The Use of Robotic and Laparoscopic Surgical Stapling Devices During Minimally Invasive Colon and Rectal Surgery: A Comparison

Effective division of the intersegmental plane using a robotic stapler in robotic pulmonary segmentectomy

PURPOSES

Robot-assisted thoracoscopic (RATS) segmentectomy is becoming increasingly common because of the expanded indications for segmentectomy and the widespread adoption of robotic surgery. The precise division of the intersegmental plane is necessary to ensure oncologic margins from the tumor and to preserve the lung function. In this study, we present a strategy for accurately dividing the intersegmental plane using a robotic stapler and review the surgical outcomes.

METHODS

RATS portal segmentectomy was performed using the Da Vinci Xi system and the intersegmental plane was dissected using a robotic stapler. We evaluated the perioperative outcomes in 92 patients who underwent RATS portal segmentectomy between May 2020 and January 2023. These results were compared with those of 82 patients who underwent complete video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (CVATS) during the same period.

RESULTS

The operative and console times were 162 and 97 min, respectively. No intraoperative complications occurred, and postoperative complications were observed in four cases (4.3%). The operative time, blood loss, postoperative complications, and maximum incision size were significantly lower in the RATS group than in the CVATS group. However, RATS requires a significantly higher number of staplers than CVATS.

CONCLUSIONS

The division of the intersegmental plane using a robotic stapler in RATS portal segmentectomy was, therefore, found to be safe and effective.

Efficiency of the Robotic Platform in Improving the Rate of Sphincter Preservation in Patients With Mid and Low Rectal Cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the robotic platform can have a positive impact on the rate of sphincter preservation in patients with rectal tumors, undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), in comparison with laparoscopic or open TME. We also analyzed and compared short-term outcomes.

Methods

A prospectively collected robotic database was reviewed and compared with the trust and national data. Three groups were designed according to the surgical technique: open, laparoscopic and robotic. This includes all resections for mid and low rectal cancer which were performed with the robotic platform, over a period of 4 years, versus the trust data for the same period.

Results

Two hundred ninety-seven patients with mid and low rectal cancers were analyzed. Demographics for the groups (gender, age, and body mass index) were similar but distance from anal verge was shorter in the robotic group (7 vs. 8.5 cm, P < 0.001). The percentage of abdominoperineal resection (APR) rate was significantly lower in the robotic group (13.5% vs. 39.6% vs. 52.4% for the open group, P < 0.001). Median length of stay, complication rate, and positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) rate for the robotic group were also statistically significantly lower than those for both laparoscopic and open groups.

Conclusion

Robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer is safe and feasible, and could help surgeons perform ultra-low anterior resections, rather than APRs and save patients' sphincters. Positive CRM is low, which could lead to improved oncological outcomes.

Prospective analysis of 164 fires of da Vinci SureForm SmartFire stapler in oncological cases: Indian cohort of 76 consecutive cases

Background

The application of robotic staplers in surgeries has increased in recent years. Robotic platform enhances ability of the surgeon to directly control and manoeuvre staplers to achieve required angulation and sealing within the confines of the thorax and pelvis. Hence, in this study, we intended to learn the effectiveness of the SureForm™ SmartFire™ technology stapling system in various oncological procedures.

Patients and Methods

Prospective study of 76 patients who underwent robotic-assisted total oesophagectomy, gastrectomies, hemicolectomies, low anterior resection/abdominoperineal resection and lobectomies/metastasectomy for respective malignancies for 16 months. Internal data log of the da Vinci surgical system for reload colour, reloads used, clamp attempts and staple fires used during each procedure along with patient's post-operative outcomes were recorded.

Results

One hundred and sixty-four firings have been made in 76 cases, with the majority being green reloads (76.8%) and average reloads for radical cystectomy 3.5, lobectomies/metastasectomy 3.44 and oesophagectomy 2.55. None of the cases had incomplete firings and required force-fire activation. In forty per cent of cases, the robotic stapler had to pause for sequential compression and seal. Seventy per cent of anterior resection procedures had at least one firing >45° beyond the laparoscopy limit. Collectively 52% SureForm stapler fires in anterior resection with >45° angle of fire. None of the cases had bleed or leak.

Conclusion

SureForm™ SmartFire™ robotic staplers can be used for various oncological surgeries with minimal peri-operative leak and bleeding and has better articulation in closed spaces. Further case-matched comparative studies with laparoscopic or handheld powered staplers would be required for useful operative decision-making and analyse the clinical outcomes.

A multicentre, prospective cohort study of handsewn versus stapled intracorporeal anastomosis for robotic hemicolectomy

AIM

Robotic right hemicolectomy is gaining in popularity due to the recognized technical benefits associated with the robotic platform. However, there is a lack of standardization regarding the optimal anastomotic technique in this cohort of patients, namely stapled or handsewn intra- or extra-corporeal anastomosis. The ergonomic benefit associated with the robotic platform lends itself to intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA). The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinical outcomes of stapled versus handsewn ICA.

METHOD

A multicentre prospective cohort study was undertaken across four high-volume robotic centres in France between September 2018 and December 2020. All adult patients undergoing an elective robotic right hemicolectomy with an ICA performed and a minimum postoperative follow-up of 30 days were included. The primary endpoint of our study was anastomotic leak within 30 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 144 patients underwent robotic right hemicolectomy: 92 (63.8%) had a stapled ICA and 52 (36.1%) a handsewn ICA. The operative indication was adenocarcinoma in 90% with a stapled ICA compared with 62% in the handsewn ICA group (p < 0.001). The overall operating time was longer in the handsewn ICA group compared with the stapled ICA group (219 min vs. 193 min; p = 0.001). The anastomotic leak rate was 3.3% in stapled ICA and 3.8% in handsewn ICA (p = 1.00). There was no difference in the rate or severity of postoperative morbidity.

CONCLUSION

ICA robotic hemicolectomy is technically safe and is associated with low rates of anastomotic leak overall and equivalent clinical outcomes between the two techniques.

Can maneuverability in the robot assisted laparoscopic stapler during ileoileal anastomosis compensate for shorter stapler length? - A randomized experimental porcine study

BACKGROUND

Ileal anastomosis is imperative in patients given a urinary diversion during radical cystectomy. Proper handling and staplers with a certain length are important to prevent stenosis of the bowel. The study aim was to compare the circumference and diameter of ileoileal anastomoses using the Endo GIA tri-stapler 45 mm and 60 mm iDrive systems compared to the RAL Endowrist DaVinci 45 mm. This was to investigate if the better maneuverability of the robotic stapler would compensate for the shorter stapler length in the RAL Endowrist DaVinci 45.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty ileoileal anastomoses were performed in a total of three pigs after randomization according to the type of anastomosis technique used (depending on stapler and robotic system) allocated to four groups (each with five anastomoses): (1) iDrive 45 mm, (2) iDrive 60 mm, (3) RAL DaVinci 45 mm (Si-system), and (4) RAL DaVinci 45 mm (Xi-system). Diameter (mm) and circumference (mm) were measured and compared.

RESULTS

Diameters and circumferences in Group 1 were significantly smaller compared to all the other groups, which did not differ from each other, except in Group 2 where anastomoses had a significantly higher circumference than Group 4.

CONCLUSION

The iDrive 60 mm makes the anastomoses with the widest diameter and highest circumference compared to the iDrive 45 mm. With the RAL DaVinci 45 mm, the diameter and circumference were comparable to the iDrive 60 mm and significantly better than the iDrive 45 mm. An explanation may be the better maneuverability and surgeon control of the RAL DaVinci stapler.

Clinical and Economic Outcomes of Using Robotic Versus Hand-Held Staplers During Robotic Lobectomy

OBJECTIVE

During robotic lobectomy (RL), the surgeon can elect to use either robotic staplers or hand-held laparoscopic staplers. It is assumed that either will result in similar outcomes, while robotic staplers increase cost. We sought to compare perioperative outcomes and costs between RL cases that utilized robotic staplers versus hand-held staplers in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

Patients who underwent an elective RL between October 2015 and December 2017 were identified in the Premier Hospital Perspective Database. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to compare perioperative outcomes, healthcare resource utilization, and costs between cases using robotic staplers and hand-held staplers during RL.

RESULTS

In the PSM analysis, RL cases that fully utilized robotic staplers compared to hand-held staplers were associated with significantly lower risks of developing bleeding (5.6% vs 9.8%, P = 0.03) and conversion to open surgery (0.3% vs 5.9%, P = 0.004). Additionally, in a multivariable regression analysis, robotic stapler was associated with reduced risk for air leak (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50-0.98) and overall complications (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.99). The total index hospitalization costs were comparable between the 2 groups (median [IQR], $21,667 [$16,860-$29,033] in robotic stapler vs $21,398 [$17,258-$29,406] in hand-held stapler, P = 0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Among RL cases, utilization of robotic staplers was associated with significantly lower risks of perioperative bleeding, conversion, and possibly air leak and overall complications compared to RL cases utilizing hand-held staplers. The choice of stapler may have an impact on outcomes and robotic staplers do not increase total costs.

Robotic stapler use: Is it safe?-FDA database analysis across multiple surgical specialties

Introduction

Robotic-assisted techniques are common across many surgical subspecialties. While robotic stapling offers increased surgeon control, there is limited information on surgical complications related to robotic stapler use.

Methods

We reviewed the FDA’s MAUDE database for adverse events related to robotic stapler use.

Results

Upon review of the FDA database, the most frequently reported robotic stapler complications were malfunction, failure to form staple line, device fragmentation, and misfire. 31 Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher complications were attributed to stapler use since 2014.

Conclusions

Further research on prevalence of robotic stapler use is needed to quantity the associated complication rate.

Efficacy of a robotic stapler on symptomatic anastomotic leakage in robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Clinical evidence demonstrating risk factors for anastomotic leakage including robotic staplers has remained limited, even though the use of robotic surgery has increased substantially. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of robotic staplers on symptomatic anastomotic leakage in robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 427 consecutive patients with primary rectal cancer who underwent robotic low anterior resection without diverting stoma were investigated retrospectively. Symptomatic anastomotic leakage was defined as anastomotic leakage of Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ II. We compared the symptomatic anastomotic leakage rates between manual and robotic staplers using propensity score matching and investigated the risk factors for symptomatic anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 168 pairs of manual and robotic stapler cases were selected. The symptomatic anastomotic leakage rate was significantly higher for manual staplers (6.5%) than for robotic staplers (1.2%, p = 0.02). In a multivariate analysis, the use of a manual stapler (p = 0.04, OR 4.86, 95% CI 1.08-21.8) and anastomosis < 4 cm from the anal verge (p < 0.01, OR 4.36, 95% CI 1.48-12.9) were identified as independent risk factors for symptomatic anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic stapler use was associated with a significantly decreased rate of anastomotic leakage in robotic low anterior resection without diverting stoma for rectal cancer.

The use of robotic or laparoscopic stapler in rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Minimally invasive surgery for total mesorectal excision (TME) remains technically challenging due to poor maneuverability within the pelvis, which makes extremely difficult to introduce a laparoscopic stapler (LS) for the rectal transection. We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic TME after the use of robotic stapler (RS) or LS after robotic TME. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database. Participants who underwent robotic anterior resection were considered following these criteria: (1) studies comparing RS and LS; (2) studies reporting the rate of anastomotic leakage (AL). The primary outcome was the risk of AL. Secondary outcomes included the number of firings of stapler needed. A meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement was performed. A total of 4 studies including 391 patients (LS = 251, RS = 140) were included for analysis. Regarding the number of firings, overall results suggest that the rectal stapling was achieved with less firings in the RS group, but the difference is not significant [risk difference, (95% CI) 0.42 (- 0.13, 0.97)]. There was a 56% increased odds of AL for LS compared with RS; however, this was not statistically significant (OR: 1.56; 95% CI 0.59, 4.14). With the current literature evidence, the present study could not demonstrate a clear benefit of the RS over the LS. Although the development of an AL is multifactorial and unpredictable, our data may suggest that the use of the RS could help reducing the risk of AL. There is a need of future randomized clinical trial to assess the possible benefits of the RS.

The Use of Enhanced Technologies in Robotic Surgery and Its Impact on Outcomes in Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

The main advantage of the robotic approach is the surgical precision that the technology offers. It is particularly useful in rectal cancer as this is a technically challenging procedure. The technological advantage of the robot leads to better postoperative outcomes. Apart from the 3D vision and endowrist instrumentation in comparison to laparoscopy, the options of using fluorescence imaging, endowrist stapler, and table motion have revolutionised the way of performing an anterior resection. Thus, the true benefit of these advances will be the quality of the surgery, which leads to better postoperative outcomes. This article focuses on the current status of applications of new modalities and technology development in robotic rectal surgery. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and cochrane database. The studies included were considered based on the following (1) articles written in English, (2) full text is available, (3) whether the topic is related to the use of novel technologies during robotic rectal surgery, and (4) sample: adult patients and malignant rectal disease. The primary end point was to analyse the current use of technological advances in robotic rectal surgery. Only a few studies are currently available on the use of these different technologies in robotic colorectal surgery. Many of these reports describe promising results, although with short-term outcomes. The use of technologies in robotic colorectal surgery is safe and feasible and can be used together to improve short-term outcomes. Intraoperative fluorescence angiography has demonstrated to reduce the rate of anastomotic leak, whereas the robotic stapler and the table motion simplify anatomic resection.

Laparoscopic Billroth I Gastroduodenostomy in Robotic Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancers: Fusion Surgery

PURPOSE

The authors outline their stapling technique and retrospectively compare outcomes of laparoscopic staplers versus robotic staplers in patients undergoing robotic distal gastrectomy (RDG) with Billroth I gastroduodenostomy for gastric cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Of our 28 consecutive patients who underwent RDG, 18 underwent Billroth I gastroduodenostomy using laparoscopic staplers (fusion group); robotic staplers were used in the remaining 10 patients (robot group). All RDG procedures were performed using the da Vinci Surgical System.

RESULTS

The duration of reconstruction was significantly longer for the robot group than for the fusion group. There were no conversions to conventional laparoscopy or open surgery in the fusion group, but 1 patient in the robot group required conversion to laparoscopic reconstruction for duodenal injury during anastomosis. No postoperative complications developed in the fusion group.

CONCLUSION

Regarding short-term surgical outcomes, robotic-assisted laparoscopic stapling techniques for reconstruction after RDG are both feasible and safe for gastric cancers.

Advantages of using a robotic stapler in rectal cancer surgery

To compare short-term postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) after the use of robotic and laparoscopic staplers. Over a 5-year period, 196 patients were divided into 2 groups according to the use of laparoscopic (LS) or robotic stapler (RS). Patient demographics and postoperative complications were compared. A total of 145 (74%) robotic TME were performed using the LS and 51 (26%) the RS. No conversions to laparoscopy or laparotomy were observed, in either group. Transection of the rectum using one or two firings was achieved in a higher proportion of RS cases (91%) compared with LS cases (60%; p < 0.001). The anastomotic leakage (AL) rate was 4% in the RS group vs. 7% in the LS group (p > 0.05). However, when three or more firings were needed for the rectal transection, the risk of AL increased (3.4% with ≤ 2 firings vs. 10.7% with ≥ 3 firings, p = 0.006). Our data confirm that multiple stapler firings for rectal transection have a major impact on AL. The robotic stapler simplifies the transaction, so that rectal division requires fewer stapler firings, with a potential reduction in the incidence of AL.

Does Robot Overcome Obesity-related Limitations of Minimally Invasive Rectal Surgery for Cancer?

BACKGROUND

Adoption of laparoscopic surgery for cancers requiring partial or total proctectomy has been slow due to difficulty of achieving oncologically adequate resection. Obesity is a factor complicating use and outcomes of laparoscopic technique for rectal surgery. Impact of obesity on the outcomes of robotic rectal surgery for cancer is not well defined. This study is designed to assess whether if the robotic technique has potential to overcome the limitations of obesity and to improve outcomes of minimally invasive rectal surgery for cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing robotic sphincter-saving radical resection with da Vinci Xi System between December 2014 and December 2016 were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups as obese and nonobese. Patient demographics, perioperative outcomes and short-term results were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The study included 101 patients (30 were obese). Sex (female: 35 vs. 37%, P=0.89), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (2 vs. 2, P=0.41), number of patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation (39% vs. 23%, P=0.12) and history of prior abdominal surgery (28% vs. 23%, P=0.62) were comparable between the groups. Operative time was longer in the obese group (311 vs. 332 min. P=0.01). Overall complication rates (27% vs. 23%, P=0.72), length of hospital stay (6 vs. 7, P=0.10) and pathologic outcomes were similar between the groups. Conversion to laparoscopy was not required in any operation. Two nonobese patients required conversion to open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robotic rectal surgery for cancer in obese patients is equally safe and effective as in nonobese patients. The new robotic platform can facilitate to overcome obesity-related limitations of rectal surgery.

Control Comparison of the New EndoWrist and Traditional Laparoscopic Staplers for Anterior Rectal Resection with the Da Vinci Xi: A Case Study

Background: A new robotic stapler for the da Vinci Xi^® is directly controlled by the surgeon at the console and equipped with EndoWrist^® technology. We evaluated operative and short-term results of the first patients who underwent anterior rectal resection for cancer with the da Vinci Xi and new staplers, and compared the results with those of a comparable group treated with traditional laparoscopic staplers. Methods: From December 2015 to December 2017, 25 patients underwent anterior rectal resection for cancer with robotic EndoWrist staplers (EndoWrist group). Using a case-control method, we compared the results with those of a similar group of patients treated with the same system and a traditional laparoscopic endostapler, controlled by a bedside assistant (Control group). Results: No conversions to laparoscopy or laparotomy were observed, in either group. The mean number of charges was 2.1 ± 0.2 in the EndoWrist group versus 2.7 ± 0.7 in the Control group (P = .0004). The other perioperative results were comparable. During follow-up, the incidence of anastomotic fistula in a contrast enema study was higher in the Control group, although the difference was not statistically significant (two leaks versus two leaks in EndoWrist group; P = .8). The interval between rectal resection and stoma closure was shorter in the EndoWrist group (3.4 ± 2.5 versus 4.2 ± 2.9 months in the Control group; P = .2), although the difference was not significant. Conclusions: Our experience suggests that the new robotic staplers simplify transection, which could reduce the average number of stapler firings used during rectal resection and could decrease the incidence of anastomotic leakage. These findings require confirmation in larger studies.

Systematic review of operative outcomes of robotic surgical procedures performed with endoscopic linear staplers or robotic staplers

A comprehensive review of operative outcomes of robotic surgical procedures performed with the da Vinci robotic system using either endoscopic linear staplers (ELS) or robotic staplers is not available in the published literature. We conducted a literature search to identify publications of robotic surgical procedures in all specialties performed with either ELS or robotic staplers. Twenty-nine manuscripts and six abstracts with relevant information on operative outcomes published from January 2011 to September 2017 were identified. Given the relatively recent market release of robotic staplers in 2014, comparative perioperative clinical outcomes data on the performance of ELS vs. robotic staplers in robotic surgery is very sparse in the published literature. Only three comparative studies of surgeries with the da Vinci robotic system plus ELS vs. da Vinci plus robotic staplers were identified; two in robotic colorectal surgery and the other in robotic gastric bypass surgery. These comparative studies illustrate some nuances in device design and usability, which may impact outcomes and cost, and therefore may be important to consider when selecting the appropriate stapling technologies/technique for different robotic surgeries. Comparative perioperative data on the use of ELS vs. robotic staplers in robotic surgery is scarce (three studies), and current literature identifies both types of devices as safe and effective. Given the longer clinical history of ELS and its relatively more robust evidence base, there may be trade-offs to consider before switching to robotic staplers in certain robotic procedures. However, this literature review may serve as an initial reference for future research.

Initial experience of Da Vinci robotic thoracic surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University

Robot-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) is a relatively new but rapidly adopted technique, pioneered by the urological and gynecological departments. The primary objective of this study is to present the current status, a series of improvement and innovation of Da Vinci robotic surgery in the Department of Thoracic Surgery at First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University. In addition, we discuss the prospect of robotic surgical technology.

A Novel Intuitively Controlled Articulating Instrument for Reoperative Foregut Surgery: A Case Report

The field of laparoscopic surgery has continued to grow exponentially over the years, prompting new innovative technologies. Despite substantial advancements, standard laparoscopic tools have undergone little design changes and fail to optimize mobility in limited spaces. Advancements in robotics have attempted to address this, allowing for increasing degrees of freedom and articulation of instruments. Even so, this system has proven to be cumbersome with questionable cost-effectiveness. In this study, we present the first use of a solely mechanical intuitively controlled articulating laparoscopic needle driver. The ability to naturally articulate allowed for ease during suturing and knot tying during the critical portions of the operation. The FlexDex surgical instrument demonstrates promise in the field of foregut surgery in addition to other areas of minimally invasive specialties.