Robotic gastrointestinal surgery

Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review

Robot-assisted general surgery, an advanced technology in minimally invasive procedures, is increasingly employed in elective general surgery, showing benefits over laparoscopy in specific cases. Although laparoscopy remains a standard approach for common acute abdominal conditions, the role of robotic surgery in emergency general surgery remains uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare outcomes in acute general surgery settings for robotic versus laparoscopic surgeries. A PRISMA-compliant systematic search across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. The literature review focused on articles comparing perioperative outcomes of emergency general surgery managed laparoscopically versus robot-assisted. A descriptive analysis was performed, and outcome measures were recorded. Six articles, involving 1,063 patients, compared outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Two articles covered cholecystectomies, while the others addressed ileocaecal resection, subtotal colectomy, hiatal hernia and repair of perforated gastrojejunal ulcers. The level of evidence was low. Laparoscopic bowel resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) had higher complications; no significant differences were found in complications for other operations. Operative time showed no differences for cholecystectomies, but robotic approaches took longer for other procedures. Robotic cases had shorter hospital length of stay, although the associated costs were significantly higher. Perioperative outcomes for emergency robotic surgery in selected general surgery conditions are comparable to laparoscopic surgery. However, recommending robotic surgery in the acute setting necessitates a well-powered large population study for stronger evidence.

The role of RObotic surgery in EMergency setting (ROEM): protocol for a multicentre, observational, prospective international study on the use of robotic platform in emergency surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained widespread acceptance in elective interventions, yet its role in emergency procedures remains underexplored. While the 2021 WSES position paper discussed limited studies on the application of robotics in emergency general surgery, it recommended strict patient selection, adequate training, and improved platform accessibility. This prospective study aims to define the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings, evaluating intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and assessing its feasibility and safety.

METHODS

The ROEM study is an observational, prospective, multicentre, international analysis of clinically stable adult patients undergoing robotic surgery for emergency treatment of acute pathologies including diverticulitis, cholecystitis, and obstructed hernias. Data collection includes patient demographics and intervention details. Furthermore, data relating to the operating theatre team and the surgical instruments used will be collected in order to conduct a cost analysis. The study plans to enrol at least 500 patients from 50 participating centres, with each centre having a local lead and collaborators. All data will be collected and stored online through a secure server running the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) web application. Ethical considerations and data governance will be paramount, requiring local ethical committee approvals from participating centres.

DISCUSSION

Current literature and expert consensus suggest the feasibility of robotic surgery in emergencies with proper support. However, challenges include staff training, scheduling conflicts with elective surgeries, and increased costs. The ROEM study seeks to contribute valuable data on the safety, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery in emergency settings, focusing on specific pathologies. Previous studies on cholecystitis, abdominal hernias, and diverticulitis provide insights into the benefits and challenges of robotic approaches. It is necessary to identify patient populations that benefit most from robotic emergency surgery to optimize outcomes and justify costs.

A decade of experience with minimally invasive anti-reflux operations: robot vs. LESS

BACKGROUND

The increasing use of robotic systems for anti-reflux operations prompted this study to evaluate and compare the efficacy of robotic and Laparo-Endoscopic Single-Site (LESS) approaches.

METHODS

From 2012, 228 robotic fundoplication and 518 LESS fundoplication patients were prospectively followed, analyzing perioperative metrics. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD); significance at p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing a robotic vs. LESS fundoplication were 67 (64 ± 13.7) vs. 61 (59 ± 15.1) years-old with BMIs of 25 (25 ± 3.2) vs. 26 (25 ± 3.9) kg/m2 (p = 0.001 and 1.00, respectively). 72% of patients who underwent the robotic approach had a previous abdominal operation(s) vs 44% who underwent the LESS approach (p = 0.0001). 38% vs. 8% had a re-operative fundoplication (p = 0.0001), 59% vs. 45% had a type IV hiatal hernia (p = 0.0004). Operative duration was 160 (176 ± 76.7) vs. 130 (135 ± 50.5) min (p = 0.0001). There were 0 (robotic) vs. 5 (LESS) conversions to a different approach (p = 0.33). 5 Patients vs. 3 patients experienced postoperative complications (p = 0.06), and length of stay (LOS) was 1 (2 ± 2.6) vs. 1 (1 ± 3.2) days (p = 0.0001). Patient symptomatic dysphagia preoperatively for the robotic vs. LESS approach was scored as 2 (2.4 ± 1.9) vs. 1 (1.9 ± 1.6). Postoperatively, symptomatic dysphagia was scored as 1 (1.5 ± 1.6) vs. 1 (1.7 ± 1.7). The change in these scores was - 1 (- 1 ± 2.2) vs. 0 (- 0.5 ± 2.2) (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Despite longer operative times and LOS in older patients, the robotic approach is efficient in undertaking very difficult operations, including patients with type IV or recurrent hiatal hernias. Furthermore, preoperative anti-reflux operations were more likely to be undertaken with the robotic approach than the LESS approach. The patient's postoperative symptomatic dysphagia improved relatively more than after the LESS approach. The vast majority of patients who underwent the LESS approach enjoyed improved cosmesis, thus, making LESS a stronger candidate for more routine operations. Despite patient selection bias, the robotic and LESS approaches to anti-reflux operations are safe, efficacious, and should be situationally utilized.

Return to intended oncologic therapy after colectomy for stage III colon adenocarcinoma: Does surgical approach matter?

AIM

Return to intended oncologic treatment (RIOT) is an important paradigm for surgically resected cancers requiring multimodal treatment. Benefits of minimally invasive colectomy (MIC) may allow earlier initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) and have associated survival benefits. We sought to determine if operative approach affects RIOT timing in resected stage III colon cancer.

METHODS

NCDB identified pathological stage III colon adenocarcinoma patients who underwent resection and received ACT. Propensity score matching and kernel density estimation compared operative approaches and conversion impact on intervals to RIOT.

RESULTS

A total of 15,132 open colectomies (OC) versus 14,107 MIC were included. MIC patients had two-days shorter median length of stay (LOS) (4 vs. 6 days; p < 0.001), one-week shorter median time to RIOT (6 vs. 7 weeks; p = 0.015) comparing 12,867 matched pairs. There was no difference in time interval to RIOT between the LC versus RC, converted MIC vs. OC groups. MIC was a favourable predictor of earlier RIOT (HR 1.14 [1.07-1.22]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MIC in stage III colon cancer is associated with a shorter time to RIOT when compared to OC. Since timely initiation of ACT may influence cancer outcome, MIC may be oncologically preferable. Prospective studies are needed to assess RIOT and survival outcomes in stage III colon cancer.

Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper

Background

Robotics represents the most technologically advanced approach in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Its application in general surgery has increased progressively, with some early experience reported in emergency settings. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a systematic review of the literature to develop consensus statements about the potential use of robotics in emergency general surgery.

Methods

This position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee was constituted to draft the position paper according to the literature review. An international expert panel then critically revised the manuscript. Each statement was voted through a web survey to reach a consensus.

Results

Ten studies (3 case reports, 3 case series, and 4 retrospective comparative cohort studies) have been published regarding the applications of robotics for emergency general surgery procedures. Due to the paucity and overall low quality of evidence, 6 statements are proposed as expert opinions. In general, the experts claim for a strict patient selection while approaching emergent general surgery procedures with robotics, eventually considering it for hemodynamically stable patients only. An emergency setting should not be seen as an absolute contraindication for robotic surgery if an adequate training of the operating surgical team is available. In such conditions, robotic surgery can be considered safe, feasible, and associated with surgical outcomes related to an MIS approach. However, there are some concerns regarding the adoption of robotic surgery for emergency surgeries associated with the following: (i) the availability and accessibility of the robotic platform for emergency units and during night shifts, (ii) expected longer operative times, and (iii) increased costs. Further research is necessary to investigate the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings and to explore the possibility of performing telementoring and telesurgery, which are particularly valuable in emergency situations.

Conclusions

Many hospitals are currently equipped with a robotic surgical platform which needs to be implemented efficiently. The role of robotic surgery for emergency procedures remains under investigation. However, its use is expanding with a careful assessment of costs and timeliness of operations. The proposed statements should be seen as a preliminary guide for the surgical community stressing the need for reevaluation and update processes as evidence expands in the relevant literature.

Computer-aided anatomy recognition in intrathoracic and -abdominal surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery is complex and associated with substantial learning curves. Computer-aided anatomy recognition, such as artificial intelligence-based algorithms, may improve anatomical orientation, prevent tissue injury, and improve learning curves. The study objective was to provide a comprehensive overview of current literature on the accuracy of anatomy recognition algorithms in intrathoracic and -abdominal surgery.

METHODS

This systematic review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Pubmed, Embase, and IEEE Xplore were searched for original studies up until January 2022 on computer-aided anatomy recognition, without requiring intraoperative imaging or calibration equipment. Extracted features included surgical procedure, study population and design, algorithm type, pre-training methods, pre- and post-processing methods, data augmentation, anatomy annotation, training data, testing data, model validation strategy, goal of the algorithm, target anatomical structure, accuracy, and inference time.

RESULTS

After full-text screening, 23 out of 7124 articles were included. Included studies showed a wide diversity, with six possible recognition tasks in 15 different surgical procedures, and 14 different accuracy measures used. Risk of bias in the included studies was high, especially regarding patient selection and annotation of the reference standard. Dice and intersection over union (IoU) scores of the algorithms ranged from 0.50 to 0.98 and from 74 to 98%, respectively, for various anatomy recognition tasks. High-accuracy algorithms were typically trained using larger datasets annotated by expert surgeons and focused on less-complex anatomy. Some of the high-accuracy algorithms were developed using pre-training and data augmentation.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of included anatomy recognition algorithms varied substantially, ranging from moderate to good. Solid comparison between algorithms was complicated by the wide variety of applied methodology, target anatomical structures, and reported accuracy measures. Computer-aided intraoperative anatomy recognition is an upcoming research discipline, but still at its infancy. Larger datasets and methodological guidelines are required to improve accuracy and clinical applicability in future research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021264226.

Toward Mechanochromic Soft Material-Based Visual Feedback for Electronics-Free Surgical Effectors

A chromogenically reversible, mechanochromic pressure sensor is integrated into a mininvasive surgical grasper compatible with the da Vinci robotic surgical system. The sensorized effector, also featuring two soft-material jaws, encompasses a mechanochromic polymeric inset doped with functionalized spiropyran (SP) molecule, designed to activate mechanochromism at a chosen pressure and providing a reversible color change. Considering such tools are systematically in the visual field of the operator during surgery, color change of the mechanochromic effector can help avoid tissue damage. No electronics is required to control the devised visual feedback. SP-doping of polydimethylsiloxane (2.5:1 prepolymer/curing agent weight ratio) permits to modulate the mechanochromic activation pressure, with lower values around 1.17 MPa for a 2% wt. SP concentration, leading to a shorter chromogenic recovery time of 150 s at room temperature (25 °C) under green light illumination. Nearly three-times shorter recovery time is observed at body temperature (37 °C). To the best of knowledge, this study provides the first demonstration of mechanochromic materials in surgery, in particular to sensorize unpowered surgical effectors, by avoiding dramatic increases in tool complexity due to additional electronics, thus fostering their application. The proposed sensing strategy can be extended to further tools and scopes.

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.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

Outcomes of 350 Robotic-assisted Esophagectomies at a High-volume Cancer Center: A Contemporary Propensity-score Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate perioperative and oncologic outcomes in our RAMIE cohort and compare outcomes with contemporary OE controls.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

RAMIE has emerged as an alternative to traditional open or laparoscopic approaches. Described in all esophagectomy techniques, rapid adoption has been attributed to both enhanced visualization and technical dexterity.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent RAMIE for malignancy. Patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and survival were evaluated. For perioperative and oncologic outcome comparison, contemporary OE controls were propensity-score matched from NSQIP and NCDB databases.

RESULTS

We identified 350 patients who underwent RAMIE between 2010 and 2019. Median body mass index was 27.4, 32% demonstrated a Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥4. Nodal disease was identified in 50% of patients and 74% received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Mean operative time and blood loss were 425 minutes and 232 mL, respectively. Anastomotic leak occurred in 16% of patients, 2% required reoperation. Median LOS was 9 days, and 30-day mortality was 3%. A median of 21 nodes were dissected with 96% achieving an R0 resection. Median survival was 67.4 months. 222 RAMIE were matched 1:1 to the NSQIP OE control. RAMIE demonstrated decreased LOS (9 vs 10 days, P = 0.010) and reoperative rates (2.3 vs 12.2%, P = 0.001), longer operative time (427 vs 311 minutes, P = 0.001), and increased rate of pulmonary embolism (5.4% vs 0.9%, P = 0.007) in comparison to NSQIP cohort. There was no difference in leak rate or mortality. Three hundred forty-three RAMIE were matched to OE cohort from NCDB with no difference in median overall survival (63 vs 53 months; P = 0.130).

CONCLUSION

In this largest reported institutional series, we demonstrate that RAMIE can be performed safely with excellent oncologic outcomes and decreased hospital stay when compared to the open approach.

Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy Is Associated with Decreased Clinically Relevant Pancreatic Fistulas: a Propensity-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is a major complication that adversely affects recovery. The robotic approach may decrease the incidence of this complication. This propensity-matched analysis evaluates the impact of robotic PD (RPD) on CR-POPF.

METHODS

Patients undergoing PD after the learning curve at a high-volume academic medical center were reviewed. CR-POPF outcomes after open PD (OPD) and RPD were compared. Logistic regression and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to define the independent effect of RPD on CR-POPF.

RESULTS

Of 865 PDs performed over the study period, 405 (46.8%) were OPD and 460 (53.2%) were RPD. RPD was associated with a similar overall POPF rate, but a lower incidence of CR-POPF (6.7% vs. 15.8%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, RPD was an independent predictor of lower CR-POPF (OR 0.278, p < 0.001). Following propensity matching, RPD continued to be protective against the occurrence of CR-POPF (coefficient = - 0.113, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest single-center PSM analysis to evaluate the impact of robotic approach on pancreatoduodenectomy and suggests that RPD can minimize the clinical impact of pancreatic leaks after PD.

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.