Case-matched Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Proctectomy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgical Techniques

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD].

METHODS

Comparative studies of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal resections in patients with IBD were included. The primary outcome was total post-operative complication rate. Secondary outcomes included operative time, conversion to open surgery, anastomotic leaks, intra-abdominal abscess formation, ileus occurrence, surgical site infection, re-operation, re-admission rate, length of hospital stay, and 30-day mortality. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using a random-effects model and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

Eleven non-randomized studies [n = 5566 patients] divided between those undergoing robotic [n = 365] and conventional laparoscopic [n = 5201] surgery were included. Robotic platforms were associated with a significantly lower overall post-operative complication rate compared with laparoscopic surgery [p = 0.03]. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a significantly shorter operative time [p = 0.00001]. No difference was found in conversion rates to open surgery [p = 0.15], anastomotic leaks [p = 0.84], abscess formation [p = 0.21], paralytic ileus [p = 0.06], surgical site infections [p = 0.78], re-operation [p = 0.26], re-admission rate [p = 0.48], and 30-day mortality [p = 1.00] between the groups. Length of hospital stay was shorter following a robotic sub-total colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy [p = 0.03].

CONCLUSION

Outcomes in the surgical management of IBD are comparable between traditional laparoscopic techniques and robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery, demonstrating the safety and feasibility of robotic platforms. Larger studies investigating the use of robotic technology in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis separately may be of benefit with a specific focus on important IBD-related metrics.

State of the Art: Pouch Surgery in the 21st Century

BACKGROUND

An ileoanal pouch with IPAA is the preferred method to restore intestinal continuity in patients who require a total proctocolectomy. Pouch surgery has evolved during the past decades thanks to increased experience and research, changes in the medical management of patients who require an ileal pouch, and technological innovations.

OBJECTIVE

To review the main changes in pouch surgery over the past 2 decades, with a focus on staging, minimally invasive and transanal approaches, pouch design, and anastomotic configuration.

RESULTS

The decision on the staging approach depends on the patient's conditions, their indication for surgery, and the risk of anastomotic leak. A minimally invasive approach should be performed whenever feasible, but open surgery still has a role in this technically demanding operation. Transanal IPAA may be performed in experienced centers and may reduce conversion to open surgery in the hostile pelvis. The J-pouch is the easiest, fastest, and most commonly performed design, but other designs may be used when a J-pouch is not feasible. A stapled anastomosis without mucosectomy can be safely performed in the majority of cases, with a low incidence of rectal cuff neoplasia and better functional outcomes than handsewn. Finally, Crohn's disease is not an absolute contraindication to an ileoanal pouch, but pouch failure may be higher compared to other indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Many technical nuances contribute to the success of an ileoanal pouch. The current standard of care is a laparoscopic J-pouch with double-stapled anastomosis, but this should not be seen as a dogma, and the optimal approach and design should be tailored to each patient. See video from symposium.

Outcome of Colorectal Robotic Surgery in Newly Established Robotic Surgery Center: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

The robotic platform compared to laparoscopy has proven to have similar postoperative outcomes, however its adoption in the Middle East has been slow and there is limited data regarding outcomes with its use in small newly established robotic colorectal programs. Our aim was to report our experience and outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare them to larger, more experienced centers.

METHODS

This is retrospective review of data collected between November 2021 and March 2023 from a tertiary health care referral center. The series included 51 patients who had elective or urgent robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who had emergency surgery were excluded. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and quality of oncological specimen.

RESULTS

The overall morbidity was 31.4% (n = 16 patients). Only 9.8% (n = 5) had serious morbidity of which three required interventions under general anesthesia. The median length of hospital stay was 6 days (IQR = 4), and there was no mortality. Of 17 rectal cancer resections, 88% had complete mesorectal excision, 15 of them were R0 resections, median lymph node harvested was 14 (IQR = 7) and two cases were converted to open. All the colon cancer resections had R0 resection, median lymph nodes harvested was 21 (IQR = 4) and none were converted to open.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery at a newly established center in a small country, when led by fellowship trained robotic colorectal surgeons, is safe and effective in terms of morbidity, mortality, conversion to open and specimen pathological quality.

National trends and feasibility of a robotic surgical approach in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

Research on the utilization of robotic surgical approaches in the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is limited. The aims of this study were to identify temporal trends in robotic utilization and compare the safety of a robotic to laparoscopic operative approach in patients with IBD.

METHODS

Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for IBD were identified using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database (2013-2021). Temporal trends of robotic utilization were assessed from 2013 to 2021. Primary (30-day overall and serious morbidity) and secondary (unplanned conversion to open) outcomes were assessed between 2019 and 2021, when robotic utilization was highest. Multivariable logistic regression was performed.

RESULTS

The use of a robotic approach for colectomies and proctectomies increased significantly between 2013 and 2021 (p < 0.001), regardless of disease type. A total of 6016 patients underwent MIS for IBD between 2019 and 2021. 2234 (37%) patients had surgery for UC [robotic 430 (19.3%), lap 1804 (80%)] and 3782 (63%) had surgery for CD [robotic 500 (13.2%), lap 3282 (86.8%)]. For patients with UC, there was no difference in rates of overall morbidity (22.6% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.39), serious morbidity (11.4% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.60) or conversion to open (1.5% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.38) between the laparoscopic and robotic approaches, respectively. There was no difference in overall morbidity between the two groups in patients with CD (lap 14.0% vs robotic 16.4%, p = 0.15), however the robotic group exhibited higher rates of serious morbidity (7.3% vs. 11.2%, p < 0.01), shorter LOS (3 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001) and lower rates of conversion to an open procedure (3.8% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.02). Adjusted analysis showed similar results.

CONCLUSION

The use of the robotic platform in the surgical management of IBD is increasing and is not associated with an increase in 30-day overall morbidity compared to a laparoscopic approach.

Minimally invasive surgery in Crohn's disease: state-of-the-art review

Surgery for Crohn's disease (CD) has undergone significant advancements over the last two decades, especially minimally invasive surgery. In addition to its feasibility and safety, minimally invasive surgery provides manifold advantages, including a decreased hospitalization duration, improved aesthetic results, and fewer occurrences of intra-abdominal adhesions. Due to the special intraoperative characteristics of CD, such as chronic inflammation, a thickened mesentery, fistulas, abscesses and large masses, a minimally invasive approach seems to be challenging. Complete implementation of this technique for complex disease has yet to be studied. In this review, we provide a review on the applicability of minimally invasive surgery in CD and future perspectives for the technical advances in the field.

Short-term outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery: a propensity score match study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery offers improved short-term outcomes over open surgery but can be technically challenging. Robotic surgery has been increasingly used for IPAA surgery, but there is limited evidence supporting its use. This study aims to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic IPAA procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic IPAA surgery at 3 centres, from 3 countries, between 2008 and 2019 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for gender, previous abdominal surgery, ASA grade (I, II vs III, IV) and procedure performed (proctocolectomy vs completion proctectomy). Their short-term outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients were identified (73 laparoscopic, 16 robotic). The 16 patients that received robotic surgery were matched with 15 laparoscopic patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated short-term outcomes. Length of stay trend was higher for laparoscopic surgery (9 vs 7 days, p = 0.072) CONCLUSION: Robotic IPAA surgery is safe and feasible and offers similar short-term outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Length of stay may be lower for robotic IPAA surgery, but further larger scale studies are required in order to demonstrate this.

Robotic Surgery for the Ileal Pouch

BACKGROUND

A robotic approach to total colectomy/proctectomy and ileal pouch reconstruction would seem to be a sensible use of the platform's enhanced reach, visualization, and dexterity.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to discuss current published data for robotic ileal pouch surgery.

STUDY SELECTION

The study selection included a paucity of published data to date, representing early learning curves and case series with small numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

Current robotic platforms may offer advantages, particularly in the low pelvis beyond what is found with a laparoscopic approach.

Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Proctectomy with Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis for Ulcerative Colitis: An Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes from a Tertiary Referral Center

Background: Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery is gaining popularity, but limited data are available on the safety, efficacy, and cost of robotic-assisted restorative proctectomy with the construction of an ileal pouch and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods: A retrospective study was conducted comparing consecutively performed robotic-assisted and laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA between 1 January 2016 and 31 September 2021. In total, 67 adult patients with medically refractory UC without proven dysplasia or carcinoma underwent surgery: 29 operated robotically and 38 laparoscopically. Results: There were no differences between both groups regarding postoperative complications within 30 days according to Clavien-Dindo classification’ grades 1−5 (51.7% vs. 42.1%, p = 0.468) and severe grades 3b−5 (17.2% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.485). Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with an increased urinary tract infection rate (n = 7, 24.1% vs. n = 1, 2.6%; p = 0.010) and longer operative time (346 ± 65 min vs. 281 ± 66 min; p < 0.0001). Surgery costs were higher when operated robotically (median EUR 10.377 [IQR EUR 4.727] vs. median EUR 6.689 [IQR EUR 3.170]; p < 0.0001), resulting in reduced total inpatient profits (median EUR 110 [IQR EUR 4.971] vs. median EUR 2.853 [IQR EUR 5.386]; p = 0.001). Conclusion: Robotic-assisted proctectomy with IPAA can be performed with comparable short-term clinical outcomes to laparoscopy but is associated with a longer duration of surgery and higher surgery costs. As experience increases, some advantages may become evident regarding operative time, postoperative recovery, and length of stay. The robotic procedure might then become cost-efficient.

Robotic multiquadrant colorectal procedures: A single-center experience and a systematic review of the literature

Purpose

Robotic surgery has been progressively implemented for colorectal procedures but is still limited for multiquadrant abdominal resections. The present study aims to describe our experience in robotic multiquadrant colorectal surgeries and provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature investigating the outcomes of robotic total proctocolectomy (TPC), total colectomy (TC), subtotal colectomy (STC), or completion proctectomy (CP) compared to laparoscopy.

Methods

At our institution 16 consecutive patients underwent a 2- or 3-stage totally robotic total proctocolectomy (TPC) with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. A systematic review of the literature was performed to select studies on robotic and laparoscopic multiquadrant colorectal procedures. Meta-analyses were used to compare the two approaches.

Results

In our case series, 14/16 patients underwent a 2-stage robotic TPC for ulcerative colitis with a mean operative time of 271.42 (SD:37.95) minutes. No conversion occurred. Two patients developed postoperative complications. The mean hospital stay was 8.28 (SD:1.47) days with no readmissions. Mortality was nil. All patients underwent loop-ileostomy closure, and functional outcomes were satisfactory. The literature appraisal was based on 23 retrospective studies, including 736 robotic and 9,904 laparoscopic multiquadrant surgeries. In the robotic group, 36 patients underwent STC, 371 TC, 166 TPC, and 163 CP. Pooled data analysis showed that robotic TC and STC had a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.17;95% CI, 0.04–0.82; p = 0.03) than laparoscopic TC and STC. The robotic approach was associated with longer operative time for TC and STC (MD = 104.64;95% CI, 18.42–190.87; p = 0.02) and TPC and CP (MD = 38.8;95% CI, 18.7–59.06; p = 0.0002), with no differences for postoperative complications and hospital stay. Reports on urological outcomes, sexual dysfunction, and quality of life were missing.

Conclusions

Our experience and the literature suggest that robotic multiquadrant colorectal surgery is safe and effective, with low morbidity and mortality rates. Nevertheless, the overall level of evidence is low, and functional outcomes of robotic approach remain largely unknown.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022303016.

Equivalency of short-term perioperative outcomes after open, laparoscopic and robotic ileal anal pouch anastomosis. Does procedure complexity override operative approach?

Background

Ileal pouch anal anastomosis is the treatment of choice for patients with chronic ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis undergoing a proctocolectomy and desiring bowel continuity. It is a technically complex operation associated with significant morbidity and may be performed by an open, laparoscopic, or robotic approach. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the comparative perioperative outcomes between these 3 techniques outside of institutional studies.

Methods

The NSQIP targeted proctectomy data set was used to identify patients who underwent open, laparoscopic, and robotic ileal pouch anal anastomosis between 2016 and 2019. Thirty-day outcomes between different surgical approaches were compared using univariate and multivariable analysis.

Results

During the study period, 1,067 open, 971 laparoscopic, and 341 robotic ileal pouch anal anastomosis were performed. The most frequent indications were inflammatory bowel disease (64%), malignancy (18%), and familial adenomatous polyposis (7%). Mean age of the cohort was 43 ± 15 years with 43% female and 76% with body mass index ≤ 30 kg/m². Overall morbidity was 26.8% for the entire cohort with 4% anastomotic leak, 6% reoperation, 21% ileus, and 21% readmission rate. After adjusting for available confounders, operative approach was not associated with better short-term outcomes, including length of stay, overall morbidity, anastomotic leak, reoperation, incidence of ileus, and 30-day readmissions.

Conclusion

Ileal pouch anal anastomosis continues to be associated with significant postoperative morbidity regardless of operative approach. Patient-related advantages in terms of perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic and robotic platforms compared to open surgery are less pronounced in complex operations such as ileal pouch anal anastomosis.

•

Ileal anal pouch anastomosis is a technically complex operation associated with significant postoperative 30-day morbidity.

•

Postoperative morbidity is similar between open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.

•

In complex operations such as ileal anal pouch anastomosis, the short-term perioperative advantages of minimally invasive approaches may not be clinically evident.

The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdominal adhesions are a risk factor for conversion to open surgery. An advantage of robotic surgery is the lower rate of unplanned conversions. A systematic review was conducted using the terms “laparoscopic” and “robotic”. Inclusion criteria were: comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery; reporting data on conversion to open surgery for each group due to adhesions and studies including at least five patients in each group. The main outcomes were the conversion rates due to adhesions and surgeons’ expertise (novice vs. expert). The meta-analysis included 70 studies from different surgical specialities with 14,329 procedures (6472 robotic and 7857 laparoscopic). The robotic approach was associated with a reduced risk of conversion (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12–2.10, p = 0.007). The analysis of the procedures performed by “expert surgeons” showed a statistically significant difference in favour of robotic surgery (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03–2.12, p = 0.03). A reduced conversion rate due to adhesions with the robotic approach was observed in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.20–5.72, p = 0.02). The robotic approach could be a valid option in patients with abdominal adhesions, especially in the subgroup of those undergoing colorectal cancer resection performed by expert surgeons.

Robotic Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis

Subtotal colectomy (STC) or total proctocolectomy (TPC) and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed in two or three stages remain the procedure of choice for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Minimally invasive laparoscopic approaches for STC and IPAA have been established for over a decade, having been shown to reduce postoperative pain, length of stay, and improve fertility. However "straight-stick" laparoscopy has ergonomic and visual disadvantages in the pelvis, which may contribute to IPAA failure. The robotic platform was developed to overcome these limitations. Robotic STC is associated with lower conversion rates and earlier return of bowel function with acceptably longer operative time (mean, 28 minutes) than laparoscopic STC. The robotic approach has also been shown in case series to be safe in urgent settings. Robotic IPAA is associated with lower blood loss and length of stay than laparoscopic IPAA. Robotic TPC/IPAA has been shown in small case series to be safe and feasible despite longer operating times.

Robotic Surgery in Crohn's Disease

Surgery for Crohn's disease presents unique challenges secondary to the inflammatory nature of the disease. While a minimally invasive approach to colorectal surgery has consistently been associated with better patient outcomes, adoption of laparoscopy in Crohn's disease has been limited due to these challenges. Robotic assisted surgery has the potential to overcome these challenges and allow more complex patients to undergo a minimally invasive operation. Here we describe our approach to robotic assisted surgery for terminal ileal Crohn's disease.

Robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a curative and cancer preventative procedure in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). It can be technically difficult laparoscopically, and hence the robotic platform has been suggested as a way to enable minimally invasive surgery in more patients. This systematic review examines robotic proctectomy or proctocolectomy with IPAA. A limited meta-analysis was performed on data comparing the robotic approach to laparoscopy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for case series of robotic IPAA procedures and studies comparing the robotic to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data examined includes operating time, conversion to open, length of stay, complications, blood loss, return of bowel function, reoperation rate and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Five non-randomised studies compared robotic to laparoscopic techniques; one compared robotic to open surgery and three case series are included. Operating time was significantly longer in robotic cases. Estimated blood loss was significantly less in three of four studies which reported this; hospital stay was significantly less in two. There were nonsignificant reductions in complications and readmission rates. Pooled analysis of four papers with adequate data showed a nonstatistically significant trend to less complications in robotic procedures. Three studies assessed functional and quality of life outcomes, with little difference between the platforms.

CONCLUSIONS

Available data suggests that the robotic platform is safe to use for IPAA procedures. There is minimal evidence for clinical advantages, but with little data to base decisions and significant potential for improvements in technique and cost-effectiveness, further use of the platform for this operation is warranted. It is vital that this occurs within an evaluation framework.

Training for Minimally Invasive Surgery for IBD: A Current Need

Surgery for inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) management has passed through an important evolution over the last decades, with innovative strategies and new technologies, especially in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches. MIS procedures for IBD include multiport laparoscopy, single-port surgery, robotics, and the use of transanal platforms. These approaches can be used in the surgical management of both Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). There are significant peculiarities in the surgical field in CD and UC, and their perfect understanding are directly related to better outcomes in IBD patients, as a consequence of improvement in knowledge by IBD surgeons. Different strategies to train colorectal surgeons were developed worldwide, for better application of MIS, usually for malignant or non-IBD benign diseases. There is a significant lack of evidence in specific training strategies for MIS in the IBD field. In this review, the authors outline the importance of adequate surgical training in IBD MIS, by discussing the current evidence on different approaches and emphasizing the need for better training protocols included in multidisciplinary teams in IBD centers throughout the globe.

[Minimally invasive and robot-assisted surgery for chronic inflammatory bowel disease : Current status and evidence situation]

The majority of cases of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can be treated by minimally invasive surgery. The advantages of standard laparoscopic approaches compared to open surgery with respect to short-term and long-term outcome parameters have been adequately proven with evidence level 1 for ileocecal resection in Crohn's disease. For many other indications there are at least several larger registry or case-control studies that have shown advantages for laparoscopy. For robot-assisted surgery the feasibility has principally been demonstrated for IBD, whereby at least for ulcerative colitis limited data suggest comparable results to the standard laparoscopic approach. Single port approaches have so far not been able to demonstrate any relevant advantages in IBD surgery. Major advantages for transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for performing restorative proctocolectomy could not be demonstrated in two larger case-controlled studies but it was at least shown to be a comparable alternative to standard laparoscopy. Overall, it seems unlikely that the recently described new laparoscopic approaches will result in measurable advantages for the patient in comparison to standard laparoscopy as the access trauma is not significantly changed. In general, the indications to perform minimally invasive surgery must always be based on the basic principles of IBD surgery and contraindications have to be considered in individual cases as the advantages of laparoscopic approaches are levelled out in the long run.

Robotic Colorectal Surgery

The role of robotics in colon and rectal surgery has been established as an important and effective tool for the surgeon. Its inherent technologies have provided for increased visualization and ease of dissection in the minimally invasive approach to surgery. The value of the robot is apparent in the more challenging aspects of colon and rectal procedures, including the intracorporeal anastomosis for right colectomies and the low pelvic dissection for benign and malignant diseases.

Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives

Purpose

As robotic surgery is increasingly performed in patients with colorectal diseases, understanding proper port placement for robotic colorectal surgery is necessary. This review summarizes current port placement during robotic surgery for colorectal diseases and provides future perspective on port placements.

Methods

PubMed were searched from January 2009 to December 2018 using a combination of the search terms “robotic” [MeSH], “colon” [MeSH], “rectum” [MeSH], “colorectal” [MeSH], and “colorectal surgery” [MeSH]. Studies related to port placement were identified and included in the current study if they used the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi robotic system and if they described port placement.

Results

This review included 77 studies including a total of 3,145 operations. Fifty studies described port placement for left-sided and mesorectal excision; 17, 3, and 7 studies assessed port placement for right-sided colectomy, rectopexy, transanal surgery, respectively; and one study assessed surgery with reduced port placement. Recent literatures show that the single-docking technique included mobilization of the second and third robotic arms for the different parts without movement of patient cart and similar to previous dual or triple-docking technique. Besides, use of the da Vinci Xi system allowed a more simplified port configuration.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted colorectal surgery can be efficiently achieved with successful port placement without movement of patient cart dependent on the type of surgery and the robotic system.

Minimally Invasive Surgery in Complex Crohn's Disease

Minimally invasive approaches are safe, feasible, and often recommended as the initial choice in the surgical management of Crohn's disease. However, a consensus has not been reached as the ideal approach in the surgical treatment of complex and recurrent Crohn's disease. Laparoscopy may provide advantages such as shorter length of stay and decreased postoperative pain and result in less adhesion formation in patients with complex disease. Robotic techniques may be beneficial in selected patients for completion proctectomy, providing better visualization in the narrow pelvis and increased dexterity. Decision of surgical technique should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Short-term postoperative outcomes following robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis are equivalent

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches have become the standard of care for ileal pouch-anal anastomoses (IPAA). There are few reports comparing outcomes following a laparoscopic versus robotic approach. Our aim was to determine if there were any differences in the 30-day postoperative outcomes following IPAA performed laparoscopically versus robotically.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic and robotic IPAA performed between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018 was carried out. Patients included were adult patients who underwent a proctectomy and IPAA utilizing either a laparoscopic or robotic approach. Data collected included patient demographics, operative variables, and 30-day postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients had a minimally invasive IPAA; 58 were performed laparoscopically and 74 robotically. Less than half the patients were female (n = 55; 41.7%) with a median age of 37 years (range 18-68 years). The majority of patients had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (n = 103; 78.0%) with medically refractory disease (n = 87; 65.9%). A greater proportion of patients in the laparoscopic cohort had a prolonged length of stay (n = 27; 46.6% versus n = 18; 24.3%; p < 0.001) and a two-stage approach (n = 56; 96.6% versus n = 37; 50%; p < 0.001), but there were no differences in the rates between the laparoscopic versus robotic cohorts of superficial surgical site infection (6.9% versus 6.8%; p = 0.99), peripouch abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), anastomotic leak (6.9% versus 2.7%; p = 0.21), pelvic abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), and pelvic sepsis (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), readmission (24.1% versus 17.6%; p = 0.35) or reoperation (6.9% versus 5.4%; p = 0.72). On multivariable analysis, only male sex remained predictive of prolonged length of stay, and a robotic approach trended toward a decreased rate of prolonged length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and robotic IPAA have equivalent postoperative morbidity underscoring the safety of the continued expansion of the robotic platform for pouch surgery.

The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the growth in laparoscopic surgery, comparable oncological outcomes, and reduced complication rates, the majority of colorectal surgery is still performed via an open approach. Reasons for this may include technical difficulties associated with operating in narrow spaces such as in the pelvis and inadequate experience. Robotic surgery provides potential solutions to some of these challenges. This review will summarize the state of the literature regarding robotic colorectal surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The most consistent benefit of robotic surgery is decreasing operative conversions, specifically in rectal cancer. In partial colectomies, there is evidence to support quicker return to bowel function. Oncologic outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach are equivalent. Robotic surgery provides solutions to the challenges posed by laparoscopy, including wristed instruments, ease of intracorporeal suturing, and ergonomic advantages. Randomized trials to evaluate peri-operative outcomes will be important. If robotics is able to facilitate conversion of open colectomies to their minimally invasive equivalent, robotics may end up proving to be advantageous in the peri-operative and post-operative period. Continued studies are warranted.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in surgery for inflammatory bowel disease

AIM

There is a requirement of an expansive and up to date review of surgical management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can dovetail with the medical guidelines produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology.

METHODS

Surgeons who are members of the ACPGBI with a recognised interest in IBD were invited to contribute various sections of the guidelines. They were directed to produce a procedure based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. An editorial board was convened to ensure consistency of style, presentation and quality. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after 2 votes were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

All aspects of surgical care for IBD have been included along with 157 recommendations for management.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of IBD and will serve as a useful practical text for clinicians performing this type of surgery.

Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of robotic colorectal resections for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic literature review

The purpose of this study was to assess outcome measures and cost-effectiveness of robotic colorectal resections in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The Cochrane Library, PubMed/Medline and Embase databases were reviewed, using the text "robotic(s)" AND ("inflammatory bowel disease" OR "Crohn's" OR "Ulcerative Colitis"). Two investigators screened abstracts for eligibility. All English language full-text articles were reviewed for specified outcomes. Data were presented in a summarised and aggregate form, since the lack of higher-level evidence studies precluded meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included mortality and postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included readmission rate, length of stay, conversion rate, procedure time, estimated blood loss and functional outcome. The tertiary outcome was cost-effectiveness. Eight studies (3 case-matched observational studies, 4 case series and 1 case report) met the inclusion criteria. There was no reported mortality. Overall, complications occurred in 81 patients (54%) including 30 (20%) Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications. Mean length of stay was 8.6 days. Eleven cases (7.3%) were converted to open. The mean robotic operating time was 99 min out of a mean total operating time of 298.6 min. Thirty-two patients (24.7%) were readmitted. Functional outcomes were comparable among robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches. Case-matched observational studies comparing robotic to laparoscopic surgery revealed a significantly longer procedure time; however, conversion, complication, length of stay and readmission rates were similar. The case-matched observational study comparing robotic to open surgery also revealed a longer procedure time and a higher readmission rate; postoperative complication rates and length of stay were similar. No studies compared cost-effectiveness between robotic and traditional approaches. Although robotic resections for inflammatory bowel disease are technically feasible, outcomes must be interpreted with caution due to low-quality studies.