Robotic rectal cancer surgery simultaneously performed with combined abdominal surgeries

Multivisceral Resection in Robotic Liver Surgery

Simple Summary

Liver surgery can be performed simultaneously with operations to remove other organs in certain circumstances, such as removal of colorectal cancer in the colon or rectum at the same time as metastatic lesions to the liver. These types of operations have been performed as open or laparoscopic procedures; however, more recently, they can be performed with a robotic approach. In this article, we review the literature and describe robotic liver resections performed with robotic resection of other organs, including colon, rectum, and pancreas. These published reports demonstrate that, in select cases and experienced hands, robotic multivisceral resection can be safely performed with good outcomes.

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery techniques are expanding in utilization in liver resections and now include robotic approaches. Robotic liver resection has been demonstrated to have several benefits, including surgeon ergonomics, wrist articulation, and 3D visualization. Similarly, for multivisceral liver resections, the use of minimally invasive techniques has evolved and expanded from laparoscopy to robotics. The aim of this article is to review the literature and describe multivisceral resections, including hepatectomy, using a robotic technique. We describe over 50 published cases of simultaneous robotic liver resection with colon or rectal resection. In addition, we describe several pancreatectomies performed with liver resection and one extra-abdominal pulmonary resection with liver resection. In total, these select reported cases at experienced centers demonstrate the safety of robotic multivisceral resection in liver surgery with acceptable morbidity and rare conversion to open surgery. As robotic technology advances and experience with robotic techniques grows, robotic multivisceral resection in liver surgery should continue to be investigated in future studies.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: A propensity-score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the advantages of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy as these remains unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively recruited eligible patients with rectal cancer undergoing robotic or laparoscopic surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. We compared the surgical outcomes between patients undergoing either robotic surgery or laparoscopic surgery was based on the propensity-score matching analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients were recruited, including 76 who underwent robotic surgery and 95 who underwent laparoscopic surgery. There were no significant differences in clinical and pathological characteristics between the groups after propensity-score matching (56 matched pairs). Longer operation times (324.964 ± 83.435 vs. 246.232 ± 111.324 min, p < 0.001) and more blood loss (187.679 ± 176.615 vs. 98.214 ± 107.011, p < 0.001) were observed in the robotic group. The major complication rates were similar between the treatment groups after propensity matching (p = 0.086). There were no significant differences in disease-free survival rates (p = 0.205) and overall survival rates (p = 0.837) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is associated with similar technical safety and oncologic efficacy compared to laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; it is an acceptable option for patients requiring minimally invasive surgery. Nevertheless, the longer operation times and greater blood loss seen in the present study are a stark reminder that the convenience and surgical precision, on which the marketing of robotic surgery is rooted, are yet to be proven and require further investigation.

Full robotic multivisceral resections: the Modena experience and literature review

The robotic platform is becoming a multidisciplinary tool, versatile, and suitable for multiple procedures. Combined multivisceral resections may represent an alternative to sequential procedures with a potential favorable impact on postoperative morbidity, and on the timing of administration of adjuvant chemotherapy. We herein present our initial experience with full robotic multivisceral resections, and a review of the literature available. Between January 2018 and April 2020, 11 patients underwent multivisceral full robotic abdominal surgery: 4 patients presented with two synchronous tumors, 4 with primary cancer associated with a benign condition and 3 cases involved deep infiltrating endometriosis. Surgical teams enrolled were: General Surgery, Urology and Gynecology. A systematic bibliographic research up to April 2020 was conducted in PubMed. 4 colorectal resections combined with partial or radical nephrectomy were performed, as well as 2 right colectomies in combination with right adrenalectomy and gastric banding removal, 2 radical prostatectomies with Nissen Fundoplication and abdominal wall hernia repair, and 3 resections of deep pelvic endometriosis with colorectal involvement. Mean total operative time was 367 min. No intraoperative complication or conversion to open was registered. Overall postoperative complication rate was 18.2%. 26 papers were included in the review (10 case series and 16 case reports) with a total of 156 combined multivisceral robotic procedures recorded. Robotic combined multivisceral resections proved to be safe and feasible when performed in high volume centers by expert surgeons. The heterogeneity of reports does not allow for a standardization of the procedure. Further studies and accumulation of experience are needed.

Applicability of minimally invasive surgery for clinically T4 colorectal cancer

The role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to treat clinically T4 (cT4) colorectal cancer (CRC) remains uncertain and deserves further investigation. A retrospective cohort study was conducted between September 2006 and March 2019 recruiting patients diagnosed as cT4 CRC and undergoing MIS at a university hospital and its branch. Patients’ demography, clinicopathology, surgical and oncological outcomes, and radicality were analyzed. A total of 128 patients were recruited with an average follow-up period of 33.8 months. The median time to soft diet was 6 days, and the median postoperative hospitalization periods was 11 days. The conversion and complication (Clavien–Dindo classification ≥ II) rates were 7.8% and 27.3%, respectively. The 30-day mortality was 0.78%. R0 resection rate was 92.2% for cT4M0 and 88.6% for pT4M0 patients. For cT4 CRC patients, the disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival were 86.1% and 86.8% for stage II, 54.1% and 57.9% for stage III, and 10.8% and 17.8% for stage IV. With acceptable conversion, complication and mortality rate, MIS may achieve satisfactory R0 resection rate and thus lead to good oncological outcomes for selected patients with cT4 CRC.