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

Long-term Outcomes of Robot-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Colon Cancer: A Nationwide Register-based Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine long-term survival in patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery (RAS) or laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for colon cancer.

BACKGROUND

The potential long-term benefits of RAS compared with LAS for colon cancer are not well examined. Using a register-based approach, we aimed to compare these 2 surgical platforms in an analysis of long-term outcomes, including recurrence-free survival and all-cause- and colon cancer-specific mortality.

METHODS

A nationwide register-based cohort study of patients with Union for International Cancer Control stage I-III colon cancer undergoing planned RAS or LAS from 2010 through 2018. Patient demographic, clinical, and pathological data were retrieved from Danish national registers. Survival and recurrence rates were estimated by Cox proportional hazard multivariate regression analysis adjusting for baseline covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 7565 patients [LAS=6905 (91%) and RAS=660 (9%)] were included in the complete case survival analysis. Patients undergoing LAS had a significantly increased risk of cancer recurrence [LAS=1178 (17.1%), RAS=82 (12.4%), P =0.002] with a mean follow-up time of 4.93 years (standard deviation 2.47). The survival analysis of recurrence-free survival favored RAS [hazard ratio adjusted =0.80, 95% CI (0.64-1.00), P =0.049]. No associations between the 2 surgical platforms were evident regarding all-cause [hazard ratio adjusted =0.98, 95% CI (0.82-1.17), P =0.783] or colon cancer-specific mortality [hazard ratio adjusted =0.89, 95% CI (0.67-1.18), P =0.405].

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting RAS for colon cancer was associated with improved recurrence-free survival. However, it did not cause a lower all-cause- or colon cancer-specific mortality.

Surgical outcomes of a prospective, phase 2 trial of robotic surgery for resectable right-sided colon cancer (the ROBOCOLO trial)

Aim

We evaluated the safety of robotic surgery for right-sided colon cancer in Japan.

Methods

This was a prospective, open-label, single-arm phase II trial conducted at two institutions. Patients ≥20 years old with stage I-III right-sided colon cancer and scheduled for radical resection with ≥D2 lymph node dissection were eligible. The criterion for surgeons was experience performing robot-assisted rectal resection in ≥40 cases. The primary endpoint was the postoperative complication rate ≤30 days after surgery.

Results

From August 2021 to February 2023, 42 patients were enrolled; three were excluded, with 39 analyzed as the full analysis set. The median age was 72 years, and the median body mass index was 23.2. The tumor was located in the cecum in 13 cases (33.3%), ascending colon in 20 cases (51.3%), and transverse colon in six cases (15.4%). Ileocolic resection was performed in 17 cases (43.5%) and right hemicolectomy in 22 cases (56.5%), both with D3 lymph node dissection. The median console time was 109 min, and the operative time was 170 min. The mean blood loss was 7.7 mL. Intracorporeal anastomosis was performed in 28 patients (71.8%). There were no conversions and no intraoperative adverse events. The median postoperative stay was 5 days. Postoperative complications occurred in four patients (10.2%; paralytic ileus [n = 3] and pneumonia [n = 1]). All postoperative complications were grade 1 or 2, with no mortalities noted. R0 resection was achieved in all patients.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for right-sided 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.

New era of robotic surgery: first case in Spain of right hemicolectomy on Hugo RAS surgical platform

We describe the first robot-assisted right hemicolectomy performed in Spain using the new Hugo RAS (robotic-assisted surgery) (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA). No conversion was registered, and no intraoperative complications or technical failures of the system were recorded. The operative time was 200 min, the docking time was 5 min and the length of the hospital stay was 8 days. We conclude that a right hemicolectomy using the Hugo RAS system is safe and feasible. Our earlier experience provides important skills for those who are starting to use this new robotic system.

A retrospective comparison of 90-day outcomes, length of stay, and readmissions between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colectomy

Investigations generally assess 30 days of perioperative outcomes with robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colectomy. Outcomes beyond 30 days serve as a quality metric of surgical services and an assessment of 90 days of outcomes may have greater clinical utility. The purpose of this study was to assess 90 days of outcomes, length of stay (LOS), and readmissions among patients who underwent a robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colectomy using a national database. Patients undergoing either robotic-assisted or laparoscopic colectomy were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes within PearlDiver, a national, inpatient records database from 2010 to 2019. Outcomes were defined using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) risk calculator and identified using International Classification of Disease (ICD) diagnosis codes. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square tests, and continuous variables were compared using paired t tests. Covariate-adjusted regression models were also constructed to evaluate these associations while accounting for potential confounders. A total of 82,495 patients were assessed in this study. At 90 days, patients of the laparoscopic colectomy cohort experienced a higher rate of complications than patients who underwent robotic-assisted colectomy (9.5 vs. 6.6%, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in LOS (6 vs. 6.5 days, p = 0.08) and readmissions (6.1 vs. 6.7%, p = 0.851) at 90 days. Patients undergoing robotic-assisted colectomy have a lower risk for morbidity at 90 days. Neither approach is superior for LOS nor 90 days of readmissions. Both techniques are effective minimally invasive procedures, yet patients may gain a greater risk benefit from robotic colectomy.

Intracorporeal Versus Extracorporeal Anastomoses in Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Right hemicolectomy is a commonly performed procedure for both benign and malignant diseases of the right colon. However, there is marked technical variation in the anastomosis technique used. In our hospital, both intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) and extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) are performed. Our study aimed to assess and compare the short-term outcomes following laparoscopic right hemicolectomies, particularly in regard to the anastomosis technique.

METHODS

All consecutive adult (>18 years of age) patients who underwent elective right hemicolectomy from January 2020 to April 2023 at St Richards Hospital, Chichester, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, UK, were included in our retrospective study. Data, including age at operation, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, pathology, type of procedure, type of anastomosis, technique of anastomosis, post-operative high-dependency unit (HDU) stay, hospital length of stay, post-operative ileus, anastomotic leak, return to theater, and in-hospital mortality, were extracted. Patients who did not get an ileocolic anastomosis, had a stoma formation, and had an open procedure or conversion to open procedure were excluded. The cases that fulfilled the criteria were shortlisted for analysis. These cases were then divided into two groups: patients who had an IA and those who had an EA.

RESULTS

From January 2020 to April 2023, 152 patients underwent right hemicolectomy. A total of 139 patients fulfilled our eligibility criteria and were included in our final analysis. The overall mortality rate was 0.7% (1/139), the return to theater rate was 0.7% (1/139), and no anastomotic leaks were recorded. The overall ileus rate was 16.5% (23/139). The hospital length of stay was significantly longer in the EA group as compared to the IA group (p<0.004). A higher proportion (18.75%, n=21) of the patients had a recorded ileus in the EA group as compared to 7.4% (n=2) in the IA group, but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the patients who had IA had reduced hospital length of stay. The IA group also had clinically significant reduced rates of post-operative ileus, but this was not statistically significant. However, other short-term outcomes that were measured were similar in both groups.

Robotic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer: Review of the current literature

With an ageing global population, we will see an increasing number of elderly patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) requiring surgery. However, it should be recognized that the elderly are a heterogenous group, with varying physiological and functional status. While traditionally viewed to be associated with frailty, comorbidities, and a higher risk of post operative morbidity, the advancements in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and improvements in perioperative care have allowed CRC surgery to be safe and feasible in the elderly - chronological age alone should therefore not strictly be an exclusion criterion for curative surgery. However, as a form of MIS, laparoscopic assisted colorectal surgery (LACS) has the inherent disadvantages of: (1) Dependence on a trained assistant for retraction and laparoscope control; (2) The loss of wristed movement with reduced dexterity and suboptimal ergonomics; (3) A lack of intuitive movement due to the levering effect of trocars; and (4) An amplification of physiological tremors. Representing a technical evolution of LACS, robotic assisted colorectal surgery was introduced to overcome these limitations. In this minireview, we examine the evidence for robotic surgery in the elderly with CRC.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision: a retrospective multicenter study with propensity score matching

Objective

During the past decade, the concept of complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been developed in an attempt to minimize recurrence for right-sided colon cancer. This study aims to compare outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME for right-sided colon cancer.

Methods

We performed a retrospective multicenter propensity score matching study. From July 2016 to July 2021, 382 consecutive patients from different Chinese surgical departments were available for inclusion out of an initial cohort of 412, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME. Data of all patients were retrospectively collected and reviewed. Of these, 149 cases were performed by a robotic approach, while the other 233 cases were done by laparoscopy. Propensity score matching was applied at a ratio of 1:1 to compare perioperative, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes between the robotic and the laparoscopic groups (n = 142).

Results

Before propensity score matching, there were no statistical differences regarding the sex, history of abdominal surgery, body mass index (BMI), American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system, tumor location, and center between groups (p > 0.05), while a significant difference was observed regarding age (p = 0.029). After matching, two comparable groups of 142 cases were obtained with equivalent patient characteristics (p > 0.05). Blood loss, time to oral intake, return of bowel function, length of stay, and complications were not different between groups (p > 0.05). The robotic group showed a significantly lower conversion rate (0% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.03), but a longer operative time (200.9 min vs. 182.3 min, p < 0.001) and a higher total hospital cost (85,016 RMB vs. 58,266 RMB, p < 0.001) compared with the laparoscopic group. The number of harvested lymph nodes was comparable (20.4 vs. 20.5, p = 0.861). Incidence of complications, mortality, and pathologic outcomes were similar between groups (p > 0.05). The 2-year disease-free survival rates were 84.9% and 87.1% (p = 0.679), and the overall survival rates between groups were 83.8% and 80.7% (p = 0.943).

Conclusion

Despite the limitations of a retrospective analysis, the outcomes of robotic right hemicolectomy with CME were comparable to the laparoscopic procedures with fewer conversions to open surgery. More clinical advantages of the robotic surgery system need to be further confirmed by well-conducted randomized clinical trials with large cohorts of patients.

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.

Factors contributing to the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Some studies have suggested disparities in access to robotic colorectal surgery, however, it is unclear which factors are most meaningful in the determination of approach relative to laparoscopic or open surgery. This study aimed to identify the most influential factors contributing to robotic colorectal surgery utilization.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of published studies that compared the utilization of robotic colorectal surgery versus laparoscopic or open surgery. Eligible studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations in September 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Patients were less likely to undergo robotic versus laparoscopic surgery if they were female (OR = 0.91, 0.84-0.98), older (OR = 1.61, 1.38-1.88), had Medicare (OR = 0.84, 0.71-0.99), or had comorbidities (OR = 0.83, 0.77-0.91). Non-academic hospitals had lower odds of conducting robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.73, 0.62-0.86). Additional disparities were observed when comparing robotic with open surgery for patients who were Black (OR = 0.78, 0.71-0.86), had lower income (OR = 0.67, 0.62-0.74), had Medicaid (OR = 0.58, 0.43-0.80), or were uninsured (OR = 0.29, 0.21-0.39).

CONCLUSION

When determining who undergoes robotic surgery, consideration of factors such as age and comorbid conditions may be clinically justified, while other factors seem less justifiable. Black patients and the underinsured were less likely to undergo robotic surgery. This study identifies nonclinical disparities in access to robotics that should be addressed to provide more equitable access to innovations in colorectal surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for left-sided colon cancer: a multicentre study with propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery for right-sided colon and rectal cancer has rapidly increased; however, there is limited evidence in the literature of advantages of robotic left colectomy (RLC) for left-sided colon cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLC versus laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) with complete mesocolic excision (CME) for left-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients who had RLC or LLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer at five hospitals in China between January 2014 and April 2022 were included. A one-to-one propensity score matched analysis was performed to decrease confounding. The primary outcome was postoperative complications occurring within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, overall survival and the number of harvested lymph nodes.

RESULTS

A total of 292 patients (187 male; median age 61.0 [20.0-85.0] years) were eligible for this study, and propensity score matching yielded 102 patients in each group. The clinicopathological characteristics were well-matched between groups. The two groups did not differ in estimated blood loss, conversion to open rate, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, or postoperative length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). RLC was associated with a longer operation time (192.9 ± 53.2 vs. 168.9 ± 52.8 min, p = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between the RLC and LLC groups (18.6% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.856). The total number of lymph nodes harvested in the RLC group was higher than that in the LLC group (15.7 ± 8.3 vs. 12.1 ± 5.9, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival or 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Compared to laparoscopic surgery, RLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer was found to be associated with higher numbers of lymph nodes harvested and similar postoperative complications and long-term survival outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for left-sided colon cancer: a multicentre study with propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for right-sided colon and rectal cancer has rapidly increased; however, there is limited evidence in the literature of advantages of robotic left colectomy (RLC) for left-sided colon cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLC versus laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) with complete mesocolic excision (CME) for left-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients who had RLC or LLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer at 5 hospitals in China between January 2014 and April 2022 were included. A one-to-one propensity score matched analysis was performed to decrease confounding. The primary outcome was postoperative complications occurring within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, overall survival and the number of harvested lymph nodes.

RESULTS

A total of 292 patients (187 males; median age 61.0 [20.0-85.0] years) were eligible for this study, and propensity score matching yielded 102 patients in each group. The clinical-pathological characteristics were well-matched between groups. The two groups did not differ in estimated blood loss, conversion to open rate, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, or postoperative length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). RLC was associated with a longer operation time (192.9 ± 53.2 vs. 168.9 ± 52.8 minutes, p=0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between the RLC and LLC groups (18.6% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.856). The total number of lymph nodes harvested in the RLC group was higher than that in the LLC group (15.7 ± 8.3 vs. 12.1 ± 5.9, p< 0.001). There were no significant differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival or 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to laparoscopic surgery, RLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer was found to be associated with higher numbers of lymph nodes harvested and similar postoperative complications and long-term survival outcomes.

Elective robotic partial colon and rectal resections: series of 170 consecutive robot procedures involving the Da Vinci Xi robot by a community general surgeon

Robotic colorectal procedures may overcome the disadvantages of laparoscopic surgery. While the literature has multiple studies from specialized centers, experience from general surgeons is minimal. The purpose of this case series is to review elective partial colon and rectal resections by a general surgeon. 170 consecutive elective partial colon and rectal resections were reviewed. The cases were analyzed by type of procedure and total cases. The outcomes analyzed were procedure time, conversion rate, length of stay, complications, anastomotic leak, and node retrieval in the cancer cases. There were 71 right colon resections, 13 left colon resections, 44 sigmoid colon resection sand 42 low anterior resections performed. The mean length of procedure was 149 min. The conversion rate was 2.4%. The mean length of stay was 3.5 days. The percentage of cases one or more complications was 8.2%. There were 3 anastomotic leaks out of 159 anastomoses (1.9%). The mean lymph node retrieval was 28.4 for the 96 cancer cases. Robot partial colon and rectal resections on the Da Vinci Xi robot can be completed safely and efficiently by a community general surgeon. Prospective studies are needed to demonstrate reproducibility by community surgeons performing robot colon resections.

ROBOTIC-ASSISTED VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC INCISIONAL HERNIA REPAIR: DIFFERENCES IN DIRECT COSTS FROM A BRAZILIAN PUBLIC INSTITUTE PERSPECTIVE

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted surgery research has grown dramatically in the past two decades and the advantages over traditional videolaparoscopy have been extensively debated. For hernias, the robotic system can increase intraoperative strategies, especially in complex hernias or incisional hernias.

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the direct cost differences between robotic and laparoscopic hernia repair and determine each source of expenditure that may be related to the increased costs in a robotic program from the perspective of a Brazilian public institution.

METHODS

This study investigated the differences in direct costs from the data generated from a trial protocol (ReBEC: RBR-5s6mnrf). Patients with incisional hernia were randomly assigned to receive laparoscopic ventral incisional hernia repair (LVIHR) or robotic ventral incisional hernia repair (RVIHR). The direct medical costs of hernia treatment were described in the Brazilian currency (R$).

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients submitted to LVIHR were compared with 18 submitted to RVIHR. The amount spent on operation room time (RVIHR: 2,447.91±644.79; LVIHR: 1,989.67±763.00; p=0.030), inhaled medical gases in operating room (RVIHR: 270.57±211.51; LVIHR: 84.55±252.34; p=0.023), human resources in operating room (RVIHR: 3,164.43±894.97; LVIHR: 2,120.16±663.78; p<0.001), material resources (RVIHR: 3,204.32±351.55; LVIHR: 736.51±972.32; p<0.001), and medications (RVIHR: 823.40±175.47; LVIHR: 288.50±352.55; p<0.001) for RVIHR was higher than that for LVIHR, implying a higher total cost to RVIHR (RVIHR: 14,712.24±3,520.82; LVIHR: 10,295.95±3,453.59; p<0.001). No significant difference was noted in costs related to the hospital stay, human resources in intensive care unit and ward, diagnostic tests, and meshes.

CONCLUSION

Robotic system adds a significant overall cost to traditional laparoscopic hernia repair. The cost of the medical and robotic devices and longer operative times are the main factors driving the difference in costs.

Robotic colon surgery in obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer resection can be technically difficult in the obese (OB) population. Robotic surgery is a promising technique but its benefits remain uncertain in OB patients. The aim of this study is to compare OB versus non-obese (NOB) patients undergoing robotic colon surgery, as well as OB patients undergoing robotic versus open or laparoscopic colonic surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Primary outcome measures included length of stay (LOS), surgical site infection (SSI) rate, complications, anastomotic leak and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were included, with five comparing OB and NOB patients undergoing robotic colon surgery included in meta-analysis. A total of 263 OB patients and 400 NOB patients formed the sample for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups in operative time, conversion to open, LOS, lymph node yield, anastomotic leak and postoperative ileus. There was a trend towards a significant increase in overall complications and SSI in the OB group (32.3% OB versus 26.8% NOB for complications, 14.2% OB versus 9.9% NOB for SSI). The three included studies comparing surgical techniques were too heterogeneous to undergo meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colon surgery is safe in obese patients, but high-quality prospective evidence is lacking. Future studies should report on oncological safety and the cost-effectiveness of adopting the robotic technique in these challenging patients.

Safe implementation of robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis

The robotic platform can overcome technical difficulties associated with laparoscopic colon surgery. Transitioning from laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) to robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) is associated with a learning phase. This study aimed at determining the length of this learning phase and its associated morbidity. We retrospectively analyzed all laparoscopic right colectomies with ECA (n = 38) and robotic right colectomies with ICA (n = 67) for (pre)malignant lesions performed by a single surgeon between January 2014 and December 2020. CUSUM-plot analysis of total procedure time was used for learning curve determination of robotic colectomies. Non-parametric tests were used for statistical analysis. Compared to laparoscopy, the learning phase robotic right colectomies (n = 35) had longer procedure times (p < 0.001) but no differences in anastomotic leakage rate, length of stay or 30-day morbidity. Conversion rate was reduced from 16 to 3 percent in the robotic group. This study provides evidence that robotic right colectomy with ICA can be safely implemented without increasing morbidity.

Tunnel versus medial approach in laparoscopic radical right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore the feasibility and safety of the tunnel approach in laparoscopic radical right hemicolectomy for colon cancer.

METHODS

From July 2016 to October 2018, a total of 106 consecutive patients with colon cancer who underwent laparoscopic radical right hemicolectomy at the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University were enrolled. The patients were stratified into either a tunnel approach (TA) (n = 56) group or traditional medial approach (MA) (n = 50) group according to the surgical technique performed. The baseline demographics, perioperative outcomes and oncologic outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. The TA group had significantly less blood loss [20.0 (10.0-40.0) vs. 100 (100.0-150.0) ml, p < 0.001] and a shorter operation time [128.4 ± 16.7 vs. 145.6 ± 20.3 min, p < 0.001] than the MA group. The time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stay were similar [3.0 (2.0-4.0) vs. 3.0 (3-4.0) days, p = 0.329; 10.4 ± 2.6 vs. 10.7 ± 3.0 days, p = 0.506] between the two groups. The conversion to laparotomy and complication rates were similar between groups (0 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.203; 14.3% vs. 18.0%, p = 0.603, respectively). No treatment-related deaths occurred in either group. The TA group did not have significantly better survival outcomes than the MA group (p = 0.372).

CONCLUSIONS

The TA seems to allow for more favourable results in terms of blood loss and operative time than the MA, with similar results regarding time to first flatus, hospital stay, postoperative complication rate, conversion rate and oncologic outcomes; moreover, the TA is easier for beginners to master.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates.

RESULTS

Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5-0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3-60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8-0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7-0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8-3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8-1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.

Initiation and feasibility of a multi-specialty minimally invasive surgical programme using a novel robotic system: A case series

INTRODUCTION

There are a number of small case series examining new robotic surgical systems, but this is the first large case series assessing the feasibility of the Versius® system from CMR Surgical (1 Evolution Business Park, Cambridge, UK) in a multi-specialty setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients undergoing Versius®-assisted surgery in a previously robot-naïve centre were consented for collection of data on demographics, pre-, intra-, and postoperative outcomes. Data collection was performed prospectively from the start of the robotic surgical programme.

RESULTS

160 operations were performed over a 19-month period, including 68 colorectal, 60 gynaecology, and 32 general surgery cases. The conversion rate to open surgery was 4.4% for colorectal, and 0% for gynaecology and general surgery. Median length of stay was 6 days for colorectal, 1 day for gynaecology, and 0 days for general surgery. Other outcomes were comparable to existing literature for robotic assisted surgery.

CONCLUSION

The Versius® system is safe and feasible for use in a multi-specialty minimally invasive surgery programme, including colorectal, general surgical & gynaecological cases, and operative volume can be safely and easily scaled up in a district general hospital setting without prior robotic surgical experience.

Predictors and Consequences of Unplanned Conversion to Open During Robotic Colectomy: An ACS-NSQIP Database Analysis

Robotic-assisted surgery has become a desired modality for performing colectomy; however, unplanned conversion to an open procedure may be associated with worse outcomes. The purpose of this study is to examine predictors and consequences of unplanned conversion to open in a large, high fidelity data set. A retrospective analysis of 11 061 robotic colectomies was conducted using the American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) 2012-2017 database. Predictors of conversion and the effect of conversion on outcomes were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression resulting in risk-adjusted odds ratios of conversion and morbidity/mortality. Overall, 10 372 (93.8%) patients underwent successful robotic colectomy, and 689 (6.2%) had an unplanned conversion. Predictors of conversion included age ≥ 65 years, male gender, obesity, functional status not independent, American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) classification IV-V, non-oncologic indication, emergency case, smoking, recent weight loss, bleeding disorder, and preoperative organ space infection. Conversion is an independent risk factor for mortality, overall morbidity, cardiac morbidity, pulmonary morbidity, renal morbidity, venous thromboembolism morbidity, wound morbidity, sepsis, bleeding, readmission, return to the operating room, and extended length of stay (LOS). Unplanned conversion to open during robotic colectomy is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality.

Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS).

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I², and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

Results

Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD =  − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE.

Conclusion

RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08782-7.

Systemic inflammatory response in robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer (SIRIRALS): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is being increasingly adopted in treating colorectal cancer, and the transition from laparoscopic surgery to robot-assisted surgery is a trend. The evidence of the benefits of robot-assisted surgery is sparse. However, findings are associated with improved patient-related outcomes and overall morbidity rates compared to laparoscopic surgery. This induction is unclear, considering both surgical modalities are characterized as minimally invasive. This study aims to evaluate the systemic and peritoneal inflammatory stress response induced by robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery for elective colon cancer resections in a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial.

Methods

This study is a single-centre randomized controlled superiority trial with 50 colon cancer participants. The primary endpoint is the level of systemic inflammatory response expressed as serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels between postoperative days one and three. Secondary endpoints include (i) levels of systemic inflammation in serum expressed by a panel of inflammatory and pro-inflammatory cytokines measured during the first three postoperative days, (ii) postoperative surgical and medical complications (30 days) according to Clavien-Dindo classification and Comprehensive Complication Index, (iii) intraoperative blood loss, (iv) conversion rate to open surgery, (v) length of surgery, (vi) operative time, (vii) the number of harvested lymph nodes, and (viii) length of hospital stay. The exploratory endpoints are (i) levels of peritoneal inflammatory response in peritoneal fluid expressed by inflammatory and pro-inflammatory cytokines between postoperative day one and three, (ii) patient-reported health-related quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15), (iii) 30 days mortality rate, (iv) heart rate variability and (v) gene transcript (mRNA) analysis.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first clinical randomized controlled trial to clarify the inflammatory stress response induced by robot-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer resections.

Trial registration This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04687384) on December, 29, 2020, Regional committee on health research ethics, Region of Southern Denmark (N75709) and Data Protection Agency, Hospital Sønderjylland, University Hospital of Southern Denmark (N20/46179).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01355-4.

The impact of operative approach on postoperative outcomes and healthcare utilization after colectomy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate national trends in adoption of different surgical approaches for colectomy and compare clinical outcomes and resource utilization between approaches.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients aged ≥18 years who underwent elective inpatient left or right colectomy between 2010 and 2019 from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients were classified by operative approach: open, minimally invasive: either laparoscopic or robotic. Postoperative outcomes assessed within index hospitalization include operating room time, hospital length of stay, rates of conversion to open surgery, reoperation, and complications. Post-discharge readmission, hospital-based encounters, and costs were collected to 30 days post-discharge. Multivariable regression models were used to compare outcomes between operative approaches adjusted for patient baseline characteristics and clustering within hospitals.

RESULTS

Among 206,967 patients, the robotic approach rates increased from 2.1%/1.6% (2010) to 32.6%/26.8% (2019) for left/right colectomy, offset by a decrease in both open and laparoscopic approaches. Median length of stay for both left and right colectomies was significantly longer in open (6 days) and laparoscopic (5 days) compared to robotic surgery (4 days; all P values <.001). Robotic surgery compared to open and laparoscopic was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate, development of ileus, overall complications, and 30-day hospital encounters. Robotic surgery further demonstrated lower mortality, reoperations, postoperative bleeding, and readmission rates for left and right colectomies than open. Robotic surgery had significantly longer operating room times and higher costs than either open or laparoscopic.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is increasingly being used in colon surgery, with outcomes equivalent and in some domains superior to laparoscopic.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study

The current gold standard surgical treatment for right colonic malignancy is the laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH). However, laparoscopic surgery has limitations which can be overcome by robotic surgery. The benefits of robotics for rectal cancer are widely accepted but its use for right hemicolectomy remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) and LRH in a university teaching hospital. Demographic, perioperative and postoperative data along with early oncological outcomes of patients who underwent RRH and LRH with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) were identified from a prospectively maintained database. A total of 70 patients (35 RRH, 35 LRH) were identified over a 4-year period. No statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, 30-day reoperation, 30-day mortality, surgical site infection or lengths of stay were demonstrated. Surgical specimen quality in both groups was favourable. The mean duration of surgery was longer in RRH (p <  < 0.00001). A statistically significant proportion of RRH patients had a higher BMI and ASA grade. The results demonstrate that RRH is safe and feasible when compared to LRH, with no statistical difference in postoperative morbidity, mortality and early oncological outcomes. A difference was noted in operating time, however was influenced by training residents in docking the robot and a technically challenging cohort of patients. Operative time has shortened with further experience. Incorporating an intracorporeal anastomosis technique in RRH offers the potential to improve outcomes compared to LRH.

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.

Updates on Robotic CME for Right Colon Cancer: A Qualitative Systematic Review

Background. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) is a surgical technique introduced with the aim of ameliorating the oncologic results of colectomy. Various experiences have demonstrated favorable oncologic results of CME in comparison with standard colectomy, in which the principles of CME are not respected. The majority of the literature refers to open or laparoscopic CME. This review analyses current evidence regarding robotic CME for right colectomy. Methods. An extensive Medline (Pub Med) search for relevant case series, restricted to papers published in English, was performed, censoring video vignettes and case reports. Results. Fourteen studies (ten retrospective, four comparative series of robotic versus laparoscopic CME) were included, with patient numbers ranging from 20 to 202. Four different approaches to CME are described, which also depend on the robotic platform utilized. Intraoperative and early clinical results were good, with a low conversion and anastomotic leak rate and a majority of Clavien–Dindo complications being Grades I and II. Oncologic adequacy of the surgical specimens was found to be good, although a homogeneous histopathologic evaluation was not provided. Conclusions. Further large studies are warranted to define long-term oncologic results of robotic right colectomy with CME and its eventual benefits in comparison to laparoscopy.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resections for rectal and rectosigmoid cancer: an institutional experience

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal surgery has evolved with the advent of laparoscopic techniques and now robotic-assisted surgery. There is significant literature supporting the use of laparoscopic techniques over open surgery with evidence of enhanced post-operative recovery, reduced use of opioids, smaller incisions and equivalent oncological outcomes. Robotic minimally invasive surgery addresses some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, providing surgical precision and improvements in perception and dexterity with a resulting decrease in tissue damage.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent robotic-assisted anterior resection for cancer of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction in our institution since our robotic programme began in 2017. Patient demographics were identified via electronic databases and patient charts. A matched cohort of laparoscopic cases was identified.

RESULTS

A total of 51 consecutive robotic-assisted anterior resections were identified and case matched with laparoscopic resections for comparison. Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a shorter length of stay (p = 0.04), reduced initial post-operative analgesia requirements (p < 0.01) and no significant difference in time to bowel movement or stoma functioning (p = 0.84). All patients had an R0 resection, and there was no statistical difference in lymph node yield between the groups (p = 0.14). Robotic surgery was associated with a longer operative duration (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this early experience, robotic surgery has proven feasible and safe and is comparable to laparoscopic surgery in terms of completeness of resection and recovery. As costs and operating times decline and as technology progresses, robotic surgery may one day replace traditional laparoscopic techniques.

The art of robotic colonic resection: a review of progress in the past 5 years

Surgery is developing in the direction of minimal invasiveness, and robotic surgery is becoming increasingly adopted in colonic resection procedures. The ergonomic improvements of robot promote surgical performance, reduce workload for surgeons and benefit patients. Compared with laparoscopy-assisted colon surgery, the robotic approach has the advantages of shorter length of hospital stay, lower rate of conversion to open surgery, and lower rate of intraoperative complications for short-term outcomes. Synchronous robotic liver resection with colon cancer is feasible. The introduction of the da Vinci Xi System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has introduced more flexibility to colonic operations. Optimization of the suprapubic surgical approach may shorten the length of hospital stay for patients who undergo robotic colonic resection. Single-port robotic colectomy reduces the number of robotic ports for better looking and faster recovery. Intestinal anastomosis methods using totally robotic surgery result in shorter time to bowel function recovery and tolerance to a solid diet, although the operative time is longer. Indocyanine green is used as a tracer to assess blood supplementation in the anastomosis and marks lymph nodes during operation. The introduction of new surgical robots from multiple manufacturers is bound to change the landscape of robotic surgery and yield high-quality surgical outcomes. The present article reviews recent advances in robotic colonic resection over the past five years.

Robotic colorectal surgery in Australia: evolution over a decade

BACKGROUND

Despite reports of increasing adoption of robotics in colorectal surgery worldwide, data regarding its uptake in Australasia are lacking. This study examines the trends of robotic colorectal surgery in Australia during the last 10 years.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery with the da Vinci robotic platform between 2010 and 2019 were obtained. Overall, numbers of specific colorectal procedures across Australia were obtained from the Medicare Benefit Schedule data over the same period. Pearson's correlation analysis was used to determine the statistical trends of overall and specific robotic colorectal procedures over time.

RESULTS

A total of 6110 robotic general surgery procedures were performed across Australia during the study period. Of these, 3522 (57.6%) were robotic colorectal procedures. An increasing trend of overall robotic colorectal procedures was seen over 10 years (Pearson's coefficient of 0.875; P = 0.001). While this applied to both the public and private sectors, 90.7% of the procedures were undertaken in the private sector. Restorative rectal resections, rectopexies, and right hemicolectomies accounted for 82.6% of the robotic colorectal procedures performed during this period with an increasing trend seen over time for each intervention. Moreover, a robotic approach was utilized in 12.5%, 41.0% and 9.0% of all restorative rectal resections, rectopexies and right hemicolectomies undertaken in Australia during 2019, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colorectal surgery has increased dramatically in Australia over the last 10 years, especially in the private sector. Penetration of robotic colorectal surgery in the public healthcare system will require focussed cost-benefit evaluations and governmental investment.

Major colorectal resection is feasible using a new robotic surgical platform: the first report of a case series

Background

The number of abdominal procedures performed via a robotic-assisted approach is increasing as potential advantages of the modality are recognised. We report the first in human case series of major colorectal resection performed using a new system, Versius^®, and assess the feasibility of its use.

Methods

The initial cases performed using Versius^® at a single centre in the UK were included in the study. Anonymised data were prospectively collected including patient demographics, operative details and postoperative outcomes.

Results

Twenty-three operations were performed, including left (n = 14) and right (n = 9)-sided colonic resections. Rectal mobilisation was performed in 13. Fifty-seven percent of the patients were male, with a malignant indication for surgery in 70% of cases. Overall mean age was 59.1 ± 15.3 (range 23–89) years. Overall mean body mass index was 28.9 ± 5.2 with a mean of 31.3 ± 4.5 for left-sided resections. The median console operating time was 166 min (range 75–320 min). All malignant cases had negative resection margins and the mean lymph node yield was 18 (SD 9.4). Only one operation (4%) was converted from robotic to open approach. Postoperative length of stay was a median of 5 days (range 3–34 days) and there were no readmissions within 30 days.

Conclusions

These results compare favourably with the literature on existing robotic systems and also conventional laparoscopic surgery; hence, we believe that this series indicates the Versius^® system is feasible for use in major colorectal resection. These early results from a robot-naïve centre show exciting promise for an expanding robotic market and highlight the need for further evaluation.

Trends of complications and innovative techniques' utilization for colectomies in the United States

Despite an increasing trend towards utilization of minimally invasive approaches (MIS), results regarding their safety profile are contradictory. All patients who underwent elective colectomy for any underlying disease with an identifiable operative approach available from the targeted colectomy files of the ACS-NSQIP PUFs 2013 to 2018 were included. The trend of utilization and complication rates of the different operative approaches (open, laparoscopic, robotic) were assessed during the inclusion period. Furthermore, overall, surgical, and medical complications were compared between the three approaches. The study cohort included 78,987 patients. Of them, 12,335 (15.6%) patients underwent open, 57,874 (73.3%) laparoscopic, and 8,778 (11.1%) robotic surgery. There was an increasing trend towards the utilization of robotic surgery (2.5% increase per year) at the expense of the other approaches. With the increasing trend toward the utilization of the robotic approach, a decreasing trend in overall and surgical complications and length of stay was observed. After adjusting for the baseline confounders, robotic surgery was associated with shorter length of stay, lower rate of overall (OR 0.397; p < 0.05 compared to open and OR: 0.763; p < 0.05 compared to laparoscopy) and surgical complications (OR: 0.464; p < 0.05 compared to open and OR: 0.734; p < 0.05 compared to laparoscopy). This study revealed an increasing trend toward the utilization of MIS for elective colectomy in the US. Robotic surgery was associated with a decreasing trend in overall and surgical morbidity and length of stay.