Is the learning curve of robotic low anterior resection shorter than laparoscopic low anterior resection for rectal cancer?: a comparative analysis of clinicopathologic outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries

Identification of the factor affecting learning curves of laparoscopic gastrectomy through the experience at a Japanese high-volume center over the last decade

Background

Though laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has become the gold standard for gastric cancer treatment according to the Japanese treatment guidelines, its learning curve remains steep. Decreasing numbers of surgeons and transitions in the work environment have changed LG training recently. We analyzed LG training over the last decade to identify factors affecting the learning curve.

Study Design

Laparoscopic distal and pylorus-preserving gastrectomies conducted between 2010 and 2020 were included. We assessed learning curves based on the standard operation time (SOT) defined by analysis of covariance. Then we divided the trainees into two groups based on the length of the learning curve and examined the factors affecting the learning curve with linear regression analysis.

Results

Among 2335 LGs, 960 cases treated by 27 trainees and 1301 cases treated by six attending surgeons were analyzed. The operation time was prolonged (p = 0.009) and postoperative morbidity rates were lower (p = 0.0003) for cases treated by trainees. Trainees experienced 38 (range, 9-81) cases as scopists and nine (range, 0-41) cases as first assistants to the first operator. The learning curve was approximately 30 cases. The SOT was calculated based on gender, body mass index, tumor location, reconstruction, and lymph node dissection. Trainees who had shorter learning curves had more experience (51-100 cases) with any laparoscopic surgery before LG training than the others (11-50 cases, p = 0.017).

Conclusion

Sufficient experience with laparoscopic surgery before starting LG training might contribute to the efficiency of LG training and shorten the learning curve.

Influence of proficiency in conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer on the introduction of robotic surgery

PURPOSE

Although there have been many reports on learning curves for robotic surgery, it is unclear how surgeons' conventional laparoscopic surgical skills influence their ability in performing robotic surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study was to determine the surgical outcomes of robotic surgery for CRC during the induction phase by skilled laparoscopic surgeons.

METHODS

Surgical outcomes of consecutive CRC cases between January 2021 and March 2023 following the skilled phase of laparoscopic surgery and introductory phase of robotic surgery performed by three skilled laparoscopic surgeons were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 77 consecutive patients diagnosed with sigmoid colon or rectosigmoid cancer were analysed, including 50 in the laparoscopy group (LAP) and 27 in the robotic group (Ro). Patient characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, and tumour progression, did not differ between the groups. The median operation time was 204 min in the robotic group and 170 min in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the robotic group (p = 0.0059). The incidence of grade 2 or higher complications did not differ between the two groups (LAP, 10.0% vs. Ro, 7.4%, p = 1). In the robotic group, the time required for lymph node dissection had a greater impact on operative duration.

CONCLUSION

Skills acquired from performing conventional laparoscopic surgery may contribute to the safe and reliable performance of robotic surgery for CRC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000050923.

The transition of surgical simulation training and its learning curve: a bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2023

BACKGROUND

Proficient surgical skills are essential for surgeons, making surgical training an important part of surgical education. The development of technology promotes the diversification of surgical training types. This study analyzes the changes in surgical training patterns from the perspective of bibliometrics, and applies the learning curves as a measure to demonstrate their teaching ability.

METHOD

Related papers were searched in the Web of Science database using the following formula: TS=[(training OR simulation) AND (learning curve) AND (surgical)]. Two researchers browsed the papers to ensure that the topics of articles were focused on the impact of surgical simulation training on the learning curve. CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and R packages were applied to analyze the publication trends, countries, authors, keywords, and references of selected articles.

RESULT

Ultimately, 2461 documents were screened and analyzed. The USA is the most productive and influential country in this field. Surgical endoscopy and other interventional techniques publish the most articles, while surgical endoscopy and other interventional techniques is the most cited journal. Aggarwal Rajesh is the most productive and influential author. Keyword and reference analyses reveal that laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, virtue reality, and artificial intelligence were the hotspots in the field.

CONCLUSION

This study provided a global overview of the current state and future trend in the surgical education field. The study surmised the applicability of different surgical simulation types by comparing and analyzing the learning curves, which is helpful for the development of this field.

Robotic Proctectomy: Beyond the Initial Learning Curve

BACKGROUND

Multiple authors have described an initial learning curve (LC) for robotic proctectomy (RP), but there is scant literature regarding continued technical progression beyond this stage. Total operating time is the most commonly used metric to measure proficiency. Our goal was to examine RP experience after the initial LC looking for evidence of further technical progression.

METHODS

We reviewed our robotic surgery database for a single surgeon during operations 100 through 550 to identify 83 RPs for tumor. These were divided into quartiles by series order, indicating surgeon experience level over time. Demographics and outcomes were compared among the groups. We defined percent console time (PCT) as a new metric. PCT was defined as console time divided by total operative time (TOT).

RESULTS

From March 2014 through March 2019, 450 robotic colorectal operations were performed, including 83 RPs for polyp or cancer. No significant differences were found among the quartiles in regard to demographics, tumor features, hospital stay, conversions, or readmissions. As experience was gained, there were significant increases in intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA), TOT, and PCT. Complications decreased with experience. Number of lymph nodes in the specimen increased. On multivariate analysis, later experience group, body mass index ≥30, and ICA were associated with increased PCT.

DISCUSSION

ICA became a routine part of RP after the initial LC, with increases in TOT and PCT. Number of lymph nodes increased and number and severity of complications decreased with experience. Increased PCT may indicate increased expertise during RP.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic approach in rectal cancer: a single-center short-term analysis based on the learning curve

As a novel procedure becomes more and more used, knowledge about its learning curve and its impact on outcomes is useful for future implementations. Our aim is (i) to identify the phases of the robotic rectal surgery learning process and assess the safety and oncological outcomes during that period, (ii) to compare the robotic rectal surgery learning phases outcomes with laparoscopic rectal resections performed before the implementation of the robotic surgery program. We performed a retrospective study, based on a prospectively maintained database, with methodological quality assessment by STROBE checklist. All the procedures were performed by the same two surgeons. A total of 157 robotic rectal resections from June 2018 to January 2022 and 97 laparoscopic rectal resections from January 2018 to July 2019 were included. The learning phase was completed at case 26 for surgeon A, 36 for surgeon B, and 60 for the center (both A & B). There were no differences in histopathological results or postoperative complications between phases, achieving the same ratio of mesorectal quality, circumferential and distal resection margins as the laparoscopic approach. A transitory increase of major complications and anastomotic leakage could occur once overcoming the learning phase, secondary to the progressive complexity of cases. Robotic rectal cancer surgery learning curve phases in experienced laparoscopic surgeons was completed after 25-35 cases. Implementation of a robotic rectal surgery program is safe in oncologic terms, morbidity, mortality and length of stay.

Prospective analysis of impact of learning curve in robotic-assisted rectal surgery in the high-volume Indian tertiary care centre

Background

Minimally invasive surgery in rectal cancer has gained prominence owing to its various advantages in surgical outcomes. Due to rapid adoption of robotics in rectal surgery, we intended to assess the pace in which surgeons gain proficiency using cumulative summation (CUSUM) technique in learning curve.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective study of 262 rectal cancer cases who underwent robotic-assisted low anterior resection and abdominoperineal resection (RA-LAR and RA-APR). Parameters considered for the study were console time, docking time, lymph nodal yield, total operative time and post-operative outcomes. We used Manipal technique of port placements and modified centroside docking for the procedure.

Results

The mean age of our study was 46.62 ± 5.7 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.51 ± 3.2 kg/m2. 215 (82.06%) underwent RA-LAR and 47 (17.93%) underwent RA-APR. 2.67% of cases required to open during our initial period. We had three phases of learning curve, initial phase (11th case), plateau phase (29th case) and then phases of mastery (30th case onwards). Our mean total operative time reduced from 5.5 to 3.5 h (210 ± 8.2 min), console time from 4.5 to 2.9 h (174 ± 4.5 min) and docking time from 15 to 9 ± 1 min from 30th case onwards.

Conclusion

RA surgeries for rectal cancer have got good oncological and functional outcomes in high BMI, male pelvis and low rectal cancers. Learning curve can be shortened with constant self-auditing of the surgeon and team with each surgeries performed, reviewing the steps and by improving techniques.

Learning curve for robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision: a multicentre, prospective study

AIM

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly important in colorectal surgery. Recognition of the short, safe learning curve (LC) could potentially improve implementation. We evaluated the extent and safety of the LC in robotic resection for rectal cancer.

METHOD

Consecutive rectal cancer resections (January 2018 to February 2021) were prospectively included from three French centres, involving nine surgeons. LC analyses only included surgeons who had performed more than 25 robotic rectal cancer surgeries. The primary endpoint was operating time LC and the secondary endpoint conversion rate LC. Interphase comparisons included demographic and intraoperative data, operating time, conversion rate, pathological specimen features and postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

In 174 patients (69% men; mean age 62.6 years) the mean operating time was 334.5 ± 92.1 min. Operative procedures included low anterior resection (n = 143) and intersphincteric resection (n = 31). For operating time, there were two or three (centre-dependent) LC phases. After 12-21 cases (learning phase), there was a significant decrease in total operating time (all centres) and an increase in the number of harvested lymph nodes (two centres). For conversion rate, there were two or four LC phases. After 9-14 cases (learning phase), the conversion rate decreased significantly in two centres; in one centre, there was a nonsignificant decrease despite the treatment of significantly more obese patients and patients with previous abdominal surgery. There were no significant differences in interphase comparisons.

CONCLUSION

The LC for RAS in rectal cancer was achieved after 12-21 cases for the operating time and 9-14 cases for the conversion rate. RAS for rectal cancer was safe during this time, with no interphase differences in postoperative complications and circumferential resection margin.

A novel training program: laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted low anterior resection for rectal cancer can be trained simultaneously

Background

Current expectations are that surgeons should be technically proficient in minimally invasive low anterior resection (LAR)-both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery. However, methods to effectively train surgeons for both approaches are under-explored. We aimed to compare two different training programs for minimally invasive LAR, focusing on the learning curve and perioperative outcomes of two trainee surgeons.

Methods

We reviewed 272 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic LAR by surgeons A and B, who were novices in conducting minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Surgeon A was trained by first operating on 80 cases by laparoscopy and then 56 cases by robotic-assisted surgery. Surgeon B was trained by simultaneously performing 80 cases by laparoscopy and 56 by robotic-assisted surgery. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) method was used to evaluate the learning curves of operative time and surgical failure.

Results

For laparoscopic surgery, the CUSUM plots showed a longer learning process for surgeon A than surgeon B (47 vs. 32 cases) for operative time, but a similar trend in surgical failure (23 vs. 19 cases). For robotic surgery, the plots of the two surgeons showed similar trends for both operative times (23 vs. 25 cases) and surgical failure (17 vs. 19 cases). Therefore, the learning curves of surgeons A and B were respectively divided into two phases at the 47th and 32nd cases for laparoscopic surgery and at the 23rd and 25th cases for robotic surgery. The clinicopathological outcomes of the two surgeons were similar in each phase of the learning curve for each surgery.

Conclusions

For surgeons with rich experience in open colorectal resections, simultaneous training for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted LAR of rectal cancer is safe, effective, and associated with accelerated learning curves.

Operative and oncological outcomes after robotic rectal resection compared with laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery, show little difference in clinical outcomes to justify the expense. We systematically reviewed and pooled evidence from studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection.

METHOD

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica (EMBASE), and Cochrane databases were searched for studies between 1996 and 2021 comparing clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgeries involving total mesorectal excision. Outcome measures included operative times, conversions to open, complications, recurrence and survival rates.

RESULTS

Fifty eligible studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections; three were randomized trials. Pooled results showed significantly longer operating times for robotic surgery but lower conversion and complications rates, shorter lengths of stay in hospital, better rates of complete mesorectal resection and better three-year overall survival. However, the low number of randomized studies makes most data subject to bias.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence supports the safety and ongoing use of robotic rectal cancer surgery, while further high-quality evidence is sought to justify the expense.

Learning curve of robotic rectal surgery using risk-adjusted cumulative summation: a 5-year institutional experience

PURPOSE

Outline learning phases of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer and compare surgical and clinical outcomes between each phase of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery and the mastery phase of conventional laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2020, 210 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery at Sendai Medical Center. We performed conventional laparoscopic surgery in 110 patients and, laparoscopic surgery in 100 patients. The learning curve was evaluated using the cumulative summation method, risk-adjusted cumulative summation method, and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The risk-adjusted cumulative summation learning curve was divided into three phases: phase 1 (cases 1-48), phase 2 (cases 49-80), and phase 3 (cases 81-100). Duration of hospital stay (13.1 days vs. 18.0 days, respectively; p = 0.016) and surgery (209.1 min vs. 249.5 min, respectively; p = 0.045) were significantly shorter in phase 3 of the robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery group than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group. Blood loss volume was significantly lower in phase 1 of the robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery group than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group (17.7 ml vs. 79.7 ml, respectively; p = 0.036). The International Prostate Symptom Score was significantly lower in the robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery group (p = 0.0131).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer was safe and demonstrated better surgical and clinical outcomes, including a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, and a shorter surgical duration, than conventional laparoscopic surgery. After experience with at least 80 cases, tactile familiarity can be acquired from visual information only (visual haptic feedback).

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN reference no. UMIN000019857.

Seniority of the assistant surgeon and perioperative outcomes in robotic-assisted proctectomy for rectal cancer

The background of this study is to evaluate the impact of the assistant surgeon's in robotic-assisted proctectomy (RAP) on perioperative outcomes. A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent RAP for rectal adenocarcinoma between 2011 and 2020 was conducted. Patient cohort was divided into three groups based on the assistant surgeon's training level: post-graduate years (PGY) 1-3 surgical residents (Group 1), PGY 4-5 surgical residents (Group 2), and board-certified general surgeons (Group 3). Overall, 175 patients were included in the study: 29 patients (17%) in Group 1, 84 (48%) in Group 2, and 62 (35%) in Group 3. The median tumor distance from the anal verge was 8 cm in all groups (p = 0.73). The median operative time was similar across all groups: 290, 291, and 281 min in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p = 0.69). In a multivariable analysis, the lack of association between assistant training level and procedure time maintained when adjusting for the year of operation (p = 0.84). Patients operated with junior residents as assistant surgeons (Group 1) had a more postoperative complications (p = 0.01) and a slightly longer hospital length of stay [7 days, interquartile range (IQR) 3], compared to those operated by assistant surgeons that were senior residents or attendings (6 IQR 2.5, and 6 IQR 2 in Groups 2 and 3, respectively; p = 0.02). Conversion rates (p = 0.12), intraoperative complications (p = 0.39), major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3; p = 0.32), 30-day readmission (p = 0.45), and mortality (p = 0.99) were similar between the groups. Robotic-assisted proctectomy performed with the assistance of a junior resident was found to be correlated with worse postoperative outcomes compared to more experienced assistants. No difference was seen in intraoperative outcomes.

Learning curve and surgical outcome of robotic assisted colorectal surgery with ERAS program

This study analyzed learning curve and the surgical outcome of robotic assisted colorectal surgery with ERAS program. The study results serve as a reference for future robotic colorectal surgeon who applied ERAS in clinical practice. This was a retrospective case-control study to analyze the learning curve of 141 robotic assisted colorectal surgery (RAS) by Da Vinci Xi (Xi) system and compare the surgical outcomes with 147 conventional laparoscopic (LSC) surgery in the same team. Evaluation for maturation was performed by operation time and the CUSUM plot. Patients were recruited from 1st February 2019 to 9th January 2022; follow-up was conducted at 30 days, and the final follow-up was conducted on 9th February 2022. It both took 31 cases for colon and rectal robotic surgeries to reach the maturation phase. Teamwork maturation was achieved after 60 cases. In the maturation stage, RAS required a longer operation time (mean: colon: 249.5 ± 46.5 vs. 190.3 ± 57.3 p < 0.001; rectum 314.9 ± 59.6 vs. 223.6 ± 63.5 p < 0.001). After propensity score matching, robotic surgery with ERAS program resulted in significant shorter length of hospital stay (mean: colon: 5.5 ± 4.5 vs. 10.0 ± 11.9, p < 0.001; rectum: 5.4 ± 3.5 vs. 10.1 ± 7.0, p < 0.001), lower minor complication rate (colon: 6.0% vs 20.0%, p = 0.074 ; rectum: 11.1% vs 33.3%, p = 0.102), and no significant different major complication rate (colon: 2.0% vs 6.0%, p = 0.617; rectum: 7.4% cs 7.4%, p = 1.0) to conventional LSC. Learning curve for robotic assisted colorectal surgery takes 31 cases. Robotic surgery with ERAS program brings significant faster recovery and fewer complication rate compared to laparoscopy in colorectal surgery.

The learning curve of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment of rectal carcinoma is surgical resection according to the total mesorectal excision principle, either by open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal technique. No clear consensus exists regarding the length of the learning curve for the minimal invasive techniques. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the learning curve of minimal invasive TME.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for studies with the primary or secondary aim to assess the learning curve of either laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal TME for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was length of the learning curve per minimal invasive technique. Descriptive statistics were used to present results and the MINORS tool was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

45 studies, with 7562 patients, were included in this systematic review. Length of the learning curve based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, or a composite endpoint using a risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis was 50 procedures for the laparoscopic technique, 32-75 procedures for the robot-assisted technique and 36-54 procedures for the transanal technique. Due to the low quality of studies and a high level of heterogeneity a meta-analysis could not be performed. Heterogeneity was caused by patient-related factors, surgeon-related factors and differences in statistical methods.

CONCLUSION

Current high-quality literature regarding length of the learning curve of minimal invasive TME techniques is scarce. Available literature suggests equal lengths of the learning curves of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal TME. Well-designed studies, using adequate statistical methods are required to properly assess the learning curve, while taking into account patient-related and surgeon-related factors.

Learning curve analysis for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection in rectal cancers - Outcomes improve with experience

INTRODUCTION

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) is a technically challenging procedure and its learning curve has not been analysed against an oncologically relevant outcome. The purpose of the study was to determine the learning curve for LPLND in rectal cancers using nodal retrieval as performance measure.

METHODS

Consecutive LPLND for rectal adenocarcinomas from a single institution were retrospectively analysed. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) control charts were used to detect difference in performance with respect to lymph node yield. Negative binomial regression was used to determine factors influencing nodal harvest using Incidence Risk Ratios (IRR). Separate CUSUM curves were generated for open and minimally invasive surgeries (MIS).

RESULTS

One-hundred and twenty patients were included and all received preoperative radiation. MIS was used in 53.3%. Median lymph node yield was 6 with 20% nodal positivity. Increasing experience (IRR - 1.196) and MIS (IRR - 1.586) were the only factors that influenced nodal harvest. CUSUM charts revealed that learning curve was achieved after the 83rd case overall and after the 19 operations in MIS. There was a 20% increase in nodal yield after every 30 MIS LPLND performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Learning curve for LPLND is relatively long and only increasing experience and minimally invasive operations increased nodal yield.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the use of binary metric-based (proficiency-based progression; PBP) performance assessments and global evaluative assessment of robotic skills (GEARS) of a robotic-assisted low anterior rectal resection (RA-LAR) procedure.

Method

A prospective study of video analysis of RA-LAR procedures was carried out using the PBP metrics with binary parameters previously developed, and GEARS. Recordings were collected from five novice surgeons (≤30 RA-LAR previously performed) and seven experienced surgeons (>30 RA-LAR previously performed). Two consultant colorectal surgeons were trained to be assessors in the use of PBP binary parameters to evaluate the procedure phases, surgical steps, errors, and critical errors in male and female patients and GEARS scores. Novice and experienced surgeons were categorized and assessed using PBP metrics and GEARS; mean scores obtained were compared for statistical purpose. Also, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of these assessment tools was evaluated.

Results

Twenty unedited recordings of RA-LAR procedures were blindly assessed. Overall, using PBP metric-based assessment, a subgroup of experienced surgeons made more errors (20 versus 16, P = 0.158) and critical errors (9.2 versus 7.8, P = 0.417) than the novice group, although not significantly. However, during the critical phase of RA-LAR, experienced surgeons made significantly fewer errors than the novice group (95% CI of the difference, Lower = 0.104 – Upper = 5.155, df = 11.9, t = 2.23, p = 0.042), and a similar pattern was observed for critical errors. The PBP metric and GEARS assessment tools distinguished between the objectively assessed performance of experienced and novice colorectal surgeons performing RA-LAR (total error scores with PBP metrics, P = 0.019–0.008; GEARS scores, P = 0.029–0.025). GEARS demonstrated poor IRR (mean IRR 0.49) and weaker discrimination between groups (15–41 per cent difference). PBP binary metrics demonstrated good IRR (mean 0.94) and robust discrimination particularly for total error scores (58–64 per cent).

Conclusions

PBP binary metrics seem to be useful for metric-based training for surgeons learning RA-LAR procedures.

Current status and role of robotic approach in patients with low-lying rectal cancer

Utilization of robotic surgical systems has increased over the years. Robotic surgery is presumed to have advantages of enhanced visualization, improved dexterity, and reduced tremor, which is purported to be more suitable for rectal cancer surgery in a confined space than laparoscopic or open surgery. However, evidence supporting improved clinical and oncologic outcomes after robotic surgery remains controversial and limited despite the widespread adoption of robotic surgical systems. To date, numerous observational studies and a few randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate that short-term, oncological, and functional outcomes after a robotic surgery are superior to those of laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer patients. The objective of this review is to summarize the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on low-lying rectal cancer.

Learning curve for single-port robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery

Purpose

We analyzed the learning curve of single-port robotic (SPR)-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

Methods

Fifty-seven consecutive SPR-assisted rectal cancer surgery cases performed by the same surgeon were considered in surgical interventions for rectal cancer. Total operation time (OT), docking time (DT), and surgeon console time (SCT) measured during surgery were used to parametrize the learning curve. The parameters representing the learning curve were evaluated using the cumulative sum (CUSUM).

Results

The mean value of total OT was 241.8 ± 91.7 minutes, the mean value of DT was 20.6 ± 19.1 minutes, and the mean value of SCT was 135.9 ± 66.7 minutes. The learning curve was divided into phase 1 (initial 16 cases), phase 2 (second 16 cases), and phase 3 (subsequent 25 cases). The peak on the CUSUM graph occurred in the 21st case. The longest OT among phases was in phase 2. Complications were most frequent in phase 2. However, complications of Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade IIIb were most frequent in phase 3 with 2 patients. The most common complications were fluid collection and urinary retention (7 patients each). Complications of CD grade IIIb required one stomal revision due to stoma obstruction and one irrigation and loop ileostomy due to anastomosis leakage.

Conclusion

Improvement in surgical performance of SPR assisted rectal cancer operation was achieved after 21 cases. The three phases identified in the cumulative sum analysis showed a significant decrease in operative time after the middle stage of the learning curve without an increase in the complication rate.

Learning curve for robotic bedside assistance for rectal cancer: application of the cumulative sum method

BACKGROUND

This investigation assesses the learning curve for dedicated bedside assistance at a facility that recently adopted robot-assisted rectal resection.

METHODS

Data from patients with rectal cancer who underwent robotic rectal resections from September 2019 through April 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Before starting robotic surgery, we set the rule that a console surgeon would not enter the sterile field and all of those maneuvers would be left to a dedicated physician. Docking time was analyzed using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method to evaluate the learning curve. Different phases in the learning curve were identified according to CUSUM plot configuration. A comparison was made of phases 1 and 2 combined, and phase 3.

RESULT

The procedures were performed in 30 patients. Median docking time, console time was 13 min. A total of nine patients had histories of abdominal surgery. CUSUM analysis of docking time demonstrated 3 phases. Each docking time was longer in Phase 1 (the first 3 cases) than the average docking time over the all cases. The docking time in Phase 2 (the 9 middle cases) approximated the average time over the all cases. Phase 3 (the remaining 18 cases) showed further improvement of the docking procedure and time was reduced. A comparison of Phases 1 and 2 combined, and Phase 3, revealed that Phase 3 had a significantly higher rate of history of abdominal surgery.

CONCLUSION

Docking manipulation proficiency was achieved in approximately 10 cases without the influence of surgical difficulty.

The learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review

AIM

The learning curve has implications for efficient surgical training. Robotic surgery is perceived to have a shorter learning curve than laparoscopy; however, detailed analysis is lacking. The aim of this work was to analyse studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic colorectal learning curves. Simulation studies comparing novices' learning curves were analysed in order to surmise applicability to colorectal surgery.

METHOD

A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library identified colorectal papers (from 1 January 2000 to 3 March 2021) comparing robotic and laparoscopic learning curves where surgeons lacked laparoscopic colorectal experience. Simulation studies comparing learning curves were also included. The learning curve was defined as the period of ongoing improvement in speed and/or accuracy.

RESULTS

From 576 abstracts reviewed, three operative and 16 simulation studies were included. The robotic learning curve for right colectomy was significantly faster in one study (16 vs. 25 cases) and equal for anterior resection in two studies (44 vs. 41 cases and 55 vs. 55). One study showed fewer complications for robotic patients (14.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.013). Ten simulation studies reported faster times and eight recorded error rates favouring robotic surgery. Seven studies measured the learning curve. Four favoured laparoscopic surgery, but operating times were faster using the robotic platform.

CONCLUSION

Operating times for robotic surgery may be faster than laparoscopy when surgeons are inexperienced with both platforms. This may be related to a superior baseline performance rather than a shorter learning curve. Whether a shorter learning curve on the laparoscopic platform will persist for long enough to enable skills to overtake robotic ability needs further investigation.

Robotic and robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of short-term and long-term results

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer (RC) is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. This study conducted a meta-analysis of rectal cancer surgery for short-term and long-term outcome by Robotic and robotic-assisted surgery (RS) vs laparoscopic surgery (LS).Pubmed, Embase, Ovid, CNKI, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of short-term and long-term effect between RS and LS for RC were selected. Lymph node harvested, operation time, hospital stay, circumferential resection margins（CRM), complications, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year DFS parameters were evaluated. All data were performed by Review Manager 5.3 software. Nine studies were collected that included 1436 cases in total, 716 (49.86%) in the RS group, 720(50.14%) in the LS group. Compared with LS, RS was associated with longer operation time (MD 35.19, 95%CI [7.57, 62.81]; P = 0.01), but similar hospital stay (MD -0.43, 95%CI [-0.87,0.01]; P = 0.05).Lymph node harvested, CRM, complications, 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS had no significance difference between RS and LS groups（MD -0.67，95%CI[-1.53，0.19]；P = 0.13；MD 0.86，95%CI[0.54,1.37]；P = 0.52；MD 0.97，95%CI [0.73,1.29]；P = 0.86；MD 0.94，95%CI[0.60,1.48]；P = 0.79；MD 0.88，95%CI[0.52,1.47]；P = 0.61 respectively）.RS is feasible and safe for RC. It has an advantage in short -term outcome and a similar effect in long-term outcome compared with LS.

Defining a minimum hospital volume threshold for minimally invasive colon cancer resections

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy is considered the standard of care in colon cancer treatment when appropriate expertise is available. However, guidelines do not delineate what experience is required to implement this approach safely and effectively. This study aimed to establish a data-derived, hospital-level annual volume threshold for laparoscopic colectomy at which patient outcomes are optimized.

METHODS

This evaluation included 44,157 stage I to III adenocarcinoma patients aged ≥40 years who underwent laparoscopic colon resection between 2010 and 2015 within the National Cancer Database. The primary outcome was overall survival, with 30- and 90-day mortality, duration of stay, days to receipt of chemotherapy, and number of lymph nodes examined as secondary. Segmented logistic and Cox regression models were used to identify volume thresholds which optimized these outcomes.

RESULTS

In hospitals performing ≥30 laparoscopic colectomies per year there were incremental improvements in overall survival for each additional resection beyond 30. Hospitals performing ≥30 procedures/year demonstrated improved 30-day mortality (1.3% vs 1.7%, P < .001), 90-day mortality (2.3% vs 2.9%, P < .001), and overall survival (84.3% vs 82.3%, P < .001). Those hospitals performing <30 procedures/year had no significant benefit in overall survival. Thresholds were not identified for any other outcomes. Results were comparable in colon cancer patients with stage IV or multiple cancers.

CONCLUSION

A high-volume hospital threshold of ≥30 cases/year for laparoscopic colectomies is associated with improved patient survival and outcomes. A minimum volume standard may help providers determine which approach is most suitable for their hospital's practice as open procedures may yield better oncologic results in low volume settings.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer: a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer has important technical limitations. Robot-assisted and transanal TME (TaTME) may overcome these limitations, potentially leading to lower conversion rates and reduced morbidity. However, comparative data between the three approaches are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes for laparoscopic TME, robot-assisted TME and TaTME in expert centres.

METHODS

Patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery between 2015 and 2017 in expert centres for laparoscopic, robot-assisted or TaTME were included. Outcomes for TME surgery performed by the specialized technique in the expert centres were compared after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was conversion rate. Secondary outcomes were morbidity and pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1078 patients were included. In rectal cancer surgery in general, the overall rate of primary anastomosis was 39.4, 61.9 and 61.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME centres respectively (P < 0.001). For specialized techniques in expert centres excluding abdominoperineal resection (APR), the rate of primary anastomosis was 66.7 per cent in laparoscopic, 89.8 per cent in robot-assisted and 84.3 per cent in TaTME (P < 0.001). Conversion rates were 3.7 , 4.6 and 1.9 per cent in laparoscopic, robot-assisted and TaTME respectively (P = 0.134). The number of incomplete specimens, circumferential resection margin involvement rate and morbidity rates did not differ.

CONCLUSION

In the minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer more primary anastomoses are created in robotic and TaTME expert centres.

Robotic Colorectal Cancer Surgery. How to Reach Expertise? A Single Surgeon-Experience

The complexity associated with laparoscopic colorectal surgery requires several skills to overcome the technical difficulties related to this procedure. To overcome the technical challenges of laparoscopic surgery, a robotic approach has been introduced. Our study reports the surgical outcomes obtained by the transition from laparoscopic to robotic approach in colorectal cancer surgery to establish in which type of approach the proficiency is easier to reach. Data about the first consecutive 15 laparoscopic and the first 15 consecutive robotic cases are extracted, adopting as a comparator of proficiency the last 15 laparoscopic colorectal resections for cancer. The variables studied are operative time, number of harvested nodes, conversion rate, postoperative complications, recovery outcomes. Our analysis includes 15 patients per group. Our results show that operative time is significantly longer in the first 15 laparoscopic cases (p = 0.001). A significantly lower number of harvested nodes was retrieved in the first 15 laparoscopic cases (p = 0.003). Clavien Dindo I complication rate was higher in the first laparoscopic group, but without a significant difference among the three groups (p = 0.09). Our results show that the surgeon needed no apparent learning curve to reach their laparoscopic standards. However, further multicentric prospective studies are needed to confirm this conclusion.

Implementation of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision by multiple surgeons in a large teaching hospital: Morbidity, long-term oncological and functional outcome

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) might offer benefits in less morbidity, better functional and long-term outcome over laparoscopic TME.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing robot-assisted TME for rectal cancer during implementation between May 2015 and December 2019 performed by five surgeons in a single centre were included. Outcomes included local recurrence rate at 3 years, conversion rate, circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity rate, 30-day postoperative morbidity and outcomes of low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) questionnaires.

RESULTS

In 105 robot-assisted TME, local recurrence rate at 3 years was 7.4%, conversion to open surgery rate was 8.6%, CRM positivity rate was 5.7%, 73.3% had good quality specimen, postoperative morbidity rate was 47.6% and anastomotic leakage rate was 9.0%. Incidence of major LARS was 55.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

results of this study described acceptable morbidity, functional and long-term outcome during implementation of robotic TME for rectal cancer by multiple surgeons in a single centre.

Impact of laparoscopic surgical experience on the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has advantages in terms of the ergonomic design and expectations of shortening the learning curve, which may reduce the number of patients with adverse outcomes during a surgeon's learning period. We investigated the differences in the learning curves of robotic surgery and clinical outcomes for rectal cancer among surgeons with differences in their experiences of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic surgery for colorectal cancer were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were divided into five groups by surgeons, and their clinical outcomes were analyzed. The learning curve of each surgeon with different volumes of laparoscopic experience was analyzed using the cumulative sum technique (CUSUM) for operation times, surgical failure (open conversion or anastomosis-related complications), and local failure (positive resection margins or local recurrence within 1 year).

RESULTS

A total of 662 patients who underwent robotic low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer were included in the analysis. Number of laparoscopic LAR cases performed by surgeon A, B, C, D, and E prior to their first case of robotic surgery were 403, 40, 15, 5, and 0 cases, respectively. Based on CUSUM for operation time, surgeon A, B, C, D, and E's learning curve periods were 110, 39, 114, 55, and 23 cases, respectively. There were no significant differences in the surgical and oncological outcomes after robotic LAR among the surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the limited impact of laparoscopic surgical experience on the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery, which was greater than previously reported curves.

Comparison of clinical efficacy between robotic-laparoscopic excision and traditional laparoscopy for rectal cancer: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDS

Laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted surgery and open surgery are the most commonly consumed surgical techniques in daily living. Considering that in recent years, the situation of choosing laparoscopic surgery and robot-assisted surgery to treat rectal cancer in China is prosperous. Meanwhile, researches lacked in the comparison part between the 2, so we will systematically compare the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted resection and traditional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search Clinical research literature published before January 2020 in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, Science Network, Wan Fang database, Chinese national knowledge infrastructure, and Chinese biomedicine that evaluate the correlation of rectal cancer with Leonardo's robot and traditional laparoscopy, from inception to July 2019. Weighted mean difference and odds ratio were used to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted resection versus conventional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer, and the main indicators are operation time, complication rate, conversion rate, blood loss, and length of stay.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

This study will systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted resection and traditional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer, thus providing evidence to the clinical application. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval and participant consent are required, since this study data is based on published literature. The results of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020172161.

Robotic sphincter saving rectal cancer surgery: A learning curve analysis

BACKGROUND

Longer operation time is one of the major obstacles in front of the proposed benefits of robotic rectal surgery. We intended to evaluate the learning process for robotic surgery in sphincter saving rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

The learning curve was evaluated using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method. The variable evaluated for learning curve calculation was the operative time.

RESULTS

The learning curve was divided into two phases: initial 52 operations comprised phase 1 and the following 44 operations represented phase 2. Interphase comparisons showed that phase 2 patients had shorter operation times (323.3 ± 102.8 vs. 379.9 ± 108.7 min, p = 0.011), less blood loss (37.2 ± 51.0 vs. 87.7 ± 124.8 mL, p = 0.009), longer distal resection margins (4.5 ± 4.3 vs. 2.5 ± 1.7 cm, p = 0.008), and higher rates of grade 3 mesorectal completeness (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this study, we saw that the cut-off level in the learning curve of a laparoscopically experienced surgeon could be beyond the numbers reported in the literature.

Impact of robotic learning curve on histopathology in rectal cancer: A pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

A beneficial impact of robotic proctectomy on circumferential resection margin (CRM) is expected due to the robot's articulating instruments in the pelvis. There are however concerns about a negative impact on the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) due to the lack of tactile feedback. The aim of this study was to assess whether surgeons' learning curve impacted CRM and TME quality.

METHODS

In a multicenter study, individual patient data of robotic proctectomy for resectable rectal cancer were pooled. Patients were stratified into two phases of surgeons' learning curve. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to determine the transition from learning phase (LP) to plateau phase (PP), which were compared. CRM was microscopically measured in mm by pathologists. TME quality was classified by pathologists as complete, nearly complete or incomplete. T-test and Chi-squared tests were used to compare continuous and categorical variables, respectively.

RESULTS

235 patients underwent robotic proctectomy by five surgeons. 83 LP patients were comparable to 152 PP patients for age (p = 0.20), gender (67.5% vs. 65.1% males; p = 0.72), BMI (p = 0.82), cancer stage (p = 0.36), neoadjuvant chemoradiation (p = 0.13), distance of tumor from anal verge (5.8 ± 4.4 vs. 5.5 ± 3.3; p = 0.56). CRM did not differ (7.7 ± 11.4 mm vs. 8.4 ± 10.3 mm; p = 0.62). The rate of complete TME quality was significantly improved in PP patients as compared to LP patients (73.5% vs. 92.1%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

While learning had no impact on circumferential resection margins, the quality of TME significantly improved during surgeons' plateau phase as compared to their learning phase.

A Multicenter Matched Comparison of Transanal and Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Mid and Low-rectal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To compare the quality of surgical resection of transanal total mesorectal excision (TA-TME) and robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME).

BACKGROUND

Both TA-TME and R-TME have been advocated to improve the quality of surgery for rectal cancer below 10 cm from the anal verge, but there are little data comparing TA-TME and R-TME.

METHODS

Data of patients undergoing TA-TME or R-TME for rectal cancer below 10 cm from the anal verge and a sphincter-saving procedure from 5 high-volume rectal cancer referral centers between 2011 and 2017 were obtained. Coarsened exact matching was used to create balanced cohorts of TA-TME and R-TME. The main outcome was the incidence of poor-quality surgical resection, defined as a composite measure including incomplete quality of TME, or positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) or distal resection margin (DRM).

RESULTS

Out of a total of 730 patients (277 TA-TME, 453 R-TME), matched groups of 226 TA-TME and 370 R-TME patients were created. These groups were well-balanced. The mean tumor height from the anal verge was 5.6 cm (SD 2.5), and 70% received preoperative radiotherapy. The incidence of poor-quality resection was similar in both groups (TA-TME 6.9% vs R-TME 6.8%; P = 0.954). There were no differences in TME specimen quality (complete or near-complete TA-TME 99.1% vs R-TME 99.2%; P = 0.923) and CRM (5.6% vs 6.0%; P = 0.839). DRM involvement may be higher after TA-TME (1.8% vs 0.3%; P = 0.051).

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality TME for patients with rectal adenocarcinoma of the mid and low rectum can be equally achieved by transanal or robotic approaches in skilled hands, but attention should be paid to the distal margin.

Use of Robotic Technology in the Management of Complex Colorectal Pathology

Use of robotic surgery is increasing in multiple surgical specialties including colorectal. We argue that the improved visualization and better instrumentation outweigh the increased cost and operating room time. However, the indications for its use are not clearly defined. This is especially true in complex pathologies such as rectal cancer and complicated diverticulitis. We explore the limited clinical data on the subject to support or dismiss the use of this currently developing technology.

Can better surgical outcomes be obtained in the learning process of robotic rectal cancer surgery? A propensity score-matched comparison between learning phases

BACKGROUND

Although studies of robotic rectal cancer surgery have demonstrated the effects of learning on operation time, comparisons have failed to demonstrate differences in clinicopathological outcomes between unadjusted learning phases. This study aimed to investigate the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer surgery for clinicopathological outcomes and compare surgical outcomes between adjusted learning phases. Study design We enrolled 506 consecutive patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent robotic resection by a single surgeon between 2007 and 2018. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) for surgical failure was used to analyze the learning curve. Surgical failure was defined as the occurrence of any of the following: conversion to open surgery, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3a), insufficient number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs), or R1 resection. Comparisons between learning phases analyzed by RA-CUSUM were performed before and after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

In RA-CUSUM analysis, the learning curve was divided into two learning phases: phase 1 (1st-177th cases, n = 177) and phase 2 (178th-506th cases, n = 329). Before matching, patients in phase 2 had deeper tumor invasion and higher rates of positive LNs on pretreatment images and preoperative chemoradiotherapy. After matching, phase 1 (n = 150) and phase 2 (n = 150) patients exhibited similar clinical characteristics. Phase 2 patients had lower rates of surgical failure overall and these components: conversion to open surgery, severe complications, and insufficient harvested LNs.

CONCLUSIONS

For robotic rectal cancer surgery, surgical outcomes improved after the 177th case. Further studies by other robotic surgeons are required to validate our results.

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.

Short-term efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy via Huang's three-step maneuver for advanced upper gastric cancer: Results from a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been considered to be significantly better than laparoscopic surgery for complicated procedures.

AIM

To explore the short-term effect of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymphadenectomy (SPSHL) for advanced gastric cancer (GC) by Huang’s three-step maneuver.

METHODS

A total of 643 patients who underwent SPSHL were recruited from April 2012 to July 2017, including 35 patients who underwent robotic SPSHL (RSPSHL) and 608 who underwent laparoscopic SPSHL (LSPSHL). One-to-four propensity score matching was used to analyze the differences in clinical data between patients who underwent robotic SPSHL and those who underwent laparoscopic SPSHL.

RESULTS

In all, 175 patients were matched, including 35 patients who underwent RSPSHL and 140 who underwent LSPSHL. After matching, there were no significant differences detected in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. Significant differences in total operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), splenic hilar blood loss (SHBL), splenic hilar dissection time (SHDT), and splenic trunk dissection time were evident between these groups (P < 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the overall noncompliance rate of lymph node (LN) dissection (62.9% vs 60%, P = 0.757), number of retrieved No. 10 LNs (3.1 ± 1.4 vs 3.3 ± 2.5, P = 0.650), total number of examined LNs (37.8 ± 13.1 vs 40.6 ± 13.6, P = 0.274), and postoperative complications (14.3% vs 17.9%, P = 0.616). A stratified analysis that divided the patients receiving RSPSHL into an early group (EG) and a late group (LG) revealed that the LG experienced obvious improvements in SHDT and length of stay compared with the EG (P < 0.05). Logistic regression showed that robotic surgery was a significantly protective factor against both SHBL and SHDT (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

RSPSHL is safe and feasible, especially after overcoming the early learning curve, as this procedure results in a radical curative effect equivalent to that of LSPSHL.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I² = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (ρ < 0.001, I² = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (ρ < 0.001, I² = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (ρ < 0.001, I² = 94%; REM: MD - 0.77; 95% CI 1.12, - 0.41; day), time to oral diet (ρ < 0.001, I² = 60%; REM: MD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.64, - 0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (ρ = 0.01, I² = 88%; REM: MD - 18.05; 95% CI - 32.24, - 3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (ρ < 0.001, I² = 93%; REM: MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

Structured training pathway and proctoring; multicenter results of the implementation of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in the Netherlands

Background

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) is a new complex technique with potential to improve the quality of surgical mesorectal excision for patients with mid and low rectal cancer. The procedure is technically challenging and has shown to be associated with a relative long learning curve which might hamper widespread adoption. Therefore, a national structured training pathway for TaTME has been set up in the Netherlands to allow safe implementation. The aim of this study was to monitor safety and efficacy of the training program with 12 centers.

Methods

Short-term outcomes of the first ten TaTME procedures were evaluated in 12 participating centers in the Netherlands within the national structured training pathway. Consecutive patients operated during and after the proctoring program for rectal carcinoma with curative intent were included. Primary outcome was the incidence of intraoperative complications, secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and pathological outcomes.

Results

In October 2018, 12 hospitals completed the training program and from each center the first 10 patients were included for evaluation. Intraoperative complications occurred in 4.9% of the cases. The clinicopathological outcome reported 100% for complete or nearly complete specimen, 100% negative distal resection margin, and the circumferential resection margin was positive in 5.0% of patients. Overall postoperative complication rate was 45.0%, with 19.2% Clavien–Dindo ≥ III and an anastomotic leak rate of 17.3%.

Conclusions

This study shows that the nationwide structured training program for TaTME delivers safe implementation of TaTME in terms of intraoperative and pathology outcomes within the first ten consecutive cases in each center. However, postoperative morbidity is substantial even within a structured training pathway and surgeons should be aware of the learning curve of this new technique.

Learning Curve of Robotic Rectal Surgery With Lateral Lymph Node Dissection: Cumulative Sum and Multiple Regression Analyses

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the learning curve of robotic rectal surgery, a procedure that has gained increasing focus in recent years because it is expected that the advanced devices used in this approach provide advantages resulting in a shorter learning curve than that of laparoscopic surgery. However, no studies have assessed the learning curve of robotic rectal surgery, especially when lateral lymph node dissection is required.

DESIGN

This was a nonrandomized, retrospective study from a single institution.

SETTING

All consecutive patients who underwent robotic rectal or sigmoid colon surgery by a single surgeon between February 2012 and July 2016 in the University of Tokyo Hospital were enrolled. The learning curve for console time was assessed using a cumulative sum analysis and multiple linear regression analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 131 consecutive patients underwent robotic rectal or sigmoid colon surgery performed by a single experienced surgeon. Of these, 41 patients received lateral lymph node dissection.

RESULTS

A cumulative sum plot for console time demonstrated that the learning period could be divided into 3 phases: Phase I, Cases 1 to 19; Phase II, Cases 20 to 78; and Phase III, Cases 79 to 131. Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that console time decreased significantly from one phase to another (Phase I-II, Δconsole time 83.0 minutes; Phase II-III, Δconsole time 40.1 minutes). Other factors affecting console time included body mass index, operative procedure, and lateral lymph node dissection, but not neoadjuvant therapy (such as chemoradiotherapy) or depth of invasion. Lateral lymph node dissection required an additional 138.4 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the first phase of the learning curve consists of the first 19 cases, which seems sufficient to master the manipulation of robotic arms and to understand spatial relationships unique to the robotic procedure.

Meta-analysis of Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE for relevant papers published between 2010 and December 2017 by using specific search terms. We analyzed outcomes over short- and long-term periods.

RESULTS

We identified 23 papers reporting results that compared RAS for rectal cancer with LAS. Our meta-analysis included 4,348 patients with rectal cancer; 2,068 had undergone RAS, and 2,280 had undergone LAS. In the short- and long-term period, 27 and 7 outcome variables were examined, respectively. RAS for rectal cancer was significantly associated with a greater operative time and a lower conversion rate to open surgery in the short-term, and results in almost similar outcomes in the long-term, compared to LAS.

CONCLUSION

RAS may be an acceptable surgical treatment option compared to LAS for rectal cancer.

Meta-analysis of Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robot-assisted (RAS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE for relevant papers published between 2010 and December 2017 by using specific search terms. We analyzed outcomes over short- and long-term periods.

RESULTS

We identified 23 papers reporting results that compared RAS for rectal cancer with LAS. Our meta-analysis included 4,348 patients with rectal cancer; 2,068 had undergone RAS, and 2,280 had undergone LAS. In the short- and long-term period, 27 and 7 outcome variables were examined, respectively. RAS for rectal cancer was significantly associated with a greater operative time and a lower conversion rate to open surgery in the short-term, and results in almost similar outcomes in the long-term, compared to LAS.

CONCLUSION

RAS may be an acceptable surgical treatment option compared to LAS for rectal cancer.

Transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: evaluation of the learning curve

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) provides an excellent view of the resection margins for rectal cancer from below, but is challenging due to few anatomical landmarks. During implementation of this technique, patient safety and optimal outcomes need to be ensured. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve of TaTME in patients with rectal cancer in order to optimize future training programs.

METHODS

All consecutive patients after TaTME for rectal cancer between February 2012 and January 2017 were included in a single-center database. Influence of surgical experience on major postoperative complications, leakage rate and operating time was evaluated using cumulative sum charts and the splitting model. Correction for potential case-mix differences was performed.

RESULTS

Over a period of 60 months, a total of 138 patients were included in this study. Adjusted for case-mix, improvement in postoperative outcomes was clearly seen after the first 40 patients, showing a decrease in major postoperative complications from 47.5 to 17.5% and leakage rate from 27.5 to 5%. Mean operating time (42 min) and conversion rate (from 10% to zero) was lower after transition to a two-team approach, but neither endpoint decreased with experience. Readmission and reoperation rates were not influenced by surgical experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve of TaTME affected major (surgical) postoperative complications for the first 40 patients. A two-team approach decreased operative time and conversion rate. When implementing this new technique, a thorough teaching and supervisory program is recommended to shorten the learning curve and improve the clinical outcomes of the first patients.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of various parameters related to the patient, the disease, and the needed surgical maneuvers to develop guidance for preoperative selection of the appropriate and the best approach for a given patient. Rapid advances in minimally invasive surgical technology are fascinating and challenging alike. It can be difficult for surgeons to keep up with new modalities that come on to the market place and to assess their true value, i.e., distinguish between fashionable trends versus scientific evidence. Laparoscopy established minimally invasive surgery and has revolutionized surgical concepts and approaches to diseases since its advent in the early 1990s. Now, with robotic surgery rapidly gaining traction in this high-tech surgical landscape, it remains to be seen how the long-term surgical landscape will be affected.

METHODS

Review of the surgical evolution, published data and cost factors to reflect on advantages and disadvantages in order to develop a broader perspective on the role of various technology platforms.

RESULTS

Advocates for robotic technology tout its advantages of 3D views, articulating wrists, lack of hand tremor, and surgeon comfort, which may extend the scope of minimally invasive surgery by allowing for operations in places that are more difficult to access for laparoscopic surgery (e.g., the deep pelvis), for complex tasks (e.g., intracorporeal suturing), and by decreasing the learning curve. But conventional laparoscopy has also evolved and offers high-definition 3D vision to all team members. It remains to be seen whether all together the robot features outweigh the downsides of higher cost, operative times, lack of tactile feedback, possibly unusual complications, inability to move the operative table with ease, and the difficulty to work in different quadrants.

CONCLUSIONS

While technical and design developments will likely address some shortcomings, the value-based impact of the various approaches will have to be examined in general and on a case-by-case basis. Value as the ratio of quality over cost depends on numerous parameters (disease, complications, patient, efficiency, finances).

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer

Laparoscopic surgery has gained acceptance as a less invasive approach in the treatment of colon cancer. However, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, particularly cancer of the lower rectum, is still challenging because of limited accessibility. Robotic surgery overcomes the limitations of laparoscopy associated with anatomy and offers certain advantages, including 3-D imaging, dexterity and ambidextrous capability, lack of tremors, motion scaling, and a short learning curve. Robotic rectal surgery has been reported to reduce conversion rates, particularly in low anterior resection, but it is associated with longer operative times than the conventional laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidities are similar between the robotic and conventional laparoscopic approaches, and oncological outcomes such as the quality of the mesorectum and the status of resection margins are also equivalent. The possible superiority of robotic surgery in terms of the preservation of autonomic function has yet to be established in research based on larger numbers of patients. Although robotic rectal surgery is safe, feasible, and appears to overcome some of the technical limitations associated with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the advantages provided by this technical innovation are currently limited. To justify its expensive cost, robotic surgery is more suitable for select patients, such as obese patients, men, those with cancer of the lower rectum, and those receiving preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

Predictors of Utilization and Quality Assessment in Robotic Rectal Cancer Resection: A Review of the National Cancer Database

Robotic surgery (RS) is a novel treatment for rectal cancer resection (RCR); however, this technology is not widely accessible. The objective of this study is to evaluate the utilization of RS in RCR compared with open and laparoscopic techniques and to assess the quality of resection. RCR from 2010 to 2012 were identified using the National Cancer Database and placed into categories: open, laparoscopic, and robotic. A total of 23,857 patients who received open, laparoscopic, and robotic RCR were included (n = 14,735 (61.8%); 7,185 (30.1%); 1,937 (8.1%), respectively). Patients over 70 had a lower likelihood of robotic RCR. Patients with insurance were 2 times more likely to have robotic RCR. Patients at an academic/research program were more likely to undergo RS compared with a community cancer program (OR 3.6, 95% CI [2.79, 4.78]; P < 0.0001). Length of stay (LOS) was longer in open (7.9 ± 7.1) versus laparoscopic (6.6 ± 6.3) or robotic (6.8 ± 6.4) RCR (P < 0.0001). Although there was an increased likelihood of positive surgical margins with open RCR (OR 1.3, 95% CI [1.09, 1.66]; P < 0.0001), there was no difference in robotic and laparoscopic techniques. Younger insured patients at academic/research affiliated hospitals have a higher likelihood of receiving robotic RCR. Compared with open RCR, robotic RCR have a lower likelihood of positive surgical margins and shorter LOS.

Evidence for the use of robotically assisted surgery in gynecologic cancers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Robotically assisted laparoscopy has been introduced in the armamentarium of gynaecologic oncology surgeons. A lot of studies compared robotic surgery and laparotomy when the real issue is to demonstrate the interest and added value of robotically assisted laparoscopy versus standard laparoscopy. In this review, we will describe the most meaningful indications and advantages of robotically assisted laparoscopy in gynaecologic oncology.

RECENT FINDINGS

The learning curve for advanced procedures in robot-assisted laparoscopy is shorter and easier than with the standard laparoscopy, especially for beginners. In most of the series, operating time is longer with robot, but complication rates are often decreased, especially in obese patients with a conversion rate to laparotomy that is decreased compared with standard laparoscopy. Robot-assisted laparoscopy can be used for surgery of high-risk endometrial cancer, staging of early-ovarian cancer, and pelvic exenteration in case of recurrent malignancies. Furthermore, more recent robots allow performing sentinel node biopsy in endometrial or cervical cancer using fluorescence detection with indocyanine green.

SUMMARY

The spreading of robotic surgery led to an enhancement of minimal invasive surgical approach in general, and to the development of new indications in gynaecologic oncology. The superiority of robot-assisted laparoscopy still has to be demonstrated with properly designed trials.