIONS

There was a lack of standardization of the surgical procedure. The study was monocentric. Seven patients (9%) were lost to follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term results of robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy are satisfying. Further studies comparing robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopy, including cost-effectiveness, are needed.

Early experience with robotic rectopexy

BACKGROUND

The introduction of robotics in colorectal surgery has been gaining increasing acceptance. However, experience remains still limited for pelvic floor disorders. We report herein our first cases of fully robotic rectopexy and promontofixation for rectal prolapse.

METHODS

From October 2011 to June 2012, five female patients underwent a robotic rectopexy at our institution. The patients were selected according to their primary pathology and their medical history for this preliminary experience. Four of them presented a rectal prolapse associated or not with a vaginal prolapse and the last patient presented a recurrent rectal prolapse 5 years after a laparoscopic repair. The study was approved by our local ethics committee. The robot da Vinci Si (Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA) was used with a 4-port setting in all cases.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 170 minutes (range: 120-270). There was no conversion. The blood loss was minimal. One patient presented a retrorectal hematoma, treated conservatively with success. There was no other complication. The mean hospital stay was 3.6 days (range: 2-7). At 2 months, there was neither recurrence nor readmission. In comparison with the laparoscopic approach, there were no statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic rectopexy and promontofixation are feasible and safe. The outcomes are encouraging, but functional results and long-term outcomes are required to evaluate the exact role of robotics for rectal prolapse.

Standardized surgical technique and dedicated operating room environment can reduce the operative time during robotic-assisted surgery for pelvic floor disorders

Robotic-assisted surgery for pelvic floor disorders (PFD) meets the accepted standards for laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to describe the technique and the impact of this standardized surgical technique and dedicated operating teams on the operative time for robotic-assisted laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (RALVMR). Data from a prospective database were extracted for all patients who underwent RALVMR between January 2008 and May 2012 for multi-compartment PFD. Patient pre-, intra- and early postoperative data were analysed. To evaluate the impact of both the surgical technique and operating room team on operative time over successive years, we divided the total operation time (TOT) into robot set-up time (RST) and surgeon console time (SCT) including disembarking robotic arms and closure of wounds. A total of 51 patients (3 male) with a mean age of 61.1 [±11, standard deviation (SD)] years were included for analysis. There were no major complications or deaths. Median TOT fell significantly by 23 % from 2008 (270 min) to 2012 (179 min) (p < 0.0001). The largest reduction (>60 %) was seen in RST, from 55 (SD ±3) to 21 (SD ±2) min (p < 0.0001). Similarly, SCT was reduced by 36 % from 216 (SD ±12) to 138 (SD ±8) min (p < 0.0001). Decreased operative time and efficiency were facilitated by a devoted, well-trained and consistent team. A standardized surgical technique for PFD helps to reduce the duration of the surgical procedure.

Rectal prolapse

Optimal management of rectal prolapse requires multiple clinical considerations with respect to treatment options, particularly for surgeons who must counsel and give realistic expectations to rectal prolapse patients. Rectal prolapse outcomes are good with respect to recurrence. Although posterior rectopexy remains most popular in the United States, increasingly surgeons perform ventral rectopexy to repair rectal prolapse. Functional outcomes vary and are fair after rectal prolapse repair. Although incarceration with rectal prolapse is rare, it is potentially life threatening and requires immediate and effective measures to adequately address in the acute setting.

Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for complex rectocoele: impact on anorectal and sexual function

AIM

Minimally invasive surgery for pelvic floor prolapse has recently been shown to be feasible and safe. This study presents the results of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectopexy for complex rectocoele, focusing on less frequently reported outcomes of bowel and sexual function.

METHOD

We prospectively assessed 41 consecutive patients who underwent ventral mesh rectopexy (robotic-assisted or laparoscopic) for a symptomatic complex rectocoele from January 2009 to January 2010. Complex rectocoele was defined as having one or more of the following features: larger than 3 cm, an enterocoele or internal rectal prolapse. Patients with cystocoele underwent bladder suspension concurrently. Both groups were assessed for anatomical recurrence and function, comparing preoperative and postoperative faecal incontinence, obstructive defaecation syndrome and Gastrointestinal Quality-of-life Index scores, as well as vaginal discomfort and sexual function.

RESULTS

Forty-one women underwent the procedure (16 robotic-assisted), with four (10.5%) having minor complications and two developing anatomical recurrence. There was significant relief of the commonest predominant symptoms of vaginal bulge/fullness (P<0.0001) and sexual dysfunction (P=0.02). There were three conversions to laparotomy (one robotic-assisted) and five patients declined postoperative functional assessment. In the remaining 33 patients [follow-up median 12 (8-21) months], analysis revealed no significant difference in overall functional score (P>0.740) or between patients with one or two meshes inserted (P>0.486). Only patients with a preoperative obstructive defaecation syndrome score >6 had a significant improvement postoperatively (P=0.030).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive ventral mesh rectopexy for complex rectocoele offers satisfactory anatomical correction and functional results, with the potential for alleviating symptoms of outlet obstruction and improving vaginal comfort and sexual dysfunction.

Robotic versus laparoscopic rectopexy for complex rectocele: a prospective comparison of short-term outcomes

PURPOSE

The role of robotic assistance in pelvic floor prolapse surgery is debatable. This study aims to report our early experience of robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy in the treatment of complex rectocele and to compare this with the laparoscopic approach in terms of safety and short-term postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

We analyzed a cohort of 63 consecutive patients operated on for complex rectocele from March 2008 to December 2009. A complex rectocele was defined as a rectocele that had one or more of the following features: larger than 3 cm in diameter, associated with an enterocele or internal rectal prolapse. The patients underwent either the robotic procedure or laparoscopic procedure, based only on the availability of the robotic system. Procedures involved either a single-mesh fixation for posterior-compartment prolapse (concurrent rectocele and enterocele) or a double-mesh fixation for a concurrent anterior compartment prolapse (with cystocele). A transvaginal tape was inserted at the same surgery in patients with urinary incontinence.

RESULTS

All patients were female; 40 underwent the laparoscopic procedure and 23 underwent the robotic procedure. Both groups were similar in age (mean, 59 ± 13 vs 61 ± 11; P = .440), ASA status, and previous abdominal surgery, respectively. Patients undergoing the robotic procedure had a significantly higher body mass index (mean, 27 ± 4 vs 24 ± 4; P = .03), more frequent double-mesh implantation (17/23 vs 14/40; P = .003), and longer operative time (mean, 221 ± 39 min vs 162 ± 60 min; P = .0001). Patients undergoing a laparoscopic procedure had slightly more blood loss (mean, 45 ± 91mL vs 6 ± 23 mL, P = .05). The number of transvaginal-tape procedures performed (6/40 vs 3/23, P > .999), conversion rate (10% vs 5%; P = .747), and duration of hospitalization were similar (mean, 5 ± 2 d vs 5 ± 1.6 d; P = .872). There were no mortalities or recurrences at the 6-month postoperative review.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, the robotic approach for the treatment of complex rectocele is as safe as the laparoscopic approach, with favorable short-term results.

Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case-control study

PURPOSE

This study was designed to evaluate recurrence and functional outcome of three surgical techniques for rectopexy: open (OR), laparoscopic (LR), and robot-assisted (RR). A case-control study was performed to study recurrence after the three operative techniques used for rectal procidentia. The secondary aim of this study was to examine the differences in functional results between the three techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent a rectopexy between January 2000 and September 2006 enrolled in this study. Peri-operative data were collected from patient records and functional outcome was assessed by telephonic questionnaire.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients (71 females, mean age 56.4 years) underwent a rectopexy for rectal procidentia. Nine patients (11%) had a recurrence; one (2%) after OR, four (27%) after LR, and four (20%) after RR. RR showed significantly higher recurrence rates when controlled for age and follow-up time compared to OR, (p = 0.027), while LR showed near-significant higher rates (p = 0.059). Functional results improved in all three operation types, without a difference between them.

CONCLUSIONS

LR and RR are adequate procedures but have a higher risk of recurrence. A RCT is needed assessing the definitive role of (robotic assistance in) laparoscopic surgery in rectopexy.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery with the da Vinci system: a 4-year experience in a single institution

PURPOSE

We set up a pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of telerobotic surgery using the da Vinci system for several procedures for which traditional laparoscopy (or thoracoscopy) is a standard approach in a single institution.

METHODS

We performed fundoplications (hiatal hernia repair and antireflux surgery, n=112), upside-down stomach (14), cholecystectomy (16), gastric banding (3), colectomy (5), esophagectomy (4), sub/total gastrectomy (2), gastrojejunostomy (2), along with thymectomy (100), thoracic symatectomy (11), lobectomy (5), mediastinal parathyroidectomy (5), and left pancreatic resection (1).

RESULTS

The median set up time for all procedures was reduced from 25.0 to 10.4 minutes. Conversion to traditional laparoscopy or thoracoscopy occurred in 12 cases and in open surgery in 11 cases. There was no morbidity related to the telerobotic system.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotically assisted laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery is feasible and safe for a variety of procedures in general, visceral, and thoracic surgery.

Robotic colorectal surgery: first 50 cases experience

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is believed to be technically and oncologically feasible. However, some limitation of traditional laparoscopic surgery may cause difficulties. Robotic-assisted surgery may overcome these pitfalls.

METHODS

From December 2005 to July 2007, 50 patients were selected for robotic-assisted colorectal resection mainly for cancer.

RESULTS

Of the 50 patients enrolled, 32 (64 percent) were men and 18 (36 percent) were women. Their mean age was 66.7 (range, 37-92) years. The American Society of Anesthesiologists' (ASA) class distribution was 13 (26 percent) ASA I, 24 (48 percent) ASA II, 12 (24 percent) ASA III, and 1 (2 percent) ASA IV. Forty-four patients suffered from cancer and six patients from benign disease. Amongst the cancer patients, 3 percent were at UICC (International Union Against Cancer) Stage 0, 36 percent at UICC Stage I, 24 percent at Stage II, 28 percent at Stage III, and 9 percent at Stage IV. The global conversion rate was 4 percent. The mean operative time was 338.8 minutes. It decreased as the experience increased (419 minutes in the first 20 cases vs. 346 minutes in the last 30 cases; P = 0.036). As a gross comparison, the results of a coeval standard laparoscopy group of patients were shown.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic laparoscopic colon surgery is feasible and safe. A longer operating time is needed.

Robotics and surgery: a long-term relationship?

This article introduces robotic surgical systems by explaining the shortcomings of traditional laparoscopic surgery, and how these new systems have been developed to address them. This is followed by a descriptive section of robotic systems past and present and their use in different surgical specialities. Finally, we discuss advances that are planned for the development of current systems and the future role of robotics in surgery.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy for rectal prolapse: a prospective cohort study on feasibility and safety

Robotic systems may be particularly supportive for procedures requiring careful pelvic dissection and suturing in the Douglas pouch, as in surgery for rectal prolapse. Studies reporting robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy for rectal prolapse, however, are scarce. This prospective cohort study evaluated the outcome of this technique up to one year after surgery. From January 2005 to June 2006, 15 consecutive patients with a rectal prolapse, either with or without a concomitant rectocele or enterocele, underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy with support of the da Vinci robotic system. A prospective cohort study was performed on operating times, blood loss, intra-operative and post-operative complications, and outcome at a minimum of one year after surgery. Median age at time of operation was 62 years (33-72) and median body mass index 24.9 (20.9-33.9). Median robot set-up time was 10 min (3-15) and median skin-to-skin operating time was 160 min (120-180). No conversions to open surgery were necessary. No in-hospital complications occurred and there was no mortality. Median hospital stay was four days (2-9). During one year follow-up, two patients needed surgical reintervention. One patient was operated for recurrent enterocele and rectocele one week after surgery. In another patient an incisional hernia at the camera port occurred three months after surgery. At one year after surgery, 87% of patients claimed to be satisfied with their postoperative result. Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectovaginopexy proved to be an effective technique with favourable outcomes in most patients in this prospective series. The operating team experienced the support of the robotic system as beneficial, especially during the dissection of the rectovaginal plane and suturing in the Douglas pouch.

Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic rectopexy has become one of the most advocated treatments for full-thickness rectal prolapse, offering good functional results compared with open surgery and resulting in less postoperative pain and faster convalescence. However, laparoscopic rectopexy can be technically demanding. Once having mastered dexterity, with robotic assistance, laparoscopic rectopexy can be performed faster. Moreover, it shortens the learning curve in simple laparoscopic tasks. This may lead to faster and safer laparoscopic surgery. Robot-assisted rectopexy has been proven safe and feasible; however, until now, no study has been performed comparing costs and time consumption in conventional laparoscopic rectopexy vs. robot-assisted rectopexy.

METHODS

Our first 14 cases of robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy were reviewed and compared with 19 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic rectopexy in the same period.

RESULTS

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy did not show more complications. However, the average operating time was 39 minutes longer, and costs were euro 557.29 (or: dollars 745.09) higher.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy is a safe and feasible procedure but results in increased time and higher costs than conventional laparoscopy.

Surgical management of rectal prolapse

This article reviews the pathogenesis, clinical presentation and surgical management of rectal prolapse. Full-thickness prolapse of the rectum causes significant discomfort because of the sensation of the prolapse itself, the mucus that it secretes, and because it tends to stretch the anal sphincters and cause incontinence. Treatment of rectal prolapse is primarily surgical. Perineal surgical repairs are well tolerated, but are generally associated with higher recurrence rates. Abdominal repairs involve fixing the rectum to the sacrum by using either mesh or sutures, and tend to have the lowest recurrence rates. If significant preoperative constipation is present, a sigmoid resection can be performed at the time of rectopexy. For many patients, diarrhea and incontinence improve after surgery. Laparoscopic repair of rectal prolapse has similar morbidity and recurrence rates to open surgery, with attendant benefits of reduced length of hospital stay, postoperative pain and wound complications.

Short-term outcomes after robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer remains a difficult procedure with high conversion rates. We have sought to improve on some of the pitfalls of laparoscopy by using the DaVinci robotic system. Here we report our two-year experience with robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for primary rectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of all rectal cancer cases starting in November 2004 was created. A series of 39 consecutive unselected patients with primary rectal cancer was analyzed. Clinical and pathologic outcomes were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

22 patients had low anterior, 11 intersphincteric and six abdominoperineal resections. Postoperative mortality and morbidity were % and 12.8%, respectively. The median operative time was 285 minutes (range 180-540 mins). The conversion rate was 2.6%. A total mesorectal excision with negative circumferential and distal margins was accomplished in all patients, and a median of 13 (range 7-28) lymph nodes was removed. The anastomotic leak rate was 12.1%. The median hospital stay was 4 days. There have been no local recurrences at a median follow-up of 13 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer can be carried out safely and according to oncological principles. This approach shows promising short-term outcomes and may facilitate the adoption of minimally invasive rectal surgery.

Computer-assisted laparoscopic repair of "upside-down" stomach with the Da Vinci system

Recently introduced telerobotic surgical systems attempt to elude the inherent limitations of traditional laparoscopic surgery. Four patients (3 male, 1 female) with mixed hiatal and paraesophageal hernias with fixed intrathoracic partial or complete displacement of the stomach were operatively treated using the Da Vinci robotic system. Tissue dissection, hiatoplasty, and anterior hemifundoplication (Dor) were performed with the telerobotic system. There were no surgical complications. The system broke down in the fourth patient due to a software defect. Advantages were seen in terms of the intrathoracic dissection of displaced stomach through a narrow hiatus, intracorporeal suturing due to 6 degrees of freedom plus grasping. At the moment, lack of the appropriate robotic instruments for abdominal surgery as well as the enormous functional cost of the robotic system are considered to be the most significant current impediment to the adoption of robotic abdominal surgery. The continuous evolution and upgrade of the system is quite promising so far. Telerobotic-assisted hiatal hernia operation is feasible with many advantages compared with the traditional laparoscopic approach, especially during the dissection in the mediastinum in patients with intrathoracic stomach. A prospective, randomized trial will be performed later to evaluate the advantages and limitations of robotic compared with traditional laparoscopy. Technological evolution will perhaps diminish the current problems and the cost associated with robotic surgery.

Robots en cirugía general: presente y futuro

Robotic surgery is an emerging technology. We began to use this technique in 2000, after it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Our preliminary experience was satisfactory. We report 4 years' experience of using this technique in our institution. Between August 2000 and December 2004, 399 patients underwent robotic surgery using the Da Vinci system. We performed 110 gastric bypass procedures, 30 Lap band, 59 Heller myotomies, 12 Nissen fundoplications, 6 epiphrenic diverticula, 18 total esophagectomies, 3 esophageal leiomyoma resections, 1 pyloroplasty, 2 gastrojejunostomies, 2 transduodenal sphincteroplasties, 10 adrenalectomies and 145 living-related donor nephrectomies. Operating times for fundoplications and Lap band were longer. After the learning curve, the operating times and morbidity of the remaining procedures were considerably reduced. Robot-assisted surgery allows advanced laparoscopic procedures to be performed with enhanced results given that it reduces the learning curve as measured by operating time and morbidity.

Robotic-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgery

BACKGROUND

This study describes technical aspect and short-term results of pelvic organ prolapse surgery using the da Vinci robotic system.

METHODS

During a 1-year period, 18 consecutive patients with pelvic organ prolapse were operated on using the da-Vinci system. Clinical data were prospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

All but one procedure was successfully completed robotically (95%). Performed procedures were colpohysteropexy (n = 12), mesh rectopexy (n = 2), or sutured rectopexy combined with sigmoid resection (n = 4). Average setup time was 21 min and significantly decreased with experience. Mean operative time was 172 min (range, 45-280). There were no mortality and no specific morbidity due to the robotic approach. Mean hospital stay was 7 days. At 6 months, all patients were free of pelvic organ prolapse and stated that they were satisfied with anatomical and functional results.

CONCLUSION

Our experience indicates that using the da-Vinci robotic system is feasible, safe, and effective for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Surgical management of combined rectal and genital prolapse in young patients: transabdominal approach

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the anatomical and functional outcomes of the simultaneous treatment of combined rectal and genital prolapse in young patients.

METHODS

Between March 2001 and June 2002, eight female patients with symptomatic rectal and genital prolapse were enrolled in this study. The median age at the time of presentation was 44 years (range 34-53). All patients underwent simultaneous transabdominal treatment of their combined prolapse. Genital prolapse was treated by colpohysteropexy. Rectal prolapse was treated by mesh rectopexy or sutured rectopexy associated with sigmoid resection. The end evaluation to assess long-term results was performed after a median duration of follow-up of 17 months (range 10-24). Patients were asked about current problems with constipation, use of laxatives, incontinence and recurrence.

RESULTS

The postoperative course was uneventful in 7 out of 8 cases. None of the patients had recurrence. Three patients out of 6 remained constipated postoperatively. One patient had a new onset of constipation postoperatively. None of the patients became faecally incontinent. Seven patients (87%) stated that they had improved overall after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Combined rectal and genital prolapse in young women can be safely treated simultaneously using an abdominal approach. The genital prolapse should be treated by colpohysteropexy. The rectal prolapse should be treated by mesh rectopexy in patients who are not constipated, and by sutured rectopexy plus sigmoid resection in patients who are constipated preoperatively.

Robotic abdominal surgery

As a whole, abdominal surgeons possess excellent videoendoscopic surgical skills. However, the limitations of laparoscopy-such as reduced range of motion and instrument dexterity and 2-dimensional view of the operative field-have inspired even the most accomplished laparoscopists to investigate the potential of surgical robotics to broaden their application of the minimally invasive surgery paradigm. This review discusses data obtained from articles indexed in the MEDLINE database written in English and mapped to the following key words: "surgical robotics," "robotic surgery," "robotics," "computer-assisted surgery," "da Vinci," "Zeus," "fundoplication," "morbid obesity," "hepatectomy," "pancreatectomy," "small intestine," "splenectomy," "colectomy," "adrenalectomy," and "pediatric surgery." A limited subset of 387 publications was reviewed to determine article relevance to abdominal robotic surgery. Particular emphasis was placed on reports that limited their discussion to human applications and surgical outcomes. Included are comments about the initial 202 robotic abdominal surgery cases performed at Johns Hopkins University Hospital (Baltimore, MD) from August 2000 to January 2004. Surgical robotic systems are being used to apply laparoscopy to the surgical treatment of diseases in virtually every abdominal organ. Procedures demanding superior visualization or requiring complex reconstruction necessitating extensive suturing obtain the greatest benefit from robotics over conventional laparoscopy. Whereas advanced surgical robotic systems offer the promise of a unique combination of advantages over open and conventional laparoscopic approaches, clinical data demonstrating improved outcomes are lacking for robotic surgical applications within the abdomen. Outcomes data for surgical robotics are essential given the exorbitant costs associated with the use of these tools.