Emerging role of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for rectal cancers

Single-incision robotic colorectal surgery with the da Vinci SP® surgical system: initial results of 50 cases

PURPOSE

The da Vinci SP® (dVSP) surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), a robotic platform designed for single-incision surgery, overcame the need for multiple ports in traditional robotic surgery and issues including triangulation and retraction in single-incision laparoscopic surgery. However, previous studies only included case reports or series with small sample sizes. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and performance of the dVSP surgical system and its instruments and accessories for colorectal procedures.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who had surgery with the dVSP from March 2019 to September 2021 at Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital were investigated. The pathologic and follow-up data of patients who had malignant tumors were analyzed separately to evaluate oncological safety.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (26 male and 24 female) with a median age of 59 years (interquartile range 52.5-63.0 years) were enrolled. The procedures included low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision (n = 16), sigmoid colectomy with complete mesocolic excision and central vessel ligation (CME + CVL) (n = 14), right colectomy with CME + CVL (n = 9), left colectomy with CME + CVL (n = 4), right colectomy (n = 6), and sigmoid colectomy (n = 1). Operative time significantly decreased after 25 cases (early phase vs. late phase; operative time 295.0 min vs. 250.0 min, p = 0.015; docking time 16.0 min vs. 12.0 min, p = 0.001; console time 212.0 min vs. 190.0 min, p = 0.019). Planned procedures were successfully completed in all patients. Postoperative outcomes were acceptable with only six cases of mild adverse events through a 3-month follow-up. No local recurrence and only one case of systemic recurrence occurred within 1 year postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the surgical and oncological safety and feasibility of dVSP, which may be a novel surgical platform for colorectal surgery.

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.

The Senhance Surgical System in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review

The Senhance Surgical System allows for infrared eye tracking, haptic feedback, and an adjustable upright seat allowing for improved ergonomics. This systematic review was designed with the aim of reviewing the current literature pertaining to the use of the Senhance Surgical System in colorectal surgery. Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated adults undergoing colorectal surgery with the Senhance Surgical System. The primary outcome was intraoperative efficacy; as defined by operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and conversion. A DerSimonian and Laird inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate overall effect size estimates and narrative review was provided for each outcome. Six observational studies with 223 patients (mean age: 63.7, 41.2% female, mean BMI: 24.4 kg/m²) were included. The most common indication for surgery was colorectal cancer (n = 180, 80.7%) and the most common operation was anterior resection (n = 72, 32.3%). Meta-analyses demonstrated a pooled total operative time of 229.8 min (95% CI 189.3-270.4, I² = 0%), console time of 141.3 min (95% CI 106.5-176.1, I² = 0%), and docking time of 10.8 min (95% CI 6.4-15.2, I² = 0%). The pooled EBL was 37.0 mL (95% CI 24.7-49.2, I² = 20%). Overall, there were nine (4.0%) conversions to laparoscopy/laparotomy. The Senhance Surgical System has an acceptable safety profile, reasonable docking and console times, low conversion rates, and an affordable case cost across a variety of colorectal surgeries. Further prospective, comparative trials with other robotic surgical platforms are warranted.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection: Are We There Yet?

Background: Laparoscopy-assisted surgery (LAS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) was first described in 1991 and robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for CRC was first reported in 2002; robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is becoming increasingly popular. However, data comparing its outcomes to other established techniques remain limited to small case series. Our primary goal was to review the mortality outcome difference between laparoscopic versus robotic elective colon resection at a small, community hospital.

Study design: We conducted a retrospective review of 2089 patients at the South Atlantic division for cases who underwent robotic and laparoscopic colectomies at our division in 2014-2018. All cases were elective surgeries and analysis was performed within these two subgroups.

Results: In this study, 306 patients underwent robotic colorectal surgery versus 1783 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery. Readmission rate within 30 days of operation was significantly lower for laparoscopic-assisted colorectal resection (LACR) versus RACS (445.4% vs. 53.9%, p= 0.006). However, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for RACS with a median of three days (interquartile range {IQR}: 2-5) versus four days (IQR: 3-7) for LACR (p=0.0001). There were no significant differences between the two groups for post-operative incisional hernias, anastomotic leaks, post-operative pain control, surgical site infections, or rate of conversion to an open procedure.

Conclusion: Our study showed a similar outcome between LACR and RACS for post-operative incisional hernias, anastomotic leaks, post-operative pain control, surgical site infections, and rate of conversion to an open procedure. Also, our study showed a readmission rate within 30 days of operation was significantly lower for LACR versus RACS. However, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for RACS with a median of three days when compared to LACR. Future research should focus on surgeon-specific variables, such as comfort, ergonomics, distractibility, and ease of use, as other ways to potentially distinguish robotic from laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Initial clinical experience of single-incision robotic colorectal surgery with da Vinci SP platform

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) was introduced to overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic surgery, which is challenging due to its restrictions regarding triangulation and retraction. The purpose of this article is to describe the initial experience with single-incision surgery using the da Vinvci Single-Port Platform (dVSP).

METHODS

The medical records of patients with colorectal disease, who underwent single-incision robotic surgery using the dVSP, were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Five patients with appendiceal and colorectal cancer, and two with diverticulitis were enrolled. All procedures were completed using a pure single-incision approach, with an exception for low anterior resection. There were two minor complications. For patients with colorectal cancer, the number of retrieved lymph nodes and status of the resection margin were acceptable, and cosmetic results were satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

The dVSP is a novel surgical platform that can be used as an alternative surgical modality for colorectal surgery.

Initial Clinical Experience of Pure Single-Incision Robotic Right Hemicolectomy with da Vinci SP Platform

The da Vinci SP Surgical System (dVSP; Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) was introduced to perform pure single-incision surgery in 2018. This new surgical platform demonstrated favorable performance compared with the positive aspect of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and robot surgery. To date, its use has mainly been in urological and gynecological procedures. We report a case of successful robotic single-incision right hemicolectomy for cecal cancer with the dVSP.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. Robotic surgery has been recently used as a novel tool for rectal surgery. This study assessed the current evidence regarding the efficiency, safety, and potential advantages of robotic rectal surgery (RRS) compared with laparoscopic rectal surgery (LRS). Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases and performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the 2 approaches. Results. Seven RCTs including a total of 1022 cases were identified. The conversion rate is significantly lower for RRS (odds ratio: 0.29; 95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 0.96; P = .04). The length of the distal margin was significantly shorter in the LRS group than in the RRS group (weighted mean difference: 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 1.10; P = .02). Perioperative complication rates, harvested lymph nodes, positive circumferential resection margins, complete total mesorectal excision, first flatus, and length of stay did not differ significantly between approaches ( P > .05). Conclusions. This meta-analysis indicates that RRS is a safe and effective approach. It is not inferior to LRS in terms of oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications. Future large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-up are awaited to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer results in a significantly higher quality of TME specimen compared to the laparoscopic approach-report of a single-center experience

AIM

Robotic surgery allows for a better visualization and more precise dissection especially in the narrow male pelvis and mid and lower third of the rectum. However, superiority to laparoscopic TME has yet to be proven. We therefore analyzed short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic low anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2011 to 2016, 44 robotic (RTME) and 41 laparoscopic (LTME) low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision were performed at a single institution. Specimen quality was assessed and reported by an independent pathologist following international guidelines.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ significantly regarding gender, age, ASA stage, BMI, and distance of the lower tumor margin from the anal verge. More patients in the RTME group underwent preoperative chemoradiation (43.2 vs. 19.5%, p = 0.019). The quality of the TME specimen was significantly better in the RTME group (complete/nearly complete/incomplete for RTME 97/0/3% and for LTME 78/17/5%, p = 0.03). The conversion rate tended to be lower in the RTME group (7 vs. 17%, p = 0.143). There was no difference in CRM positivity between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is safe and can improve the quality of TME for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopy. Any effect on long-term survival remains to be established.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Robotic surgery is positioned at the cutting edge of minimally invasive management of colorectal cancer. We performed a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (NRCTs) that compared the clinicopathological outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) with those of laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS). Inferences on the feasibility and the relative safety and efficacy have been drawn.

METHODS

A literature search for relevant studies was performed on MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Inter-group differences in the standardized mean differences and relative risk were assessed. Operation times, conversion rates to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), early postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LHS) were compared. Oncologic outcomes assessed were number of lymph nodes harvested and lengths of proximal and distal resection margins.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies (2 RCTs and 22 NRCTs [5 prospective plus 17 retrospective]) with a total of 3318 patients were included. Of these, 1466 (44.18 %) patients underwent RACS and 1852 (55.82 %) underwent LACS. Conversion rates, EBL and LHS were significantly lower, while the operation times and total costs were similar between RACS and LACS. Complication rates and oncological accuracy of resection showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis, RACS appears to be a promising surgical approach with its safety and efficacy comparable to that of LACS in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Further studies are required to evaluate the long-term cost-efficiency as well as the functional and oncologic outcomes of RACS.

Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic approaches have become increasingly used for colorectal surgery. The aim of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of robotic colorectal procedures in an adult population.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of articles in both PubMed and Embase comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures was performed. Clinical trials and observational studies in an adult population were included. Approaches were evaluated in terms of operative time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, number of lymph nodes harvested, and perioperative complications. Mean net differences and odds ratios were calculated to examine treatment effect of each group.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighteen articles were identified, and 17 met the inclusion criteria, representing 4,342 patients: 920 robotic and 3,422 in the laparoscopic group. Operative time for the robotic approach was 38.849 minutes longer (95% confidence interval: 17.944 to 59.755). The robotic group had lower estimated blood loss (14.17 mL; 95% confidence interval: -27.63 to -1.60), and patients were 1.78 times more likely to be converted to an open procedure (95% confidence interval: 1.24 to 2.55). There was no difference between groups with respect to number of lymph nodes harvested, length of stay, readmission rate, or perioperative complication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach to colorectal surgery is as safe and efficacious as conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, it is associated with longer operative time and an increased rate of conversion to laparotomy. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted to examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic colorectal surgery before it can be adopted as the new standard of care.

A review of the role of robotics in bariatric surgery

The epidemic of obesity continues to be a major health issue. It is now almost uniform that surgical procedures for weight loss are performed with minimally invasive techniques. This article reviews the literature regarding obesity-related health issues, in particular risk of malignancy, and the application of robotic technology in weight loss surgical procedures. With increasing literature and technology in surgical robotics, its application in the field of bariatric surgery continues to evolve.

Robotic assistance may reduce conversion to open in rectal carcinoma laparoscopic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that robotic assistance (RARS) could provide better intraoperative and short-term outcomes than a traditional laparoscopic approach (LARS) to rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature, including electronic searches and communications to international robotic meetings.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

studies involving rectal cancer patients and comparing outcomes of robotic surgery vs laparoscopic surgery. Primary end-points: conversion and postoperative short-term complications. Meta-analysis performed using Review Manager 5.0 software.

RESULTS

Five case-control studies involving 486 patients (203 RARS-283 LARS) were finally included. Conversion to open rate (RR = 0.31; 95% CI 0.12,0.78) was lower for RARS. No differences were found in oncological outcomes, hospital stay or anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of available non-randomized studies suggests that conversion to open rate may be reduced when using RARS instead of LARS for rectal cancer.

Surgical treatment for colorectal cancer

The rapid in development of surgical technology has had a major effect in surgical treatment of colorectal cancer. Laparoscopic colon cancer surgery has been proven to provide better short-term clinical and oncologic outcomes. However this quickly accepted surgical approach is still performed by a minority of colorectal surgeons. The more technically challenging procedure of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is also on its way to demonstrating perhaps similar short-term benefits. This article reviews current evidences of both short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery, including the overall costs comparison between laparoscopic surgery and conventional open surgery. In addition, different surgical techniques for laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer are compared. Also the relevant future challenge of colorectal cancer robotic surgery is reviewed.

Robotic colon and rectal surgery: a series of 131 cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery has become a mainstay in the treatment of benign and malignant colorectal diseases. There are inherent limitations to conventional laparoscopy which can be overcome by the robot. Here we present our experience with 131 cases of robotic and robot-assisted colon and rectal resections.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. From August 2005 through June 2009, we performed a total of 131 totally robotic and robot-assisted colorectal resections. These included 42 right colectomies (RC), 16 anterior resections (AR) for benign disease, 8 AR with rectopexy for prolapse, 7 total proctocolectomies (TPC), 47 low and ultralow anterior resections (LAR) for rectal cancer, and 11 abdominal perineal resections (APR). All LARs were done as a hybrid procedure (laparoscopic splenic flexure mobilization followed by robotic rectal dissection), and all APR specimens were extracted through the perineal incision. All coloanal anastomoses were diverted with a loop ileostomy.

RESULTS

There were no intraoperative complications in this series. Postoperative complications included 10 patients with ileus or small bowel obstruction (SBO), 2 patients with anastomotic leaks, 1 patient with an abscess, and 3 patients with temporary peripheral neuropathy that resolved spontaneously. Five patients required reoperation and there were a total of 4 conversions (3.7%) across all case types.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic colon and rectal resections are safe and feasible options for the treatment of both benign and malignant disease processes. Further studies comparing oncologic and perioperative outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open techniques are needed to determine the utility and efficacy of this technology in the field of colorectal surgery.