Single-Incision Robotic Colectomy: Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes with Multiport Robotic Colectomy

Clinical status and future prospects of single-incision robotic-assisted surgery: a review

Since the advent of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery, the prosperity of minimally invasive surgery has been thriving on the advancement of endoscopic techniques. Cosmetic superiority, recovery benefits, and noninferior surgical outcomes weigh single-incision laparoscopic surgery as a promising modality. Although there are surgical challenges posed by steep learning curve and technological difficulties, such as instruments collision, triangulation loss and limited retraction, the establishment of robotic surgical platform as a solution to all is inspiring. Furthermore, with enhanced instrument maneuverability and stability, robotic ergonomic innovations adopt the advantages of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and surmount its recognized barriers by introducing a novel combination, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery. As was gradually diffused in general surgery and other specialties, single-incision robotic-assisted surgery manifests privileges in noninferior clinical outcomes an satisfactory cosmetic effect among strictly selected patients, and has the potential of a preferable surgical option for minimally invasive surgery.

A prospective phase II clinical trial/IDEAL Stage 2a series of single-port robotic colorectal surgery for abdominal and transanal cases

AIM

Slow laparoscopy adoption accelerated the uptake of robotic surgery. However, the current robotic platforms have limitations in transanal applications and multiple port sites. The da Vinci single-port (SP) robot is currently used on trial for colorectal surgery, and broad assessment of outcomes is needed. We aimed to report findings of a phase II clinical trial of SP robotic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A sequentially reported prospective case series was performed on patients using SP robotics at a tertiary referral centre from 1 October 2018 to 31 August 2021. Cases were stratified into abdominal and transanal cohorts. Demographics, intra-operative variables and 30-day postoperative outcomes were evaluated. Univariate analysis was performed, with statistical process control for the docking process. Main outcomes were conversion rates, morbidity, mortality and point of standardization of docking.

RESULTS

In all, 133 patients were included: 93 (69.92%) abdominal and 40 (30.08%) transanal. The main diagnosis was rectal cancer (n = 59) and the procedure performed a robotic transanal abdominal transanal radical proctosigmoidectomy (n = 30). There were no conversions to open surgery. Two abdominal (2.15%) and three transanal cases (7.50%) were converted to laparoscopy. All colorectal adenocarcinomas had negative margins, proper lymph node harvest and complete mesorectal excision, as appropriate. Docking became a standardized process at cases 34 (abdominal) and 23 (anorectal). After surgery, bowel function returned on mean day 2 (abdominal) and 1 (transanal). The morbidity rate was 15.05% (abdominal) and 27.50% (transanal). There were two major morbidities in each cohort. Overall, there were three (2.65%) readmissions, one reoperation and no mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-port robotics is feasible for all types of colorectal procedures, with good clinical and oncological outcomes. With this development in colorectal surgery, further studies can develop best practices with this novel technology.

Single-incision robotic colectomy versus single-incision laparoscopic colectomy: A matched case control study

BACKGROUND

Single incision laparoscopic colectomy (SILC) and single incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) are both advanced minimally invasive operative techniques. However, studies comparing these two surgical methods have not been published. The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate the short-term outcomes of SIRC with those of SILC.

METHODS

A total of 21 consecutive patients underwent SIRC and 136 consecutive patients underwent SILC in separate institutes between January 2013 and December 2019. We used retrospective cohort matching to analyze these patients.

RESULTS

Prior to matching, patients who underwent SIRC had a lower percentage of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grades III-IV (5% vs. 19%, P = 0.11) compared with patients who underwent SILC. The SIRC group revealed a higher proportion of sigmoid colon lesions and anterior resections than the SILC group (61% vs. 45%, P = 0.16). After 1:4 cohort matching, 21 patients were enrolled in the SIRC group and 84 patients were enrolled in the SILC group. No statistically significant difference in terms of operative time (SIRC: 185 ± 46 min, SILC: 208 ± 53 min; P = 0.51), estimated blood loss (SIRC: 12 ± 22 ml, SILC: 85 ± 234 ml; P = 0.12), and complications (SIRC: 4.7%, SIRC: 7.1%; P = 0.31) was observed between these groups. Length of postoperative hospital stay (SIRC: 8.3 ± 1.7 days, SILC: 9.3 ± 6.5; P = 0.10) and number of harvested lymph nodes (SIRC: 21.3 ± 10.3, SILC: 21.3 ± 9.5; P = 0.77) were also similar between the two groups. In subgroup analysis, numbers of harvested lymph node is less in SIRC than SILC (SIRC: 18.1 ± 4.7 vs. SILC: 18.9 ± 8.1, P = 0.04) in anterior resection.

CONCLUSION

SIRC and SILC are safe and feasible procedures with similar surgical and pathological outcomes for right- and left-side colectomy.