How Has the Robot Contributed to Colon Cancer Surgery?

Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Transverse colon cancer, which accounts for approximately 10% of all colon cancers, has a significant gap in the available scientific literature regarding the optimal minimally invasive surgical approach. This meta-analysis aims to compare the robotic and laparoscopic approaches for the surgical management of transverse colon cancer.

METHODS

Our systematic review made use of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, in addition to Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Articles of interest turned out from a search with PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL), Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index), and Embase databases. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for comparative population studies concerning patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer). The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (Version 2) (RoB 2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (Version 2) ROBINS-I. We evaluated two groups of outcomes: intraoperative and postoperative. RevMan (Computer program) Version 5.4.1 was used to perform the meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of the included studies in the meta-analysis was assessed by using the I2 statist.

RESULTS

The 4 included comparative studies (373 patients: 116 robotic colectomy versus 257 laparoscopic colectomy) had a time frame of approximately 26 years (2005-2021) and an observational nature. Meta-analysis showed a longer operative time (MD: 62.47, 95% CI: 18.17, 106.76, I2 = 92%, P = 0.006) and a shorter hospital stay (MD:-1.11, 95% CI: -2.05, -0.18, I2 = 63%, P = 0.002) for the robotic group. No differences in terms of conversion to laparotomy, estimated blood loss, time to flatus, time to solid diet, overall postoperative complications rate, minor (Clavien-Dindo or CD I-II) and major (Clavien-Dindo or CD ≥ III) postoperative complications rate, anastomotic leakage, surgical site infections, bleeding, lymph nodes harvested, were shown between robotic and laparoscopic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis revealed that the robotic approach to transverse colon cancer appears to be a safe and feasible option, with results comparable to those of laparoscopic surgery, with longer operating times but a shorter hospital stay. Further high-quality methodological studies are needed to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term outcomes, healthcare costs, and the learning curve between the robotic and laparoscopic surgical approaches.

A Review of the Current Trends and Future Perspectives of Robots in Colorectal Surgery: What Have We Got Ourselves Into?

Robotic colorectal surgery represents a significant advancement in the management of complex colorectal conditions, offering enhanced precision, safety, and improved patient outcomes. It is widely utilised for colorectal cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, diverticular disease, and rectal prolapse, with key benefits such as 3D visualisation, superior dexterity, and precise navigation in confined spaces. These advantages contribute to lower conversion rates to open surgery, faster recovery, reduced pain, and shorter hospital stays. This narrative review analysed recent peer-reviewed literature, focusing on technological advancements, clinical outcomes, and emerging challenges in robotic colorectal surgery. Findings highlight improved oncological precision, faster recovery, and fewer complications, driven by innovations like AI-guided decision-making and advanced robotic platforms. However, issues such as prolonged operative times, high costs, and steep learning curves remain. Future efforts should prioritise integrating AI, enhancing surgeon training, and addressing cost barriers to maximise the potential of robotic colorectal surgery in improving patient care.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgical Techniques

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD].

METHODS

Comparative studies of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with IBD were included. The primary outcome was total post-operative complication rate. Secondary outcomes included operative time, conversion to open surgery, anastomotic leaks, intra-abdominal abscess formation, ileus occurrence, surgical site infection, re-operation, re-admission rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

Eleven non-randomized studies [n = 5566 patients] divided between those undergoing robotic [n = 365] and conventional laparoscopic [n = 5201] surgery were included. Robotic platforms were associated with a significantly lower overall post-operative complication rate compared with laparoscopic surgery [p = 0.03]. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter operative time [p = 0.00001]. No difference was found in conversion rates to open surgery [p = 0.15], anastomotic leaks [p = 0.84], abscess formation [p = 0.21], paralytic ileus [p = 0.06], surgical site infections [p = 0.78], re-operation [p = 0.26], re-admission rate [p = 0.48], and 30-day mortality [p = 1.00] between the groups. Length of hospital stay was shorter following a robotic sub-total colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy [p = 0.03].

CONCLUSION

Outcomes in the surgical management of IBD are comparable between traditional laparoscopic techniques and robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery, demonstrating the safety and feasibility of robotic platforms. Larger studies investigating the use of robotic technology in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis separately may be of benefit with a specific focus on important IBD-related metrics.

Differences in the Difficulty of Accessing Various 3-Dimensional Locations Under Mirror-Image Conditions During Laparoscopic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colon surgery frequently requires performing maneuvers under mirror-images conditions; the complexity differs depending on the surgical site location in the abdominal cavity. However, no previous reports have examined this.

METHODS

Eleven surgeons participated in this study. Operations were performed on 25 points placed at the bottom and sides of a laparoscopic training box under mirror-image conditions. The mean time-point required to operate at each point and variation between surgeons were evaluated.

RESULTS

When the right hand was used, time-points to touch the right side-superficial ends were 0.50 to 0.58 and 0.27 to 0.45 for the other sites. With the left hand, time-points to touch the left side-superficial ends were 0.58 to 0.63 and 0.28 to 0.51 for the other sites, indicating that the most difficult manipulation was at the proximal site of the surgical port. The variation in the difficulty according to the spots increased with a decrease in the surgeon's experience (right hand, r =-0.248; left hand, r =-0.491).

CONCLUSIONS

In performing laparoscopic surgery under mirror-image conditions, the technical difficulty varies by location, and operating in locations close to the forceps port is the most difficult.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of minimally invasive, robotic and open approaches in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic (LAP), laparoscopic-assisted (LAPA), hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL), and robotic colorectal surgery using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the cost-effectiveness of comparing the five different approaches in colorectal surgery were included in a literature search until September 2022. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were reported for total costs, surgical costs, operating time, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of surgical approaches into homogeneous clusters. The cophenetic correlation coefficient (cc) was evaluated to identify the most cost-effective clustering method. The primary outcomes assessed were: costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy, measuring total costs against postoperative complications, mortality rate, and LOS, respectively.

RESULTS

22 RCTs with 4239 patients were included. Open surgery had the lowest total costs, surgical costs, and operating time but the longest LOS and most postoperative complications. LOS was significantly decreased in LAP compared to open surgery (OR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.46-0.96). Robotic surgery resulted in the highest total costs, surgical costs, and most extended operative duration but the shortest LOS and lowest mortality. LAPA and robotic surgery were superior in the costs-morbidity analysis. HAL was associated with the worst costs-mortality profile. LAP, LAPA, and HAL were better in terms of costs-efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Overall, LAP and LAPA are the most cost-effective approaches for colorectal surgery in terms of overall postoperative complications, mortality, and LOS.

Initial experience with a suprapubic single-port robotic right hemicolectomy in patients with colon cancer

BACKGROUND

We developed a novel suprapubic single-port robotic right hemicolectomy (spRHC) procedure for patients with right colon cancer using a da Vinci SP Surgical System. The aim of this study was to determine the safety and feasibility of this technique.

METHODS

We performed the spRHC procedure on five patients with right colon cancers between July and September 2020. All procedures including colon mobilization, D3 lymphadenectomy, and intracorporeal anastomosis were completed using the single-port robotic platform through a mini-transverse suprapubic incision and an additional assistant port. Data regarding patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes and pathologic results were analyzed.

RESULTS

Four of the five patients were males. The median age was 69 years (range, 58-77 years).Two patients received preoperative chemotherapy for advanced colon cancer. The median total operative time was 160 min (range, 150-240 min). The median docking time was 4 min 40 s (range, 2 min 10 s-5 min 10 s). The median console time was 105 min (range, 100-120 min). There were no conversions to multiport or open surgeries. The median hospital stay was 7 days (range, 5-12 days). One patient experienced a wound infection. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 41 (range, 39-50 lymph nodes).

CONCLUSIONS

SpRHC is safe and feasible. However, further comparative studies are needed to assess whether this procedure can provide patients with significant benefits compared with multiport robotic surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resections for rectal and rectosigmoid cancer: an institutional experience

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal surgery has evolved with the advent of laparoscopic techniques and now robotic-assisted surgery. There is significant literature supporting the use of laparoscopic techniques over open surgery with evidence of enhanced post-operative recovery, reduced use of opioids, smaller incisions and equivalent oncological outcomes. Robotic minimally invasive surgery addresses some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, providing surgical precision and improvements in perception and dexterity with a resulting decrease in tissue damage.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent robotic-assisted anterior resection for cancer of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction in our institution since our robotic programme began in 2017. Patient demographics were identified via electronic databases and patient charts. A matched cohort of laparoscopic cases was identified.

RESULTS

A total of 51 consecutive robotic-assisted anterior resections were identified and case matched with laparoscopic resections for comparison. Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a shorter length of stay (p = 0.04), reduced initial post-operative analgesia requirements (p < 0.01) and no significant difference in time to bowel movement or stoma functioning (p = 0.84). All patients had an R0 resection, and there was no statistical difference in lymph node yield between the groups (p = 0.14). Robotic surgery was associated with a longer operative duration (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this early experience, robotic surgery has proven feasible and safe and is comparable to laparoscopic surgery in terms of completeness of resection and recovery. As costs and operating times decline and as technology progresses, robotic surgery may one day replace traditional laparoscopic techniques.

Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives

Purpose

As robotic surgery is increasingly performed in patients with colorectal diseases, understanding proper port placement for robotic colorectal surgery is necessary. This review summarizes current port placement during robotic surgery for colorectal diseases and provides future perspective on port placements.

Methods

PubMed were searched from January 2009 to December 2018 using a combination of the search terms “robotic” [MeSH], “colon” [MeSH], “rectum” [MeSH], “colorectal” [MeSH], and “colorectal surgery” [MeSH]. Studies related to port placement were identified and included in the current study if they used the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi robotic system and if they described port placement.

Results

This review included 77 studies including a total of 3,145 operations. Fifty studies described port placement for left-sided and mesorectal excision; 17, 3, and 7 studies assessed port placement for right-sided colectomy, rectopexy, transanal surgery, respectively; and one study assessed surgery with reduced port placement. Recent literatures show that the single-docking technique included mobilization of the second and third robotic arms for the different parts without movement of patient cart and similar to previous dual or triple-docking technique. Besides, use of the da Vinci Xi system allowed a more simplified port configuration.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted colorectal surgery can be efficiently achieved with successful port placement without movement of patient cart dependent on the type of surgery and the robotic system.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer and Cost-Effectiveness

Robotic surgery is considered as one of the advanced treatment modality of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Robotic rectal surgery has been performed for three decades and its application is gradually expanding along with technology development. It has several technical advantages which include magnified three-dimensional vision, better ergonomics, multiple articulated robotic instruments, and the opportunity to perform remote surgery. The technical benefits of robotic system can help to manipulate more meticulously during technical challenging procedures including total mesorectal excision in narrow pelvis, lateral pelvic node dissection, and intersphincteric resection. It is also reported that robotic rectal surgery have been shown more favorable postoperative functional outcomes. Despite its technical benefits, a majority of studies have been reported that there is rarely clinical or oncologic superiority of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. In addition, robotic rectal surgery showed significantly higher costs than the standard method. Hence, the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal surgery is still questionable. In order for robotic rectal surgery to further develop in the field of minimally invasive surgery, there should be an obvious cost-effective advantages over laparoscopic surgery, and it is crucial that large-scale prospective randomized trials are required. Positive competition of industries in correlation with technological development may gradually reduce the price of the robotic system, and it will be helpful to increase the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal surgery.

Robotic-assisted gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a European perspective

Gastrectomy is the mainstay treatment for gastric cancer. To reduce the associated patient burden, minimally invasive gastrectomy was introduced in almost 30 years ago. The increase in the availability of surgical robotic systems led to the first robotic-assisted gastrectomy to be performed in 2002 in Japan. Robotic gastrectomy however, particularly in Europe, has not yet gained significant traction. Most reports to date are from Asia, predominantly containing observational studies. These cohorts are commonly different in the tumour stage, location (particularly with regards to gastroesophageal junctional tumours) and patient BMI compared to those encountered in Europe. To date, no randomised clinical trials have been performed comparing robotic gastrectomy to either laparoscopic or open equivalent. Cohort studies show that robotic gastrectomy is equal oncological outcomes in terms of survival and lymph node yield. Operative times in the robotic group are consistently longer compared to laparoscopic or open gastrectomy, although evidence is emerging that resectional surgical time is equal. The only reproducibly significant difference in favour of robot-assisted gastrectomy is a reduction in intra-operative blood loss and some studies show a reduction in the risk of pancreatic fistula formation.

Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of robot-assisted right colectomy (RAC) with those for conventional laparoscopy-assisted right surgery (LAC) for treating right-sided colon cancer.

BACKGROUND

The enthusiasm for the robotic techniques has gained increasing interest in colorectal malignancies. However, the role of robotic surgery in the oncologic safety has not yet been defined.

METHODS

From September 2009 to July 2011, 71 patients with right-sided colonic cancer were randomized in the study. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were similar in both groups. The primary and secondary endpoints of the study were hospital stay and survival, respectively. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The RAC and LAC groups did not differ significantly in terms of baseline clinical characteristics. Compared with the LAC group, RAC was associated with longer operation times (195 min vs. 129 min, P < 0.001) and higher cost ($12,235 vs. $10,319, P = 0.013). The median follow-up was 49.23 months (interquartile range 40.63-56.20). The combined 5-year disease-free rate for all tumor stages was 77.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60.6-92.1%) in the RAC group and 83.6% (95% CI 72.1-0.97.0%) in the LAC group (P = 0.442). The combined 5-year overall survival rates for all stages were 91.1% (95% CI 78.8-100%) in the RAC group and 91.0% (95% CI 81.3-100%) in the LAC group (P = 0.678). Using multivariate analysis, RAC was not a predictor of recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

RAC appears to similar long-term survival as compared with LAC. However, we did not observe any clinical benefits of RAC which could translate to a decrease in expenditures.

TRIAL REGISTRY

http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00470951.

Totally robotic complete mesocolic excision for right-sided colon cancer

Complexity and operative risks of complete mesocolic excision (CME) seem to be important drawbacks to generalize this procedure in the surgical treatment of right colon cancer. Robotic systems have been developed to improve quality and outcomes of minimal invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of robotic right-sided CME and present our initial experience. A retrospective review of 37 patients undergoing totally robotic right-sided CME between February 2015 and November 2017 was performed. All the operations were carried out using the key principles of both CME with intracorporeal anastomosis and no-touch technique. Data on perioperative clinical findings and short-term outcomes were analyzed. There were 20 men and 17 women with a mean age of 64.4 ± 13.5 years and a body mass index of 26.8 ± 5.7 kg/m². The mean operative time and estimated blood loss were 289.8 ± 85.3 min and 77.4 ± 70.5 ml, respectively. Conversion to laparoscopy occurred in one patient (2.7%). All the surgical margins were clear and the mesocolic plane surgery was achieved in 27 (72.9%) of the cases. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 41.8 ± 11.9 (median, 40; range 22-65). The mean length of hospital stay was 6.6 ± 3.7 days. The intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were 5.4 and 21.6%, respectively. We believe that use of robot for right-sided CME is feasible and appears to provide remarkably a high number of harvested lymph nodes with good specimen quality.

Do Robotic Surgical Systems Improve Profit Margins? A Cross-Sectional Analysis of California Hospitals

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine the association between ownership of robotic surgical systems and hospital profit margins.

METHODS

This study used hospital annual utilization data, annual financial data, and discharge data for year 2011 from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. We first performed bivariate analysis to compare mean profit margin by hospital and market characteristics and to examine whether these characteristics differed between hospitals that had one or more robotic surgical systems in 2011 and those that did not. We applied the t test and the F test to compare mean profit margin between two groups and among three or more groups, respectively. We then conducted multilevel logistic regression to determine the association between ownership of robotic surgical systems and having a positive profit margin after controlling for other hospital and market characteristics and accounting for possible correlation among hospitals located within the same market.

RESULTS

The study sample included 167 California hospitals with valid financial information. Hospitals with robotic surgical systems tended to report more favorable profit margins. However, multilevel logistic regression showed that this relationship (an association, not causality) became only marginally significant (odds ratio [OR] = 6.2; P = 0.053) after controlling for other hospital characteristics, such as ownership type, teaching status, bed size, and surgical volumes, and market characteristics, such as total number of robotic surgical systems owned by other hospitals in the same market area.

CONCLUSIONS

As robotic surgical systems become widely disseminated, hospital decision makers should carefully evaluate the financial and clinical implications before making a capital investment in this technology.

Future of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery

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