A Pooled Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Colon Cancer

Precision Versus Practicality: A Comprehensive Analysis of Robotic Right Colectomy Versus Laparoscopic Right Colectomy, Future Directions, Biases, Research Gaps, and Their Implications

Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world and second in cancer-related mortality. It is most prevalent in the developed world and is often associated with lifestyle factors along with age and genetics. The inclusion criteria comprised high-level evidence, such as randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews, conducted between 2012 and 2023, that directly compared the two approaches. The review reveals mixed outcomes between robotic right colectomy (RRC) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The robotic approach was associated with longer operative duration and higher costs but with decreased blood loss and quicker recovery compared to laparoscopy. On the other hand, no major differences were observed regarding lymph node retrieval, duration of hospitalization, and surgical complications. Regarding future directions, it is evident that the focus needs to shift beyond the operative parameters and to patient-centered outcomes, which are underreported. Also, more randomized clinical trials are required, focusing on safety, efficacy, and long-term quality of life. Costs-benefit analyses are required to weigh the benefits of robotic surgery against the implementation and practice costs. Additionally, improvements in surgeons' training may be necessary to reduce the operative duration and potentially decrease operational costs. Finally, standardization of research protocols may be necessary to reduce biases.

Comparison of short-term outcomes and survival between minimally invasive colectomy and open colectomy in patients 80 years of age and older

We investigated the short- and long-term outcomes of patients 80 years of age and older with colon cancer who underwent robotic colectomy versus laparoscopic colectomy. Data for patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center between January 2006 and November 2018 were collected retrospectively. Outcomes from minimally invasive laparoscopic or robotic colectomy were compared. Survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method with significance evaluated by the log-rank test. The laparoscopic (n = 104) and the robotic (n = 75) colectomy groups did not differ across baseline characteristics. Patients who underwent a robotic colectomy had a shorter median length of hospital stay (5 versus 6 days; p < 0.001) and underwent fewer conversions to open surgery (3% versus 17%; p = 0.002) compared to the laparoscopic cohort. The groups did not differ in postoperative complication rates, overall survival or disease-free survival. Elderly patients undergoing robotic colectomy for colon cancer have a shorter hospital stay and lower rates of conversion without compromise to oncologic outcomes.

Current Controversies in the Management of Locally Advanced Colon Cancer

n/a.

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.

Minimally invasive right versus left colectomy for cancer: does robotic surgery mitigate differences in short-term outcomes?

Studies comparing right (RC) and left colectomies (LC) show higher rates of ileus in RC and higher wound infection and anastomotic leak rates in LC. However, prior studies did not include robotic procedures. We compared short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic RC and LC for cancer, with sub-analysis of robotic procedures. In a retrospective review of a prospective database, preoperative factors, intraoperative events, and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared. Student's t tests and Chi-square tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. A logistic binomial regression was performed to assess whether type of surgery was associated with postoperative complications. Between January 2014 and August 2020, 115 patients underwent minimally invasive RC or LC for cancer. Sixty-eight RC [30 (44.1%) laparoscopic, 38 (55.9%) robotic] and 47 LC [13 (27.6%) laparoscopic, 34 (72.4%) robotic] cases were included. On univariate analysis, RC patients had significantly higher overall postoperative complications but no differences in rates of ileus/small bowel obstruction, wound infection, time to first flatus/bowel movement, length of hospital stay, and 30-day readmissions. On multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference in overall complications and laparoscopic surgery had a 2.5 times higher likelihood of complications than robotic surgery. In sub-analysis of robotic cases, there was no significant difference among all outcome variables. Previously reported outcome differences between laparoscopic RC and LC for cancer may be mitigated by robotic surgery.

Simultaneous Robot Assisted Colon and Liver Resection for Metastatic Colon Cancer

Introduction

Simultaneous robot assisted colon and liver resections are being performed more frequently at present due to the expanded adoption of the robotic platform for surgical management of metastatic colon cancer. However, this approach has not been studied in detail with only case series available in the literature. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current body of evidence on the feasibility of performing simultaneous robotic colon and liver resections.

Methods

A systematic review was performed through PubMed to identify relevant articles describing simultaneous colon and liver resections for metastatic colon cancer.

Results

A total of 28 patients underwent simultaneous resections robotically with an average operative time of 420.3 minutes and average blood loss of 275.6 ml. Postoperative stay was 8.6 days on average with all cases achieving negative surgical margins.

Conclusions

Robotic simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer with liver metastases is technically feasible and seems oncologically equivalent to open or laparoscopic surgery. Further studies are urgently needed to assess benefits of robotic surgery in the patient population.

Comparison of outcome and costs of robotic and laparoscopic right hemicolectomies

To compare the outcomes of patients undergoing right hemicolectomy using laparoscopic or robotic approaches and perform a cost analysis. Retrospective review of all patients undergoing elective laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomies at a public and private hospital in NSW/QLD from January 2015 to June 2018. Cost analysis was calculated using actual and estimated costs by the local health district. A total of 101 patients were identified. 59 (58%) had Robotic resection, of which 44 (75%) had an intra-corporeal anastomosis. There were no demographic or oncological differences between the two groups. The robotic group had a significantly earlier time to bowels opening (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.001) and shorter length of stay (3 vs 5 days, p < 0.001). The robotic group had a lower rate of ileus (2% vs 14%, p = 0.02) and complications (5% vs 33%, p = 0.006). The mean lymph node harvest was higher in the robotic group (18 vs 14, p = 0.001). The operative time was longer in the robotic group (110 vs 97 min, p = 0.021). The total instrument costs of robotic surgery were A$2565.37 compared with $1507.50 for laparoscopic surgery. The cost of bed days was A$1167.00/day. The average difference in cost of care was calculated as A$1276.13 and A$464.43 less in the robotic with intra-corporeal and extra-corporeal anastomosis, respectively. Patients have significantly faster return to bowel function and shorter length of stay after Robotic vs laparoscopic right hemicolectomy and experience fewer complications. This difference in length of stay may make robotic right hemicolectomies more cost effective.

Improved perioperative outcomes and reduced inflammatory stress response in malignant robot-assisted colorectal resections: a retrospective cohort study of 298 patients

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly implemented for the resection of colorectal cancer, although the scientific evidence for adopting this technique is still limited. This study’s main objective was to compare short-term complication rates, oncological outcomes, and the inflammatory stress response after colorectal resection for cancer performed laparoscopic or robot-assisted.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the robot-assisted approach to laparoscopic surgery for elective malignant colorectal neoplasm. Certified colorectal and da Vinci ® robotic surgeons performed resections at a Danish tertiary colorectal high volume center from May 2017 to March 2019. We analyzed the two surgical groups using uni- and multivariate regression analyses to detect differences in intra- and postoperative clinical outcomes and the inflammatory stress response.

Results

Two hundred and ninety-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Significant differences favoring robot-assisted surgery was demonstrated for; length of hospital stay (4 days, interquartile range (4, 5) versus 5 days, interquartile range (4–7), p < 0.001), and intraoperative blood loss (50 mL, interquartile range (20–100) versus 100 mL, interquartile range (50–150), p < 0.001) compared to laparoscopic surgery. The inflammatory stress response was significantly higher after laparoscopic compared to robot-assisted surgery reflected by an increase in C-reactive protein concentration (exponentiated coefficient = 1.23, 95% confidence interval (1.06–1.46), p = 0.008). No differences between the two groups were found concerning mortality, microradical resection rate, conversion to open surgery, and surgical or medical short-term complication rates.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted surgery is feasible and can be safely implemented for colorectal resections. The robot-assisted approach, when compared to laparoscopic surgery, was associated with improved intra- and postoperative outcomes. Extensive prospective studies are needed to determine the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Comparison of analgesic requirements in robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic abdominal surgeries

Background and Aims

Robot-assisted surgery is advantageous in the precision of tissue handling and shorter postoperative recovery. We compared postoperative analgesic requirements in laparoscopic versus robot-assisted surgery in the first 24 h as our primary objective. The secondary outcomes were extubation on table, time to ambulation, and length of ICU stay.

Material and Methods

After approval from the ethics committee 48 patients undergoing either laparoscopic (group L [n = 24]) or robotic abdominal surgery (group R [n = 24]) were evaluated for analgesic requirements postoperative targeting a numerical rating scale ≤3 in a prospective comparative study. Postoperative patients were allotted to a three-tier pain management, level 1 comprising paracetamol 1 g intravenously every 8 h, level 2, 1.5 mg/kg tramadol every 8 h, and level 3 fentanyl 0.5 μg/kg. The total analgesic consumption in the first 24 h was calculated for each group. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

Age, weight, and types of surgery were comparable between the groups. The intraoperative opioid use was comparable between both groups but the duration of surgery was longer in group R. Postoperative analgesic requirements were significantly less in group R (P = 0.024) and the length of ICU stay was shorter (P < 0.05). The time to ambulation was significantly shorter in group R patients (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Analgesic requirements were significantly less in robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in the first 24 h. The time to ambulation and length of ICU stay were shorter in the robot-assisted group in comparison to the laparoscopic group.

Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Sigmoid Resection

Background and Objectives:

Published comparisons of minimally invasive approaches to colon surgery are limited. The objective of the current study is to compare the effectiveness of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sigmoid resection.

Methods:

A multicenter retrospective comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes from consecutive robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sigmoid resections performed between 2010 and 2015 by six general and colorectal surgeons, who are experienced in both robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgical techniques and who had >50 annual case volumes for each approach. Baseline characteristics and surgical risk factors between the two groups were balanced using a propensity score methodology with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Mean standardized differences were reported, and in all instances, a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Three hundred thirty-six cases (robotic-assisted, n = 211; laparoscopic, n = 125) met eligibility criteria and were included in the study. Following weighting, patient demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable between the robotic-assisted (n = 344) and laparoscopic (n = 349) groups. The laparoscopic group was associated with shorter operating room and surgical times. The robotic-assisted group had lower estimated blood loss and shorter time to first flatus compared to the laparoscopic group. Rates of complications post discharge to 30 d tended to be lower for the RA group: 5.1% vs 8.6% [p = 0.0657]. The RA group also had lower rates of readmissions and reoperations: 4% vs 8% [p = 0.029] and 0.5% vs 5.1% [p = 0.0003], respectively.

Conclusions:

Robotic-assisted sigmoid colon resection is clinically effective and provides a minimally invasive alternative to the laparoscopic approach with improved intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for colorectal patients.

Successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer - a systematic review

AIM

Minimally invasive surgical approaches for cancer of the right colon have been well described with significant patient and equivalent oncological benefits. Robotic surgery has advanced in its ability to provide multi-quadrant abdominal access, leading the surgical community to widen its application outside of the pelvis to other abdominal compartments. Globally it is being realized that a patient's surgical episode of care is becoming the epicentre of cancer treatment. In order to establish the role of robotic surgery in a patient's episode of care, 'successful patient-oriented surgical' parameters in right hemicolectomy for malignancy were measured. The objective was to examine the rates of successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) compared to laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) for cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE (Ovid: 1946-present), PubMed (NCBI), Embase (Ovid: 1966-present) and Cochrane Library was conducted using PRISMA for parameters of successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in RRH and LRH for malignancy alone. The parameters measured included postoperative ileus, anastomotic complication, surgical wound infection, length of stay (LOS), incisional hernia rate, conversion to open, margin status, lymph node harvest and overall morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

There were 15 studies which included 831 RRH patients and 3241 LRH patients, with a median age of 62-74 years. No study analysed the concept of successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative ileus, with less time to first flatus in RRH (2.0-2.7 days, compared with 2.5-4.0 days, P < 0.05). Anastomotic leak rate in one study reported a significant increase in LRH compared to RRH (P < 0.05, 0% vs 8.3%). Significantly decreased LOS following RRH was outlined in six studies. One study reported a significantly higher rate of incisional hernias following LRH with extracorporeal anastomoses compared to RRH with intracorporeal anastomoses. Overall rates of conversion to open surgery were less with RRH (0%-3.9% vs 0%-18%, P < 0.001, 0.05). One study outlined significantly higher rates of incomplete resection with an open right hemicolectomy compared with minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic resections, with positive margin rates of 2.3%, 0.9% and 0% respectively (P < 0.001). Two studies reported significantly higher lymph node harvest in RRH (P < 0.05). Overall morbidity and 30-day mortality were comparable in both approaches.

CONCLUSION

Thirty-day morbidity and mortality were comparable between the two approaches, with patients undergoing RRH having lower anastomotic complications, increased lymph node harvest, and reduced LOS, conversion to open and incisional hernia rates in a number of studies. There are limited data on surgical approach and impact on quality of life and what patients deem successful surgical outcomes. There is a further need for a randomized controlled trial examining successful patient-oriented outcomes in right hemicolectomy for malignancy.

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.

Short- and long-term outcomes of totally robotic versus robotic-assisted right hemicolectomy for colon cancer: A retrospective study

Totally robotic right hemicolectomy (TRRH) is a novel alternative surgical method used for the treatment of colon cancer. The aim of this study was to compare both the short-and long-term outcomes of TRRH and robotic-assisted right hemicolectomy (RARH) for the treatment of colon cancer.We performed a 1:2 matched propensity score analysis. We then retrospectively analyzed all procedures (64 cases TRRH and 128 cases RARH) carried out by a single surgeon between December 4, 2014 and June 20, 2018 at a large center. Both short-and long-term surgical outcomes were compared between 2 different groups.Based on the propensity score matching, we selected 64 patients that had undergone TRRH treatment and 128 patients who had undergone RARH treatment. The preoperative clinical-pathological characteristics were well matched between the 2 groups. We observed no significant differences between the 2 groups in postoperative pathological outcomes. The mean operative time was found to be significantly longer in the TRRH group compared to the RARH group (168.2 ± 9.1 minutes vs 153.4 ± 7.4 minutes, P = .034). The mean operative incision length was found to be significantly longer in the TRRH group than in the RARH group (4.5 ± 0.6 cm vs 6.9 ± 1.1 cm, P = .023). Postoperative pain score (visual analog scale at day 1) was found to be significantly lower in the TRRH group than in the RARH group (2.9 ± 1.3 vs 4.1 ± 2.1, P = .005). The time to pass flatus was observed to be statistically lower in the TRRH group (P = .042). We observed 3 twists of mesentery in the RARH group, while none were observed in the TRRH group (P < .050). Both the 3-year overall survival (TRRH [91.6%] vs RARH [89.2%], P = .467) and the 3-year disease-free survival (TRRH [81.4%] vs RARH [78.2%], P = .551) were determined to be comparable between the 2 groups studied here.We show that TRRH is a safe and feasible treatment option for colon cancer patients in terms of both short- and long-term outcomes. High-volume, randomized, controlled trials with sufficient follow-up studies will need to be carried out in order to confirm this rationale.

Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted right colectomy compared with laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted right colectomy (RRC) with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published studies. All published literature for comparative studies reporting preoperative outcomes of RRC and LRC were searched. We searched the databases included Cochrane Library of Clinical Comparative Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) from 1973 to 2018. The censor date was up to January 2018. Operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, conversion rates to open surgery, postoperative complications, and related outcomes were evaluated. All calculations and statistical tests were performed using Stata 12.0 software. A total of 7769 patients with colon cancer enrolled in 13 trials were divided into a study group (n = 674) and a control group (n = 7095). Meta-analysis suggested significantly greater length of hospital stay in the LRC group [MD = -0.85; 95% CI: -1.07 to -0.63; P < 0.00001]. Robotic surgery was also associated with a significantly lower complication rate [OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.01; P = 0.05]. There were statistically significant differences between the groups in estimated blood loss [MD = -16.89; 95% CI: -24.80 to -8.98; P < 0.00001] and the rate of intraoperative conversion to open surgery [OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.75; P = 0.008)], but these differences were not clinically relevant. The recovery of bowel function in two groups is no significant differences [MD = -0.58, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.20, P = 0.0008]. However, operation times [MD = 43.61, 95% CI: 39.11 to 48.10, P < 0.00001] were longer for RRC than for LRC. Compared to LRC, RRC was associated with reduced estimated blood loss, reduced postoperative complications, longer operation times. Recovery of bowel function and other perioperative outcomes were equivalent between the two surgeries.