Advantages of Robotic Right Colectomy With Intracorporeal Anastomosis

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review of the evidence

Robotics may facilitate the realization of fully minimally invasive right hemicolectomy, including intra-corporeal anastomosis and off-midline extraction, when compared to laparoscopy. Our aim was to compare laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with robotic right hemicolectomy in terms of peri-operative outcomes. MEDLINE was searched for original studies comparing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with robotic right hemicolectomy in terms of peri-operative outcomes. The systematic review complied with the PRISMA 2020 recommendations. Variables related to patients' demographics, surgical procedures, post-operative recovery and pathological outcomes were collected and qualitatively assessed. Two-hundred and ninety-three publications were screened, 277 were excluded and 16 were retained for qualitative analysis. The majority of included studies were observational and of limited sample size. When the type of anastomosis was left at surgeon's discretion, intra-corporeal anastomosis was favoured in robotic right hemicolectomy (4/4 studies). When compared to laparoscopy, robotics allowed harvesting more lymph nodes (4/15 studies), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (5/14 studies), a shorter time to faeces (2/3 studies) and a shorter length of stay (5/14 studies), at the cost of a longer operative time (13/14 studies). Systematic review of existing studies, which are mostly non-randomized, suggests that robotic surgery may facilitate fully minimally invasive right hemicolectomy, including intra-corporeal anastomosis, and offer improved post-operative recovery.

Colorectal resections for malignancy: A pilot study comparing conventional vs freehand robot-assisted laparoscopic colectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomy is widely accepted as a safe operation for colorectal cancer, but we have experienced resistance to the introduction of the FreeHand® robotic camera holder to augment laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

AIM

To compare the initial results between conventional and FreeHand® robot-assisted laparoscopic colectomy in Trinidad and Tobago.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of outcomes from all laparoscopic colectomies performed for colorectal carcinoma from November 29, 2021 to May 30, 2022. The following data were recorded: Operating time, conversions, estimated blood loss, hospitalization, morbidity, surgical resection margins and number of nodes harvested. All data were entered into an excel database and the data were analyzed using SPSS ver 20.0.

RESULTS

There were 23 patients undergoing colectomies for malignant disease: 8 (35%) FreeHand®-assisted and 15 (65%) conventional laparoscopic colectomies. There were no conversions. Operating time was significantly lower in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic colectomy (95.13 ± 9.22 vs 105.67 ± 11.48 min; P = 0.045). Otherwise, there was no difference in estimated blood loss, nodal harvest, hospitalization, morbidity or mortality.

CONCLUSION

The FreeHand® robot for colectomies is safe, provides some advantages over conventional laparoscopy and does not compromise oncologic standards in the resource-poor Caribbean setting.

Prognostic and immunological role of adaptor related protein complex 3 subunit mu2 in colon cancer

The expression levels and prognostic role of AP3M2 in colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRAC) have yet to be fully unveiled. Our study comprehensively investigated the clinical significance of AP3M2 in colorectal cancer through an extensive bioinformatics data mining process (TCGA, GEO, GEPIA, Timer, Ualcan, ROCPLOT, and David), followed by experimental validation. We found AP3M2 is a cancer gene, which can be used to distinguish between colorectal cancer and colorectal adenomas, liver metastasis, lung metastasis, colorectal polyp. Higher AP3M2 expression levels were associated with longer overall survival in colon adenocarcinoma. AP3M2 might be the primary biomarker for oxaliplatin in colon cancer and an acquired resistance biomarker for oxaliplatin and 5-fu. AP3M2 was positively associated with CD274, CTLA4. AP3M2 might be associated with T-cell, NF-kappaB transcription factor activity, and response to hypoxia. AP3M2 could predict chemotherapy effectiveness and prognosis for colon cancer patients. AP3M2 might inhibit tumor growth via influencing tumor-infiltrating immune cells in the context of Tumor microenvironment. AP3M2 plays as an oncogene in CRAC and is suggested as a new potential biotarget for therapy.

Robotic Proctectomy: Beyond the Initial Learning Curve

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Robotic-assisted colectomy for right-sided colon cancer: Short-term surgical outcomes of a multi-institutional prospective cohort study in Japan

Background

In Japan, there are no substantial reports on robotic-assisted colectomy because few institutions performed the procedure, as it was not covered by national insurance until March 2022.

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted colectomy for patients with curatively resectable colon cancer in Japan.

Methods

This multi-institutional, prospective, single-arm, observational study enrolled patients diagnosed with curatively resectable clinical stage I-IIIC colon adenocarcinoma with D2 or D3 lymph node dissection and treated with robotic-assisted colectomy. The primary endpoint was the conversion rate to laparotomy. The non-inferiority of outcomes for robotic-assisted colectomy versus laparoscopic colectomy, which was determined from historical data, was verified.

Results

One hundred patients were registered between July 2019 and March 2022 and underwent robotic-assisted colectomy performed by seven expert surgeons at six institutions. Thirteen patients were excluded because their surgeons had insufficient experience performing robotic-assisted colectomy; therefore, 87 patients were eligible for the primary endpoint analysis. There was no conversion in these 87 patients, and robotic-assisted colectomy was non-inferior to laparoscopic colectomy in terms of conversion rate (90% confidence interval 0-3.38, p = 0.0006). No intraoperative adverse events occurred, and no mortality was observed in a total of 100 patients. The rate of patients with Clavien-Dindo complications grade III or higher was 4%.

Conclusion

This study showed the non-inferiority of the conversion rates between robotic-assisted colectomy and laparoscopic colectomy. Favorable perioperative outcomes also suggest the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted colectomy.

Intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis after minimally invasive right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

As part of the wide adoption of minimally invasive surgery, intracorporeal anastomosis is becoming increasingly common. The benefits of minimally invasive versus open right colectomy are well known although the additional benefits of an intracorporeal anastomosis, performed laparoscopically or robotically, are unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the current literature comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in the setting of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA and AMSTAR methods. Studies included were randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies, between January 1 2010 and July 1 2021, comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis with laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Four groups were identified: laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (L-ECA), laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (L-ICA), robotic extracorporeal anastomosis (R-ECA), and robotic intracorporeal anastomosis (R-ICA). Operative time, rate of conversion to an open procedure, surgical site infection, reoperation within 30 days, postoperative complications within 30 days, and length of hospital stay were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one retrospective cohort studies were included in the final analysis. R-ICA and R-ECA had comparable operative times, but a robotic approach required more time than laparoscopic (68 min longer, p < 0.00001). Conversion to open surgery was 55% less likely in the R-ICA group vs. L-ICA, and up to 94% less likely in the R-ICA group in comparison to the R-ECA group. Length of hospital stay was shorter for R-ICA by a half day vs. R-ECA, and up to 1 day less vs. L-ECA. There were no differences in postoperative complications, reoperations, or surgical site infections, regardless of approach. However, the included studies all had high risks of bias due to confounding variables and patient selection.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with shorter length of hospitalization and decreased rate of conversion to open surgery, compared to either laparoscopic or extracorporeal robotic approaches. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the true impact of robotic approach and intracorporeal anastomosis in right colectomy.

Robotic-assisted intracorporeal versus extracorporeal techniques in sigmoidectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis

Scarce research has been performed to assess the safety and efficacy of anastomosis technique on robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy. This study was designed to evaluate the difference between intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques during robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy. Clinical data of 193 cases who received robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Only 116 cases were available for analysis (intracorporeal group = 58 and extracorporeal group = 58) after propensity score matching. Independent sample t test was conducted to evaluate the continuous variables. Moreover, the statistical significance of categorical variables was tested using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Statistical analysis showed that the intracorporeal group demonstrated greater superiorities in pain scale on the first and second postoperative day (P < 0.05), time of catheter indwelling (P = 0.009), and length of hospital stay (P = 0.019). Additionally, the intracorporeal technique contributed to fewer complications including urinary retention (P = 0.027) and hernia (P = 0.037) than the extracorporeal group. Our analysis revealed that intracorporeal technique was safe and feasible due to the shorter time of catheter indwelling and length of hospital stay and fewer post-operation complications.

Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery Techniques

Colorectal surgery has witnessed a transformative shift with the advent of minimally invasive techniques, offering patients reduced postoperative discomfort, shorter hospital stays, and accelerated recovery compared to conventional open surgery. This comprehensive review aims to assess the current state of minimally invasive approaches in colorectal surgery, encompassing various techniques such as single-incision laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted surgery, and conventional laparoscopic surgery. The article meticulously explores the benefits and drawbacks of each technique, delves into the established criteria for their application, delineates cautious circumstances, and analyzes the outcomes of minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Additionally, the integration of virtual reality and augmented reality for surgical planning and training is discussed, shedding light on the future trajectory of this field. Surgeons and researchers striving to enhance patient care and surgical outcomes in colorectal surgery will find this review article an invaluable resource, presenting crucial components of minimally invasive colorectal surgery and paving the way for continued advancements in the field.

Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy node retrieval in the obese population

Data are scarce comparing robotic and laparoscopic colectomy node retrieval based on body mass index or age. With differences in anastomosis, mobilization, and ligation between these approaches, obese and/or elderly patients undergoing robotic surgery may have differences in node yield compared to laparoscopy. A retrospective review was conducted between four institutions from February 1, 2019 through August 1, 2021, during which 144 right colectomies were performed. Benign pathology, open colectomies, and conversions to open were excluded. All included surgeons had at least five patients to ensure experience. The population was categorized by a robotic or laparoscopic approach. Records were reviewed focusing on age, body mass index, surgical approach, anastomosis, pathology, and node count. The node count was then compared by body mass index and age between the robotic or laparoscopic approach to identify differences. After applied exclusions and outlier analysis, our final sample consisted of 80 patients. Both body mass index and age were significant, (p = 0.002 and p = 0.005, respectively). Body mass index ≤ 25.0 and age < 60 years old had higher average node counts. These variables interacted, (p = 0.003); those with both < 60 years old and body mass index ≤ 25 showed the greatest number of nodes (36.9). Laparoscopy yielded more nodes in ≥ 60 years old than robotics (27.4 verses 20.9), though this was not significant (p = 0.68). Node retrieval in overweight and obese patients did not differ between approaches (p = 0.48). Both body mass index and age influence the number of nodes that can be extracted in right hemicolectomies by experienced surgeons.

Comparison of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For right colon surgery, there is an increasing body of literature comparing the safety of robotic right colectomy (RRC) with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the safety and efficacy of RRC versus LRC, including homogeneous subgroup analyses for extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and January 2022. Length of hospital stay, operation time, rate of conversion to laparotomy, time to first flatus, number of harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, rate of overall complication, ileus, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, and total costs were measured.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies (RRC: 2772 patients; LRC: 12,469 patients) were evaluated. Regardless of the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter length of hospital stay, lower rate of conversion to laparotomy, shorter time to first flatus, lower rate of overall complications, and a higher number of harvested lymph nodes compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the IA subgroup, RRC had a shorter length of hospital stay, longer operative time, and lower rate of conversion to laparotomy compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes. In the EA subgroup, RRC had a longer operative time, lower estimated blood loss, lower rate of overall complications, and higher total costs compared with LRC, with the other outcomes being similar.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of RRC is superior to LRC, especially when an intracorporeal anastomosis is performed. Most included articles were retrospective, offering low-quality evidence and limited conclusions.

A standardized stepwise approach to minimally invasive ileocolic anastomosis: Tips and tricks for laparoscopic and robotic surgery

AIM

Intracorporeal anastomosis has been associated with earlier recovery of postoperative bowel function, shorter length of stay and lower surgical site infection rates. The aim of this work is to describe a step-by-step standardized technique for intracorporeal ileocolic and ileosigmoid anastomosis suitable for laparoscopic and robotic colectomy.

METHOD

Each step of the technique is illustrated using a composite collection of three operative patient videos. Two procedures were performed robotically and one was laparoscopic. Tips are provided to construct a two-layer anastomosis (both posteriorly and anteriorly). The procedures are presented in stepwise fashion, discussing the advantages and feasibility of the technique.

RESULTS

The standardized technique described herein was used in three patients for this report, of whom two underwent right colectomy and one subtotal colectomy for cancer. The median operating time was 255 (206-333) min. There were no intraoperative complications. No major postoperative complications or 30-day readmissions occurred. The median length of stay was 4 (3-5) days.

CONCLUSION

The described technique of a two-layer anastomosis can be used with any available minimally invasive approach. It is safe and feasible. Using a standardized approach, the technique can be easily taught and mastered, optimizing operating times and reducing adverse events.

Freehand-robot-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Initial experience in the Trinidad and Tobago

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is still developing in the Anglophone Caribbean, having been first performed in the region in the year 2011. We report the initial outcomes using a robot camera holder to assist in laparoscopic colorectal operations.

AIM

To report our initial experience using the FreeHand^® robotic camera holder (Freehand 2010 Ltd., Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom) for laparoscopic colorectal surgery in Trinidad & Tobago.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data from all patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal resections using the Freehand^® (Freehand 2010 Ltd., Guildford, Surrey, United Kingdom) robotic camera holder between September 30, 2021 and April 30, 2022. The following data were recorded: patient demographics, robotic arm setup time, operating time, conversions to open surgery, conversions to a human camera operator, number and duration of intra-operative lens cleaning. At the termination of the operation, before operating notes were completed, the surgeons were administered a questionnaire recording information on ergonomics, user-difficulty, requirement to convert to a human camera operator and their ability to carry out effective movements to control the robot while operating.

RESULTS

Nine patients at a mean age of 58.9 ± 7.1 years underwent colorectal operations using the FreeHand robot: Right hemicolectomies (5), left hemicolectomy (1), sigmoid colectomies (2) and anterior resection (1). The mean robot docking time was 6.33 minutes (Median 6; Range 4-10; SD ± 1.8). The mean duration of operation was 122.33 ± 78.5 min and estimated blood loss was 113.33 ± 151.08 mL. There were no conversions to a human camera holder. The laparoscope was detached from the robot for lens cleaning/defogging an average of 2.6 ± 0.88 times per case, with cumulative mean interruption time of 4.2 ± 2.15 minutes per case. The mean duration of hospitalization was 3.2 ± 1.30 days and there were no complications recorded. When the surgeons were interviewed after operation, the surgeons reported that there were good ergonomics (100%), with no limitation on instrument movement (100%), stable image (100%) and better control of surgical field (100%).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery is feasible and safe in the resource-poor Caribbean setting, once there is appropriate training.

Right colectomy from open to robotic - a single-center experience with functional outcomes in a learning-curve setting

Purpose

Right colectomy (RC) is a frequently performed procedure. Beneath standard conventional open surgery (COS), various minimally invasive techniques had been introduced. Several advantages had recently been described for robotic approaches over COS or conventional laparoscopy. Nevertheless, novel minimally invasive techniques require continuous benchmarking against standard COS to gain maximum patient safety. Bowel dysfunction is a frequent problem after RC. Together with general complication rates postoperative bowel recovery are used as surrogate parameters for postoperative patient outcome in this study.

Methods

Retrospective, 10-year single-center analysis of consecutive patients who underwent sequentially either COS (n = 22), robotic-assisted (ECA: n = 39), or total robotic surgery (ICA: n = 56) for oncologic RC was performed.

Results

The conversion from robotic to open surgery rate was low (overall: 3.2%). Slightly longer duration of surgery had been observed during the early phase after introduction of the robotic program to RC (ECA versus COS, p = 0.044), but not anymore thereafter (versus ICA). No differences were observed in oncologic parameters including rates of tumor-negative margins, lymph node-positive patients, and lymph node yield during mesocolic excision. Both robotic approaches are beneficial regarding postoperative complication rates, especially wound infections, and shorter length of in-hospital stay compared with COS. The duration until first postoperative stool is the shortest after ICA (COS: 4 [2–8] days, ECA: 3 [1–6] days, ICA: 3 [1–5] days, p = 0.0004). Regression analyses reveal neither a longer duration of surgery nor the extent of mesocolic excision, but the degree of minimally invasiveness and postoperative systemic inflammation contribute to postoperative bowel dysfunction, which prolongs postoperative in-hospital stay significantly.

Conclusion

The current study reflects the institutional learning curve of oncologic RC during implementation of robotic surgery from robotic-assisted to total robotic approach without compromises in oncologic results and patient safety. However, the total robotic approach is beneficial regarding postoperative bowel recovery and general patient outcome.

Robotic-assisted Surgery: Expanding Indication to Colon Cancer in Japan

In recent years, robotic-assisted surgery has demonstrated remarkable progress as a minimally invasive procedure for colorectal cancer. While there have been fewer studies investigating robotic-assisted surgery for the treatment of colon cancer than rectal cancer, evidence regarding robotic-assisted colectomy has been accumulating due to increasing use of the procedure. Robotic-assisted colectomy generally requires a long operative time and involves high costs. However, as evidence is increasingly supportive of its higher accuracy and less invasive nature compared to laparoscopic colectomy, the procedure is anticipated to improve the ratio of conversion to laparotomy and accelerate postoperative recovery. Robotic-assisted surgery has also been suggested for a specific level of effectiveness in manipulative procedures, such as intracorporeal anastomosis, and is increasingly indicated as a less problematic procedure compared to conventional laparoscopy and open surgery in terms of long-term oncological outcomes. Although robotic-assisted colectomy has been widely adopted abroad, only a limited number of institutions have been using this procedure in Japan. Further accumulation of experience and studies investigating surgical outcomes using this approach are required in Japan.

Short- and Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic- versus Robotic-Assisted Right Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to revise current comparative literature systematically. Methods: A systematic review of comparative studies published between 2000 to 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term oncological results. Secondary endpoints consist of blood loss, conversion rates, complications, time to first flatus, hospital stay and incisional hernia rate. Results: 25 of 322 studies were considered for data extraction. A total of 16,099 individual patients who underwent RRC (n = 1842) or LRC (n = 14,257) between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRC group (LRC 165.31 min ± 43.08 vs. RRC 207.38 min ± 189.13, MD: −42.01 (95% CI: −51.06−32.96), p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the RRC group (LRC 63.57 ± 35.21 vs. RRC 53.62 ± 34.02, MD: 10.03 (95% CI: 1.61−18.45), p = 0.02) as well as conversion rate (LRC 1155/11,629 vs. RRC 94/1534, OR: 1.65 (1.28−2.13), p < 0.001) and hospital stay (LRC 6.15 ± 31.77 vs. RRC 5.31 ± 1.65, MD: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.29−1.38), p = 0.003). Oncological long-term results did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: The advantages of robotic colorectal procedures were clearly demonstrated. RRC can be regarded as safe and feasible. Most of the included studies were retrospective with a limited level of evidence. Further randomized trials would be suitable.

Robot-Assisted vs Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy in Octogenarians

OBJECTIVE

With increasing age, there is greater need for right-sided colonic resections than its left-sided counterparts. Older age is associated with limited physical and functional status, which carries greater operative risk. Improvements in robotic surgery questions its role, especially in older adults, compared with laparoscopy. The objective is to investigate whether robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) is as safe and effective as laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LHR) in octogenarians (age >80 years).

DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Octogenarians who underwent elective RRH and LRH by the Tweed Colorectal Group over 5 years.

METHODS

Complications within 30 days, age, gender, smoking status, immunocompromised status, presence of diabetes, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score, preoperative Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, mFI-5 (modified frailty index), operative time, method of anastomosis, postoperative length of stay (LOS), need for rehabilitation, and short-term oncologic data using the TNM criteria were compared using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight elective patients were included. LRH and RRH groups had similar median ages, gender distribution, and comorbidities. Across the entire cohort, 61.5% had no 30-day complications. RRH had nonsignificantly shorter operative time but significantly shorter LOS (5 vs 8 days) and fewer minor complications (24.5% vs 34.5%). Major complications and overall complications were not significantly different between the groups. Lower ASA and ECOG status were associated with lower complication rates across both groups. Oncologic resection outcomes were similar for both approaches.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

RRH does not confer an increased risk of complications compared to LRH in the octogenarians and may be a viable alternative in the field of minimally invasive surgery for older patients. Future research should focus on intracorporeal anastomoses, as it is a potential confounder leading to the shorter inpatient LOS shown in our robotic group.

An evidence map and synthesis review with meta-analysis on the risk of incisional hernia in colorectal surgery with standard closure

PURPOSE

To assess the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) across various type of incisions in colorectal surgery (CS) creating a map of evidence to define research trends, gaps and areas of future interest.

METHODS

Systematic review of PubMed and Scopus from 2010 onwards. Studies included both open (OS) and laparoscopic (LS). The primary outcome was incidence of IH 12 months after index procedure, secondary outcomes were the study features and their influence on reported proportion of IH. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled proportions. Meta-regression models were performed to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ninetyone studies were included reporting 6473 IH. The pooled proportions of IH for OS were 0.35 (95% CI 0.27-0.44) I² 0% in midline laparotomies and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00-0.07), I² 52% for off-midline. In case of LS the pooled proportion of IH for midline extraction sites were 0.10 (95% CI 0.07-0.16), I² 58% and 0.04 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), I² 86% in case of off-midline. In Port-site IH was 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.04), I² 82%, and for single incision surgery (SILS) of 0.06-95% CI 0.02-0.15, I² 81%. In case of stoma reversal sites was 0.20 (95% CI 0.16-0.24).

CONCLUSION

Midline laparotomies and stoma reversal sites are at high risk for IH and should be considered in research of preventive strategies of closure. After laparoscopic approach IH happens mainly by extraction sites incisions specially midline and also represent an important area of analysis.

Intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy: short-term outcomes of a multi-center prospective trial

BACKGROUND

Studies to date show contrasting conclusions when comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses for minimally invasive right colectomy. Large multi-center prospective studies comparing perioperative outcomes between these two techniques are needed. The purpose of this study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses outcomes for robotic assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy.

METHODS

Multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients with malignant or benign disease scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic-assisted right colectomy. Outcomes included conversion rate, gastrointestinal recovery, and complication rates.

RESULTS

There were 280 patients: 156 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) group and 124 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) group. The EA group was older (mean age 67 vs. 65 years, p = 0.05) and had fewer white (81% vs. 90%, p = 0.05) and Hispanic (2% vs. 12%, p = 0.003) patients. The EA group had more patients with comorbidities (82% vs. 72%, p = 0.04) while there was no significant difference in individual comorbidities between groups. IA was associated with fewer conversions to open and hand-assisted laparoscopic approaches (p = 0.007), shorter extraction site incision length (4.9 vs. 6.2 cm; p ≤ 0.0001), and longer operative time (156.9 vs. 118.2 min). Postoperatively, patients with IA had shorter time to first flatus, (1.5 vs. 1.8 days; p ≤ 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (1.6 vs. 2.0 days; p = 0.0005), time to resume soft/regular diet (29.0 vs. 37.5 h; p = 0.0014), and shorter length of hospital stay (median, 3 vs. 4 days; p ≤ 0.0001). Postoperative complication rates were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

In this prospective, multi-center study of minimally invasive right colectomy across 20 institutions, IA was associated with significant improvements in conversion rates, return of bowel function, and shorter hospital stay, as well as significantly longer operative times compared to EA. These data validate current efforts to increase training and adoption of the IA technique for minimally invasive right colectomy.

Intracorporeal versus Extracorporeal Anastomosis for Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy: Short-Term Outcomes

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy represents an effective therapeutic approach for right colon cancer (RCC). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate bowel function recovery, length of hospital stay, operative time, and the number of general and anastomosis-related postoperative complications from intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) vs. extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA); the secondary outcome was the number of lymph nodes retrieved. This observational study was conducted on 108 patients who underwent right hemicolectomy for RCC; after surgical resection, 64 patients underwent ICA and 44 underwent ECA. The operative time was slightly longer in the ICA group than in the ECA group, even though the difference was not significant (199.31 ± 48.90 min vs. 183.64 ± 35.80 min; p = 0.109). The length of hospital stay (7.53 ± 1.91 days vs. 8.77 ± 3.66 days; p = 0.036) and bowel function recovery (2.21 ± 1.01 days vs. 3.45 ± 1.82 days; p < 0.0001) were significantly lower in the ICA group. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications (12% in ICA group vs. 9% in ECA group), wound infection (6% in ICA group vs. 7% in ECA group), or anastomotic leakage (6% in ICA group vs. 9% in ECA group). We did not observe a significant difference between the two groups in the number of lymph nodes collected (19.46 ± 7.06 in ICA group vs. 22.68 ± 8.79 in ECA group; p = 0.086). ICA following laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, compared to ECA, could lead to a significant improvement in bowel function recovery and a reduction in the length of hospital stay in RCC patients.

Comparison of clinical efficacy of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy for right colon tumor: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of robotic right colectomy (RRC) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) in the treatment of right colon tumor.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of science, EMBASE ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register for studies (studies published between January 2011 and June 2020). The included studies compared the clinical efficacy of RRC and LRC in the treatment of right colon tumor, and analyzed the perioperative data.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 10 studies involving 1180 patients who underwent 2 surgical procedures, RRC and LRC. This study showed that compared with LRC, there was no significant difference in first flatus passage (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.37, 95% CI: -1.09-0.36, P = .32), hospital length of stay (WMD: -0.23, 95% CI: -0.73-0.28, P = .32), reoperation (OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 0.67-4.10, P = .27), complication (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60-1.14, P = .25), mortality (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.02-11.22, P = .63), wound infection (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.34-1.25, P = .20), and anastomotic leak (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.33-1.63, P = .44). This study showed that compared with LRC, the lymph nodes retrieved (WMD: 1.47, 95% CI: -0.00-2.94, P = .05) of RRC were similar, with slight advantages, and resulted in longer operative time (WMD: 65.20, 95% CI: 53.40-77.01, P < .00001), less estimated blood loss (WMD: -13.43, 95% CI: -20.65-6.21, P = .0003), and less conversion to open surgery (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.17-0.54, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

RRC is equivalent to LRC with respect to first flatus passage, hospital length of stay, reoperation, complication, and results in less conversion to LRC.

Right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis for cancer: a prospective comparison between robotics and laparoscopy

Robotics in right colectomy are still under debate. Available studies compare different techniques of ileocolic anastomosis but results are non-conclusive. Our study aimed to compare intraoperative outcomes, and short-term postoperative results between robotic and standard laparoscopic right colectomies for cancer with intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) fashioned with the same technique. All consecutive patients scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic right hemicolectomies with ICA for cancer in two hospitals, one of which is a tertiary care centre, were prospectively enrolled in our prospective observational study, from April 2018 to December 2019. ICA was fashioned with the same stapled hand-sewn technique. Continuous and categorical variables were analysed using t test and chi-squared test as required. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Forty patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 48 underwent robotic right colectomy and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Operative time was not statistically different between the two groups (robotic group 265.9 min vs laparoscopic group 254.2 min, p = 0.29). The robotic group had a significantly shorter time for stump oversewing (ileum reinforcement: robotic group 9.3 min vs laparoscopic group 14.2 min, p < 0.001; colon reinforcement: robotic 7.7. min, laparoscopy 13.9 min, p < 0.001) and for ICA (robotic 31.6 min vs laparoscopy 43.0, p < 0.001). One patient underwent extracorporeal anastomosis in the robotic group. The short-term outcomes were comparable between standard laparoscopic and robotic right colectomies with ICA. The limitation of the study is its small sample size and the fact that it was done in two institutions under the supervision of one person. Our data demonstrate that intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis is safe, and faster and easier with robotic systems. Robotics can facilitate more challenging ICA in minimally invasive surgery.

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.

The impact of intracorporeal anastomosis in right laparoscopic colectomy in the surgical site infections and the hospital stay: a cohort study

Ileocolic anastomosis in laparoscopic-assisted right colectomy is frequently performed extracorporeally. Intracorporeal anastomosis could be associated with several short-term benefits. However, it is a more technically demanding procedure. The primary endpoint of the study aimed to evaluate the postoperative surgical-site infection rate and its impact on the length of hospital stay after laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis compared to extracorporeal anastomoses. Between 2010 and 2019, 108 unselected consecutive patients underwent right colectomy. An observational comparative cohort study of two anastomosis techniques, intracorporeal (IA) versus extracorporeal (EA), was conducted. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained colorectal surgery database of a university-affiliated hospital and retrospectively analyzed. The main exclusion criteria were emergency surgery and medical or anesthetic contraindication for laparoscopy. 53 patients underwent right colectomy with IA, and 55 had extracorporeal anastomoses. The groups did not differ in demographics, anesthetic risk, intraoperative data, pathological outcomes, or overall survival. Mean operative time was longer in the IA group (156.9 vs. 146.0 min; p = 0.061). A significant reduction in the anastomotic leak rate was observed in the IA group compared with the EA group (0 vs. 7.3%; p = 0.045) with no differences in the intraabdominal abscess rate (IA: 1.9% vs. EA: 1.8%; p = 0.97). The wound infection rate was 5.7% for IA and 10.9% for EA (p = 0.324). The hospital stay was significantly shorter for those who had intracorporeal anastomoses (5.2 ± 3.3 vs. 10.8 ± 9.6 days; p = 0.000). Right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with less surgical-site infections and a significantly shorter hospital stay than EA technique. Surgeons should consider the IA as the first option when performing laparoscopic right colectomy. Registration number: NCT04350203 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ).

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

In recent years, minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer has seen remarkable improvement. For the laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer, earlier postoperative recovery and reduced hospital stays can be expected compared to those for open surgery. Also, no increase in perioperative morbidity and mortality has been shown. Furthermore, long-term oncological outcomes comparable to open surgery have been obtained. Although laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has shown good short-term postoperative outcomes, recent randomized controlled trials could not demonstrate non-inferiority to open surgery with respect to oncological safety. Further studies are required to confirm the impact of robotic surgery on colon and rectal cancer and the appropriate indications for transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Ileo-colic intra-corporeal anastomosis during robotic right colectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of different techniques

PURPOSE

Robotic assistance could increase the rate of ileo-colic intra-corporeal anastomosis (ICA) during robotic right colectomy (RRC). However, although robotic ICA can be accomplished with several different technical variants, it is not clear whether some of these technical details should be preferred. An evaluation of the possible advantage of one respect to another would be useful.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of literature on technical details of robotic ileo-colic ICA, from which we performed a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. The extracted data allowed a comparative analysis regarding the outcome of overall complication (OC), bleeding rate (BR) and leakage rate (LR), between (1) mechanical anastomosis with robotic stapler, versus laparoscopic stapler, versus totally hand-sewn anastomosis and (2) closure of enterocolotomy with manual double layer, versus single layer, versus stapled.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies including 2066 patients were selected. Globally, the side-to-side, isoperistaltic anastomosis, realized with laparoscopic staplers, and double-layer closure for enterocolotomy, is the most common technique used. According to the meta-analysis, the use of robotic stapler was significantly associated with a reduction of the BR with respect to mechanical anastomosis with laparoscopic stapler or totally hand-sewn anastomosis. None of the other technical aspects significantly influenced the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

ICA fashioning during RRC can be accomplished with several technical variants without evidence of a clear superiority of anyone of these techniques. Although the use of robotic staplers could be associated with some benefits, further studies are necessary to draw conclusions.

Complete mesocolic excision in minimally invasive surgery of colonic cancer: do we need the robot?

Background

Robotic surgery offers favorable prerequisites for complex minimally invasive surgeries which are delivered by higher degrees of freedom, improved instrument stability, and a perfect visualization in 3D which is fully surgeon controlled. In this article we aim to assess its impact on complete mesocolic excision (CME) in colon cancer and to answer the question of whether the current evidence expresses a need for robotic surgery for this indication.

Methods

Retrospective analysis and review of the current literature on complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer comparing the outcome after open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.

Results

Complete mesocolic excision results in improved disease-free survival and reduced local recurrence, but turns out to be complex and prone to complications. Introduced in open surgery, the transfer to minimally invasive surgery resulted in comparable results, however, with high conversion rates. In comparison, robotic surgery shows a reduced conversion rate and a tendency toward higher lymph node yield. Data, however, are insufficient and no high-quality studies have been published to date. Almost no oncologic follow-up data are available in the literature.

Conclusion

The current data do not allow for a reliable conclusion on the need of robotic surgery for CME, but show results which hypothesize an equivalence if not superiority to laparoscopy. Due to recently published technical improvements for robotic CME and supplementary features of this method, we suppose that this approach will gain in importance in the future.

Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) versus robotic right colectomy (RRC) using homogeneous subgroup analyses for extra-corporeal anastomosis (EA) and intra-corporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2020 for prospective or retrospective studies comparing LRC versus RRC on at least one short- or long-term outcome. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes included operative and pathological results, survival, and total costs. LRC and RRC were compared using three homogeneous subgroups: without distinction by the type of anastomosis, EA only, and IA only. Pooled data analyses were performed using mean difference (MD) and random effects model.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 448 studies were selected. The included patients were 21,397 for the LRC group and 2796 for the RRC group. Regardless for the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter LOS, lower blood loss, lower conversion rate, shorter time to flatus, and lower overall complication rate compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the EA subgroup, RRC showed similar LOS, longer operative time, and higher costs compared with LRC, the other outcomes being similar. In the IA subgroup, RRC showed shorter LOS and longer operative time compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most included articles are retrospective, providing low-quality evidence and limiting conclusions. The more frequent use of the IA seems to explain the advantages of RRC over LRC.

Robotic ileocolic resection with intracorporeal anastomosis for Crohn's disease

The robotic platform can overcome limitations of the laparoscopic approach, particularly in the facilitation of intracorporeal anastomosis creation. We aim to share our institutional experience with robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease (CD) and compare it to a laparoscopic cohort. We identified patients who underwent ileocolic resection for CD with a purely robotic (R) or laparoscopic (L) approach between February 2015 and 2018. Chart review was performed and preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data was collected. A total of 47 patients with a mean age of 35.2 years old were identified and 61% were female. Seventy percent [n = 33, (23 females, 69.6%)] of the cases were performed robotically and 30% of the cases [n = 14, (6 females, 42.8%)] were performed laparoscopically. The groups were well matched for age, gender, BMI as well as disease related factors (CD duration; clinical classification and location), perioperative immunosuppression, and surgical history. Time to bowel function was shorter by about 1 day in the robotic group (R: 1.9 ± 0.88 days vs. L: 2.7 ± 0.8 days, p = 0.003). Mean operative time was longer in the robotic group by 51 min and this difference was significant (p = 0.03), however 30.3% of patients underwent ureteral stent placement, which can account for added time in robotic cases. There were less conversions in the robotic group [R: 1(4.3%) vs. L: 1(7%)], but this was not significant. There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Complication (L: 21.4% vs. R: 15.1%, p = 0.605) and reoperation rates (L: 0% vs. R: 3.03%, p = 0.429) were similar. Robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease is as safe and feasible as the laparoscopic approach. This was accomplished with no leaks, major morbidity or mortality and comparable length of stay, with 1 day shorter return of bowel function, and with a lower overall complication rate. The robotic approach offers advantages in Crohn's disease which should be studied further in prospective studies.

Intracorporeal hemi-hand-sewn technique for end-to-end anastomosis in laparoscopic left-side colectomy

BACKGROUND

Recently, complete laparoscopic procedures with intracorporeal reconstruction were performed in laparoscopic colectomies; however, they were scarcely reported in left-side colectomies because of the anatomical reasons. Since the descending colon is extensively fixed to the retroperitoneum, the dissection range required for resection cannot always be enough for a safe extracorporeal anastomosis. We devised an intracorporeal hemi-hand-sewn (IC-HHS) technique for end-to-end anastomosis in laparoscopic left-side colectomies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 11 patients underwent IC-HHS anastomosis for the treatment of colon cancer around the sigmoid-descending (SD) junction. The posterior wall of the anastomosis was constructed with a linear stapler and subsequently, the anterior wall was sutured with an intracorporeal hand-sewn technique. Perioperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

IC-HHS reconstruction between the descending colon and sigmoid colon was performed in 11 cases. There were six males and five females with an average age of 66.5 years. The average body mass index was 26.1 kg/m². The averages of the operation time and intraoperative blood loss were 181.2 min (range, 154 to 210 min) and 13.9 ml (range 5-30 ml), respectively. There were no perioperative complications except for one patient with a superficial surgical site infection.

CONCLUSIONS

IC-HHS anastomosis was successfully performed for colon cancer around the SD junction with acceptable perioperative outcomes and there were no procedure-related complications, indicating its feasibility. IC-HHS anastomosis could eliminate unnecessary splenic flexure mobilization in left-side colectomies. IC-HHS anastomosis can be an optional reconstruction for totally laparoscopic colectomies.

Robotic or three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and intracorporeal anastomosis? A propensity score-matching study comparison

BACKGROUND

We describe our preliminary experience in complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) and intracorporeal anastomosis for right colon cancer, comparing the robotic and the three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational clinical cohort study on patients who underwent radical curative surgical resection of right colon cancer with CME from January 2014 to June 2019. Propensity scores were calculated by bivariate logistic regression, including the following variables: age, BMI, and size of tumor.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients underwent CME with CVL: 26 by means of robot-assisted surgery and 29 by means of 3D laparoscopic procedure. There were not statistically significant differences about all the intra- and postoperative outcomes (operative time, length of the specimen, time to bowel canalization, time to soft oral intake, length of hospital stay, postoperative complication, number of retrieved lymph nodes, number of positive lymph nodes and lymph node ratio) between the robotic and the 3D laparoscopic approach. After the matching procedure, 20 patients of the robotic group and 20 patients of the 3D laparoscopic group were selected for the analysis. There were no differences in any of the analyzed variables between the two groups except for longer operative time in the robotic group (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The 3D vision revealed an important advantage in order to achieve the correct identification of surgical anatomy allowing a safe and effective right colectomy with CME, CVL, and intracorporeal anastomosis, either using laparoscopic or with robotic approach, providing similar short-term outcomes. Taking into account the high costs and the longer operative time of robotic procedure, the 3D laparoscopy could be considered in performing right colectomy with CME, while the robotic approach should be considered as a first choice approach for challenging situations (obese patient, complex associated procedures).

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy within a systematic ERAS protocol: a propensity-weighted analysis

The purpose of this study is to compare the early postoperative and pathological outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to those of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) with intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) within the systematic application of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. A single-institution prospective database of patients who underwent elective RRC or LRC with IA for neoplastic lesions between April 2010 and June 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. The patients' demographic characteristics, and perioperative and pathological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity-weighted analysis was employed to address potential selection biases of treatment allocation. A total of 216 patients (46 RRC, 170 LRC) were included. RRC demonstrated a significantly longer operative time (mean 242.43 min, SD 47.51) compared to LRC (mean 187.60 min, SD 56.60) (p = 0.001), confirmed by the propensity-weighted analysis (Coefficient 50.65; p < 0.001). Conversion rate between the two groups was comparable (p = 0.99). Median length of hospital stay (LOS) was the same in the RRC and the LRC group (4 days, p = 0.35). Readmission rate within 30 days in the RRC and LRC group was 2.2% and 2.4%, respectively (p = 0.99). Overall 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality was 32.6% versus 27.1% (p = 0.46), and 0% versus 1.2% (p = 0.99) in the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. No difference was found in the number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.75). In an ERAS environment, without the bias of mixed techniques of anastomosis, RRC had similar postoperative and pathological outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach, but was associated with a longer operative time.

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.

How robotics is changing and will change the field of colorectal surgery

During the last decade there has been a significant upward trend in colon and rectal minimally invasive surgery which can be attributed largely to the acceptance of robotic surgery platforms such as the da Vinci^® robotic system. The fourth generation da Vinci^® system, introduced in 2014, includes integrated table motion, intelligent laser targeted docking and more sophisticated instrumentation and imaging. These developments have enabled more surgeons to efficiently and safely perform multi-quadrant operations. Firefly^® technology allows assessment of colon perfusion and identification of ureters, and has shown potential in detecting occult recurrence or metastasis using molecular-labelled tumor markers. Wristed instrumentation has increased the technical ease of intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) for many surgeons, leading to more common use of ICA during right colectomy. Advanced imaging has shown potential to decrease the incidence of presacral nerve injury and improve urogenital outcomes after pelvic surgery, as has been the case in robotic urologic procedures. Finally, the robotic platform lends itself to surgical simulation for surgical trainees, as a pre-operative tool for mock operations and as an ongoing assessment tool for established colorectal surgeons. Given these advantages, surgeons should anticipate continued and increased utilization of this beneficial technology.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in minimally invasive right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive colectomy has become the standard for treatment of colonic disease in many centers. Restoration of bowel continuity following resection can be achieved by intracorporeal (IC) or extracorporeal (EC) anastomosis. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the outcomes of IC compared to EC anastomosis in minimally invasive right colectomy.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic literature search for studies assessing the outcome of IC and EC anastomosis in laparoscopic and robot-assisted right colectomy was conducted. The primary outcome of this review was postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, length of stay, conversion to open surgery, and bowel recovery.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies including 4450 patients were evaluated. 47.7% of patients had IC anastomosis and 52.3% had EC anastomosis. The weighted mean length of extraction site incision in the IC group was shorter than the EC group. The EC group had significantly higher odds of conversion to open surgery (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1-3.45, p = 0.046), total complications (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.11, p = 0.007), anastomotic leakage (AL) (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.4-2.7, p = 0.003), surgical site infection (SSI) (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.4-2.6, p = 0.002), and incisional hernia (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85-5.33, p < 0.001) compared to the IC group. Both groups had similar rates of ileus, small bowel obstruction, bleeding, and intra-abdominal infection.

CONCLUSION

IC anastomosis was associated with significantly shorter extraction site incisions, earlier bowel recovery, fewer complications, and lower rates of conversion, AL, SSI, and incisional hernia than has the EC anastomosis.

Surgical resection for diverticulitis using robotic natural orifice intracorporeal anastomosis and transrectal extraction approach: the NICE procedure

Numerous studies have confirmed significant benefits of intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) following colorectal procedures; however technical challenges have limited this approach following conventional laparoscopic surgery. The robotic Xi platform serves as an enabling technology and has resulted in a surge of reports for right-sided ICA, however, there are no reports involving more complex left-sided procedures such as diverticulitis. Furthermore, there are no reports of natural orifice-assisted techniques using robotic Xi in which the specimen can be removed and the anvil can be placed transrectally, thereby completely eliminating the need for an abdominal wall incision other than for port sites. We present a pilot study to investigate the safety, feasibility and short-term outcomes of robotic Natural orifice-assisted IntraCorporeal anastomosis with transrectal Extraction of specimen, called the robotic NICE procedure. Consecutive patients presenting for elective resection for diverticulitis with formation of a colorectal anastomosis were entered into an IRB database. All patients underwent the robotic NICE procedure. Demographic data, intraoperative data and outcomes data were assessed and analyzed. Ten patients (five males and five females) underwent resection. The mean age and BMI were 56 years (43-66) and 29 kg/m² (21-35). All procedures were successfully completed including transrectal extraction of the specimen and formation of an ICA. The mean operative time was 198 min (146-338) and mean EBL was 35 ml (15-50). Mean time to first flatus was 16 h (10-22) and mean length of stay was 1.9 days (1.6-2.6). There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. There was no unexpected ICU stay, reoperation or readmission. Colorectal left-sided resections such as for diverticulitis were safely accomplished using natural orifice-assisted extraction of the specimen as well as complete intracorporeal anastomosis in this pilot study. The NICE procedure resulted in early return of bowel function, short length of stay and low complication. The complete elimination of abdominal wall incision likely accounts for these findings and larger cohorts of patients are to be investigated to explore this promising approach afforded by robotic technology.

The Role of Laparoscopic, Robotic, and Open Surgery in Uncomplicated and Complicated Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease is increasing and despite advances in medical therapy, patients continue to require operations for complications of their disease. Minimally invasive surgical options have impacted postoperative morbidity dramatically with reduction of pain, length of stay and adhesion formation, but additionally, this population of patients are not only concerned with successful operative therapy but also the ability to return to their lifestyle and cosmetics. Laparoscopic and robotic surgery for Crohn's disease has proven to benefit patients with ileocolic or colonic disease, however complicated disease with phlegmon, abscess or fistulae is best served with a hybrid approach. Ulcerative colitis treatment has seen advancements with laparoscopic and robotic platforms, however the benefits of minimally invasive surgery must be balanced with producible and durable outcomes.

Robotic colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis is feasible with no operative conversions during the learning curve for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon developing a robotics program

The benefits of performing a colectomy robotically instead of laparoscopically have not conclusively been demonstrated. Evaluation of studies is limited by sample size, retrospective design, heterogeneity of operative techniques, sparse adjustment for learning curve, and mixed results. Consequently, adoption of robotic colectomy by surgeons has been expectedly slow. The objectives of the study were to compare the outcomes of robotic colectomy to laparoscopic colectomy for patients with right-sided tumors undergoing a standardized completely intracorporeal operation and to examine the impact of prior experience with laparoscopic right colectomies on the performance of robotic right colectomies. Retrospective review of outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing a robotic right colectomy (robot) compared to those undergoing laparoscopic colectomy (LAP). LAP patients were further subdivided into a group during the learning curve (LC) and after the learning curve (post-LC). Data collected included operative time (OT), conversion to laparotomy, lymph nodes harvested (LN), length of stay (LOS), 30-day morbidity, and mortality. Comparison of continuous and categorical variables was assessed with the independent samples t test and Chi-square test, respectively. Data are expressed as mean ± SD, and significance defined as p < 0.05. 122 patients underwent robot (n = 21), LAP (n = 101), LC (n = 51), or post-LC (n = 50). OT was decreased for post-LC compared to LC (198 vs. 228 min). There were no conversions in robot and five with LAP. Morbidity was similar for robot (14%) compared to LAP (22%), LC (24%), or post-LC cases (20%). Median LOS was similar for robot vs. LAP (3 vs. 5 days). Robot had greater mean LN yield vs. LAP (19 vs. 14, p = 0.02). The initial outcomes with completely intracorporeal colectomy achieved robotically were equivalent to results during or after LC for laparoscopic resection. Proficiency gained with LAP seems to positively impact the initial results with the robot.

Right hemicolectomy: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, total laparoscopic, and robotic approach

BACKGROUND

There are a variety of surgical approaches for the management of right-sided colonic neoplasms. To date, no method has been shown superior in terms of surgical and perioperative outcomes. This meta-analysis compared open (ORH), laparoscopic-assisted (LRH), total laparoscopic (TLRH), and robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) to assess surgical outcomes and perioperative morbidity and mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted an electronic systematic search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science that compared RRH, TLRH, LRH, and ORH. Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria: 5 randomized controlled trials, 25 retrospective, and 18 prospective studies totalling 5652 patients were included.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate was similar between RRH and TLRH (RR 1.0; Crl 0.66-1.5). The anastomotic leak rate was higher in LRH and ORH compared to RRH (RR 1.9; Crl 0.99-3.6 and RR 1.2; Crl 0.55-2.6, respectively), whereas it was lower in TLRH compared to RRH (RR 0.88 Crl 0.41-1.9). The risk of reoperation was significantly higher in ORH compared to TLRH (RR 3.3; Crl 1.3-8.0). Operative time was similar in RRH compared to LRH (RR - 27.0; Crl - 61.0 to 5.9), and to TLRH (RR - 24.0; Crl - 70.0 to 21.0). The hospital stay was significantly longer in LRH compared to RRH (RR 3.7; Crl 0.7-6.7).

CONCLUSION

The surgical management of right-sided colonic disease is evolving. This network meta-analysis observed that short-term outcomes following RRH and TLRH were superior to standard LRH and ORH. The adoption of more advanced minimally invasive techniques can be costly and have associated learning phases, but will ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive right colectomy: A multi-center propensity score-matched comparison of outcomes

Background

The primary objective of this study was to retrospectively compare short-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomies for benign and malignant disease. Recent studies suggest potential short-term outcomes advantages for the intracorporeal anastomosis technique.

Methods

This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis techniques for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomy between January 11, 2010, and July 21, 2016.

Results

After propensity score-matching, there were a total of 1029 minimal invasive surgery cases for analysis—379 right colectomies (335 robotic-assisted and 44 laparoscopic) done with an intracorporeal anastomosis and 650 right colectomies (253 robotic-assisted and 397 laparoscopic) done with an extracorporeal anastomosis. There were no significant differences in any preoperative patient characteristics between groups. The minimally invasive intracorporeal anastomosis group had significantly longer operative times (p<0.0001), lower conversion to open rate (p = 0.01), shorter hospital length of stay (p = 0.02) and lower complication rate from after discharge to 30-days (p = 0.04) than the extracorporeal anastomosis group.

Conclusions

This comparison shows several clinical outcomes advantages for the intracorporeal anastomosis technique in minimally invasive right colectomy. These data may guide future refinements in minimally invasive training techniques and help surgeons choose among different minimally invasive options.

Appraisal and Current Considerations of Robotics in Colon and Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology aims to obviate some of the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, yet the role of robotics in colorectal surgery is still largely undefined and varies with respect to its application in abdominal versus pelvic surgery.

METHODS

With this review, we aimed to highlight current developments in colorectal robotic surgery. We systematically searched the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. We critically reviewed the available literature on the use of robotic technology in colon and rectal surgery.

RESULTS

Robotic colorectal surgery is oncologically safe and has short-term outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopy, with potential benefits in rectal surgery. It has a shorter learning curve but increased operative times and costs. It offers potential advantages in the resection of rectal cancer, due to lower conversion rates. There is also a trend toward better outcomes in anastomotic leak rates, circumferential margin positivity, and perseveration of autonomic function.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy remains technically challenging and conversion rates are still high. Therefore, most cases of colorectal surgery are still performed open. Robotic surgery aims to overcome the limits of the laparoscopic technique. This new technology has many advantages in terms of articulating instruments, advanced three-dimensional optics, surgeon ergonomics, and improved accessibility to narrow spaces, such as the pelvis. However, further studies are needed to assess long-term results and benefits.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a multicenter comparative analysis on short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

In literature, most of the comparative studies of robotic (RRC) versus laparoscopic (LRC) right colectomy are biased by the type of the anastomotic technique adopted. With this study, we aim to understand whether there is a role for robotics in performing right colectomies, comparing RRC versus LRC, both performed with intracorporeal anastomosis.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, all consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive right colectomy (robotic or laparoscopic) with intracorporeal anastomosis in three Italian high-volume centers between February 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017 were included. Patients were grouped according to the method of surgery: RRC or LRC.

RESULTS

A total of 389 patients were included in the study (305 RRC vs. 84 LRC). Patients' baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Operative time was significantly longer in RRC (250 min, IQR 209-305) group than LRC group (160 min, IQR 130-200) (p < 0.001). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 22 (IQR 18-29) in RRC group while it was 19 (IQR 15-27) in LRC one (p = 0.028). No significant differences between the groups were seen in terms of time-to-first flatus, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. Re-admission rate was significantly higher in LRC (n = 3, 3.6%) group than in RRC group (n = 1, 0.3%) (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, RRC and LRC are comparable in terms of functional postoperative outcomes and length of hospital stay. RRC requires longer operative time, but the number of lymph nodes harvested may be higher.

The role of robotics in colorectal surgery

Robotic surgery is safe and feasible offering many potential advantages to the colorectal surgeon.

From Laparoscopic Right Colectomy with Extracorporeal Anastomosis to Robot-Assisted Intracorporeal Anastomosis to Totally Robotic Right Colectomy for Cancer: The Evolution of Robotic Multiquadrant Abdominal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) in right colectomies shows many advantages over extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). Many difficulties encountered in laparoscopic IA can be overcome with hybrid robot-assisted IA or recently with totally robotic procedures. In the literature, few works have been published comparing laparoscopic, hybrid, and totally robotic right colectomies. The aim of this study is to retrospectively analyze the improvements brought on by the evolution of robotic surgery at our specialized center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred six (hybrid and totally) robotic right colectomies (RRCs) with IA were compared with 160 laparoscopic right colectomies (LRCs) with EA. A separate analysis carried out by the robotic group compared 30 totally robotic right colectomies (TRRCs) with 176 hybrid robot-assisted right colectomies (HRRCs). Demographics, pathological features, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

The groups were comparable with respect to demographics and tumor staging. When compared with LRC, RRC showed shorter time to first flatus (P < .001), stools (P < .001), solid diet (P < .001), and discharge (P < .001). The number of lymph nodes harvested was 23.13 ± 11.2 in RRC versus 20.5 ± 11.2 in LRC (P = .031). Operative time was longer in RRC (253.0 ± 47 minutes versus 209.9 ± 64 minutes; P < .001), but conversion to open (2.4% versus 18.1%; P < .001), anastomotic leaks (0.5% versus 5%; P = .012), and bleeding (0.3% versus 4.4%; P = .024) were significantly less frequent. Subsequent analysis shows no significant increase in operative time in TRRC versus HRRC (261.0 ± 41 minutes versus 251.6 ± 47.6 minutes; P = .310). Even if not statistically significant, TRRC showed faster bowel function recovery and tolerance to solid diet.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed the clinical advantages of RRC with IA over LRC with EA in postoperative recovery outcomes and complication rate. Furthermore, our preliminary analysis in a cohort of 30 TRRC shows promising results.

Robotic right colonic resection. Is the robotic third arm a game-changer?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches have produces relevant advancements in the pre/intra/postoperative outcomes. The conventional laparoscopic approach presents similar oncological results in comparison to laparotomic approaches. Despite these evidences, a considerable part of the colorectal operations are still being performed in an open way. This is in part because traditional laparoscopy may have some hurdles and a long learning curve to reach mastery. The robotic technology may help in increasing the MIS penetrance in colorectal surgery. The use of the R3 can potentially increase the number of surgical options available.

METHODS

In this retrospective case series, after a long robotic colorectal experience connected to a robotic program started by Giulianotti et al. in October 2000, we present our results regarding a subset of colorectal patients who underwent robotic right colonic resections performed, all by a single surgeon (P.C.G.), using the R3 according to our standardized technique.

RESULTS

Out of all the robotic colorectal operations performed, this sub-sample sample included 33 patients: 21 males and 12 females. The age range was between 51 and 95 years old. The Body Mass Index (BMI) was between 21.6 to 43.1. The conversion rate to laparoscopy or to open surgery has been 0%. No intraoperative complications have been registered. The postoperative complications rates are reported in this manuscript. The perfusion check of the anastomosis by Near-infrared ICG (Indocyanine Green) enhanced fluorescence has been used. In 11.2% of the sample, the site of the anastomosis has been changed after ICG-Test. Moreover, when the ICG perfusion test has been performed no leakage occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This subset of patients suggests the potential role of R3 and the benefits correlated to robotic surgery. In fact, the laparoscopic approach uses mostly a medial to lateral mobilization. Indeed, during laparoscopic surgery an early right colon mobilization may create problems in the surgical field visualization. In robotic surgery, R3 can lift upwards the cecum/ascending colon/hepatic flexure exposing, in doing so, the anatomical structures. Hence, we can use also the same approach of the open surgery (where the first step is usually the mobilization of the ascending colon mesentery). In other words, the R3 offers more operative options in terms of surgical pathways maintaining at the same time good perioperative outcomes. However, more studies are needed to confirm our findings.