Robotic Colorectal Surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2020;100:337-360. [PMID: 32169183 DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2019.12.012]

Robotic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy in sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease-a comparison of operative trauma and cost-effectiveness: retrospective, single-center analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic assisted surgery is an alternative, fast evolving technique for performing colorectal surgery. The primary aim of this single center analysis is to compare elective laparoscopic and robotic sigmoid colectomies for diverticular disease on the extent of operative trauma and the costs.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis from our prospective clinical database to identify all consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent elective minimally invasive left sided colectomy for diverticular disease from January 2016 until December 2020 at our tertiary referral institution.

RESULTS

In total, 83 patients (31 female and 52 male) with sigmoid diverticulitis underwent elective minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy, of which 42 underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) and 41 robotic assisted surgery (RS). The mean C-reactive protein difference between the preoperative and postoperative value was significantly lower in the robotic assisted group (4,03 mg/dL) than in the laparoscopic group (7.32 mg/dL) (p = 0.030). Similarly, the robotic´s hemoglobin difference was significantly lower (p = 0.039). The first postoperative bowel movement in the LS group occurred after a mean of 2.19 days, later than after a mean of 1.63 days in the RS group (p = 0.011). An overview of overall charge revealed significantly lower total costs per operation and postoperative hospital stay for the robotic approach, 6058 € vs. 6142 € (p = 0,014) not including the acquisition and maintenance costs for both systems.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colon resection for diverticular disease is cost-effective and delivers reduced intraoperative trauma with significantly lower postoperative C-reactive protein and hemoglobin drift compared to conventional laparoscopy.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic segmental left colectomy for splenic flexure cancer - a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 342 cases

INTRODUCTION

While intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) has been widely used in totally laparoscopic right colectomy, its application in laparoscopic segmental left colectomy for splenic flexure cancer remains underexplored, particularly in large-scale studies with long-term outcomes. This research aims to assess the technical feasibility and oncological efficacy of IA in treating colonic splenic flexure carcinoma, drawing insights from both short-term and long-term outcomes of a retrospective cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 342 patients diagnosed with colonic splenic flexure carcinoma in three Chinese medical centers. These patients underwent laparoscopic segmental left colectomy between December 2014 and December 2019 across three medical institutions. Comprehensive data encompassing demographics, disease features, pathological characteristics, operative details, and both short-term and long-term outcomes were gathered and scrutinized. Using propensity scores, each patient from the IA cohort was paired with a counterpart from the extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) cohort.

RESULTS

IA was performed on 129 patients, while 213 underwent EA. Post-propensity score matching resulted in 129 matched pairs. After matching, many baseline characteristics were balanced. The IA cohort exhibited several advantages, including shorter incision lengths ( P <0.001) and more extensive proximal and distal resection margins ( P =0.003, P <0.001). Additionally, the IA method facilitated a more rapid postoperative recovery as indicated by quicker return of bowel movements (resumption of passing flatus [2.7 (1.0-7.0) days vs. 3.3 (2.0-8.0) days, P <0.001] and defecation [3.7 (1.0-9.0)] days vs. 4.5 (2.0-9.0) days, P <0.001]), faster discharges [6.6 (3.0-15.0) days vs. 8.3 (5.0-20.0) days, P <0.001], and decreased need for rescue analgesics ( P <0.001). The rate of postoperative complications, as rated by the Clavien-Dindo classification, remained consistent across both techniques ( P =0.087). Furthermore, the cosmetic outcome rated by Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire and Scoring System (PSAQ) was markedly superior in the IA group ( P <0.001). Both approaches demonstrated equivalent 5-year overall (82.7% vs. 82.1%, P =0.419) and disease-free survival (80.9% vs. 78.1%, P =0.476). Subsequent stratification analysis revealed that IA achieved comparable 5-year overall (80.7% vs. 82.0%, P =0.647) and disease-free survival (78.1% vs. 76.4%, P =0.734) in patients with locally advanced colon cancer.

CONCLUSION

Employing IA for laparoscopic segmental left colectomy in cases of splenic flexure carcinoma is not only safe but also offers enhanced cosmetic results and expedited postoperative recovery. Oncologically speaking, IA in left segmental colectomy for splenic flexure carcinoma can yield therapeutic outcomes comparable to those of EA, even in patients with locally advanced colon cancer.

Safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for colon cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery: a propensity score-matching analysis

Robotic surgery is widely used in gastrointestinal surgery. While the application of robotic surgery for colon cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery (PAS) remains controversial for the fear of intra-abdominal adhesions. This study was aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic colectomy for patients with PAS. The medical records of colon cancer patients who underwent robotic surgery at our hospital from June 2015 to August 2020 were extracted and analyzed. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was implemented to minimize selection bias. We compared perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications between the patients with PAS or with no PAS (NPAS). A total of 79 patients (PAS group) and 348 patients (NPAS group) were included in our study. After PSM, 79 patients of PAS group and 79 patients of NPAS group were selected for further analysis. We did not find statistical difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph nodes retrieved, length of hospital stay and hospital costs between the two groups. No difference was noted in the incidence of postoperative complications, conversion to open surgery and mortality between the two groups. According to the results of multivariate analysis, PAS was not identified as risk factor for postoperative complications. Left hemicolectomy and perioperative transfusion were associated with postoperative complications. PAS did not negatively affect the outcomes of robotic colectomy. After individually preoperative assessment, robotic surgery could be performed feasibly and safely for colon cancer patients with PAS.

Robotic colorectal surgery: quality assessment of patient information available on the internet using webscraping

The primary goal of this study is to assess current patient information available on the internet concerning robotic colorectal surgery. Acquiring this information will aid in patients understanding of robotic colorectal surgery. Data was acquired through a web-scraping algorithm. The algorithm used two Python packages: Beautiful Soup and Selenium. The long-chain keywords incorporated into Google, Bing and Yahoo search engines were 'Da Vinci Colon-Rectal Surgery', 'Colorectal Robotic Surgery' and 'Robotic Bowel Surgery'. 207 websites resulted, were sorted and evaluated according to the ensuring quality information for patients (EQIP) score. Of the 207 websites visited, 49 belonged to the subgroup of hospital websites (23.6%), 46 to medical centers (22.2%), 45 to practitioners (21.7%), 42 to health care systems (20,2%), 11 to news services (5.3%), 7 to web portals (3.3%), 5 to industry (2.4%), and 2 to patient groups (0.9%). Only 52 of the 207 websites received a high rating. The quality of available information on the internet concerning robotic colorectal surgery is low. The majority of information was inaccurate. Medical facilities involved in robotic colorectal surgery, robotic bowel surgery and related robotic procedures should develop websites with credible information to guide patient decisions.

Robotic versus laparoscopic approach for left-sided colon cancer: a nationwide cohort study

AIM

The use of robot-assisted surgery for left-sided colon cancer is increasing in Denmark; however, it is yet to be established if the robotic approach results in improved clinical outcomes compared with the corresponding laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to compare the intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colon cancer at a national level.

METHOD

The study is a nationwide database study based on data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients from all colorectal centres in Denmark treated with surgery with curative intent in an elective setting with either robotic or laparoscopic left colectomy or sigmoidectomy during the period 2014-2019 were included. To adjust for confounding, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed and the groups were compared for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, performance score, year of diagnosis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, left colectomy or sigmoidectomy, tumour localization, use of stoma or stenting and pathological T (pT) category.

RESULTS

A total of 5532 patients were available for analysis, and after PSM in a ratio of 2:1, 1392 laparoscopic and 696 robotic cases were identified. After matching we found a lower conversion rate and a higher lymph node yield in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group (5.8% vs. 11%, p < 0.001 and 27 vs. 24, p < 0.001, respectively). Further, we found a higher proportion of patients with a lymph node yield of 12 or more in the robotic group (97% vs. 94.8%, p = 0.02). Plane of dissection, radicality and pathological disease stages did not differ between the two groups. We found no difference in either overall surgical (13% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.23) or medical (5.6% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.49) postoperative complications and no difference in 30-day (p = 0.369) or 90-day mortality (p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery for left-sided colon cancer was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate and a significantly higher lymph node yield than the laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar in the two groups.

Intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis after minimally invasive right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

As part of the wide adoption of minimally invasive surgery, intracorporeal anastomosis is becoming increasingly common. The benefits of minimally invasive versus open right colectomy are well known although the additional benefits of an intracorporeal anastomosis, performed laparoscopically or robotically, are unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the current literature comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in the setting of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA and AMSTAR methods. Studies included were randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies, between January 1 2010 and July 1 2021, comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis with laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Four groups were identified: laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (L-ECA), laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (L-ICA), robotic extracorporeal anastomosis (R-ECA), and robotic intracorporeal anastomosis (R-ICA). Operative time, rate of conversion to an open procedure, surgical site infection, reoperation within 30 days, postoperative complications within 30 days, and length of hospital stay were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one retrospective cohort studies were included in the final analysis. R-ICA and R-ECA had comparable operative times, but a robotic approach required more time than laparoscopic (68 min longer, p < 0.00001). Conversion to open surgery was 55% less likely in the R-ICA group vs. L-ICA, and up to 94% less likely in the R-ICA group in comparison to the R-ECA group. Length of hospital stay was shorter for R-ICA by a half day vs. R-ECA, and up to 1 day less vs. L-ECA. There were no differences in postoperative complications, reoperations, or surgical site infections, regardless of approach. However, the included studies all had high risks of bias due to confounding variables and patient selection.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with shorter length of hospitalization and decreased rate of conversion to open surgery, compared to either laparoscopic or extracorporeal robotic approaches. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the true impact of robotic approach and intracorporeal anastomosis in right colectomy.

Possible Advantages of Minimal-Invasive Approaches in Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Nationwide Analysis

(1) Background: Laparoscopic resection for colon and rectal cancer was introduced in the early 1990s; the aim of this analysis was to show possible advantages of minimal-invasive approaches in rectal cancer surgery. (2) Methods: From 2016 to 2020, all patients undergoing open, laparoscopic or robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery in Germany were retrospectively analyzed regarding sex distribution, conversion rates and in-hospital mortality rates according to nationwide hospital billing data based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). (3) Results: In total, 68,112 patients were analyzed, and most commonly, low anterior rectal resections with primary anastomosis (n = 25,824) were performed with an increase of minimal-invasive procedures over the years (open: 51% to 27%; laparoscopic: 47% to 63% and robotic: 2% to 10%). In-hospital mortality rate was 2.95% (n = 2012). In total, 4.61%, 1.77%, 1.14% and 3.95% of patients with open, laparoscopic, robotic and converted-to-open surgery died during hospital stay, respectively (open vs. laparoscopic p < 0.0001; open vs. robotic p < 0.00001; laparoscopic vs. robotic p = 0.001). Conversion rates were significantly more favorable in the robotic compared to the laparoscopic group. (11.94% vs. 2.53%; p < 0.0001). (4) Conclusion: Minimal-invasive rectal cancer surgery might have some advantages in terms of a reduced in-hospital mortality, and an improved conversion rate for the robotic approach.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for left-sided colon cancer: a multicentre study with propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery for right-sided colon and rectal cancer has rapidly increased; however, there is limited evidence in the literature of advantages of robotic left colectomy (RLC) for left-sided colon cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLC versus laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) with complete mesocolic excision (CME) for left-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients who had RLC or LLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer at five hospitals in China between January 2014 and April 2022 were included. A one-to-one propensity score matched analysis was performed to decrease confounding. The primary outcome was postoperative complications occurring within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, overall survival and the number of harvested lymph nodes.

RESULTS

A total of 292 patients (187 male; median age 61.0 [20.0-85.0] years) were eligible for this study, and propensity score matching yielded 102 patients in each group. The clinicopathological characteristics were well-matched between groups. The two groups did not differ in estimated blood loss, conversion to open rate, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, or postoperative length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). RLC was associated with a longer operation time (192.9 ± 53.2 vs. 168.9 ± 52.8 min, p = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between the RLC and LLC groups (18.6% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.856). The total number of lymph nodes harvested in the RLC group was higher than that in the LLC group (15.7 ± 8.3 vs. 12.1 ± 5.9, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival or 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Compared to laparoscopic surgery, RLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer was found to be associated with higher numbers of lymph nodes harvested and similar postoperative complications and long-term survival outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for left-sided colon cancer: a multicentre study with propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for right-sided colon and rectal cancer has rapidly increased; however, there is limited evidence in the literature of advantages of robotic left colectomy (RLC) for left-sided colon cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLC versus laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) with complete mesocolic excision (CME) for left-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients who had RLC or LLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer at 5 hospitals in China between January 2014 and April 2022 were included. A one-to-one propensity score matched analysis was performed to decrease confounding. The primary outcome was postoperative complications occurring within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, overall survival and the number of harvested lymph nodes.

RESULTS

A total of 292 patients (187 males; median age 61.0 [20.0-85.0] years) were eligible for this study, and propensity score matching yielded 102 patients in each group. The clinical-pathological characteristics were well-matched between groups. The two groups did not differ in estimated blood loss, conversion to open rate, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, or postoperative length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). RLC was associated with a longer operation time (192.9 ± 53.2 vs. 168.9 ± 52.8 minutes, p=0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between the RLC and LLC groups (18.6% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.856). The total number of lymph nodes harvested in the RLC group was higher than that in the LLC group (15.7 ± 8.3 vs. 12.1 ± 5.9, p< 0.001). There were no significant differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival or 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to laparoscopic surgery, RLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer was found to be associated with higher numbers of lymph nodes harvested and similar postoperative complications and long-term survival outcomes.

Robot-assisted general surgery is safe during the learning curve: a 5-year Australian experience

Robot-assisted general surgery has become increasingly common in the Australian public sector since 2003. It provides significant technical advantages compared to laparoscopic surgery. Currently, it is estimated that the learning curve for surgeons starting off with robotic surgery is complete after 15 cases. This is a retrospective case series, following the progress of four surgeons with minimal robotic experience over 5 years. Patients undergoing colorectal procedures and hernia repairs were included. 303 robotic cases were included in this study, 193 colorectal surgeries and 110 hernia repairs. 20.2% of colorectal patients experienced an adverse event and 10.0% of hernia patients had a complication. The learning curve was correlated to the average docking time, and it was found that this was complete after 2 years, or after a minimum of 12 to 15 cases. Patient length of stay decreases as surgeon experience increases. Robotic surgery is a safe approach to colorectal surgery and hernia repairs with some potential benefits in terms of patient outcomes as surgeon experience increases.

Robotic Anastomotic Technique

The first robotic colectomy was performed 20 years ago. Since that time, the robotic surgery platform has made significant advancements and become increasingly prevalent in colorectal surgery. The da Vinci Xi system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) and technology such as integrated table motion has facilitated multiquadrant procedures. Intracorporeal anastomoses (ICAs) have proven benefit in the literature, including decreased length of stay, decreased narcotic requirements, and lower rate of postoperative wound infections and hernias. Additional studies have shown a lower conversion to open rate in robotic surgery compared with laparoscopy. In this article, we will describe techniques for creation of robotic ICAs.

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 ).

Robotic oncologic colorectal surgery with a new robotic platform (CMR Versius): hope or hype? A preliminary experience from a full-robotic case-series

Background

The present case-series describes the first full-robotic colorectal resections performed with the new CMR Versius platform (Cambridge Medical Robotics Surgical, 1 Evolution Business Park, Cambridge, United Kingdom) by an experienced robotic surgeon.

Methods

In a period between July 2020 and December 2020, patients aged 18 years or older, who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and were fit for minimally invasive surgery, underwent robotic colorectal resection with CMR Versius robotic platform at “Casa di Cura Cobellis” in Vallo della Lucania,Salerno, Italy. Three right colectomies, 2 sigmoid colectomies and 1 anterior rectal resection were performed. All the procedures were planned as fully robotic. Surgical data were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database.

Results

Four patients were male and 2 patients were female with a median (range) age of 66 (47–72) years. One covering ileostomy was created. Full robotic splenic flexure mobilization was performed. No additional laparoscopic gestures or procedures were performed in this series except for clipping and stapling which were performed by the assistant surgeon due to the absence of robotic dedicated instruments. Two ileocolic anastomoses, planned as robotic-sewn, were performed extracorporeally. One Clavien–Dindo II complication occurred due to a postoperative blood transfusion. Median total operative time was 160 (145–294) min for right colectomies, 246 (191–300) min for sigmoid colectomies and 250 min for the anterior rectal resection.

Conclusions

The present series confirms the feasibility of full-robotic colorectal resections while highlighting the strengths and the limitations of the CMR Versius platform in colorectal surgery. New devices will need more clinical development to be comparable to the current standard.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10151-022-02626-9.

Berberine as a Potential Agent for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and deadly malignancies worldwide. The incidence of CRC has been increasing, especially in young people. Although great advances have been made in managing CRC, the prognosis is unfavorable. Numerous studies have shown that berberine (BBR) is a safe and effective agent presenting significant antitumor effects. Nevertheless, the detailed underlying mechanism in treating CRC remains indistinct. In this review, we herein offer beneficial evidence for the utilization of BBR in the management and treatment of CRC, and describe the underlying mechanism(s). The review emphasizes several therapeutic effects of BBR and confirms that BBR could suppress CRC by modulating gene expression, the cell cycle, the inflammatory response, oxidative stress, and several signaling pathways. In addition, BBR also displays antitumor effects in CRC by regulating the gut microbiota and mucosal barrier function. This review emphasizes BBR as a potentially effective and safe drug for CRC therapy.

How molecular imaging will enable robotic precision surgery : The role of artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and navigation

Molecular imaging is one of the pillars of precision surgery. Its applications range from early diagnostics to therapy planning, execution, and the accurate assessment of outcomes. In particular, molecular imaging solutions are in high demand in minimally invasive surgical strategies, such as the substantially increasing field of robotic surgery. This review aims at connecting the molecular imaging and nuclear medicine community to the rapidly expanding armory of surgical medical devices. Such devices entail technologies ranging from artificial intelligence and computer-aided visualization technologies (software) to innovative molecular imaging modalities and surgical navigation (hardware). We discuss technologies based on their role at different steps of the surgical workflow, i.e., from surgical decision and planning, over to target localization and excision guidance, all the way to (back table) surgical verification. This provides a glimpse of how innovations from the technology fields can realize an exciting future for the molecular imaging and surgery communities.

Robotic surgery in colon cancer: current evidence and future perspectives – narrative review

In the last 10 years, surgery has been developing towards minimal invasiveness; therefore, robotic surgery represents the consequent evolution of laparoscopic surgery. Worldwide, surgeons’ performances have been upgraded by the ergonomic developments of robotic systems, leading to several benefits for patients. The introduction into the market of the new Da Vinci Xi system has made it possible to perform all types of surgery on the colon, an in selected cases, to combine interventions in other organs or viscera at the same time. Optimization of the suprapubic surgical approach may shorten the length of hospital stay for patients who undergo robotic colonic resection. From this perspective, single-port robotic colectomy, has reduced the number of robotic ports needed, allowing a better anesthetic outcome and faster recovery. The introduction on the market of new surgical robotic systems from multiple manufacturers is bound to change the landscape of robotic surgery and yield high-quality surgical outcomes.

Right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis for cancer: a prospective comparison between robotics and laparoscopy

Robotics in right colectomy are still under debate. Available studies compare different techniques of ileocolic anastomosis but results are non-conclusive. Our study aimed to compare intraoperative outcomes, and short-term postoperative results between robotic and standard laparoscopic right colectomies for cancer with intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) fashioned with the same technique. All consecutive patients scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic right hemicolectomies with ICA for cancer in two hospitals, one of which is a tertiary care centre, were prospectively enrolled in our prospective observational study, from April 2018 to December 2019. ICA was fashioned with the same stapled hand-sewn technique. Continuous and categorical variables were analysed using t test and chi-squared test as required. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Forty patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 48 underwent robotic right colectomy and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Operative time was not statistically different between the two groups (robotic group 265.9 min vs laparoscopic group 254.2 min, p = 0.29). The robotic group had a significantly shorter time for stump oversewing (ileum reinforcement: robotic group 9.3 min vs laparoscopic group 14.2 min, p < 0.001; colon reinforcement: robotic 7.7. min, laparoscopy 13.9 min, p < 0.001) and for ICA (robotic 31.6 min vs laparoscopy 43.0, p < 0.001). One patient underwent extracorporeal anastomosis in the robotic group. The short-term outcomes were comparable between standard laparoscopic and robotic right colectomies with ICA. The limitation of the study is its small sample size and the fact that it was done in two institutions under the supervision of one person. Our data demonstrate that intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis is safe, and faster and easier with robotic systems. Robotics can facilitate more challenging ICA in minimally invasive surgery.

2D vs 3D laparoscopic right colectomy: A propensity score-matching comparison of personal experience with systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefits of laparoscopic approach for right colectomy have been well established. However, the technical difficulty to construct the intra-corporeal anastomosis is still cumbersome.

AIM

To analyze the results of 3D and 2D laparoscopic right colectomy and to compare it to the published series through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy at Umbria2 Hospitals from January 2014 to March 2020 was performed. A systematic review was accomplished comparing 2D and 3D right colectomy.

RESULTS

In the personal series 47 patients of the 2D group were matched to 47 patients of the 3D group. The 3D group showed a favorable trend in terms of mean operative time (170.7 ± 32.9 min vs 183.8 ± 35.4 min; P = 0.053) and a significant lower anastomotic time (16.9 ± 2.3 min vs 19.6 ± 2.9 min, P < 0.001). The complete mesocolic excision (CME) subgroups analysis showed a shorter anastomotic time (16.5 ± 1.8 min vs 19.9 ± 3.0 min; P < 0.001) and operative time (175.0 ± 38.5 min vs 193.7 ± 37.1 min; P = 0.063) in the 3D group. Six studies and our series were included in the meta-analysis with 551 patients (2D group: 291; 3D group: 260).The pooled analysis demonstrated a significant difference in favour of the 3D group regarding the operative time (P < 0.001) and the anastomotic time (P < 0.001) while no differences were identified between groups in terms of blood loss (P = 0.827), LNH yield (P = 0.243), time to first flatus (P = 0.333), postoperative complications (P = 0.718) and length of stay (P = 0.835).

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis results showed that 3D laparoscopic right colectomy shortens operative and anastomotic time without affecting the standard lymphadenectomy. In our series, the advantage of the 3D system becomes evident when CME and/or more complex associated procedure are requested significantly reducing both the total operative and the anastomotic time.

The Micro Hand S vs. da Vinci Surgical Robot-Assisted Surgery on Total Mesorectal Excision: Short-Term Outcomes Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Objective: To compare the operation mode and clinical short-term outcomes of the Micro Hand S and the da Vinci surgical robot, we chose total mesorectal excision (TME) as the standard procedure for its good reflection of robot-assisted surgery advantages.

Methods: We collected a total of 54 consecutive patients who underwent robot-assisted TME by two surgical robots from January 2016 to October 2020. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to create balanced cohorts of Micro Hand S group (n = 14) and da Vinci group (n = 14). Robotic installation and operation time, hospital and surgery costs, and intraoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes were compared.

Results: In terms of robotic installation time, the Micro Hand S robot took longer than the da Vinci robot (24.2 ± 9.4 min vs. 17.1 ± 5.1 min, P < 0.05). As for the costs, the Micro Hand S group had lower total hospital costs (87,040.1 ± 24,676.9 yuan vs. 125,292.3 ± 17,706.7 yuan, P < 0.05) and surgery costs (25,772.3 ± 4,117.0 yuan vs. 46,940.9 ± 10,199.7 yuan, P < 0.05) than the da Vinci group. There were no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in other indicators, including total operation time, robotic operation time, blood loss, time to first liquid diet, time of getting out of bed, and hospital stay.

Conclusion: The Micro Hand S enables patients with rectal cancer to enjoy lower medical costs of robotic surgery.

Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov [NCT02752698]

Clinical and oncological outcomes of the low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery with robotic surgery in patients with rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

Background/aim

The aim of this study is to compare clinical and oncologic outcomes of the high and low ligation techniques of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) in rectal cancer patients treated with robotic surgery after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

Materials and methods

In this retrospective study, 77 patients with T3/T4-node negative rectal cancer with tumor penetration through the muscle wall (Stage 2) or node positive disease without distant metastases (Stage 3) who were treated electively with robotic surgical resection following nCRT at a single institution between January 2014 and January 2018 were analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups (38 patients were included in the low ligation group and 39 patients in the high ligation group).

Results

There was no statistical difference between the high ligation group and low ligation group in univariate analysis for 2-year overall survival and disease-free survival (OR = 1.146; 95% CI = 0.274 to 4.797; P = 0.950, and OR = 1.141; 95% CI = 0.564 to 2.308; P = 0.713, respectively). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the mean number of harvested lymph nodes and mean number of metastatic lymph nodes (P = 0.980 and P = 0.124, respectively). Anastomosis stricture was observed significantly less frequently in the low ligation group versus the high ligation group (2.6% and 28.2%, respectively) (P = 0.002). Also, the difference for the median length of hospital stay for the high and low ligation groups was statistically significant in favor of the low ligation group (P = 0.011).

Conclusion

In robotic rectal surgery, the low ligation technique of the IMA can reduce the rate of anastomosis stricture and provide similar oncological results as the high ligation technique.

Perioperative and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopy-assisted hemicolectomy for left-sided colon cancers: a retrospective study

The objective of this study is to evaluate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted hemicolectomy (RAH) versus laparoscopy-assisted hemicolectomy (LAH) for left-sided colon cancers. Patients who underwent RAH and LAH from January 2012 to December 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Follow-up consultations were conducted to evaluate the long-term outcomes of these procedures. A total of 460 patients were included (RAH, n = 205; LAH, n = 255). There was no difference in patient characteristics between the two groups. Compared with the LAH group, the RAH group showed longer operative time (150.23 ± 43.77 min vs. 125.85 ± 38.67 min, p < 0.001) and higher surgery cost (6.33 ± 1.50 vs. 2.88 ± 0.72 thousand $, p < 0.001) and total hospital cost (14.97 ± 3.05 vs. 9.05 ± 2.31 thousand $, p < 0.001). No significant differences in tumor pathology, TNM staging, and perioperative outcomes were observed. There were no obvious differences in the 3-year and 5-year overall survival (OS) or 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival. Cox multivariate analyses showed that age, body mass index, and intravascular cancer embolus were independent risk factors for OS. Moreover, the robotic approach was not an independent risk factor for prognosis of left-sided colon cancers. RAH is an appropriate operation method for left-sided colon cancer, with perioperative and long-term outcomes comparable to those of laparoscopy. Meanwhile, RHA has longer operative time and higher cost.

Entirely Robot-assisted Total Colectomy/Total Proctocolectomy Compared With a Laparoscopic Approach

PURPOSE

Previous robot-assisted total colectomy/total proctocolectomy (TC/TPC) has been mostly confined to completion proctectomy combined with open or laparoscopic colon dissection. This study describes an integrative method of entirely robot-assisted maintaining anatomical dissection with single docking and one-off arm placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients who underwent robot-assisted TC/TPC and 36 who underwent laparoscopic procedures at the Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea) were enrolled.

RESULTS

Mean operation time was ∼1 hour longer in the robot-assisted than in the laparoscopic group (P=0.003), due primarily to the extra time required for instrument installation and more frequent transient ileal diversion. Three patients (8%) in the laparoscopic group required conversion to open surgery, compared with none in the robot-assisted group. Rates of postoperative adverse events did not differ in the 2 groups (P=0.063). Short (8 cm) ileal pouches were applied to all patients who underwent robot-assisted TPC/ileal-pouch anal anastomosis, but to one patient who underwent laparoscopic surgery. There were no discrepancies of mean daily bowel movement between patients with short and long ileal pouches 6 months after surgery (P=0.694), showing 5 times per day (range: 1 to 10).

CONCLUSION

The advantages of the boom system and motion-sensitive table were successfully utilized to integrate anatomical dissection with the multiquadrant procedures of TC/TPC, with none of these patients requiring conversion to open surgery. Refinement of these techniques may overcome some of the technical and time-related and cost-related concerns of the robotic approach.