Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Ann Surg. 2018;267:1034-1046. [PMID: 28984644 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000002523]

The environmental impact of multi-specialty robotic-assisted surgery: a waste audit analysis

Modern advances in medicine and technology have led to an increase in robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) cases. However, concerns have been raised about the potential environmental impact of RAS. Despite this, only limited quantitative evidence is currently available. Therefore, this study aims to objectively quantify the environmental impact of a multi-specialty RAS caseload at an Australian public tertiary hospital. An analysis was performed to quantify the amount of waste produced on a consecutive multi-specialty RAS caseload performed between August 2016 and March 2023 at a major public hospital. The weight of each instrument and consumable was measured and the total weight of discarded waste was calculated for each RAS case. A total of 671 patients underwent RAS using the da Vinci Xi System, including Urology (n = 341, 50.8%), Cardiothoracic (n = 158, 23.5%), Gynaecology (n = 107, 16.0%), and Colorectal (n = 65, 9.7%). Overall, the amount of waste was 2,948.9 kg, with single-use items contributing the largest volume (93.9%). Cardiothoracic generated the lowest average weight of waste per case (3.04 kg) while Colorectal generated the highest (5.27 kg). Overall, the da Vinci Xi instrument arm drape was the single item with the largest contribution to the total weight of waste (32.9%). RAS generates substantial waste, primarily from single-use items. These findings underscore the need for strategies to mitigate the environmental footprint of RAS as its adoption continues to grow.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer was increasing, but there was an ongoing debate as to whether it provided any benefit. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and prognosis of elective rectal resection for rectal cancer by robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.

METHOD

Electronic databases were searched from their inception to 1 February 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison between robotic surgery (RS) and laparoscopic surgery (LS) and performed a meta-analysis of all RCTs according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

11 RCTs including a total of 3107 cases were identified. Compared with LS, RS had a significantly lower conversion rate (odds ratio: 0.42; 95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.63; P < 0.0001), lower reoperation rate (odds ratio: 0.454; 95% confidence interval: 0.31 to 0.94; P = 0.03), more lymph nodes harvested (mean difference: 0.67; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 1.04; P = 0.0004), a smaller incidence of positive circumferential margin (CRM) (odds ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.41 to 0.85; P = 0.004). RS had less time to first autonomous urination (mean difference: -0.78; 95% confidence interval: -1.15 to -0.41; P < 0.0001), less time to first defecation (mean difference: -0.40; 95% confidence interval: -0.78 to -0.01; P = 0.04) and less time to first flatus (mean difference: -0.45; 95% confidence interval: -0.89 to -0.01; P = 0.04), more operating time (mean difference: 23.46; 95% confidence interval: 15.76 to 31.16; P < 0.00001). Overall postoperative complication, short-term postoperative complication, estimate blood loss, hospital stays, Intraoperative complication, postoperative mortality, preventive ostomy rates, readmission did not differ significantly between approaches. (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared to laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery demonstrated superior safety, efficacy, and prognosis. This meta-analysis supports that RS is a safe and effective option.

Minimally Invasive Rectal Surgery: Current Status and Future Perspectives in the Era of Digital Surgery

Over the past two decades, minimally invasive approaches in rectal surgery have changed the landscape of surgical interventions, impacting both malignant and benign pathologies. The dynamic nature of rectal cancer treatment owes much to innovations in surgical techniques, reflected in the expanding literature on available treatment modalities. Local excision, facilitated by minimally invasive surgery, offers curative potential for patients with early T1 rectal cancers and favorable pathologic features. For more complex cases, laparoscopic and robotic surgery have demonstrated significant efficacy and provided precise, durable outcomes while reducing perioperative morbidity and enhancing postoperative recovery. Additionally, advancements in imaging, surgical instrumentation, and enhanced recovery protocols have further optimized patient care. The integration of multidisciplinary care has also emerged as a cornerstone of treatment, emphasizing collaboration among surgeons, oncologists, and radiologists to deliver personalized, evidence-based care. This narrative review aims to elucidate current minimally invasive surgical techniques and approaches for rectal pathologies, spanning benign and malignant conditions, while also exploring future directions in the field, including the potential role of artificial intelligence and next-generation robotic platforms.

Impact of team experience on robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: A comparative study

INTRODUCTION

The robotic surgical team in the operating room plays an important role in determining the outcome of a robotic approach. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of 2 hospitals with different levels of expertise in robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed 195 patients who underwent robot-assisted rectal resection at 2 referral centers for the treatment of rectal cancer between March 2018 and December 2021.

RESULTS

In total, 195 patients had undergone robotic rectal cancer surgery: 95 performed by an expert team, and 100 by a novel team. The expert team performed more low anterior resections (55.8%) than the novel team (33%) (P = 0.001), and the total operative time varied significantly between the groups (P < 0.001). The novel team's operative time was 135 min longer than the expert team's. The expert team had no conversions to open surgery, while the novel team had an 8% conversion rate (P = 0.007). In this study, overall morbidity was 45.3% among patients treated by the expert team versus 38% among those treated by the novice team (P = 0.304). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade >IIIB) occurred at a rate of 10% in both groups. Incomplete mesorectal excision was observed in 3.2% of the expert team's patients versus 4.2% of the novice team's (P = 0.65).

CONCLUSION

The expert team achieved a shorter operative time and less conversion to open surgery. However, the morbidity and pathological outcomes were comparable between the teams. The introduction of robotic surgery in a team with early-stage surgical experience was safe.

Robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer in Africa: an outcome comparison endorsed by the Nigerian society for colorectal disorders

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) offer superior outcomes compared to open surgery. This study aimed to review the robotic and laparoscopic procedures for CRC performed in Africa, and compare the mean surgery duration, blood loss, hospital stay, rate of conversion, and prevalence of morbidity and mortality. This is the first study to compare the outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for CRC in Africa.

METHODS

A systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, AJOL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched, identifying 2,259 publications, 33 of which were deemed eligible. Statistical analysis of outcomes was performed using "R". Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

The minimally invasive approach has been applied for CRC treatment in seven African countries: Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, and South Africa. Laparoscopic surgeries accounted for 1,485 (95%) of cases, while 71 (5%) were robotic. Robotic procedures were associated with a longer surgery duration (256.41 min vs. 190.45 min, p < 0.0001), higher blood loss (226.48 mL vs. 141.55 mL, p < 0.0001), and a shorter hospital stay (4.52 days vs. 6.06 days, p = 0.85). Robotic procedures had a lower rate of conversion (3% vs. 8%, p = 0.29) and a lower prevalence of morbidity (19% vs. 26%, p = 0.26). Wound infection (24.49%) and ileus (57.14%) were the most common complications following laparoscopic and robotic procedures, respectively. There was no mortality from robotic surgeries; however, a prevalence of 0.39% (95% CI: 0;1.19) was recorded from laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes and compares the outcomes of advances in the treatment of CRC in the African setting, providing insights for policymakers, healthcare providers, and international organizations to make decisions regarding optimizing care for CRC patients in Africa.

Pattern of colorectal surgery and long-term survival: 10-year experience from a single center

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased in recent decades, and ranks fourth among males and third among females in China. Surgical resection remains the most important treatment modality for curative intent in CRC. Several studies found that surgeon volumes and specialization appeared to be associated with improved overall survival (OS). Moreover, numerous reports have suggested that specialization and minimally invasive surgery have gained increased popularity in CRC surgery. However, few studies have specifically examined the role and long-term survival of all stage CRC in a real-world study.

AIM

To evaluate the effect of surgeon specialization on survival changes and minimally invasive surgery utilization in a real world study.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis on the association between surgeon specialization and OS between 2008 and 2013 in Zhongshan Hospital CRC database was performed. Standard demographic, clinicopathologic, surgical and follow-up data were obtained from the CRC database. Surgeon specialty was categorized as colorectal surgeon (CS) and general surgeon (GS). CRC patients who underwent primary surgical resection were enrolled.

RESULTS

A total of 5141 CRC patients who underwent primary surgical resection between 2008 and 2013 were evaluated, 1748 (34.0%) of these by CS. The percentage of minimally invasive procedures in the CS group showed an increasing trend. There was no benefit associated with surgeon specialization for stage I, II and IV patients. Surgeon specialization exhibited a significant association with OS solely among stage III patients, with 5-year OS rates of 76% and 67% for the CS and GS groups, respectively (P < 0.01). Further analyses found that surgeon specialization was significantly associated with survival only in stage III rectal patients, and the 5-year OS rate in the CS group and GS group was 80% and 67%, respectively (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Surgeon specialization is associated with improved OS after primary surgery in stage III rectal patients. An appropriate surgical technique, perioperative program and adjuvant therapy may contribute to survival benefit in these patients.

Minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery: an observational study of medicare advantage and fee-for-service beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Enrollment of Medicare beneficiaries in medicare advantage (MA) plans has been steadily increasing. Prior research has shown differences in healthcare access and outcomes based on Medicare enrollment status. This study sought to compare utilization of minimally invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery and postoperative outcomes between MA and Fee-for-Service (FFS) beneficiaries.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of beneficiaries  ≥ 65.5 years of age enrolled in FFS and MA plans was performed of patients undergoing a CRC resection from 2016 to 2019. The primary outcome was operative approach, defined as minimally invasive (laparoscopic) or open. Secondary outcomes included robotic assistance, hospital length-of-stay, mortality, discharge disposition, and hospital readmission. Using balancing weights, we performed a tapered analysis to examine outcomes with adjustment for potential confounders.

RESULTS

MA beneficiaries were less likely to have lymph node (12.9 vs 14.4%, p < 0.001) or distant metastases (15.5% vs 17.0%, p < 0.001), and less likely to receive chemotherapy (6.2% vs 6.7%, p < 0.001), compared to FFS beneficiaries. MA beneficiaries had a higher risk-adjusted likelihood of undergoing laparoscopic CRC resection (OR 1.12 (1.10-1.15), p < 0.001), and similar rates of robotic assistance (OR 1.00 (0.97-1.03), p = 0.912), compared to FFS beneficiaries. There were no differences in risk-adjusted length-of-stay (β coefficient 0.03 (- 0.05-0.10), p = 0.461) or mortality at 30-60-and 90-days (OR 0.99 (0.95-1.04), p = 0.787; OR 1.00 (0.96-1.04), p = 0.815; OR 0.98 (0.95-1.02), p = 0.380). MA beneficiaries had a lower likelihood of non-routine disposition (OR 0.77 (0.75-0.78), p < 0.001) and readmission at 30-60-and 90-days (OR 0.76 (0.73-0.80), p < 0.001; OR 0.78 (0.75-0.81), p < 0.001; OR 0.79 (0.76-0.81), p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

MA beneficiaries had less advanced disease at the time of CRC resection and a greater likelihood of undergoing a laparoscopic procedure. MA enrollment is associated with improved health outcomes for elderly beneficiaries undergoing operative treatment for CRC.

Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted rectal surgery (RARS) and Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery are the two techniques that are increasingly used for rectal cancer, and both have their advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis will analyze the outcomes of both techniques to determine their relative performance and suitability.

METHODS

An extensive search was carried out on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar, followed by a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess both approaches for rectal cancer.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis is comprised of fifteen RCTs. The conversion to open surgery (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38-0.74, P = 0.0002) was significantly lower in the RARS group. The outcomes like anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), surgical site infection (SSI), and intra-abdominal abscess showed no significant difference between the two groups. The reoperation rate (RR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.34-0.95, P = 0.03) was lower in the robotic group. High heterogeneity was obtained when pooling data on operative time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. Oncological outcomes, including local recurrence, the number of harvested lymph nodes (LN) and distal resection margin showed no significant distinction among both groups, while the positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-0.91, P = 0.01) was lower in the RARS group. RARS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of total mesorectal excision (TME) (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.14, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

RARS is safe and feasible for rectal cancer patients and may be superior or equivalent to Laparoscopic-assisted rectal surgery, but high-standard, large-scale trials are required to determine the best approach.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Adults Aged 75 Years and Older: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery has been increasingly adopted in colorectal cancer resection.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to compare the inpatient outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection in patients aged 75 years and older.

DESIGN

A retrospective, population-based study.

SETTINGS

This study analyzed data from the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2018.

PATIENTS

Patients with colorectal cancer aged 75 years and older and who underwent robot-assisted or conventional laparoscopic resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, and total hospital costs were assessed.

RESULTS

Data from 14,108 patients were analyzed. After adjustment, any postoperative complications (adjusted OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99; p = 0.030) and prolonged length of stay (adjusted OR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91; p = 0.001) were significantly less in the robotic than the laparoscopic group. In addition, robotic surgery was associated with significantly higher total hospital costs (26.06 USD greater cost; 95% CI, 21.35-30.77 USD; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

The analysis was limited by its retrospective and observational nature, potential coding errors, and the lack of intraoperative factors, such as operative time, laboratory measures, and information on surgeons' experience.

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States, in patients with colorectal cancer aged 75 years and older who were undergoing tumor resections, compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery is associated with better inpatient outcomes in terms of complication rate and risk of prolonged length of stay. This finding is especially true among patients with colon cancer. However, robotic surgery is associated with higher total hospital costs. See Video Abstract .

RESULTADOS DE LA CIRUGA ASISTIDA POR ROBOT FRENTE A LA CIRUGA LAPAROSCPICA PARA EL CNCER COLORRECTAL EN ADULTOS AOS DE EDAD UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO POR PUNTUACIN DE PROPENSIN DE LA MUESTRA NACIONAL DE PACIENTES HOSPITALIZADOS DE ESTADOS UNIDOS

ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía asistida por robot se ha adoptado cada vez más en la resección del cáncer colorrectal.OBJETIVO:El estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar los resultados hospitalarios de la resección del cáncer colorrectal asistida por robot versus la laparoscópica convencional en pacientes ≥ 75 años.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de base poblacional.AJUSTES:Este estudio analizó datos de la Muestra Nacional de Pacientes Hospitalizados de Estados Unidos de 2005 a 2018.PACIENTES:Pacientes con cáncer colorrectal ≥ 75 años y sometidos a resección laparoscópica convencional o asistida por robot.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se evaluaron las complicaciones posoperatorias, la duración prolongada de la estancia hospitalaria y los costos hospitalarios totales.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron datos de 14.108 pacientes. Después del ajuste, cualquier complicación posoperatoria (aOR = 0,87; IC del 95 %: 0,77-0,99, p = 0,030) y duración prolongada de la estancia hospitalaria (aOR = 0,78; IC del 95 %: 0,67-0,91, p = 0,001) fueron significativamente menores en el grupo robótico que el grupo laparoscópico. Además, la cirugía robótica se asoció con costos hospitalarios totales significativamente mayores ($26,06 USD mayor costo; IC 95%: 21,35-30,77 USD, p < 0,001).LIMITACIONES:El análisis estuvo limitado por su naturaleza retrospectiva y observacional, posibles errores de codificación y la falta de factores intraoperatorios como el tiempo operatorio, medidas de laboratorio e información sobre la experiencia de los cirujanos.CONCLUSIONES:En Estados Unidos, los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal ≥ 75 años que se sometieron a resecciones tumorales, en comparación con la cirugía laparoscópica convencional, la cirugía robótica se asocia con mejores resultados hospitalarios en términos de tasa de complicaciones y riesgo de estadía prolongada, especialmente entre pacientes con cáncer de colon. Sin embargo, la cirugía robótica se asocia a costes hospitalarios totales más elevados. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

An FPGA-Implemented Antinoise Fuzzy Recurrent Neural Network for Motion Planning of Redundant Robot Manipulators

When a robot completes end-effector tasks, internal error noises always exist. To resist internal error noises of robots, a novel fuzzy recurrent neural network (FRNN) is proposed, designed, and implemented on field-programmable gated array (FPGA). The implementation is pipeline-based, which guarantees the order of overall operations. The data processing is based on across-clock domain, which is beneficial for computing units' acceleration. Compared with traditional gradient-based neural networks (NNs) and zeroing neural networks (ZNNs), the proposed FRNN has faster convergence rate and higher correctness. Practical experiments on a 3 degree-of-freedom (DOs) planar robot manipulator show that the proposed fuzzy RNN coprocessor needs 496 lookup table random access memories (LUTRAMs), 205.5 block random access memories (BRAMs), 41384 lookup tables (LUTs), and 16743 flip-flops (FFs) of the Xilinx XCZU9EG chip.

A new era in surgical oncology: preliminary insights into the hinotori™ surgical robot system's role in rectal surgery using the double bipolar method

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci™ Surgical System, recognized as the leading surgical robotic platform globally, now faces competition from a growing number of new robotic surgical systems. With the expiration of key patents, innovative entrants have emerged, each offering unique features to address limitations and challenges in minimally invasive surgery. The hinotori™ Surgical Robot System (hinotori), developed in Japan and approved for clinical use in November 2022, represents one such entrant. This study demonstrates initial insights into the application of the hinotori in robot-assisted surgeries for patients with rectal neoplasms.

METHODS

The present study, conducted at a single institution, retrospectively reviewed 28 patients with rectal neoplasms treated with the hinotori from November 2022 to March 2024. The surgical technique involved placing five ports, including one for an assistant, and performing either total or tumor-specific mesorectal excision using the double bipolar method (DBM). The DBM uses two bipolar instruments depending on the situation, typically Maryland bipolar forceps on the right and Fenestrated bipolar forceps on the left, to allow precise dissection, hemostasis, and lymph node dissection.

RESULTS

The study group comprised 28 patients, half of whom were male. The median age was 62 years and the body mass index stood at 22.1 kg/m2. Distribution of clinical stages included eight at stage I, five at stage II, twelve at stage III, and three at stage IV. The majority, 26 patients (92.9%), underwent anterior resection using a double stapling technique. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to other surgical approaches. The median operative time and cockpit time were 257 and 148 min, respectively. Blood loss was 15 mL. Postoperative complications were infrequent, with only one patient experiencing transient ileus. A median of 18 lymph nodes was retrieved, and no positive surgical margins were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of the hinotori for rectal neoplasms appears to be safe and feasible, particularly when performed by experienced robotic surgeons. The double bipolar method enabled precise dissection and hemostasis, contributing to minimal blood loss and effective lymph node dissection.

Outcomes comparison of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic and open surgery for patients undergoing rectal cancer resection with concurrent stoma creation

BACKGROUND

Despite widespread adoption of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in rectal cancer resection, there remains limited knowledge of its clinical advantage over laparoscopic (Lap) and open (OS) surgery. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of RAS with Lap and OS for rectal cancer.

METHODS

We identified all patients aged ≥ 18 years who had elective rectal cancer resection requiring temporary or permanent stoma formation from 1/2013 to 12/2020 from the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database. We completed multivariable logistic regression analysis accounting for hospital clustering to compare ileostomy formation between surgical approaches. Next, we built inverse probability of treatment-weighted analyses to compare outcomes for ileostomy and permanent colostomy separately. Outcomes included postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, discharge to home, reoperation, and 30-day readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 12,787 patients (OS: 5599 [43.8%]; Lap: 2872 [22.5%]; RAS: 4316 [33.7%]) underwent elective rectal cancer resection. Compared to OS, patients who had Lap (OR 1.29, p < 0.001) or RAS (OR 1.53, p < 0.001) were more likely to have an ileostomy rather than permanent colostomy. In those with ileostomy, RAS was associated with fewer ileus (OR 0.71, p < 0.001) and less bleeding (OR 0.50, p < 0.001) compared to Lap. In addition, RAS was associated with lower anastomotic leak (OR 0.25, p < 0.001), less bleeding (OR 0.51, p < 0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (OR 0.70, p = 0.022) when compared to OS. In those patients who had permanent colostomy formation, RAS was associated with fewer ileus (OR 0.72, p < 0.001), less bleeding (OR 0.78, p = 0.021), lower 30-day reoperation (OR 0.49, p < 0.001), and higher discharge to home (OR 1.26, p = 0.013) than Lap, as well as OS.

CONCLUSION

Rectal cancer patients treated with RAS were more likely to have an ileostomy rather than a permanent colostomy and more enhanced recovery compared to Lap and OS.

Primary Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in Morbidly Obese Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB) and conventional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) are commonly performed as primary bariatric procedures. The aim of this article was to assess the role of RRYGB in patients undergoing primary bariatric procedures.

METHODS

All of the qualified studies were selected from the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases, etc. We mainly compared the outcomes and safety between RRYGB and LRYGB. The outcomes evaluation included surgical effect and surgical safety.

RESULT

In total, 35 studies containing 426,463 patients were selected. The mortalities of patients adopting these 2 bariatric procedures were similar (RRYGB: 59/28,023, 0.21%; LRYGB: 612/397,945, 0.15%). We found no significant difference between RRYGB and LRYGB in the incidence of postoperative complications (30-day: OR=1.06, P =0.18; 1-y: OR=1.06, P =0.92). The incidence of 30-day readmission after the operation was higher in RRYGB patients (OR=1.24, P =0.003). However, we found that the RRYGB group had a lower incidence of anastomotic stricture 1 year after the operation when compared with LRYGB (OR=0.35, P =0.0004). The 1-year %EBMIL of these 2 groups was similar (78.53% vs. 76.02%). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay (LOS) (WMD=-0.03d, P =0.59), conversion rate (OR=0.84, P =0.75), or anastomotic leak (OR=1.00, P =0.99) between these 2 groups. The mean hospital charges were higher in the RRYGB group ($11234.75 vs. $9468.58).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no significant advantage of RRYGB in surgical effect or reduction of intraoperative complications. RRYGB may reduce the incidence of some postoperative long-term complications. The mean hospital charges of RRYGB were higher.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer resection.

Comparison of a robotic surgery program for rectal cancer: short- and long-term results from a comparative, retrospective study between two laparoscopic and robotic reference centers

BACKGROUND

It is assumed that robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) may facilitate complex pelvic dissection for rectal cancer compared to the laparoscopic-assisted resection (LAR). The aim of this study was to compare perioperative morbidity, short- and long-term oncologic, and functional outcomes between the RAS and LAR approaches.

METHODS

Between 2015 and 2021, all rectal cancers operated on by (LAR) or (RAS) were retrospectively reviewed in two colorectal surgery centers.

RESULTS

A total of 197 patients were included in the study, with 70% in the LAR group and 30% in the RAS group. The tumor location and stage were identical in both groups (not significant = NS). The overall postoperative mortality rate was not significantly different between the two groups. (0% LAR; 0.5% RAS; NS). The postoperative morbidity was similar between the two groups (60% LAR vs 57% RAS; NS). The number of early surgical re-interventions within the first 30 days was similar (10% for the LAR group and 3% for the RAS group; NS). The rate of complete TME was similar (88% for the LAR group and 94% for the RAS group; NS). However, the rate of circumferential R1 was significantly higher in the LAR group (13%) compared to the RAS group (2%) (p = 0.009). The 3-year recurrence rate did not differ between the two groups (77% for both groups; NS). After a mean follow-up of three years, the incidence of anterior resection syndrome was significantly lower in the LAR group compared to the RAS group (54 vs 76%; p = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a RAS was found to be reliable for oncologic outcomes and morbidity. However, the expected benefits for functional outcomes were not observed. Therefore, the added value of RAS for rectal cancer needs to be reassessed in light of new laparoscopic technologies and patient management options.

Robotic versus laparoscopic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection in locally advanced rectal cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are few available studies that compare the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of robotic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection compared to laparoscopic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection (LPLND) in advanced rectal cancer. This meta-analysis aims to compare perioperative outcomes between robotic and LPLND.

METHODS

We performed a systemic literature review of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Perioperative parameters were extracted and pooled for analysis. This meta-analysis provided an analysis of heterogeneity and prediction intervals.

RESULTS

Five studies were included: 567 patients divided between 266 robotic and 301 LPLND. Overall operation time was longer in the robotic group than laparoscopic group (difference in means = 67.11, 95% CI [30.80, 103.42], p < 0.001) but the difference in the pelvic lateral lymph dissection time was not statistically significant (difference in means =  - 1.212, 95% CI [ - 11.594, 9.171], p = 0.819). There were fewer overall complications in the robotic than in the laparoscopic group (OR = 1.589, 95% CI [1.009, 2.503], p = 0.046), especially with respect to urinary retention (OR = 2.23, 95% CI [1.277, 3.894], p = 0.005). More pelvic lateral lymph nodes were harvested by robotic surgery than by laparoscopy (differences in means =  - 1.992, 95% CI [ - 2.421, 1.563], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis, robotic pelvic lateral lymph node dissection was associated with more pelvic lateral lymph nodes harvested and lower overall complications, especially urinary retention when compared to LPLND. Further studies are needed to reinforce these findings.

Hospital volume-outcome relationships for robot-assisted surgeries: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Associations between procedure volumes and outcomes can inform minimum volume standards and the regionalization of health services. Robot-assisted surgery continues to expand globally; however, data are limited regarding which hospitals should be using the technology.

STUDY DESIGN

Using administrative health data for all residents of Ontario, Canada, this retrospective cohort study included adult patients who underwent a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), total robotic hysterectomy (TRH), robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), or robotic portal lobectomy using 4 arms (RPL-4) between January 2010 and September 2021. Associations between yearly hospital volumes and 90-day major complications were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics and clustering at the level of the hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 10,879 patients were included, with 7567, 1776, 724, and 812 undergoing a RARP, TRH, RAPN, and RPL-4, respectively. Yearly hospital volume was not associated with 90-day complications for any procedure. Doubling of yearly volume was associated with a 17-min decrease in operative time for RARP (95% confidence interval [CI] - 23 to - 10), 8-min decrease for RAPN (95% CI - 14 to - 2), 24-min decrease for RPL-4 (95% CI - 29 to - 19), and no significant change for TRH (- 7 min; 95% CI - 17 to 3).

CONCLUSION

The risk of 90-day major complications does not appear to be higher in low volume hospitals; however, they may not be as efficient with operating room utilization. Careful case selection may have contributed to the lack of an observed association between volumes and complications.

Comparative analysis of preoperative chemoradiotherapy and upfront surgery in the treatment of upper-half rectal cancer: oncological benefits, surgical outcomes, and cost implications

The value of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is not absolutely clear for upper-half (> 7-15 cm) rectal cancer. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of radical surgery with preoperative CRT vs. upfront surgery (US) in Chinese patients with stage II and III upper-half rectal cancer. A total of 809 patients with locally advanced upper-half rectal cancer between 2017 and 2021 were enrolled retrospectively (280 treated with CRT and 529 treated with US). Through 1:1 propensity score matching, the CRT (172 patients) and US (172 patients) groups were compared for short-term postoperative results and long-term oncological and functional outcomes. In the entire cohort, patients in the CRT group had a younger age, lower distance from the anal verge (DAV), and higher rates of cT4 stage, cN2 stage, mrCRM positivity, EMVI positivity, CEA elevation, and CA-199 elevation than those in the US group. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was lower in the CRT group than in the US group (76% vs. 84%, p = 0.022), while the 5-year overall survival (OS) was comparable between the two groups (85% and 88%, p = 0.084). The distant metastasis rate was higher in the CRT group than in the US group (12.5% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.028), though the local recurrence rate was similar between the two groups (1.1% and 1.3%, p = 1.000). After performing PSM, the 5-year OS (86% vs. 88% p = 0.312), the 5-year DFS (79% vs. 80%, p = 0.435), the local recurrence rate (1.2% vs. 1.7%, p = 1.000), and the distant metastasis rate (11.0% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.593) were comparable between the two groups. Notable pathological downstaging was observed in the CRT group, with a pathological complete response (PCR) rate of 14.5%. In addition, patients in the CRT group had a lower proportion of pT3 (61.6% vs. 77.9%, p < 0.001), pN + (pN1, 15.1% vs. 30.2%, pN2, 9.3% vs. 20.3%, p < 0.001), stage III (24.4% vs. 50.6%, p < 0.001), perineural invasion (19.8% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.014), and lymphovascular invasion (9.3% vs. 25.6%, p < 0.001) than those in the US group. Postoperative complications and long-term functional results were similar, yet there was a trend toward a higher conversion to laparotomy rate (5 (2.9%) vs. 0 (0.0%), p = 0.061) and higher rates of robotic surgery (11.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), open surgery (7.0% vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001), diverting stoma (47.1% vs. 25.6%, p < 0.001), and surgery costs (1473.6 ± 106.5 vs. 1140.3 ± 54.3$, p = 0.006) in the CRT group. In addition, EMVI (OR = 2.516, p = 0.001) was the only independent risk factor associated with poor response to CRT, and in subgroup analysis of EMVI + , CRT group patients presented a lower 5-year DFS (72.9% vs. 80.5%, p = 0.025) compared to US group patients. CRT prior to surgery has no additional oncological benefits over US in the treatment of upper-half rectal cancer. In contrast, CRT is associated with increased rates of conversion to laparotomy, stoma creation and higher surgery costs. Surgeons tend to favor robotic surgery in the treatment of complex cases such as radiated upper-half rectal cancers. Notably, EMVI + patients with upper-half rectal cancer should be encouraged to undergo upfront surgery, as preoperative CRT may not provide benefits and may lead to delayed treatment effects.

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Lateral pelvic node dissection (LPND) poses significant technical challenges. Despite the advent of robotic surgery, determining the optimal minimally invasive approach remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes between robotic total mesorectal excision with LPND (R-LPND) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with LPND (L-LPND).

METHODS

This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 and AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) guidelines. Utilizing the RevMan 5.3.5 statistical package from the Cochrane Collaboration, a random-effects model was employed.

RESULTS

Six eligible studies involving 652 patients (316 and 336 in the R-LPND and L-LPND groups, respectively) were retrieved. The robotic approach demonstrated favourable outcomes compared with the laparoscopic approach, manifesting in lower morbidity rates, reduced urinary complications, shorter hospital stays, and a higher number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes. However, longer operative time was associated with the robotic approach. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding major complications, anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal infection, neurological complications, LPND time, overall recurrence, and local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the robotic approach is a safe and feasible alternative for Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) with LPND in advanced rectal cancer. Notably, it is associated with lower morbidity, particularly a reduction in urinary complications, a shorter hospital stay and increased number of harvested lateral pelvic nodes. The trade-off for these benefits is a longer operative time.

Robotic vs laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer: A propensity score matching cohort study and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining popularity; however, evidence for abdominoperineal resection (APR) of rectal cancer (RC) is scarce.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of RS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) in APR for RC.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients with RC who underwent APR by RS or LS from April 2016 to June 2022. Data regarding short-term surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. To reduce the effect of potential confounding factors, propensity score matching was used, with a 1:1 ratio between the RS and LS groups. A meta-analysis of seven trials was performed to compare the efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic APR for RC surgery.

RESULTS

Of 133 patients, after propensity score matching, there were 42 patients in each group. The postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the RS group (17/42, 40.5%) than in the LS group (27/42, 64.3%) (P = 0.029). There was no significant difference in operative time (P = 0.564), intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.314), reoperation rate (P = 0.314), lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.309), or circumferential resection margin (CRM) positive rate (P = 0.314) between the two groups. The meta-analysis showed patients in the RS group had fewer positive CRMs (P = 0.04), lesser estimated blood loss (P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (P = 0.02), and fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.002) than patients in the LS group.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that RS is a safe and effective approach for APR in RC and offers better short-term outcomes than LS.

Technical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal tumors: a single-center safety and feasibility study

PURPOSE

Robot-assisted surgery has a multi-joint function, which improves manipulation of the deep pelvic region and contributes significantly to perioperative safety. However, the superiority of robot-assisted surgery to laparoscopic surgery remains controversial. This study compared the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery for rectal tumors.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study included 273 patients with rectal tumors who underwent surgery with anastomosis between 2017 and 2021. In total, 169 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (Lap group), and 104 underwent robot-assisted surgery (Robot group). Postoperative complications were compared via propensity score matching based on inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

The postoperative complication rates based on the Clavien-Dindo classification (Lap vs. Robot group) were as follows: grade ≥ II, 29.0% vs. 19.2%; grade ≥ III, 10.7% vs. 5.8%; anastomotic leakage (AL), 6.5% vs. 4.8%; and urinary dysfunction (UD), 12.1% vs. 3.8%. After adjusting for the IPTW method, although AL rates did not differ significantly between groups, postoperative complications of both grade ≥ II (odds ratio [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.87, p < 0.01) and grade ≥ III (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.53, p < 0.01) were significantly less frequent in the Robot group than in the Lap group. Furthermore, urinary dysfunction also tended to be less frequent in the Robot group than in the Lap group (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38-1.00; p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery for rectal tumors provides better short-term outcomes than laparoscopic surgery, supporting its use as a safer approach.

Comparison of early surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection reported by a busy district general hospital in England

Robotic platforms provide a stable tool with high-definition views and improved ergonomics compared to laparoscopic approaches. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the intra- and short-term postoperative results of oncological resections performed robotically (RCR) and laparoscopically (LCR) at a single centre. Between February 2020 and October 2022, retrospective data on RCR were compared to LCR undertaken during the same period. Parameters compared include total operative time, length of stay (LOS), re-admission rates, 30-day morbidity. 100 RCR and 112 LCR satisfied inclusion criteria. There was no difference between the two group's demographic and tumour characteristics. Overall, median operative time was shorter in LCR group [200 vs. 247.5 min, p < 0.005], but this advantage was not observed with pelvic and muti-quadrant resections. There was no difference in the rate of conversion [5(5%) vs. 5(4.5%), p > 0.95]. With respect to perioperative outcomes, there was no difference in the overall morbidity, or mortality between RCR and LCR, in particular requirement for blood transfusion [3(3%) vs. 5(4.5%), p 0.72], prolonged ileus [9(9%) vs. 15(13.2%), p 0.38], surgical site infections [5(4%) vs. 5(4.4%), p > 0.95], anastomotic leak [7(7%) vs. 5(4.4%), p 0.55], and re-operation rate [9(9%) vs. 7(6.3%), p 0.6]. RCR had shorter LOS by one night, but this did not reach statistical significance. No difference was observed in completeness of resection but there was a statically significant increase in lymph node harvest in the robotic series. Robotic approach to oncological colorectal resections is safe, with comparable intra- and peri-operative morbidity and mortality to laparoscopic surgery.

Proposal of set-up standardization for general surgery procedures with the CMR Versius system, a new robotic platform: our initial experience

BACKGROUND

The article describes our initial experience using CMR Versius platform for several procedures in general surgery.

METHODS

Between September 2022 and April 2023, seventy patients underwent robotic surgery in a multi-robotic referral center (San Paolo University Hospital, Milan, Italy). Three surgeons with only laparoscopic experience performed 24 cholecystectomies, 13 inguinal hernia repairs, 9 ventral hernia repairs, 7 right hemicolectomies, 11 left hemicolectomies, 1 sigmoidectomy, 1 ileocecal resection, 1 ventral rectopexy, 1 Nissen fundoplication, 1 total splenectomy, and 1 exploration with multiple biopsies.

RESULTS

All surgeries were full-robotic, with only one conversion to laparoscopy. The short length of stay and low rate of severe morbidity are promising findings. Although operative time was lengthened, clinical outcomes were not affected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates that the adoption of Versius system is safe and feasible in general surgery. The standardization of port placement and BSU set-up can certainly reduce the operative time.

Robotic-assisted reoperative ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: robotic pouch excision and pouch revision

BACKGROUND

Up to 20% of patients with ileal pouch will develop pouch failure, ultimately requiring surgical reintervention. As a result of the complexity of reoperative pouch surgery, minimally invasive approaches were rarely utilized. In this series, we present the outcomes of the patients who underwent robotic-assisted pouch revision or excision to assess its feasibility and short-term results.

METHODS

All the patients affected by inflammatory bowel diseases and familial adenomatous polyposis who underwent robotic reoperative surgery of an existing ileal pouch were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were included; 54.6% were female. The average age at reoperation was 51 ± 16 years, with a mean body mass index of 26.1 ± 5.6 kg/m2. Fourteen (63.7%) had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis at reoperation, and seven (31.8%) had Crohn's disease. The mean time to pouch reoperation was 12.8 ± 11.8 years. Seventeen (77.3%) patients underwent pouch excision, and five (22.7%) had pouch revision surgery. The mean operative time was 372 ± 131 min, and the estimated blood loss was 199 ± 196.7 ml. The conversion rate was 9.1%, the 30-day morbidity rate was 27.3% (with only one complication reaching Clavien-Dindo grade IIIB), and the mean length of stay was 5.8 ± 3.9 days. The readmission rate was 18.2%, the reoperation rate was 4.6%, and mortality was nihil. All patients in the pouch revisional group are stoma-free.

CONCLUSION

Robotic reoperative pouch surgery in highly selected patients is technically feasible with acceptable outcomes.

Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes from a Tertiary Referral Center

Background: The popularity of robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is increasing, but its superiority over the laparoscopic approach regarding safety, efficacy, and costs has not been well established. Methods: A retrospective single-center study was conducted comparing consecutively performed robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries for rectal cancer between 1 January 2016 and 31 September 2021. In total, 125 adult patients with sporadic rectal adenocarcinoma (distal extent ≤ 15 cm from the anal verge) underwent surgery where 66 were operated on robotically and 59 laparoscopically. Results: Severe postoperative complications occurred less frequently with robotic-assisted compared with laparoscopic surgery, as indicated by Clavien-Dindo classification grades 3b-5 (13.6% vs. 30.5%, p = 0.029). Multiple logistic regression analyses after backward selection revealed that robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a lower rate of total (Clavien-Dindo grades 1-5) (OR = 0.355; 95% CI 0.156-0.808; p = 0.014) and severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grades 3b-5) (OR = 0.243; 95% CI 0.088-0.643; p = 0.005). Total inpatient costs (median EUR 17.663 [IQR EUR 10.151] vs. median EUR 14.089 [IQR EUR 12.629]; p = 0.018) and surgery costs (median EUR 10.156 [IQR EUR 3.551] vs. median EUR 7.468 [IQR EUR 4.074]; p < 0.0001) were higher for robotic-assisted surgery, resulting in reduced total inpatient profits (median EUR -3.196 [IQR EUR 9.101] vs. median EUR 232 [IQR EUR 6.304]; p = 0.004). Conclusions: In our study, robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer resulted in less severe and fewer total postoperative complications. Still, it was associated with higher surgery and inpatient costs. With increasing experience, the operative time may be reduced, and the postoperative recovery may be further accelerated, leading to reduced surgery and total inpatient costs.

Novel stent-assisted ileal bypass is applied to avoid protective stoma and prevent anastomotic leakage for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of a novel stent-assisted ileal bypass for rectal cancer patients who received sphincter-preserving surgery.

METHODS

Patients who were diagnosed with rectal cancer and received sphincter-preserving surgery plus a novel stent-assisted ileal bypass were respectively included from January 2022 to January 2023. Biofragmentable ileal stent with diaphragm sheet in the cavity was placed in the terminal ileum using absorbable sutures after anastomosis. At the proximal end of the stent, an intestinal diversion tube was placed in the prefabricated purse-string, through which faeces were drained. The stent completely disintegrated in the body after 3-4 weeks, which protected the anastomosis after surgery and avoided protective stoma. Clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

Eleven patients who successfully received surgery were included. There were seven (63.6%) males and four (36.4%) females. The tumour size was 3.2 ± 1.7 cm and the lower verge of tumour to anal verge was 6.8 ± 1.3 cm. As for surgical outcomes, operation time was 216.4 ± 54.1 min, blood loss was 43.6 ± 64.6 mL, time to first flatus via intestinal diversion tube was 3.2 ± 1.1 days, time to discharge stent was 22.8 ± 3.0 days, and postoperative hospital stay was 21.0 ± 5.4 days. Two patients suffered from postoperative complications including pneumonia and incision infection.

CONCLUSION

This novel stent-assisted ileal bypass is safe and feasible, it provides a new choice for rectal cancer patients to avoid protective stoma and secondary surgery.

Hospital learning curves for robot-assisted surgeries: a population-based analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery has been rapidly adopted. It is important to define the learning curve to inform credentialling requirements, training programs, identify fast and slow learners, and protect patients. This study aimed to characterize the hospital learning curve for common robot-assisted procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

This cohort study, using administrative health data for Ontario, Canada, included adult patients who underwent a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), total robotic hysterectomy (TRH), robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), or robotic portal lobectomy using four arms (RPL-4) between 2010 and 2021. The association between cumulative hospital volume of a robot-assisted procedure and major complications was evaluated using multivariable logistic models adjusted for patient characteristics and clustering at the hospital level.

RESULTS

A total of 6814 patients were included, with 5230, 543, 465, and 576 patients in the RARP, TRH, RAPN, and RPL-4 cohorts, respectively. There was no association between cumulative hospital volume and major complications. Visual inspection of learning curves demonstrated a transient worsening of outcomes followed by subsequent improvements with experience. Operative time decreased for all procedures with increasing volume and reached plateaus after approximately 300 RARPs, 75 TRHs, and 150 RPL-4s. The odds of a prolonged length of stay decreased with increasing volume for patients undergoing a RARP (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.82-0.92) or RPL-4 (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.68-0.87).

CONCLUSION

Hospitals may adopt robot-assisted surgery without significantly increasing the risk of major complications for patients early in the learning curve and with an expectation of increasing efficiency.

"Role-sharing surgery": a new surgical education system that gives beginner surgeons more chances to operate while ensuring the surgical quality of robotic surgery

It has been pointed out that robotic surgery is more time-consuming than laparoscopic surgery, and a major challenge for the future is educating young surgeons while maintaining the surgical quality. To solve these problems, we report a role-sharing surgery (RSS) approach in which the surgery is divided into several areas and timetabled, with roles shared by several operators. We performed RSS for 19 standard colorectal cancer surgeries. The surgery was completed within + 28 min of the scheduled operation time, and a beginner robotic surgeon (BRS) was able to perform approximately 66% of the total surgery. There were no statistically significant differences in the short-term outcomes between the RSS and conventional surgery groups. Based on these findings, RSS has the potential to be the best practice for educating BRSs in robotic surgery, the use of which is expected to increase steadily in the future.

Robot-assisted pelvic and renal surgery compared with laparoscopic or open surgery: Literature review of cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical experiences and cost-effectiveness by comparing robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopic- or open surgery for pelvic and renal operations.

METHODS

A narrative review was carried out.

RESULTS

When using robotic-assisted surgery, oncological and functional results are similar to after laparoscopic or open surgery. One exception may be a shorter survival in cancer of the cervix uteri. In addition, postoperative complications after robotic-assisted surgery are similar, bleeding and transfusion needs are less, and the hospital stay is shorter but the preparation of the operating theater before and after surgery and the operation times are longer. Finally, robot-assisted surgery has, in several studies, been reported to be not cost-effective primarily due to high investment costs. However, more recent studies provide improved cost-effectiveness estimates due to more effective preparation of the operating theater before surgery, improved surgeon experience, and decreased investment costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications and functional and oncological outcomes after robot-assisted surgery are similar to open surgery and laparoscopic surgery. The cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted surgery is likely to equal or surpass the alternatives.

Short-term results in a population based study indicate advantage for minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery versus open

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine if minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for rectal cancer is non-inferior to open surgery (OPEN) regarding adequacy of cancer resection in a population based setting.

METHODS

All 9,464 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer 2012-2018 who underwent curative surgery were included from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM < 1 mm) and positive resection margin (R1). Non-inferiority margins used were 2.4% and 4%.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

30- and 90-day mortality, clinical anastomotic leak, re-operation < 30 days, 30- and 90-day re-admission, length of stay (LOS), distal resection margin < 1 mm and < 12 resected lymph nodes. Analyses were performed by intention-to-treat using unweighted and weighted multiple regression analyses.

RESULTS

The CRM was positive in 3.8% of the MIS group and 5.4% of the OPEN group, risk difference -1.6% (95% CI -1.623, -1.622). R1 was recorded in 2.8% of patients in the MIS group and in 4.4% of patients in the OPEN group, risk difference -1.6% (95% CI -1.649, -1.633). There were no differences between the groups in adjusted unweighted and weighted analyses. All analyses demonstrated decreased mortality and re-admissions at 30 and 90 days as well as shorter LOS following MIS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population based setting MIS for rectal cancer was non-inferior to OPEN regarding adequacy of cancer resection with favorable short-term outcomes.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of single-port versus multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether the da Vinci single-port system performs similarly to the previous multi-port system during complicated procedures, such as rectal cancer surgery. Therefore, we compared the short-term clinical outcomes of single-port and multi-port robotic total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed 128 patients who underwent robotic total mesorectal excision between July 2020 and June 2022, of whom 84 (42 each: single-port versus multi-port) were included in the propensity score-matched cohort. Perioperative and pathologic outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Median tumor height was similar between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 5.9 ± 2.1 vs 5.6 ± 1.8 cm, P = .719). Preoperative chemoradiotherapy was performed equally. The total operative time was less (160.0 ± 42.2 minutes vs 199.6 ± 78.6 minutes, P = .005), the total length of incision was shorter (4.0 ±0.3 vs 5.4 ± 0.7 cm, P = .003), postoperative hospital stay was shorter (6.2 ±1.7 vs 7.2 ±2.8 days, P = .050), and C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day 3 trended to be lower (7.3 ± 4.7 vs 8.9 ± 5.6 mg/L, P = .096) in the single-port group, compared with the multi-port group. Postoperative complications did not differ between groups (single-port versus multi-port, 11.9% vs 16.6%, P = .864). Anastomotic leakage occurred in 1 and 2 patients in the single-port and multi-port groups, respectively. The circumferential resection margins were positive in 1 patient in the multi-port group.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic total mesorectal excision were comparable to those of multi-port robotic TME. The single-port robot can be considered a surgical option for treating rectal cancer.

Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The surgical treatment for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer requires oncological clearance with a pelvic exenteration or a beyond total mesorectal excision (TME). The aim of this systematic review is to explore the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer by evaluating perioperative outcomes, oncological clearance rates, and survival and recurrence rates postrobotic beyond TME surgery.

METHODS

The systematic review will include studies published until the end of December 2023. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus databases will be searched. The screening process, study selection, data extraction, quality assessment and analysis will be performed by two independent reviewers. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus with a third independent reviewer. The risk of bias will be assessed with validated scores. The primary outcomes will be oncological clearance, overall and disease-free survival, and local and systemic recurrence rates post robotic or robot-assisted beyond TME surgery for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. Secondary outcomes will include perioperative outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval is required for this systematic review as no individual patient cases are studied requiring access to individual medical records. The results of the systematic review will be disseminated with conference presentations and peer-reviewed paper publications.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION OF THE STUDY

CRD42023408098.

Suctionable Gauze Ball Operated by the Console Surgeon Overcomes Wet Scenes during Robotic Rectal Surgery

Although robotic rectal resections are now widely performed, there are few robotic suction tools that can be easily used by console surgeons. It can therefore be difficult to maintain a clear visual field in the pelvis when there is effusion and bleeding from either a highly advanced cancer or from preoperative cancer treatment. In this report, we introduce our unique surgical technique that uses a soft catheter with a small gauze ball attached, inserted through the assistant port. This simple and inexpensive "instrument" can be used by the console surgeon as a retractor as well as a reliable suction device to secure their view of the operative field in the pelvis. This technique can be used in a narrow surgical field and does not rely on an assistant surgeon, making it potentially applicable to all types of surgery.

Prospective cohort study investigating quality of life outcomes following multi-speciality robotic-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

Despite recent evidence on the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), other patient centre outcomes, including quality of life (QOL), are lacking. This study aims to examine changes in QoL trajectories following RAS across different surgical specialities.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted for patients undergoing urologic, cardiothoracic, colorectal or benign gynaecological RAS, between June 2016 and January 2020 at a tertiary referral hospital in Australia. QoL was measured using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey at pre-operative, 6 weeks and 6 months postoperatively. Physical and mental summary scores and utility index were primary outcomes, and sub-domains were secondary outcomes.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Mixed-effects linear regressions were used to determine changes in QoL trajectories.

RESULTS

Of the 254 patients undergoing RAS, 154 underwent urologic, 36 cardiothoracic, 24 colorectal and 40 benign gynaecological surgery. Overall, the average age was 58.8 years and most patients were male (75.1%). Physical summary scores significantly decreased from pre-operative to 6 weeks' post-operative in urologic and colorectal RAS; with all surgical specialities at least returning to pre-operative levels within 6 months postoperatively. Mental summary scores consistently increased from pre-operative to 6 months postoperatively for colorectal and gynaecological RAS.

CONCLUSIONS

RAS contributed to positive changes in QoL, with physical health returning to the pre-operative level and mental health improvements across specialities, in the short term. While degrees of post-operative changes varied amongst specialities, significant improvements demonstrate benefits in RAS.

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.

Comparative analysis of short-term outcomes and oncological results between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer by multiple surgeon implementation: a propensity score-matched analysis

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly common for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. However, the use and implementation of robotic surgery remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery, focusing on pathological results and disease-free survival (DFS), in our cohort with initial robotic experience by multiple surgeon implementation. This retrospective study enrolled 571 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer, who were treated with chemoradiotherapy and surgery between January 2015 and December 2021. Surgical outcomes after RAS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) were compared using a propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis. After matching, 200 patients (100 in each group) were included. The median operative time was significantly longer in the RAS group than in the LS group (p < 0.001). The conversion and morbidity rates were similar between the groups. A significantly higher rate of complete mesorectal excision (92% vs. 72%; p = 0.001) and number of lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.009) was observed in the RAS group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding circumferential and distal resection margin involvement. The 3-year overall and disease-free survival rate was similar between the two groups (p = 0.849 and p = 0.582, respectively). Two patients in the LS group developed local recurrence and 27 patients (15.4%) developed metastatic disease. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor stage III was the only factor associated with disease-free survival (HR, 9.34; (95% CI 1.13-77.1), p = 0.038). RAS and LS showed similar outcomes in terms of perioperative, anatomopathological, and disease-free survival, after multiple surgeon implementations.

Learning curve for robotic rectal cancer resection at a community-based teaching institution

The surgical management of rectal cancer is shifting toward more widespread use of robotics across a spectrum of medical centers. There is evidence that the oncologic outcomes are equivalent to laparoscopic resections, and the post-operative outcomes may be improved. This study aims to evaluate the learning curve of robotic rectal cancer resections at a community-based teaching institution and evaluate clinical and oncologic outcomes. A retrospective review of consecutive robotic rectal cancer resections by a single surgeon was performed for a five-year period. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) for total operative time was calculated and plotted to establish a learning curve. The oncologic and post-operative outcomes for each phase were analyzed and compared. The CUSUM learning curve yielded two phases, the learning phase (cases 1-79) and the proficiency phase (cases 80-130). The median operative time was significantly lower in the proficiency phase. The type of neoadjuvant therapy used between the two groups was statistically different, with chemoradiation being the primary regimen in the learning phase and total neoadjuvant therapy being more common in the proficiency phase. Otherwise, oncologic and overall post-operative outcomes were not significantly different between the groups. Robotic rectal resections can be done in a community-based hospital system by trained surgeons with outcomes that are favorable and similar to larger institutions.

[Robot-assisted visceral surgery in Germany : Analysis of the current status and trends of the last 5 years using data from the StuDoQ|Robotics registry]

Robot-assisted systems have been increasingly used in general surgery for several years. Accordingly, the number of systems installed in Germany has also rapidly increased. While around 100 robot-assisted systems were used in German hospitals in 2018, this figure had already risen to more than 200 by 2022. The aim of this article is to present the current state of development and trends in robotic surgery in Germany. For this purpose, data from the StuDoQ|Robotics register were analyzed. Furthermore, a descriptive analysis of concomitant diagnosis-related groups (DRG) data was carried out via the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), for a better assessment of the representativeness of the StuDoQ|Robotics register data. In both data sets, the annual number of robot-assisted visceral surgery procedures in Germany steadily increased. Compared to the DRG data, only 3.7% up to a maximum of 36.7% of all robot-assisted procedures performed were documented in the StuDoQ|Robotics register, depending on the type of procedure. Colorectal resections were the most frequent robot-assisted procedures (StuDoQ: 32.5% and 36.7% vs. DRG data: 24.2% and 29.7%) and had, for example, low mortality rates (StuDoQ: 1% and 1% vs. DRG data: 2.3% and 1.3%). Due to the low coverage rates of robot-assisted esophageal, gastric, pancreatic and liver interventions, no valid statements could be derived from the StuDoQ data for these areas. With the current coverage rates, the informative value of the StuDoQ|Robotics register is considerably limited for some types of intervention. In the future, measures should therefore be explored that lead to a significant increase in the coverage rates.

Beyond the Horizon: Unveiling the Frontiers of Rectal Cancer Research and Treatment

Colorectal cancer, ranking among the most prevalent causes of cancer-related mortality, is an escalating global health concern. The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer are expected to surge substantially by 2030, posing a significant public health challenge. This article provides a comprehensive overview of rectal cancer, encompassing its epidemiology, anatomical intricacies, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and diagnosis. The tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) classification system for rectal cancer is detailed, offering crucial insights for staging and treatment decisions. Various treatment modalities are discussed, including surgical approaches, systemic therapies, radiation therapy, and local therapies for metastases. Recent advances in robotic surgery and innovative radiation technologies are explored. Furthermore, prevention strategies are elucidated, focusing on lifestyle modifications and pharmacological interventions that may mitigate the risk of colorectal cancer. The article underscores the importance of understanding rectal cancer for healthcare professionals and patients, enabling informed decision-making and enhanced management of this disease. Prognostic factors are outlined, with survival rates and the prognosis of rectal cancer contingent on several influential elements, highlighting the multifaceted nature of this condition. In conclusion, accurate diagnosis, diverse treatment options, and prevention strategies, including advances like robotic surgery, influence rectal cancer outcomes. A comprehensive overview empowers healthcare professionals and patients to make informed decisions for improved disease management and prognosis.

Uptake of robot-assisted colon cancer surgery in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The robot-assisted approach is now often used for rectal cancer surgery, but its use in colon cancer surgery is less well defined. This study aims to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted colon cancer surgery to conventional laparoscopy in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Data on all patients who underwent surgery for colon cancer from 2018 to 2020 were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. All complications, readmissions, and deaths within 90 days after surgery were recorded along with conversion rate, margin and harvested nodes. Groups were stratified according to the robot-assisted and laparoscopic approach.

RESULTS

In total, 18,886 patients were included in the analyses. The operative approach was open in 15.2%, laparoscopic in 78.9% and robot-assisted in 5.9%. The proportion of robot-assisted surgery increased from 4.7% in 2018 to 6.9% in 2020. There were no notable differences in outcomes between the robot-assisted and laparoscopic approach for Elective cT1-3M0 right, left, and sigmoid colectomy. Only conversion rate was consistently lower in the robotic group. (4.6% versus 8.8%, 4.6% versus 11.6%, and 1.6 versus 5.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide study on surgery for colon cancer shows there is a gradual but slow adoption of robotic surgery for colon cancer up to 6.9% in 2020. When comparing the outcomes of right, left, and sigmoid colectomy, clinical outcomes were similar between the robotic and laparoscopic approach. However, conversion rate is consistently lower in the robotic procedures.

Robotic abdominoperineal resection, posterior vaginectomy and abdomino-lithotomy sacrectomy: technical considerations and case vignette

When working with patients who have locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) the ability to undertake minimally invasive procedures becomes more challenging but no less important for patient outcomes. We performed a minimally invasive approach to surgery for LARC invading the posterior vagina and sacrum. The patient was a 75-year-old lady who presented with a locally advanced rectal tumour staged T4N2 with invasion into the posterior wall of the vagina and coccyx/distal sacrum. We introduce a robotic abdominoperineal resection, posterior vaginectomy and abdomino-lithotomy sacrectomy using a purely perineal approach with no robotic adjuncts or intracorporal techniques. Final histology showed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma invading the vagina and sacrum, ypT4b N0 TRG2 R0 and the patient entered surgical follow-up with no immediate intra- or postoperative complications. A literature review shows the need for more minimally invasive techniques when relating to major pelvic surgery and the benefits of a purely perineal approach include less expensive resource use, fewer training requirements and the ability to utilise this technique in centres that are not robotically equipped.

Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

There is still controversy on whether or not robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) have advantages over laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery(LACS).

Materials and methods

The four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library)were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of RACS and LACS in the treatment of colorectal cancer from inception to 22 July 2023.

Results

Eleven RCTs were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Compared with LACS,RACS has significantly longer operation time(MD=5.19,95%CI: 18.00,39.82, P<0.00001), but shorter hospital stay(MD=2.97,95%CI:-1.60,-0.33,P = 0.003),lower conversion rate(RR=3.62,95%CI:0.40,0.76,P = 0.0003), lower complication rate(RR=3.31,95%CI:0.64,0.89,P=0.0009),fewer blood loss(MD=2.71,95%CI:-33.24,-5.35,P = 0.007),lower reoperation rate(RR=2.12, 95%CI:0.33,0.96,P=0.03)and longer distal resection margin(MD=2.16, 95%CI:0.04,0.94, P = 0.03). There was no significantly difference in harvested lymph nodes, the time of first flatus, the time of first defecation,the time of first resume diet, proximal resection margin, readmission rates, mortalities and CRM+ rates between two group.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that RACS is a feasible and safe technique that can achieve better surgical efficacy compared with LACS in terms of short-term outcomes.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447088.

Short learning curve in transition from laparoscopic to robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery: a prospective study from a Finnish Tertiary Referral Centre

The narrow pelvis causes special challenges in surgery, and robotic-assisted surgery has been proven beneficial in these circumstances. While robotic surgery has some specific advantages in rectal cancer surgery, there is still limited evidence of the learning curve of the technique involved. The aim here was to study the transition from laparoscopic to robotic-assisted surgery among experienced laparoscopic surgeons. The data for this study were collected from a prospectively compiled register that includes patients operated on by the Da Vinci Xi robot in Tampere University Hospital. Each consecutive rectal cancer patient was included. The information on the surgical and oncological outcomes was analysed. The learning curve was assessed using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. CUSUM already demonstrated an overall positively sloped curve at the beginning of the study, with neither the conversion rate nor morbidity reaching unacceptable thresholds. Conversions (4%) and postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo III-IV 15%, no intraoperative complications) were rare. One patient died within one month and the death was not procedure-associated. While surgical and oncological outcomes were similar among all surgeons, the console times showed a decreasing trend and were shorter among those with more experience in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery can be safely adapted by experienced laparoscopic colorectal surgeons.

Surgical outcomes and cost analysis of a multi-specialty robotic-assisted surgery caseload in the Australian public health system

This study aims to compare surgical outcomes and in-hospital cost between robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), laparoscopic and open approaches for benign gynaecology, colorectal and urological patients and to explore the association between cost and surgical complexity. This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing RAS, laparoscopic or open surgery for benign gynaecology, colorectal or urological conditions between July 2018 and June 2021 at a major public hospital in Sydney. Patients' characteristics, surgical outcomes and in-hospital cost variables were extracted from the hospital medical records using routinely collected diagnosis-related groups (DRG) codes. Comparison of the outcomes within each surgical discipline and according to surgical complexity were performed using non-parametric statistics. Of the 1,271 patients included, 756 underwent benign gynaecology (54 robotic, 652 laparoscopic, 50 open), 233 colorectal (49 robotic, 123 laparoscopic, 61 open) and 282 urological surgeries (184 robotic, 12 laparoscopic, 86 open). Patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (robotic or laparoscopic) presented with a significantly shorter length of hospital stay when compared to open surgical approach (P < 0.001). Rates of postoperative morbidity were significantly lower in robotic colorectal and urological procedures when compared to laparoscopic and open approaches. The total in-hospital cost of robotic benign gynaecology, colorectal and urological surgeries were significantly higher than other surgical approaches, independent of the surgical complexity. RAS resulted in better surgical outcomes, especially when compared to open surgery in patients presenting with benign gynaecology, colorectal and urological diseases. However, the total cost of RAS was higher than laparoscopic and open surgical approaches.

Integrating a tumour appropriate transanal or robotic assisted approach to total mesorectal excision in high-volume rectal cancer practice is safe and cost-effective

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is accepted as the gold standard for oncological resection in rectal cancer. The best approach to TME is debated and often surgeons will select a preferred approach. In this study, we aimed to describe how both robotic (R-TME) and transanal (TaTME) TME can be integrated into high-volume rectal cancer surgeon practice with a comparison of clinical and oncological outcomes and cost analysis. A prospective comparative cohort study was performed in a high-volume rectal cancer centre comparing the previous 50 R-TME and 50 TaTME performed by the same surgeon. A comparison of tumour characteristics was performed to highlight a specific role for each technique. Clinical outcomes (operative duration, length of stay (LOS) and perioperative morbidity), cancer quality indicators (resection margin and completeness of TME) and cost analysis were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS, version 20. R-TME was preferred in mid-rectal cancer, compared to TaTME preferred in low rectal cancer (9 cm vs. 5 cm, p < 0.001). Operative duration was longer in R-TME compared to TaTME (265 vs. 179 min, p < 0.001). Major complications (CD III-IV complications) were experienced in 10% of R-TME and 14% of TaTME (p = 0.476). A 98% (n = 49) clear R0 resection margin was achieved with both R-TME and TaTME and mesorectum quality defined as 'complete' in 86% (n = 43) in R-TME and 82% (n = 41) in TaTME. Length of hospital stay was shorter in R-TME (5 vs. 7 days, p = 0.624). An overall difference of €131 was observed favouring TaTME. In high-volume rectal cancer surgery practice, both R-TME and TaTME can be practised and tailored according to patients and tumour characteristics, with comparable clinical and cancer outcomes and is cost-effective.

Long-term oncological outcome of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (single-incision plus one port) as a technical option for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to clarify the oncological safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (single-incision plus one port) (RPS) for patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

The clinicopathological data of 63 selected patients with clinical Stage I-III (T1-3 and N0-2) rectal cancer who underwent RPS of radical anterior resection between 2012 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The median distance of tumor from anal verge was 11 cm. Ordinarily, a multiport platform with three channels was placed in the 3-cm umbilical incision, and another 5- or 12-mm port was placed in the right lower abdomen.

RESULTS

The median operative time, amount of intraoperative bleeding, number of harvested lymph nodes, and length of distal margin were 272 min, 10 mL, 22 nodes, and 4.0 cm, respectively, and there was one (2%) patient with involvement of the radial margin. There were eight patients (13%) who required additional ports, and one patient (2%) who converted to open surgery. Intra- and postoperative complications occurred in one (2%) and 12 patients (19%), respectively. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 8 days. The median follow-up period was 79 months, and incisional hernia was observed in 3 (5%) patients at the platform site not the port site, and cancer recurrence occurred in four patients (6%). The 5-year relapse-free and overall survival rates were 100% and 100% in the patients with pathological Stage I disease, 94% and 100% in the patients with pathological Stage II disease, and 83% and 89% in the patients with pathological Stage III disease, respectively.

CONCLUSION

RPS in the selected patients with rectal cancer, performed by an expert laparoscopic surgeon, may be technically safe and oncologically acceptable as well as multiport laparoscopic surgery.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis of Intra- and Post-Operative Complications

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic surgery is attracting ever-growing interest for its potential advantages such as small incisions, fine movements, and magnification of the operating field. Only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have explored the differences in perioperative outcomes between the two approaches.

METHODS

We screened the main online databases from inception to May 2023. We included studies in English enrolling adult patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery. We used the following exclusion criteria: surgery with the involvement of thoracic esophagus, and patients affected by severe heart, pulmonary and end-stage renal disease. We compared intra- and post-operative complications, length of hospitalization, and costs between laparoscopic and robotic approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs were included. We found no differences in the rate of anastomotic leakage, cardiovascular complications, estimated blood loss, readmission, deep vein thrombosis, length of hospitalization, mortality, and post-operative pain between robotic and laparoscopic surgery; post-operative pneumonia was less frequent in the robotic approach. The conversion to open surgery was less frequent in the robotic approach, which was characterized by shorter time to first flatus but higher operative time and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic gastrointestinal surgery has some advantages compared to the laparoscopic technique such as lower conversion rate, faster recovery of bowel movement, but it has higher economic costs.

International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons survey of surgeons' preference on rectal cancer treatment

PURPOSE

Rectal cancer treatment has a wide range of possible approaches from radical extirpative surgery to nonoperative watchful waiting following chemoradiotherapy, with or without, additional chemotherapy. Our goal was to assess the personal opinion of active practicing surgeons on rectal cancer treatment if he/she was the patient.

METHODS

A panel of the International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ISUCRS) selected 10 questions that were included in a questionnaire that included other items including demographics. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to ISUCRS fellows and other surgeons included in our database and remained open from April 16 to 28, 2020.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-three specialists completed the survey. The majority of surgeons (n=65, 39.9%) chose the minimally invasive (laparoscopic) surgery for their personal treatment of rectal cancer. For low-lying rectal cancer T1 and T2, the treatment choice was standard chemoradiation+local excision (n=60, 36.8%) followed by local excision±chemoradiotherapy if needed (n=55, 33.7%). In regards to locally advanced low rectal cancer T3 or greater, the preference of the responders was for laparoscopic surgery (n=65, 39.9%). We found a statistically significant relationship between surgeons' age and their preference for minimally invasive techniques demonstrating an age-based bias on senior surgeons' inclination toward open approach.

CONCLUSION

Our survey reveals an age-based preference by surgeons for minimally invasive surgical techniques as well as organ-preserving techniques for personal treatment of treating rectal cancer. Only 1/4 of specialists do adhere to the international guidelines for treating early rectal cancer.

Comparing minimally invasive surgical and open approaches to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies - Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex multivisceral surgical procedure indicated for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. It poses significant technical challenges which account for the high risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. Developments in minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches and enhanced peri-operative care have facilitated improved long term outcomes. However, the optimum approach to PE remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify studies comparing MIS (robotic or laparoscopic) approaches for PE versus the open approach for patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed systematically and a meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

11 studies were identified, including 2009 patients, of whom 264 (13.1%) underwent MIS PE approaches. The MIS group displayed comparable R0 resections (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 0.98, 1.07, p = 0.35)) and Lymph node yield (Weighted Mean Difference [WMD] 1.42, 95% CI -0.58, 3.43, p = 0.16), and although MIS had a trend towards improved towards improved survival and recurrence outcomes, this did not reach statistical significance. MIS was associated with prolonged operating times (WMD 67.93, 95% CI 4.43, 131.42, p < 0.00001) however, this correlated with less intra-operative blood loss, and a shorter length of post-operative stay (WMD -3.89, 955 CI -6.53, -1.25, p < 0.00001). Readmission rates were higher with MIS (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.11, 4.02, p = 0.02), however, rates of pelvic abscess/sepsis were decreased (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21, 0.95, p = 0.04), and there was no difference in overall, major, or specific morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

MIS approaches are a safe and feasible option for PE, with no differences in survival or recurrence outcomes compared to the open approach. MIS also reduced the length of post-operative stay and decreased blood loss, offset by increased operating time.

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer: A Narrative Review and Description of the Technique

Robotic surgery may offer significant advantages for treating extraperitoneal rectal cancer. Although laparoscopy has been shown to be safe and effective, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) remains technically challenging and is still performed in selected centers. Robotic anterior resection (RAR) may overcome the drawback of conventional laparoscopy, providing high-quality surgery with favorable oncological outcomes. Moreover, recent data show how RAR offers clinical and oncological benefits when affording difficult TMEs, such as low and advanced rectal tumors, in terms of complication rate, specimen quality, recurrence rate, and survival. This series aims to review the most recent and relevant literature, reporting mid- and long-term oncological outcomes and focusing on minimally invasive RAR for low rectal cancer.