The learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review

Identification of the factor affecting learning curves of laparoscopic gastrectomy through the experience at a Japanese high-volume center over the last decade

Background

Though laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) has become the gold standard for gastric cancer treatment according to the Japanese treatment guidelines, its learning curve remains steep. Decreasing numbers of surgeons and transitions in the work environment have changed LG training recently. We analyzed LG training over the last decade to identify factors affecting the learning curve.

Study Design

Laparoscopic distal and pylorus-preserving gastrectomies conducted between 2010 and 2020 were included. We assessed learning curves based on the standard operation time (SOT) defined by analysis of covariance. Then we divided the trainees into two groups based on the length of the learning curve and examined the factors affecting the learning curve with linear regression analysis.

Results

Among 2335 LGs, 960 cases treated by 27 trainees and 1301 cases treated by six attending surgeons were analyzed. The operation time was prolonged (p = 0.009) and postoperative morbidity rates were lower (p = 0.0003) for cases treated by trainees. Trainees experienced 38 (range, 9-81) cases as scopists and nine (range, 0-41) cases as first assistants to the first operator. The learning curve was approximately 30 cases. The SOT was calculated based on gender, body mass index, tumor location, reconstruction, and lymph node dissection. Trainees who had shorter learning curves had more experience (51-100 cases) with any laparoscopic surgery before LG training than the others (11-50 cases, p = 0.017).

Conclusion

Sufficient experience with laparoscopic surgery before starting LG training might contribute to the efficiency of LG training and shorten the learning curve.

Robotic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy in sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease-a comparison of operative trauma and cost-effectiveness: retrospective, single-center analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic assisted surgery is an alternative, fast evolving technique for performing colorectal surgery. The primary aim of this single center analysis is to compare elective laparoscopic and robotic sigmoid colectomies for diverticular disease on the extent of operative trauma and the costs.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis from our prospective clinical database to identify all consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent elective minimally invasive left sided colectomy for diverticular disease from January 2016 until December 2020 at our tertiary referral institution.

RESULTS

In total, 83 patients (31 female and 52 male) with sigmoid diverticulitis underwent elective minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy, of which 42 underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) and 41 robotic assisted surgery (RS). The mean C-reactive protein difference between the preoperative and postoperative value was significantly lower in the robotic assisted group (4,03 mg/dL) than in the laparoscopic group (7.32 mg/dL) (p = 0.030). Similarly, the robotic´s hemoglobin difference was significantly lower (p = 0.039). The first postoperative bowel movement in the LS group occurred after a mean of 2.19 days, later than after a mean of 1.63 days in the RS group (p = 0.011). An overview of overall charge revealed significantly lower total costs per operation and postoperative hospital stay for the robotic approach, 6058 € vs. 6142 € (p = 0,014) not including the acquisition and maintenance costs for both systems.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colon resection for diverticular disease is cost-effective and delivers reduced intraoperative trauma with significantly lower postoperative C-reactive protein and hemoglobin drift compared to conventional laparoscopy.

Influence of proficiency in conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer on the introduction of robotic surgery

PURPOSE

Although there have been many reports on learning curves for robotic surgery, it is unclear how surgeons' conventional laparoscopic surgical skills influence their ability in performing robotic surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study was to determine the surgical outcomes of robotic surgery for CRC during the induction phase by skilled laparoscopic surgeons.

METHODS

Surgical outcomes of consecutive CRC cases between January 2021 and March 2023 following the skilled phase of laparoscopic surgery and introductory phase of robotic surgery performed by three skilled laparoscopic surgeons were compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 77 consecutive patients diagnosed with sigmoid colon or rectosigmoid cancer were analysed, including 50 in the laparoscopy group (LAP) and 27 in the robotic group (Ro). Patient characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, and tumour progression, did not differ between the groups. The median operation time was 204 min in the robotic group and 170 min in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the robotic group (p = 0.0059). The incidence of grade 2 or higher complications did not differ between the two groups (LAP, 10.0% vs. Ro, 7.4%, p = 1). In the robotic group, the time required for lymph node dissection had a greater impact on operative duration.

CONCLUSION

Skills acquired from performing conventional laparoscopic surgery may contribute to the safe and reliable performance of robotic surgery for CRC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000050923.

Tracking Residents' Surgical Outcomes Using Data from the Quality In-Training Initiative

OBJECTIVES

Monitoring resident trainees' patient outcomes is essential to improving surgical performance; however, resident-specific follow-up is rarely provided in the current surgical training environment. Whether there is a correlation between individual resident's surgical performance and patients' clinical outcomes remains undefined. In this study, we aimed to use risk-adjusted patient outcomes as an educational tool to track individual surgical trainee performance.

STUDY DESIGN

American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) appendectomy and partial colectomy operations (2013-2021) were examined. Residents performing ≥25 operations were included. The primary outcome was ACS NSQIP-defined morbidity adjusted using estimated probability of morbidity. Observed-to-expected ratios (O/E) of morbidity measured overall performance and risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) methodology represented surgical resident's performance over time.

SETTING

Academic quaternary care institution.

PARTICIPANTS

Highest-ranking surgical resident participating in an operation and included in Quality In-Training Initiative.

RESULTS

A total of 449 operations were examined. 12 residents performed 343 appendectomy operations. 7 residents (29.3 ± 5.1 operations each) did not have any postoperative morbidity and demonstrated better-than-expected patient outcomes. Three residents did not have morbidity after their seventh/eleventh/fifteenth appendectomies. Two residents (case volume 29, 33) had an O/E ratio > 3. Partial colectomy (n = 106) performed by 4 residents had 2 residents (case volume 30, 26) with better-than-expected outcomes and 2 with worse-than-expected (case volume 25, 25).

CONCLUSION

Longitudinal monitoring of postoperative patient outcomes provides an opportunity for trainee self-reflection and system examination. RA-CUSUM methodology offers sequential monitoring allowing for early evaluation and intervention when RA-CUSUM results for a trainee demonstrate higher-than-expected morbidity.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining prominence in colorectal procedures owing to advantages like three-dimensional vision and enhanced dexterity, particularly in rectal surgery. Although recent reviews report similar outcomes between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and RS, this study investigates the evolving trends in outcomes over time, paralleling the increasing experience in RS.

METHODS

A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted of randomised controlled trials exploring postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing RS or LS for colorectal pathology. The primary outcome measure was postoperative complications. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Randomised controlled trials were identified from the PubMed®, Embase® and CINAHL® (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases via the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

RESULTS

Of 491 articles screened, 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of postoperative complications revealed no significant difference between RS and LS (relative risk [RR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.18, p=0.72). Meta-regression analysis of postoperative complications demonstrated a significant trend favouring RS over time (yearly change in Ln(RR): -0.0620, 95% CI: -0.1057 to -0.0183, p=0.005). Secondary outcome measures included operative time, length of stay, blood loss, conversion to open surgery, positive circumferential resection margins and lymph nodes retrieved. The only significant findings were shorter operative time favouring LS (mean difference: 41.48 minutes, 95% CI: 22.15 to 60.81 minutes, p<0.001) and fewer conversions favouring RS (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.85, p=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

As experience in RS grows, evidence suggests an increasing safety profile for patients. Meta-regression revealed a significant temporal trend with complication rates favouring RS over LS. Heterogeneous reporting of complications hindered subgroup analysis of minor and major complications. LS remains quicker. Rising adoption of RS coupled with emerging evidence is expected to further elucidate its clinical efficacy.

Comparison of early surgical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection reported by a busy district general hospital in England

Robotic platforms provide a stable tool with high-definition views and improved ergonomics compared to laparoscopic approaches. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the intra- and short-term postoperative results of oncological resections performed robotically (RCR) and laparoscopically (LCR) at a single centre. Between February 2020 and October 2022, retrospective data on RCR were compared to LCR undertaken during the same period. Parameters compared include total operative time, length of stay (LOS), re-admission rates, 30-day morbidity. 100 RCR and 112 LCR satisfied inclusion criteria. There was no difference between the two group's demographic and tumour characteristics. Overall, median operative time was shorter in LCR group [200 vs. 247.5 min, p < 0.005], but this advantage was not observed with pelvic and muti-quadrant resections. There was no difference in the rate of conversion [5(5%) vs. 5(4.5%), p > 0.95]. With respect to perioperative outcomes, there was no difference in the overall morbidity, or mortality between RCR and LCR, in particular requirement for blood transfusion [3(3%) vs. 5(4.5%), p 0.72], prolonged ileus [9(9%) vs. 15(13.2%), p 0.38], surgical site infections [5(4%) vs. 5(4.4%), p > 0.95], anastomotic leak [7(7%) vs. 5(4.4%), p 0.55], and re-operation rate [9(9%) vs. 7(6.3%), p 0.6]. RCR had shorter LOS by one night, but this did not reach statistical significance. No difference was observed in completeness of resection but there was a statically significant increase in lymph node harvest in the robotic series. Robotic approach to oncological colorectal resections is safe, with comparable intra- and peri-operative morbidity and mortality to laparoscopic surgery.

Feasibility and safety of minimally invasive multivisceral resection for T4b rectal cancer: A 9-year review

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second highest cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. About 5%-10% of patients are diagnosed with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) on presentation. For LARC invading into other structures (i.e. T4b), multivisceral resection (MVR) and/or pelvic exenteration (PE) remains the only potential curative surgical treatment. MVR and/or PE is a major and complex surgery with high post-operative morbidity. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been shown to improve short-term post-operative outcomes in other gastrointestinal malignancies, but there is little evidence on its use in MVR, especially so for robotic MVR.

AIM

To assess the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive MVR (miMVR), and compare post-operative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic MVR.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective cohort study from 1st January 2015 to 31st March 2023. Inclusion criteria were patients diagnosed with cT4b rectal cancer and underwent MVR, or stage 4 disease with resectable systemic metastases. Patients who underwent curative MVR for locally recurrent rectal cancer, or metachronous rectal cancer were also included. Exclusion criteria were patients with systemic metastases with non-resectable disease. All patients planned for elective surgery were enrolled into the standard enhanced recovery after surgery pathway with standard peri-operative management for colorectal surgery. Complex surgery was defined based on technical difficulty of surgery (i.e. total PE, bladder-sparing prostatectomy, pelvic lymph node dissection or need for flap creation). Our primary outcomes were the margin status, and complication rates. Categorical values were described as percentages and analysed by the chi-square test. Continuous variables were expressed as median (range) and analysed by Mann-Whitney U test. Cumulative overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analysed using Kaplan-Meier estimates with life table analysis. Log-rank test was performed to determine statistical significance between cumulative estimates. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 46 patients were included in this study [open MVR (oMVR): 12 (26.1%), miMVR: 36 (73.9%)]. Patients' American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index and co-morbidities were comparable between oMVR and miMVR. There is an increasing trend towards robotic MVR from 2015 to 2023. MiMVR was associated with lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (median 450 vs 1200 mL, P = 0.008), major morbidity (14.7% vs 50.0%, P = 0.014), post-operative intra-abdominal collections (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006), post-operative ileus (32.4% vs 66.7%, P = 0.04) and surgical site infection (11.8% vs 50.0%, P = 0.006) compared with oMVR. Length of stay was also shorter for miMVR compared with oMVR (median 10 vs 30 d, P = 0.001). Oncological outcomes-R0 resection, recurrence, OS and RFS were comparable between miMVR and oMVR. There was no 30-d mortality. More patients underwent robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR for complex cases (robotic 57.1% vs laparoscopic 7.7%, P = 0.004). The operating time was longer for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR [robotic: 602 (400-900) min, laparoscopic: Median 455 (275-675) min, P < 0.001]. Incidence of R0 resection was similar (laparoscopic: 84.6% vs robotic: 76.2%, P = 0.555). Overall complication rates, major morbidity rates and 30-d readmission rates were similar between laparoscopic and robotic MVR. Interestingly, 3-year OS (robotic 83.1% vs 58.6%, P = 0.008) and RFS (robotic 72.9% vs 34.3%, P = 0.002) was superior for robotic compared with laparoscopic MVR.

CONCLUSION

MiMVR had lower post-operative complications compared to oMVR. Robotic MVR was also safe, with acceptable post-operative complication rates. Prospective studies should be conducted to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between robotic vs laparoscopic MVR.

The rise of robotic colorectal surgery: better for patients and better for surgeons

Robotic colorectal surgery represents a major technological advancement in the treatment of patients with colorectal disease. Several recent randomized controlled trials comparing robotic colorectal surgery with laparoscopic surgery have demonstrated improved short-term patient outcomes in the robotic group. Whilst the primary focus of research in robotic surgery has been on patient outcomes, the robotic platform also provides unparalleled benefits for the surgeon, including improved ergonomics and surgeon comfort, with the potential to reduce occupational injuries and prolong career longevity. It is becoming clear that robotic surgical systems improve patient outcomes and may provide significant benefits to the surgical workforce.

Preserving vascular integrity during totally robotic sigmoidectomy: unleashing the power of vessel-sparing precision

BACKGROUND

This study assesses the feasibility, safety, and clinical utility of vessel-sparing approach in totally robotic sigmoidectomy for adenocarcinoma.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A comprehensive protocol for completely vessel-sparing robotic sigmoidectomy (VsRS) was established at the authors' institution from January 2019 through December 2020. Surgical and pathological outcomes were indagated and compared with results of current literature.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 34 patients. The median number of examined lymph nodes (ELN) was 21 (range 15-28); the median number of positive lymph nodes (PLN) was 0 (range 0-8). Mean operative time was 240 min (sd 43.56, range 180-360 min), and conversion to open rate was 0%. Anastomotic leak rate was 0%. The median follow-up period was 28 months CONCLUSION: This pilot series represents a significant step forward in the development of completely vessel-sparing sigmoidectomy for adenocarcinoma. The study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of this innovative approach, which aims to achieve oncological radicality while preserving vital vascular structures. Notably, the postoperative outcomes observed in this study were comparable to those reported in the existing literature for the current standard of care at high-volume centers. Nevertheless, further validation through prospective and controlled investigations is essential before this technique can be fully incorporated into clinical practice.

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.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Uptake of robot-assisted colon cancer surgery in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

The robot-assisted approach is now often used for rectal cancer surgery, but its use in colon cancer surgery is less well defined. This study aims to compare the outcomes of robotic-assisted colon cancer surgery to conventional laparoscopy in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Data on all patients who underwent surgery for colon cancer from 2018 to 2020 were collected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. All complications, readmissions, and deaths within 90 days after surgery were recorded along with conversion rate, margin and harvested nodes. Groups were stratified according to the robot-assisted and laparoscopic approach.

RESULTS

In total, 18,886 patients were included in the analyses. The operative approach was open in 15.2%, laparoscopic in 78.9% and robot-assisted in 5.9%. The proportion of robot-assisted surgery increased from 4.7% in 2018 to 6.9% in 2020. There were no notable differences in outcomes between the robot-assisted and laparoscopic approach for Elective cT1-3M0 right, left, and sigmoid colectomy. Only conversion rate was consistently lower in the robotic group. (4.6% versus 8.8%, 4.6% versus 11.6%, and 1.6 versus 5.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide study on surgery for colon cancer shows there is a gradual but slow adoption of robotic surgery for colon cancer up to 6.9% in 2020. When comparing the outcomes of right, left, and sigmoid colectomy, clinical outcomes were similar between the robotic and laparoscopic approach. However, conversion rate is consistently lower in the robotic procedures.

Robotic-assisted colectomy in children: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted colectomy in children. All children who underwent a colectomy with a laparoscopic (LapC) or robotic-assisted (RobC) approach in our institution (January 2010-March 2023) were included. Demographics, surgical data, and post-operative outcomes within 30 days were collected. Additional cost related to the robotic approach was calculated. Comparisons were performed using Fisher tests for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney tests for continuous variables. A total of 55 colectomies were performed: 31 LapC and 24 RobC (median age: 14.9 years). Main indications included: inflammatory bowel disease (n = 36, 65%), familial adenomatous polyposis (n = 6, 11%), sigmoid volvulus (n = 5, 9%), chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction (n = 3, 5%). LapC included 22 right, 4 left, and 5 total colectomies. RobC included 15 right, 4 left, and 5 total colectomies. Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with increased operative time (3 h vs 2.5 h, p = 0.02), with a median increase in operative time of 36 min. There were no conversions. Post-operative complications occurred in 35% of LapC and 38% of RobC (p = 0.99). Complications requiring treatment under general anesthesia (Clavien-Dindo 3) occurred in similar rates (23% in LapC vs 13% in RobC, p = 0.49). Length of hospitalization was 10 days in LapC and 8.5 days in RobC (p = 0.39). The robotic approach was associated with a median additional cost of 2156€ per surgery. Robotic-assisted colectomy is as safe and feasible as laparoscopic colectomy in children, with similar complication rates but increased operative times and cost.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic colorectal surgery is becoming the preferred surgical approach for colorectal cancer (CRC). It offers several technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy that could improve patient outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared robotic and laparoscopic surgery for CRC using a national cohort of patients.

METHODS

Using the colectomy-targeted ACS-NSQIP database (2015-2020), colorectal procedures for malignant etiologies were identified by CPT codes for right colectomy (RC), left colectomy (LC), and low anterior resection (LAR). Optimal pair matching was performed. "Textbook outcome" was defined as the absence of 30-day complications, readmission, or mortality and a length of stay < 5 days.

RESULTS

We included 53,209 out of 139,759 patients screened for eligibility. Laparoscopic-to-robotic matching of 2:1 was performed for RC and LC, and 1:1 for LAR. The largest standardized mean difference was 0.048 after matching. Robotic surgery was associated with an increased rate of textbook outcomes compared to laparoscopy in RC and LC, but not in LAR (71% vs. 64% in RC, 75% vs. 68% in LC; p < 0.001). Robotic LAR was associated with increased major morbidity (7.1% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.012). For all three procedures, the mean conversion rate of robotic surgery was lower than laparoscopy (4.3% vs. 9.2%; p < 0.001), while the mean operative time was higher for robotic (225 min vs. 177 min; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for CRC offers an advantage over conventional laparoscopy by improving textbook outcomes in RC and LC. This advantage was not found in robotic LAR, which also showed an increased risk of serious complications. The associations highlighted in our study should be considered in the discussion of the surgical management of patients with colorectal cancer.

Robotic Rectus Abdominis Harvest for Pelvic Reconstruction after Abdominoperineal Resection

The use of robotic surgical systems to perform abdominoperineal resection (APR) has recently become more prevalent. This minimally invasive approach produces fewer scars and potentially less morbidity for the patient. The rectus abdominis muscle is often used for reconstruction after APR if primary closure is not feasible or the surgical site is at high risk of wound complications. Since the traditional open harvest of this flap creates large incisions that negate the advantages of minimally invasive APR, there has been growing interest in harvesting the rectus abdominis in a similarly robotic fashion. This article reviews the technique, benefits, and limitations of this robotic technique. Compared to the traditional open harvest, robotic harvest of the rectus abdominis leaves smaller scars, provides technical benefits for the surgeon, and offers possible morbidity benefits for the patient. These advantages should be weighed against the added expense and learning curve inherent to robotic surgery.

Impact of the approach on conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to explore the impact of the approach on conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision within a single unit.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision between January 2006 and June 2020 were included. Subjects were classified according to the presence or absence of conversion. Baseline variables and short-term outcomes were compared. Regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between the approach and conversion.

RESULTS

During the study period, 318 patients underwent a restorative proctectomy. Of these, 240 met the inclusion criteria. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches were undertaken in 147 (61.3%) and 93 (38.8%) cases, respectively. A transanal approach was utilised in 62 (25.8%) cases (58.1% in combination with a robotic transabdominal approach). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 30 cases (12.5%). Conversion was associated with an increased overall complication rate (P = 0.003), surgical complications (P = 0.009), superficial surgical site infections (P = 0.02) and an increased length of hospital stay (P = 0.006). Robotic and transanal approaches were both associated with decreased conversion rates. The multiple logistic regression analysis, however, showed that only a transanal approach was independently associated with a lower risk of conversion (OR 0.147, 0.023-0.532; P = 0.01), whilst obesity was an independent risk factor for conversion (OR 4.388, 1.852-10.56; P < 0.00).

CONCLUSIONS

A transanal component is associated with a reduced conversion rate in minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision, regardless of the transabdominal approach utilised. Larger studies will be required to confirm these findings and define which subgroup of patients could benefit from transanal component when a robotic approach is undertaken.

The Effectiveness and Safety of Rectal Modular Resection in Low Rectal Cancer: A Retrospective Study

Background: Described by Heald in 1982, total mesorectal excision (TME) is now routinely performed as the standard procedure for mid-low rectal cancer, with remarkable decrease in local recurrence and improved oncology outcome. However, the integrity of the resected mesentery and damage to autonomic nerves still remain challenging for general surgeons, especially in the cohort of neoadjuvant therapy patients. The concept of rectal modular resection (RMR), based on an integral understanding of the regional anatomy, was proposed as a surgical skill for dissociation of the rectum with shorter surgical duration, function preservation, and improved oncology outcome. Methods: This was a retrospective trial. Patients with resectable rectal lesions, ranging between 3 and 7 cm from the anal verge, were enrolled and grouped by TME surgery based on RMR or classical procedure resection (CPR). We estimated perioperative outcomes, including surgery complications such as anastomotic leak, urine retention, and others. Pathological properties, including distal clearance, harvested lymph nodes, tumor differentiation, and specimen grading, were also taken into account. Patients were followed postoperatively and functional evaluation was recorded at the 3-month and 1-year postoperation visits. Results: From January 2019 to December 2021, a total of 92 patients were enrolled in this study. TME surgery complying with the RMR methodology was performed with a back-to-bilateral-to-front modular proceeding. Duration of operation was significantly shortened in the RMR group, without increase in blood loss or failure rate of anus preservation. The quality of the specimen, graded according to integrity of the mesorectum, stands out in the RMR group. Functional evaluation revealed no statistical difference between RMR and CPR groups regarding sexual ability impairment and defecation disorder since follow-up is still ongoing. Conclusions: RMR-based TME was efficient with compressed operation duration compared with CPR and its safety was well validated with regard to the occurrence of complications and function loss.

Surgical efficacy and learning curves of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision with intracorporeal anastomosis for right-sided colon cancer: A retrospective two-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is a potential benefit on long-term outcomes following complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right-sided colon cancer when compared to conventional colectomy. This study aims to analyze the learning curve and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic CME with intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) for right-sided colon cancer in the hands of experienced colorectal surgeons.

METHODS

A two-center cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing right-sided colectomy from September 2021 to May 2022 at two tertiary colorectal centers in Denmark. Learning curves of surgical time were estimated using a cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM).

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients were included. According to the CUSUM analysis, 32 cases were needed to obtain a peak in operative time, resulting in a decrease in time consumption (group 1/learning phase: 217.2 min [SD 53.6] and group 2/plateau phase 191.6 min [SD 45.1], p = 0.05). There was a nonsignificant reduction in the rates of severe surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo > 3) (13% vs. 7%, p = 0.67) between the two groups, while the length of hospital stay remained constant (median 3.0 days, interquartile range, IQR [2.0; 4.0]).

CONCLUSION

The learning curve of laparoscopic CME with ICA for right-sided colon cancer demonstrated that 32 cases were needed to obtain a plateau phase expressed by operative time.

Shared decision-making and the duration of medical consultations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

1) determine whether increased levels of Shared Decision-Making (SDM) affect consultation duration, 2) investigate the intervention characteristics involved.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were systematically searched for experimental and cross-sectional studies up to December 2021. A best-evidence synthesis was performed, and interventions characteristics that increased at least one SDM-outcome, were pooled and descriptively analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies were selected: 28 randomized clinical trials, 8 quasi-experimental studies, and 27 cross-sectional studies. Overall, pooling of data was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity. No differences in consultation duration were found more often than increased or decreased durations. . Consultation times (minutes:seconds) were significantly increased only among interventions that: 1) targeted clinicians only (Mean Difference [MD] 1:30, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0:24-2:37); 2) were performed in primary care (MD 2:05, 95%CI 0:11-3:59; 3) used a group format (MD 2:25, 95%CI 0:45-4:05); 4) were not theory-based (MD 4:01, 95%CI 0:38-7:23).

CONCLUSION

Applying SDM does not necessarily require longer consultation durations. Theory-based, multilevel implementation approaches possibly lower the risk of increasing consultation durations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The commonly heard concern that time hinders SDM implementation can be contradicted, but implementation demands multifaceted approaches and space for training and adapting work processes.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery

With increasing trends for the adoption of robotic surgery, many centers are considering changing their practices from open or laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted rectal resection with those of open and laparoscopic surgery. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until October 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing robotic surgery with open or laparoscopic rectal resection were included. Fifteen RCTs and 11 prospective studies involving 6922 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that robotic surgery has lower blood loss, less surgical site infection, shorter hospital stays, and higher negative resection margins than open resection. Robotic surgery also has lower conversion rates, lower blood loss, lower rates of reoperation, and higher negative circumferential margins than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery had longer operation times and higher costs than open and laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences in other complications, mortality, and survival between robotic surgery and the open or laparoscopic approach. However, heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high in some analyses. The robotic approach can be the method of choice for centers planning to change from open to minimally invasive rectal surgery. The higher costs of robotic surgery should be considered as a substitute for laparoscopic surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022381468).

Training curriculum in minimally invasive emergency digestive surgery: 2022 WSES position paper

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including laparoscopic and robotic approaches, is widely adopted in elective digestive surgery, but selectively used for surgical emergencies. The present position paper summarizes the available evidence concerning the learning curve to achieve proficiency in emergency MIS and provides five expert opinion statements, which may form the basis for developing standardized curricula and training programs in emergency MIS.

METHODS

This position paper was conducted according to the World Society of Emergency Surgery methodology. A steering committee and an international expert panel were involved in the critical appraisal of the literature and the development of the consensus statements.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies regarding the learning curve in emergency MIS were selected. All but one study considered laparoscopic appendectomy. Only one study reported on emergency robotic surgery. In most of the studies, proficiency was achieved after an average of 30 procedures (range: 20-107) depending on the initial surgeon's experience. High heterogeneity was noted in the way the learning curve was assessed. The experts claim that further studies investigating learning curve processes in emergency MIS are needed. The emergency surgeon curriculum should include a progressive and adequate training based on simulation, supervised clinical practice (proctoring), and surgical fellowships. The results should be evaluated by adopting a credentialing system to ensure quality standards. Surgical proficiency should be maintained with a minimum caseload and constantly evaluated. Moreover, the training process should involve the entire surgical team to facilitate the surgeon's proficiency.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence exists concerning the learning process in laparoscopic and robotic emergency surgery. The proposed statements should be seen as a preliminary guide for the surgical community while stressing the need for further research.

A new approach: Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with priority access to small bowel mesentery

Background

For laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, the intermediate approach is commonly employed. However, this approach possesses several disadvantages. In this study, we compare priority access to the small bowel mesentery and the intermediate approach.

Methods

The clinical data of 196 patients admitted to the First Hospital of Chongqing Medical University for laparoscopic right hemicolectomy from January 2019 to January 2022 were retrospectively collected and divided into the small bowel mesenteric priority access and traditional intermediate access groups. The operative time, intraoperative bleeding, number of lymph node dissection, postoperative anal venting time, toleration of solid and liquid intake, and postoperative hospital stay and complications were compared between the two different approaches.

Results

In total, 81 cases of small bowel mesenteric priority access and 115 cases of intermediate approach for right hemi-colonic radical resection were compared. The operative time was 191.98 ± 46.05 and 209.48 ± 46.08 min in the small bowel mesenteric priority access and intermediate access groups, respectively; the difference was statistically significant. There were no significant differences in the intraoperative bleeding and lymph node clearance. However, the scatter plot analysis showed that severe intraoperative bleeding was relatively less frequent in the small mesenteric priority access group, compared with that in the intermediate approach group. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in the first exhaust and defecation times, hospital stay after operation, toleration of solid and liquid intake, and postoperative complication between the two groups.

Conclusion

In laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, the small bowel mesenteric priority approach can significantly shorten the operation time compared with the intermediate approach. It can reduce intraoperative bleeding and the operation is simple and safe to perform, making it suitable for less experienced surgeons. Therefore, the small bowel mesenteric priority approach has the potential to be a suitable alternative and deserves further clinical promotion and application.

Minimally invasive colorectal surgery learning curve

The learning curve in minimally invasive colorectal surgery is a constant subject of discussion in the literature. Discordant data likely reflects the varying degrees of each surgeon’s experience in colorectal, laparoscopic or robotic surgery. Several factors are necessary for a successful minimally invasive colorectal surgery training program, including: Compliance with oncological outcomes; dissection along the embryological planes; constant presence of an expert tutor; periodic discussion of the morbidity and mortality rate; and creation of a dedicated, expert team.

The learning curve of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excisions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment of rectal carcinoma is surgical resection according to the total mesorectal excision principle, either by open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal technique. No clear consensus exists regarding the length of the learning curve for the minimal invasive techniques. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the current literature regarding the learning curve of minimal invasive TME.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for studies with the primary or secondary aim to assess the learning curve of either laparoscopic, robot-assisted or transanal TME for rectal cancer. The primary outcome was length of the learning curve per minimal invasive technique. Descriptive statistics were used to present results and the MINORS tool was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

45 studies, with 7562 patients, were included in this systematic review. Length of the learning curve based on intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, or a composite endpoint using a risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis was 50 procedures for the laparoscopic technique, 32-75 procedures for the robot-assisted technique and 36-54 procedures for the transanal technique. Due to the low quality of studies and a high level of heterogeneity a meta-analysis could not be performed. Heterogeneity was caused by patient-related factors, surgeon-related factors and differences in statistical methods.

CONCLUSION

Current high-quality literature regarding length of the learning curve of minimal invasive TME techniques is scarce. Available literature suggests equal lengths of the learning curves of laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal TME. Well-designed studies, using adequate statistical methods are required to properly assess the learning curve, while taking into account patient-related and surgeon-related factors.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic staging compared to conventional laparoscopic staging and laparotomic staging in clinical early stage ovarian carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Robot-assisted laparoscopic staging (RALS) is increasingly used for staging epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Evidence of its safety is limited. The aim of this review is to compare the efficacy and safety of RALS in clinical early-stage EOC to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy and to assess the level of evidence that is currently available to adopt this surgical technique.

RECENT FINDINGS

Only retrospective studies comparing staging by minimally invasive surgery (MIS) to laparotomy are available. Both RALS and conventional laparoscopic staging shorten length of hospital stay (LHS, mean -2.9 days) and decrease estimated blood loss (EBL, mean -79 ml less) compared to laparotomy. Complication rates and number of lymph nodes collected are similar in all surgical staging techniques. Survival outcomes after staging by MIS cannot be compared to staging by laparotomy because of the lack of evidence but RALS is probably noninferior to conventional laparoscopic staging.

SUMMARY

RALS probably improves perioperative outcomes in patients with clinical early stage EOC similar to conventional laparoscopic staging. Whether oncologic outcomes of RALS are comparable to open and conventional approaches is uncertain as there is only level C evidence and randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to confirm the current retrospective findings.

Is Robotic Assisted Colorectal Cancer Surgery Equivalent Compared to Laparoscopic Procedures during the Introduction of a Robotic Program? A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis

Simple Summary

The introduction of a robotic program is challenging and requires extensive experience in minimally invasive surgery. Short-term outcomes and oncological quality should not differ between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. To our knowledge, no data on the quality of surgery at the time of introduction of the robotic platform are available. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes and oncological findings of robotic-assisted colorectal resections with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery within the first three years after the introduction of the robotic platform.

Abstract

Background: Robotic surgery represents a novel approach for the treatment of colorectal cancers and has been established as an important and effective method over the last years. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of a robotic program on oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery within the first three years after the introduction. Methods: All colorectal cancer patients from two centers that either received robotic-assisted or conventional laparoscopic surgery were included in a comparative study. A propensity-score-matched analysis was used to reduce confounding differences. Results: A laparoscopic resection (LR Group) was performed in 82 cases, and 93 patients were treated robotic-assisted surgery (RR Group). Patients’ characteristics did not differ between groups. In right-sided resections, an intracorporeal anastomosis was significantly more often performed in the RR Group (LR Group: 5 (26.31%) vs. RR Group: 10 (76.92%), p = 0.008). Operative time was shown to be significantly shorter in the LR Group (LR Group: 200 min (150–243) vs. 204 min (174–278), p = 0.045). Conversions to open surgery did occur more often in the LR Group (LR Group: 16 (19.51%) vs. RR Group: 5 (5.38%), p = 0.004). Postoperative morbidity, the number of harvested lymph nodes, quality of resection and postoperative tumor stage did not differ between groups. Conclusion: In this study, we could clearly demonstrate robotic-assisted colorectal cancer surgery as effective, feasible and safe regarding postoperative morbidity and oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopy during the introduction of a robotic system.

Learning curve analysis of multiport robot-assisted hysterectomy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes and learning curve of multiport robot-assisted hysterectomy.

METHODS

Eighty-eight patients were identified who underwent multiport robot-assisted surgery for hysterectomy. A retrospective analysis was performed. The cumulative summation technique (CUSUM) was used to investigate the learning curve in surgical proficiency by analyzing total operative, docking, and console times.

RESULTS

The patients' median age was 51 years. In addition, the median operative time was 120.5 min (range 56-344 min). The most common indication for surgery was myoma (33.0%). The median estimated blood loss was 30 mL (range 5-200 mL). There was no conversion to laparoscopic or open surgery. No transfusion was required, and only one complication including umbilical incisional hernia was reported. A tendency of decline in total operative time following the first 23 cases was found. The CUSUM graph for total operative time indicated the generation of three distinct performance phases: learning (n = 23), competence (n = 36), and mastery (n = 29). The median docking time was 3 min (range 1-10 min) and median console time was 70 min (range 24-298 min).

CONCLUSION

The multiport robot-assisted surgery is an easy and safe procedure with minimal postoperative complications and can be quickly learned. The learning curve was 23 cases to significantly decrease the operative time.

Cost-Effectiveness of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Surgery for Different Surgical Procedures: Protocol for a Prospective, Multicentric Study (ROBOCOSTES)

Background

The studies which address the impact of costs of robotic vs. laparoscopic approach on quality of life (cost-effectiveness studies) are scares in general surgery.

Methods

The Spanish national study on cost-effectiveness differences among robotic and laparoscopic surgery (ROBOCOSTES) is designed as a prospective, multicentre, national, observational study. The aim is to determine in which procedures robotic surgery is more cost-effective than laparoscopic surgery. Several surgical operations and patient populations will be evaluated (distal pancreatectomy, gastrectomy, sleeve gastrectomy, inguinal hernioplasty, rectal resection for cancer, Heller cardiomiotomy and Nissen procedure).

Discussion

The results of this study will demonstrate which treatment (laparoscopic or robotic) and in which population is more cost-effective. This study will also assess the impact of previous surgical experience on main outcomes.

Robotic Surgery in Rectal Cancer: Potential, Challenges, and Opportunities

The current standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer is based on a multimodal comprehensive treatment combined with preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiation and complete surgical resection of the entire mesorectal cancer. For ultra-low cases and cases with lateral lymph node metastasis, due to limitations in laparoscopic technology, the difficulties of operation and incidence of intraoperative complications are always difficult to overcome. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer is an emerging technique that can overcome some of the technical drawbacks posed by conventional laparoscopic approaches, improving the scope and effect of radical operations. However, evidence from the literature regarding its oncological safety and clinical outcomes is still lacking. This brief review summarized the current status of robotic technology in rectal cancer therapy from the perspective of several mainstream surgical methods, including robotic total mesorectal excision (TME), robotic transanal TME, robotic lateral lymph node dissection, and artificial intelligence, focusing on the developmental direction of robotic approach in the field of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer in the future.

Current status and role of robotic approach in patients with low-lying rectal cancer

Utilization of robotic surgical systems has increased over the years. Robotic surgery is presumed to have advantages of enhanced visualization, improved dexterity, and reduced tremor, which is purported to be more suitable for rectal cancer surgery in a confined space than laparoscopic or open surgery. However, evidence supporting improved clinical and oncologic outcomes after robotic surgery remains controversial and limited despite the widespread adoption of robotic surgical systems. To date, numerous observational studies and a few randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate that short-term, oncological, and functional outcomes after a robotic surgery are superior to those of laparoscopic surgery for low rectal cancer patients. The objective of this review is to summarize the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on low-lying rectal cancer.