Comment on “Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Phase II Open Label Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial”

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic technique for the treatment of left-sided colonic diverticular disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive surgery has been universally accepted as a valid option for the treatment of diverticular disease, provided specific expertise is available. Over the last decade, there has been a growing interest in the application of robotic approaches for diverticular disease. We aimed at evaluating whether robotic colectomy may offer some advantages over the laparoscopic approach for surgical treatment of diverticular disease by meta-analyzing the available data from the medical literature.

METHODS

The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Web Of Sciences electronic databases were searched for literature up to December 2020. Inclusion criteria considered all comparative studies evaluating robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for diverticulitis eligible. The conversion rate to the open approach was evaluated as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The data of 4177 patients from nine studies were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy compared to those who underwent surgery with a robotic approach had a significantly higher risk of conversion into an open procedure (12.5% vs. 7.4%, p < 0.00001) and abbreviated hospital stay (p < 0.0001) at the price of a longer operating time (p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the robotic approach offers significant advantages in terms of conversion rate and shortened hospital stay for the treatment of diverticular disease. However, because of the lack of available evidence, it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions.

The risk of conversion in minimally invasive oncological abdominal surgery. Meta-analysis of randomized evidence comparing traditional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted techniques

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to investigate the risk of conversion associated with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP) versus robot-assisted surgery (ROB) in patients undergoing abdominal oncological surgery. Possible differences between ROB and LAP on postoperative overall and major morbidity, operative time, and length of hospitalization were also assessed.

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials of LAP versus ROB surgery in patients with abdominal malignancy. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Central registries through September 2020. Risk of bias was estimated concerning randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases.

RESULTS

A total of 1867 patients from 12 trials were included in this review. The rate of conversion was significantly higher for LAP than for ROB patients (10 trials, 1447 participants, p = 0.03, OR = 0.56 [0.33, 0.95]). There was a nonsignificant advantage of ROB over LAP on the rate of overall postoperative morbidity (12 trials, 1867 participants, p = 0.32, OR = 0.83) and major morbidity (7 trials, 792 participants, p = 0.87, OR= 0.93). ROB was also associated with prolonged operative time and abbreviated postoperative hospitalization as compared to LAP (p = 0.002, MD = 27.87, and p = 0.04, MD = -0.57, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the available highest level of evidence, the application of ROB decreases the incidence of unplanned conversion into an open procedure as compared to standard LAP in the setting of oncological minimally invasive surgery.

[Robotic Assisted Proctocolectomy with Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis in a Case of Suspected Hereditary Polyposis]

BACKGROUND

Various forms of hereditary polyposis have been described in the literature. Classical familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a rare, autosomal dominantly inherited disease which is caused by a germline mutation in the adenomatous polyposis coli gene (APC). Patients with this diagnosis successively develop multiple polyps of the colon. Left untreated, FAP almost inevitably leads to malignant transformation.

INDICATION

We present the case of a 37-year-old patient with histologically confirmed, stenotic adenocarcinoma of the descending colon and an initially suspected hereditary polyposis due to multiple polyps in the descending and sigmoid colon.

METHODS

The video describes the preoperative imaging as well as endoscopic findings and demonstrates the technique of a two-stage, robotically assisted proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and the creation of a temporary loop ileostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to the surgical treatment of classic FAP, restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) with ileal J-pouch construction can be regarded as an established standard procedure, despite controversy regarding various technical aspects. Minimally invasive strategies should be considered as an equivalent option compared to conventional techniques.