Short-term outcomes for robotic colorectal surgery by provider volume

Implementation of a robotic surgical practice in inflammatory bowel disease

Robotics adoption has increased in colorectal surgery. While there are well-established advantages and standardised techniques for cancer patients, the use of robotic surgery in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has not been studied yet. To evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for IBD patients. Prospectively data in IBD patients having robotic resection at Guy's and St Thomas' hospital. All resections performed by a single colorectal surgeon specialised in IBD, utilising DaVinci platform. July 2021 to January 2023, 59 robotic IBD cases performed, 14 ulcerative colitis (UC) and 45 Crohn's disease (CD). Average age; CD patients 35, UC 33 years. Average Body mass index (BMI); 23 for CD and 26.9 for UC patients. In total, we performed 31 ileo-caecal resections (ICR) with primary anastomosis (18 Kono-S anastomosis, 6 mechanical anastomosis and 7 ileo-colostomy), of those 4 had multivisceral resections (large bowel, bladder, ovary). Furthermore, 14 subtotal colectomy (1 emergency), 8 proctectomy, 3 panproctocolectomy and 3 ileoanal J pouch. 18 of the 45 patients (45.0%) with Crohn's disease had ongoing fistulating disease to other parts of the GI tract (small or large bowel). ICR were performed using different three ports position, depending on the anatomy established prior to surgery with magnetic resonance images (MRI). One patient had conversion to open due to anaesthetic problems and one patient required re-operation to refashion stoma. 98.0% cases completed robotically. Median Length of hospital stay (LOS) was 7 days for CD and 7 for UC cases, including LOS in patients on pre-operative parenteral nutrition. Robotic colorectal techniques can be safely used for patients with IBD, even with fistulating disease. Future research and collaborations are necessary to standardize technique within institutions.

Evaluating body mass index's impact on Da Vinci Robotic rectal cancer surgery, a retrospective study

Robotic surgery addresses laparoscopic shortcomings and yields comparable results for low and high body mass index (BMI) patients. However, the impact of BMI on postoperative complications in robotic colorectal surgery remains debated. This study assessed the implications of BMI on short outcomes and postoperative complications, highlighting its unique role in the outcomes. Retrospective analysis of 119 patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer (January 2022 to March 2023). Patients grouped by BMI: normal weight (BMI < 23.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI ≥ 23.9 kg/m2 and BMI < 27.9 kg/m2), and obese (BMI ≥ 27.9 kg/m2). Investigated BMI's impact on surgical outcomes and postoperative complications. Statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) in Clavien-Dindo, ASA scores. The obese group had a longer time to flatus (P = 0.002) and a higher re-operation rate than other groups (P = 0.01). The overweight group had a higher anastomotic fistula rate than the obese group. Overall complications showed no significant differences among BMI cohorts (P = 0.0295). There were no significant differences in TNM stages and comorbidities. BMI had no significant impact on overall postoperative complications in robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, higher BMI correlated with a longer time to flatus and increased re-operation rate.

A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres

Background

Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview.

Method

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis.

Results

In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at €10,556 (8,642;13,829), €12,918 (11,196;16,223), and € 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups.

Conclusion

Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.

Volume-outcome relationship in intra-abdominal robotic-assisted surgery: a systematic review

As robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) expands to smaller centres, platforms are shared between specialities. Healthcare providers must consider case volume and mix required to maintain quality and cost-effectiveness. This can be informed, in-part, by the volume-outcome relationship. We perform a systematic review to describe the volume-outcome relationship in intra-abdominal robotic-assisted surgery to report on suggested minimum volumes standards. A literature search of Medline, NICE Evidence Search, Health Technology Assessment Database and Cochrane Library using the terms: "robot*", "surgery", "volume" and "outcome" was performed. The included procedures were gynecological: hysterectomy, urological: partial and radical nephrectomy, cystectomy, prostatectomy, and general surgical: colectomy, esophagectomy. Hospital and surgeon volume measures and all reported outcomes were analysed. 41 studies, including 983,149 procedures, met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the retrieved data was synthesised in a narrative review. Significant volume-outcome relationships were described in relation to key outcome measures, including operative time, complications, positive margins, lymph node yield and cost. Annual surgeon and hospital volume thresholds were described. We concluded that in centres with an annual volume of fewer than 10 cases of a given procedure, having multiple surgeons performing these procedures led to worse outcomes and, therefore, opportunities should be sought to perform other complimentary robotic procedures or undertake joint cases.

A Comparative Analysis of Short-term Patient Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The popularity of robot-assisted colorectal surgery has risen over recent years; however, patient-related advantages over laparoscopic surgery remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to compare short-term patient outcomes following robotic and laparoscopic partial or complete rectal resections.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 5 large tertiary care Kaiser Permanente medical centers across Southern California.

PATIENTS

There were 863 consecutive robotic and laparoscopic pelvic rectal surgeries, including low anterior resections, proctectomies with coloanal anastomosis, and abdominoperineal resections, performed between January 2010 and December 2019.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Short-term patient outcomes, including postoperative length of hospital stay, emergency department returns, and 30-day readmissions, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 458 surgical procedures were performed via robotic versus 405 via laparoscopic approaches. The robotic group had a higher proportion of male patients (57.4% vs 50.4%; p = 0.04) and a higher proportion of obese (27.1% vs 26.9%; p = 0.02) and overweight patients (36.9% vs 35.1%; p = 0.01). There was no difference in underlying comorbidities of diabetes or smoking, or in the rate of ileostomy creation. After adjusting for Charlson Comorbidity Index, no significant difference was found in emergency department returns between robotic and laparoscopic surgical patients ( p = 0.17). There were no significant outcome differences between the 2 groups with regards to length of stay during procedure, 30-day readmission, or death rates.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the lack of randomization in its design, selection of patients for surgical approach, and training and familiarity with robotic rectal surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows length of stay during the procedure and postoperative 30-day readmission rates were generally similar between robotic and laparoscopic patients. Male patients and those with a higher BMI were more likely to have been operated via a robotic method. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B857 .

UN ANLISIS COMPARATIVO DE LOS RESULTADOS A CORTO PLAZO DE LOS PACIENTES DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA RECTAL LAPAROSCPICA VERSUS LA ROBTICA

ANTECEDENTES:La popularidad de la cirugía colorrectal asistida por robot ha aumentado en los últimos años. Sin embargo, las ventajas relacionadas con el paciente siguen siendo inciertas sobre la cirugía laparoscópica.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo era comparar los resultados de los pacientes a corto plazo después de resecciones rectales completas o parciales robóticas y laparoscópicas.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTE:El estudio se llevó a cabo en cinco grandes centros médicos de Kaiser Permanente de atención terciaria en el sur de California.PACIENTES:Se realizaron 863 cirugías robóticas y laparoscópicas rectales pélvicas consecutivas, incluidas resecciones anteriores bajas, proctectomías con anastomosis coloanal y resecciones abdominoperineales, realizadas entre enero de 2010 y diciembre de 2019.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Resultados de los pacientes a corto plazo, incluida la duración de la estancia hospitalaria después del procedimiento, los retornos al departamento de emergencias y los reingresos y la mortalidad a los 30 días.RESULTADOS:Se realizaron un total de 458 procedimientos quirúrgicos a través del robot versus 405 con laparoscopia. El grupo robótico tuvo una mayor proporción de pacientes masculinos (57,4 vs 50,4%, p = 0,04) y una mayor proporción de pacientes obesos (27,1 vs 26,9%, p = 0,02) y con sobrepeso (36,9 vs 35,1%, p = 0,01). No hubo diferencia en las comorbilidades subyacentes de la diabetes y el tabaquismo, y en la tasa de creación de ileostomía. Después de ajustar por el índice de comorbilidad de Charlson, no se encontraron diferencias significativas en los retornos al servicio de urgencias entre los pacientes robóticos y laparoscópicos ( p = 0,17). No hubo diferencias significativas en los resultados entre los dos grupos con respecto a la duración de la estadía durante el procedimiento, las tasas de readmisión a los 30 días y las tasas de muerte.LIMITACIONES:Falta de aleatorización en el diseño del estudio, selección de pacientes para abordaje quirúrgico, capacitación y familiaridad con la cirugía rectal robótica.CONCLUSIONES:Este estudio muestra la duración de la estadía durante el procedimiento y las tasas de reingreso a los 30 días después del procedimiento fueron generalmente similares entre los pacientes robóticos y laparoscópicos. Los pacientes masculinos y aquellos con un índice de masa corporal más alto tenían más probabilidades de haber sido operados mediante un método robótico. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B857 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Impact of surgeon and hospital factors on length of stay after colorectal surgery systematic review

Background

Although length of stay (LOS) after colorectal surgery (CRS) is associated with worse patient and system level outcomes, the impact of surgeon and hospital-level factors on LOS after CRS has not been well investigated. The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence for the impact of surgeon and hospital-level factors on LOS after CRS.

Methods

A comprehensive database search was conducted using terms related to LOS and CRS. Studies were included if they reported the effect of surgeon or hospital factors on LOS after elective CRS. The evidence for the effect of each surgeon and hospital factor on LOS was synthesized using vote counting by direction of effect, taking risk of bias into consideration.

Results

A total of 13 946 unique titles and abstracts were screened, and 69 studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were retrospective and assessed a total of eight factors. Surgeon factors such as increasing surgeon volume, colorectal surgical specialty, and progression along a learning curve were significantly associated with decreased LOS (effect seen in 87.5 per cent, 100 per cent, and 93.3 per cent of studies respectively). In contrast, hospital factors such as hospital volume and teaching hospital status were not significantly associated with LOS.

Conclusion

Provider-related factors were found to be significantly associated with LOS after elective CRS. In particular, surgeon-related factors related to experience specifically impacted LOS, whereas hospital-related factors did not. Understanding the mechanisms underlying these relationships may allow for tailoring of interventions to reduce LOS.

Minimally Invasive Surgery and Surgical Volume-Specific Survival and Perioperative Outcome: Unmet Need for Evidence in Gynecologic Malignancy

This study examined the effect of hospital surgical volume on oncologic outcomes in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gynecologic malignancies. The objectives were to assess survival outcomes related to hospital surgical volume and to evaluate perioperative outcomes and examine non-gynecologic malignancies. Literature available from the PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically reviewed. All surgical procedures including gynecologic surgery with hospital surgical volume information were eligible for analysis. Twenty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, and nine gastro-intestinal studies, seven genitourinary studies, four gynecological studies, two hepatobiliary studies, and one thoracic study were reviewed. Of those, 11 showed a positive volume–outcome association for perioperative outcomes. A study on MIS for ovarian cancer reported lower surgical morbidity in high-volume centers. Two studies were on endometrial cancer, of which one showed lower treatment costs in high-volume centers and the other showed no association with perioperative morbidity. Another study examined robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer and found no volume–outcome association for surgical morbidity. There were no gynecologic studies examining the association between hospital surgical volume and oncologic outcomes in MIS. The volume–outcome association for oncologic outcome in gynecologic MIS is understudied. This lack of evidence calls for further studies to address this knowledge gap.

Augmented Reality: Moving Robotics Forward

Compared with other fields, adoption of robotics in colorectal surgery remains relatively slow. One of the reasons for this is that the expected benefits of robotics, such as greater accuracy, speed, and better patient outcomes, are not born out in evidence comparing use of robotics for colorectal procedures to conventional laparoscopy. But evidence also suggests that outcomes with colorectal robotic procedures depend on the experience of the surgeon, suggesting that a steep learning curve is acting as a barrier to the benefits of robotics being realized. In this paper, we analyze exactly why surgeon skill and proficiency is such a critical factor in colorectal surgery, especially around the most complex procedures associated with cancer. Shortening of the learning curve is crucial for both the adoption of the technique and the efficient use of expert trainers. Looking beyond the basics of training and embracing a new generation of digital learning technologies that facilitate peer-to-peer collaboration and development beyond the confines of individual institutions may be an important contributor to achieve these goals in the future.

Education and Training in Transanal Endoscopic Surgery and Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision

There is a paradigm shift in surgical training, and new tool and technology are being used to facilitate mastery of the content and technical skills. The transanal procedures for rectal cancer-transanal endoscopic surgery (TES) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME)-have a distinct learning curve for competence in the procedures, and require special training for familiarity with the "bottom-up" anatomy, procedural risks, and managing complex cases. These procedures have been models for structured education and training, using multimodal tools, to ensure safe implementation of TES and TaTME into clinical practice. The goal of this work was to review the current state of surgical education, the introduction and learning curve of the TES and TaTME procedures, and the established and future models for education of the transanal procedures for rectal cancer.

The association of robotic lobectomy volume and nodal upstaging in non-small cell lung cancer

Robotic lung resection for lung cancer has gained popularity over the last 10 years. As with many surgical techniques, there are improvements in outcomes associated with increased operative volume. We sought to investigate lymph-node harvest and upstaging rates for robotic lobectomies performed at hospitals with varying robotic experience. The National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer who received lobectomy between 2010 and 2015. Hospitals were stratified into volume categories based on the number of robotic resections performed, as a proxy for robotic experience: low at  ≤ 12, low-middle 13-26, middle-high 27-52, and high volume at greater than or equal to 53. Lymph-node counts and nodal upstaging were compared among these volume categories. 8360 robotic lobectomies were performed. Mean lymph-node counts were for low, low-middle, middle-high, and high-volume robotic lobectomies were 9.8, 11.4, 12.9, and 12.6, respectively (P  < 0.001), while nodal-upstaging rates were 10.3%, 10.2%, 12.8%, and 13.4%, respectively (P < 0.001). Compared to low-volume hospitals, on multivariable analysis, high-volume robotic centers had increased nodal harvest (P < 0.001) and nodal-upstaging rates (P < 0.001). Robotic lobectomies performed at high-volume hospitals have greater lymph-node harvest and upstaging than low-volume hospitals.

Hospital characteristics, rather than surgical volume, predict length of stay following colorectal cancer surgery

OBJECTIVE

Length of hospital stay (LOS) is considered a vital component for successful colorectal surgery treatment. Evidence of an association between hospital surgery volume and LOS has been mixed. Data modelling techniques may give inconsistent results that adversely impact conclusions. This study applied techniques to overcome possible modelling drawbacks.

METHOD

An additive quantile regression model formulated to isolate hospital contextual effects was applied to every colorectal surgery for cancer conducted in Victoria, Australia, between 2005 and 2015, involving 28,343 admissions in 90 Victorian hospitals. The model compared hospitals' operational efficiencies regarding LOS.

RESULTS

Hospital LOS operational efficiencies for colorectal cancer surgery varied markedly between the 90 hospitals and were independent of volume. This result was adjusted for pertinent patient and hospital characteristics.

CONCLUSION

No evidence was found that higher annual surgery volume was associated with lower LOS for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. Our model showed strong evidence that differences in LOS efficiency between hospitals was driven by hospital contextual effects that were not predicted by provider volume. Further study is required to elucidate these inherent differences between hospitals. Implications for public health: Our model indicated improved efficiency would benefit the patient and medical system by lowering LOS and reducing expenditure by more than $3 million per year.

Case Sequence Analysis of the Robotic Colorectal Resection Learning Curve

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer offers many potential benefits, but as with any new technology, there is a learning curve.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify trends in the uptake of robotic resection and associated complication rates.

DESIGN

This was a case sequence analysis of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted using the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperation System database.

PATIENTS

Adults undergoing colorectal resection for cancer from 2008 through 2016 were identified in the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative database. Case sequence analysis was used to describe surgeon experience, with cases grouped into quartiles based on the chronological order in which each surgeon performed them.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes included in-hospital major events (myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, shock, and death) and iatrogenic complications. Generalized linear mixed models were used to estimate the relationship between case sequence and operative outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2763 robotic procedures were included, with volume increasing from 76 cases in 2010 to 702 cases in 2015. The proportion of cases performed by surgeons earliest in their learning curve has increased to 18.2% in 2015. This quartile was composed of more black patients (11.4% earliest quartile vs 7.0% latest quartile; p < 0.001) and rectal resections (50.1% earliest quartile vs 38.9% latest quartile; p < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, major complications did not improve with increasing case sequence. However, with increasing cumulative surgeon case sequence iatrogenic complications were reduced, particularly in the highest volume quartile (OR = 0.29 (95% CI, 0.09-0.88); p = 0.03). Odds of prolonged length of stay (>75 percentile) were also decreased (OR = 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37-0.69); p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Data were derived from an administrative database.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic colorectal resection has been rapidly adopted. Surgeons earliest in their experience have increased iatrogenic complications and continue to make up a large proportion of cases performed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A974. ANÁLISIS DE SECUENCIA DE CASOS DE LA CURVA DE APRENDIZAJE DE RESECCIÓN ROBÓTICA COLORRECTAL: La cirugía robótica para el cáncer colorrectal ofrece muchos beneficios potenciales, pero como con cualquier nueva tecnología, presenta una importante curva de aprendizaje.

OBJETIVO

Se buscó identificar tendencias en la aceptación de la resección robótica y las tasas de complicaciones asociadas. DISEÑO:: Análisis de secuencia de casos de cirugía robótica para cáncer colorrectal AJUSTES:: Base de datos del Sistema de Cooperación para la Investigación y la Planificación del Estado de Nueva York.

PACIENTES

Los adultos que se sometieron a una resección colorrectal en caso de cáncer desde 2008 hasta 2016 se identificaron en la base de datos de la Cooperativa de Investigación y Planificación del Estado de Nueva York. Se utilizó un análisis de secuencia de casos para describir la experiencia del cirujano, y los casos se agruparon en cuartiles según el orden cronológico en el que cada cirujano los operó.

RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES

Los resultados incluyeron los eventos intrahospitalarios mayores (infarto de miocardio, embolia pulmonar, shock y muerte) y las complicaciones iatrogénicas. Se utilizaron modelos lineales generalizados mixtos para estimar la relación entre la secuencia de casos y los resultados operativos.

RESULTADOS

Se incluyeron un total de 2.763 procedimientos robóticos, con un aumento del volumen de 76 casos en 2010 a 702 casos en 2015. La proporción de casos realizados por cirujanos en su primera curva de aprendizaje aumentó a 18.2% en 2015. Este cuartil estaba compuesto por una mayoría de pacientes de color (11.4% en el cuartil más temprano versus 7.0% en el último cuartil, p < 0.001) y de resecciones rectales (50.1% en el primer cuartil vs 38.9% en el último cuartil, p < 0.001). En el ajuste del análisis, las complicaciones mayores no mejoraron al aumentar la secuencia de casos. Sin embargo, al aumentar la secuencia acumulada de casos de cirujanos, se redujeron las complicaciones iatrogénicas, particularmente en el cuartil de mayor volumen (OR = 0,29; IC del 95%: 0,09 a 0,88; p = 0,03). Las probabilidades de una estadía hospitalaria prolongada (> percentil 75) también disminuyeron (OR 0,50; IC del 95%: 0,37 a 0,69; p < 0,001).

LIMITACIONES

Los valores fueron derivados desde una base de datos administrativa.

CONCLUSIONES

La resección colorrectal robótica ha sido adoptada rápidamente. Los cirujanos durante su experiencia inicial han presentado un elevado número de complicaciones iatrogénicas y éstas representan todavía, una gran proporción de casos realizados. Vea el Resumen del Video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A974.

A Population-Based Study of 90-Day Hospital Cost and Utilization Associated With Robotic Surgery in Colon and Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of robotic surgery in colorectal cancer remains contentious with most data arising from small, single-institution studies.

METHODS

Stage I-III colorectal cancer resections from 2008 to 2014 were identified in New York State. Propensity score-adjusted negative binomial models were used to compare cost and utilization between robotic, laparoscopic, and open resections.

RESULTS

A total of 12,218 patients were identified. For colectomy, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 3%, and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 13%. For rectal resection, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 7% and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 32%. In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in cost across the surgical approaches, both in overall and stratified analyses. Both laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with decreased 90-d hospital utilization compared with open surgery in intention-to-treat analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections were not associated with a hospital cost benefit after 90 d compared with open but were associated with decreased hospital utilization. Conversion to open resection was common, and efforts should be made to prevent them. Future research should continue to measure how robotic and laparoscopic approaches can add value to the health care system.

Impact of surgical approach on short-term oncological outcomes and recovery following low anterior resection for rectal cancer

AIM

The aim was to evaluate the influence of operative approach for low anterior resection (LAR) on oncological and postoperative outcomes. Minimally invasive surgical approaches are increasingly used for the treatment of rectal cancer with mixed outcomes.

METHOD

We compared patients undergoing LAR in the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2015 by surgical approach. Multivariable regression was used to identify risk factors associated with conversion rate, prolonged length of stay (LOS) and 30-day unplanned readmission.

RESULTS

During the study period, 41 282 patients underwent LAR: 6035 robotic-assisted (RLAR) (14.6%), 13 826 laparoscopic (LLAR) (33.5%) and 21 421 open (OLAR) (51.9%). In propensity score matched analysis, RLAR compared to LLAR was associated with shorter LOS (6.3 vs 6.8 days, P < 0.0001), lower risk of prolonged LOS (22.1% vs 25.6%, P < 0.0001) and lower rate of conversion to open (7.5% vs 14.95%, P < 0.0001). Compared to OLAR, RLAR had shorter LOS (6.3 vs 7.8 days, P < 0.0001) and less prolonged LOS (14.1% vs. 20.9%, P < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, for conversion to open, the laparoscopic approach was one of the risk factors; for prolonged LOS, conversion to open and non-robotic approaches (i.e. LLAR and OLAR) were risk factors; and for unplanned 30-day readmission, conversions and prolonged LOS were risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with rectal cancer, RLAR shows recovery benefits over both open and laparoscopic LAR with reduced conversion to open compared with LLAR and less prolonged LOS compared with LLAR and OLAR. RLAR is associated with short-term oncological outcomes comparable to OLAR, supporting its use in minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.

Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection surgery: Short-term outcomes and complications: A retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

The safety of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) remains a concern. This study aimed to compare the complications after RAS versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS) for rectal cancer using the Clavien-Dindo classification and to identify risk factors related to the complications.

METHOD

Between March 2010 and June 2016, 556 rectal cancer patients who underwent successful RAS and 1029 patients who received LAS were enrolled in this study. The complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and the possible risk factors related to the complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall postoperative complication rate was 14.9%, with a 5% rate of severe complications that were classified as grade III or above in RAS group compared with 17.1% and 4.4% in LAS group. However, no significant difference was found (P = 0.608). A high ASA score was identified as an independent risk factor for overall and severe complications in both groups. The use of more than 3 staples in each operation and the anastomotic site of the anal verge at less than 5 cm were independent risk factors for complications.

CONCLUSIONS

RAS for rectal cancer is technically safe and it does not significantly improve the complication rate. The incidence of overall complications is still related to tumor location, the general condition of the patients, and the surgical approach.

Facility-level analysis of robot utilization across disciplines in the National Cancer Database

To evaluate trends in contemporary robotic surgery across multiple organ sites as they relate to robotic prostatectomy volume. We queried the National Cancer Database for patients who underwent surgery from 2010 to 2013 for prostate, kidney, bladder, corpus uteri, uterus, cervix, colon, sigmoid, rectum, lung and bronchus. The trend between volumes of robotic surgery for each organ site was analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test. Multivariable models were then created to determine independent predictors of robotic surgery within each organ site by calculating the odds ratio with 95% CI. Among the 566,399 surgical cases analyzed, 35.1% were performed using robot assistance. Institutions whose robotic prostatectomy volume was in the top 75 percentile compared to the bottom 25 percentile performed a larger percentage of robotic surgery on the following sites: kidney 32.6 vs. 28.8%, bladder 23.6 vs. 18.6%, uterus 52.5 vs. 47.7%, cervix 43.5 vs. 39.2%, colon 3.2 vs. 2.9%, rectum 10.7 vs. 8.9%, and lung 7.3 vs. 6.8% (all p < 0.0001). It appears that increased trends toward robotic surgery in urology have lead to increased robotic utilization within other surgical fields. Future analysis in benign utilizations of robotic surgery as well as outcome data comparing robotic to open approaches are needed to better understand the ever-evolving nature of minimally invasive surgery within the United States.

The effect of hospital familiarity with complex procedures on overall healthcare burden

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate variations in prolonged outcome after proctectomy based on hospital volume.

STUDY DESIGN

From the Premier Perspective database (2012-2014), hospital volumes for proctectomy of benign and malignant conditions were classified as low, intermediate and high. Hospitals were grouped into tertiles. Impact of procedure volume on in-hospital as well as 90-day post-discharge complications, length of stay, discharge destination and costs was evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 9306 proctectomy procedures, 6960 occurred at high, 1695 at intermediate and 651 at low volume hospitals. After adjustment, high volume institutions were associated with lower in-hospital surgical complications while low volume centers had higher ninety-day post-discharge medical and surgical complications (p < .05 for all). High volume centers had a shorter hospital stay while the need for extended care facility was higher in low volume centers (p < .05 for all). Healthcare costs were higher for low volume hospitals.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that variations in outcomes and costs after complex procedures such as proctectomy exist and are related to institutional familiarity with a procedure.

Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Robotic rectal cancer surgery is gaining popularity, but limited data are available regarding safety and efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To compare robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery for risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized clinical trial comparing robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery among 471 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection conducted at 29 sites across 10 countries, including 40 surgeons. Recruitment of patients was from January 7, 2011, to September 30, 2014, follow-up was conducted at 30 days and 6 months, and final follow-up was on June 16, 2015.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to robotic-assisted (n = 237) or conventional (n = 234) laparoscopic rectal cancer resection, performed by either high (upper rectum) or low (total rectum) anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection (rectum and perineum).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was conversion to open laparotomy. Secondary end points included intraoperative and postoperative complications, circumferential resection margin positivity (CRM+) and other pathological outcomes, quality of life (36-Item Short Form Survey and 20-item Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory), bladder and sexual dysfunction (International Prostate Symptom Score, International Index of Erectile Function, and Female Sexual Function Index), and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 471 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 64.9 [11.0] years; 320 [67.9%] men), 466 (98.9%) completed the study. The overall rate of conversion to open laparotomy was 10.1%: 19 of 236 patients (8.1%) in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group and 28 of 230 patients (12.2%) in the conventional laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 4.1% [95% CI, -1.4% to 9.6%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.31 to 1.21]; P = .16). The overall CRM+ rate was 5.7%; CRM+ occurred in 14 (6.3%) of 224 patients in the conventional laparoscopic group and 12 (5.1%) of 235 patients in the robotic-assisted laparoscopic group (unadjusted risk difference = 1.1% [95% CI, -3.1% to 5.4%]; adjusted odds ratio = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.35 to 1.76]; P = .56). Of the other 8 reported prespecified secondary end points, including intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, plane of surgery, 30-day mortality, bladder dysfunction, and sexual dysfunction, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with rectal adenocarcinoma suitable for curative resection, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, as compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, did not significantly reduce the risk of conversion to open laparotomy. These findings suggest that robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, when performed by surgeons with varying experience with robotic surgery, does not confer an advantage in rectal cancer resection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN80500123.

First experience in colorectal surgery with a new robotic platform with haptic feedback

The use of robotic techniques is increasing in colorectal surgery. Recently, the Senhance™ surgical robotic system was introduced as a novel robotic platform designed to overcome some of the limits of standard laparoscopy. This study describes the initial, single center experience, evaluating feasibility and safety of the new robotic system in performing colorectal surgical procedures.

METHODS

From June 2015 to November 2016, perioperative data of the first 45 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery with the SenhanceTM surgical robotic system were collected and analyzed. Indications for surgery included inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal cancer, endoscopically unresectable adenomas and complicated diverticular disease.

RESULTS

The median age was 57 years (18-92) and the median BMI was 24 Kg/m2 (16-30). Surgical indications were colorectal cancer (66%), complicated inflammatory bowel disease (18%), diverticular disease (11%) and endoscopically unresectable adenoma (4.4%). The median operative time was 256 minutes; the median docking time 10.7 min (range 2-25). There were 3 conversions to standard laparoscopy, and none to laparotomy. All patients operated on for malignancy (28 adenocarcinoma, 2 neuroendocrine tumors) underwent an appropriate oncological procedure. The median time to discharge was 5 days (range 3-19). The incidence of post-operative complications was 35.5% (Clavien-Dindo I/II-14 patients, III-2 patients). One patient was readmitted in the postoperative period. No patient required reoperation.

CONCLUSION

The results of this audit suggest that adoption of The Senhance™ surgical robotic system in colorectal surgery is feasible and safe. More clinical data are needed to determine whether this approach can offer any other benefits over other minimally invasive surgical techniques. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Can postoperative process of care utilization or complication rates explain the volume-cost relationship for cancer surgery?

BACKGROUND

Past studies identify an association between provider volume and outcomes, but less is known about the volume-cost relationship for cancer surgery. We analyze the volume-cost relationship for 6 cancer operations and explore whether it is influenced by the occurrence of complications and/or utilization of processes of care.

METHODS

Medicare hospital and inpatient claims for the years 2005 through 2009 were analyzed for 6 cancer resections: colectomy, rectal resection, pulmonary lobectomy, pneumonectomy, esophagectomy, and pancreatic resection. Regressions were first estimated to quantify the association of provider volume with costs, excluding measures of complications and processes of care as explanatory variables. Next, these variables were added to the regressions to test whether they weakened any previously observed volume-cost relationship.

RESULTS

Higher hospital volume is associated with lower patient costs for esophagectomy but not for other operations. Higher surgeon volume reduces costs for most procedures, but this result weakens when processes of care are added to the regressions. Processes of care that are frequently implemented in response to adverse events are associated with 14% to 34% higher costs. Utilization of these processes is more prevalent among low-volume versus high-volume surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Processes of care implemented when complications occur explain much of the surgeon volume-cost relationship. Given that surgeon volume is readily observed, better outcomes and lower costs may be achieved by referring patients to high-volume surgeons. Increasing patient access to surgeons with lower rates of complications may be the most effective strategy for avoiding costly processes of care, controlling expenditure growth.

[Initial experience in robot-assisted colorectal surgery in Mexico]

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgery has advanced notably since the introduction of the mechanical suture and the minimally invasive approach. Robotic surgery began in order to satisfy the needs of the patient-doctor relationship, and migrated to the area of colorectal surgery. An initial report is presented on the experience of managing colorectal disease using robot-assisted surgery, as well as an analysis of the current role of this platform.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted in order to review five patients with colorectal disease operated using a robot-assisted technique over one year in the initial phase of the learning curve. Gender, age, diagnosis and surgical indication, surgery performed, surgical time, conversion, bleeding, post-operative complications, and hospital stay, were analysed and described. A literature review was performed on the role of robotic assisted surgery in colorectal disease and cancer.

RESULTS

The study included 5 patients, 3 men and 2 women, with a mean age of 62.2 years. Two of them were low anterior resections with colorectal primary anastomoses, one of them extended with a loop protection ileostomy, a Frykman-Goldberg procedure, and two left hemicolectomies with primary anastomoses. The mean operating time was 6hours and robot-assisted 4hours 20minutes. There were no conversions and the mean hospital stay was 5 days.

CONCLUSION

This technology is currently being used worldwide in different surgical centres because of its advantages that have been clinically demonstrated by various studies. We report the first colorectal surgical cases in Mexico, with promising results. There is enough evidence to support and recommend the use of this technology as a viable and safe option.

Single-incision robotic colectomy: are costs prohibitive?

BACKGROUND

The feasibility, safety, and costs of single-incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) are not known.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted, comparing the initial 29 consecutive SIRC procedures performed to 36 multiport laparoscopic colectomies (MLC).

RESULTS

The groups did not differ significantly on age, body mass index, gender, ASA classification, smoking status, steroid usage or rate of diabetes. Procedure time, conversion rate, infectious complications and length of stay did not differ significantly. The ratio of observed:expected direct hospital costs statistically favoured MLC, although there was no statistical difference between groups for contribution margin, or for observed and expected direct hospital costs.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate safety and technical feasibility for SIRC in selected patients with short-term outcomes and hospital costs comparable to MLC. Contribution margin remained positive and expected costs exceeded observed for SIRC. Increased costs for SIRC are a concern. The comparable but relatively high mortality in both groups may represent an institutional approach to colectomy where significant comorbidity is not a contraindication to minimally invasive surgery. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery

There are an estimated 39,000 new cases of rectal cancer in the United States per year which makes it the third most prevalent cancer when paired with colon cancer. Given its complexity, there are now multiple modalities available for its successful treatment. This includes innovative chemotherapy, radiation, transanal resection techniques, and minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer represents the current pinnacle of minimally invasive technology for this disease process.

Robotic colonic resection

Innovative robotic technologies are aiming to help surgeons overcome the limits of conventional laparoscopic surgery. Recent studies have shown that robotic colorectal surgery is safe and provides favorable results in comparison to conventional laparoscopic techniques. Further studies and long-term follow-up are required to assess the outcomes and potential benefits of robotic colon surgery over laparoscopic surgery.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Outcomes in non-metastatic colorectal cancer

The measurement of outcomes in non-metastatic colon and rectal cancer patients is a multi-dimensional endeavor involving prediction tools, standard of care, and best treatment guidelines. Socioeconomic, demographic, and racial impacts on outcome must be carefully considered. Consideration must also be given to measures of cost, quality, and healthcare delivery in response to initiatives meant to optimize patient health while maintaining quality of life.

Laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. Brief review and personal remarks

The current standard treatment for rectal cancer is based on a multimodality approach with preoperative radiochemotherapy in advanced cases and complete surgical removal through total mesorectal excision (TME). The most frequent surgical approach is traditional open surgery, as laparoscopic TME requires high technical skill, a long learning curve, and is not widespread, still being confined to centers with great experience in minimally invasive techniques. Nevertheless, in several studies, the laparoscopic approach, when compared to open surgery, has shown some better short-term clinical outcomes and at least comparable oncologic results. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer is an emerging technique, which could overcome some of the technical difficulties posed by standard laparoscopy, but evidence from the literature regarding its oncologic safety and clinical outcomes is still lacking. This brief review analyses the current status of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer therapy, focusing on oncologic safety and the new robotic approach.