The Landmark Series: Minimally Invasive (Laparoscopic and Robotic) Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Robotic assisted surgery reduces ergonomic risk during minimally invasive colorectal resection: the VOLCANO randomised controlled trial

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive surgery benefits patients but poor operating ergonomics causes musculoskeletal injuries in surgeons. This randomised controlled trial aims to assess whether robotic-assisted surgery with the open-console Versius® system can reduce surgeons' ergonomic risks during major colorectal resections.

METHODS

Prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05262296) in March 2022. Adult patients requiring a minimally invasive colorectal resection were potentially eligible. Photographs taken at 2-min intervals were analysed using the objective Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) posture analysis scale to calculate intraoperative surgeon ergonomic risk. Secondary outcomes included team communication (Oxford NOTECHS II), surgeon cognitive strain (modified NASA-TLX scale), and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were randomised in a 2:1 ratio (40 robot, 20 laparoscopic). Mean age was 65yrs and 34 (57%) were male. Body Mass Index did not differ between the 2 groups (overall mean 29.0 ± 5) and there were equal proportions of left and right-colonic resections. REBA was significantly lower in the robotic arm (median robot REBA score 3 vs lap REBA 5 [p < 0.001]), equating to an injury risk category drop from "medium" to "low risk". There were no significant differences in team communication, operative duration, or patient outcomes. Surgeon cognitive strain was lower in robotic cases (mean robot 32.4 ± 10.3 vs lap 45.6 ± 14.3 [p < 0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial demonstrates that robotic surgery with an open-console system reduces ergonomic risk scores and cognitive strain during colorectal resections, with no apparent detriment to team communication. This may therefore be a safe & feasible solution to the increasing problem of work-related musculoskeletal injuries in surgeons.

Analysis of effect of colonoscopy combined with laparoscopy in the treatment of colorectal tumors

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common digestive tract tumors.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed early postoperative clinical data of 48 patients with colorectal cancer treated in our hospital between 2015 and 2021, of which 21 underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery, and 27 underwent laparotomy. There was no significant difference in clinical data. Patients were included if they had colorectal cancer (confirmed by colonoscopy and biopsy pathological examination before surgery), were evaluated for possible radical surgery before surgery, and had no intestinal obstruction, tumor invasion of adjacent organs (by digital rectal examination and preoperative abdominal color Doppler ultrasound, CT confirmed) and no other history of abdominal surgery. Using the method of clinical control study, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative general condition, surgical lymph node removal (postoperative pathology), surgical complications, gastrointestinal function recovery, surgical before and after blood glucose, body temperature, white blood cells, pain visual analog scale (VAS) and other conditions were compared and analyzed to determine feasibility and safety of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

Colorectal cancer was successfully removed by laparoscopic radical resection without any significant problems or surgical fatalities. Age, gender, tumor location, stage, and duration of surgery did not differ between laparoscopic and laparotomy operations. Compared to laparotomy, postoperative eating, bowel movements, and blood sugar levels improved. Variations in the length of surgically removed specimens after VAS measurements revealed open and laparoscopic operations. The overall lymph node count was 10.8 ± 1.6, with no variation between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colorectal cancer radical surgery is safe and feasible. Also, it has the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Laparoscopic colorectal cancer radical surgery can comply with the principles of oncology revolutionary.

Trends in emergency colorectal surgery: a 7-year retrospective single-centre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Emergency colorectal resections carry a higher morbidity and mortality than elective surgery. The use of minimally invasive surgery has now become widespread in elective colorectal surgery, with improved patient outcomes. Laparoscopy is being increasingly used for emergency colorectal resections, but its role is still being defined. Our aim was to observe the uptake of laparoscopy for emergency colorectal surgery in our centre.

METHOD

A retrospective single-centre cohort study was performed using local National Emergency Laparotomy Audit data from January 2014-December 2020. All patients who had a colorectal resection were included. Trends in the number and type of resections were recorded. Primary outcome was the proportion of cases started and completed laparoscopically. Secondary outcomes included rate of conversion to open, length of stay and 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total 523 colorectal resections were performed. The number of cases attempted and completed laparoscopically steadily increased over the study period (28.3% to 63.3% and 16.3% to 35.4%, respectively). The mean rate of conversion to open was 43.8%. The greatest expansion in laparoscopy was for cases of intestinal obstruction, perforation and peritonitis, and for those undergoing Hartmann's procedure and right hemicolectomy. 30‑day mortality for cases completed laparoscopically was much lower than those converted or started with open surgery (2.1% vs 11.7% and 17.5%, respectively). Laparoscopic approach was independently associated with reduced length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy has been successfully adopted for emergency colorectal resections in our centre, with half of cases felt to be suitable for minimally invasive surgery.

Outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in a non-metropolitan Australian hospital: audit of 120 patients with long-term follow-up results

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery has been shown to produce comparable oncological long-term results as well as improved short-term outcomes compared to open surgery in multicentre trials. Limited information is available whether these results are reproduced in non-metropolitan surgery.

METHODS

Audit of prospectively collected follow-up data in a rural surgical centre in South Australia. Short- and long-term results of colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery for cure. Outcomes are compared with results of open surgery.

RESULTS

Survival and clinical data of 120 patients after laparoscopic resection were analysed and then benchmarked against results of 157 open resections. Conversion rate was 10.8% (N = 13). Mean patient age was 69.9 years. Mean number of lymph nodes analysed was 15.5. Mean follow-up is 53.0 months. Thirty-day mortality was 0.36% (n = 1) and 90-day mortality was 0.72% (n = 2). No differences in complications rates, long term survival or procedures performed were observed. This is a single centre audit of clinical and oncological outcomes and a number of exclusion criteria were applied. Patient gender, cancer stages as well as number of patients undergoing neoadjuvant radio-chemotherapy differ significantly between the study and the benchmarking group. Patients were not randomized and the benchmarking group is in part a historical control.

CONCLUSIONS

This audit of clinical outcomes and survival after laparoscopic CRC resection for cure indicates that minimal invasive surgery may be suitable for adequately staffed and equipped rural centres.

Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic left colectomy for radical treatment of colon cancer: a retrospective analysis in a consecutive series of 211 patients

Background

Robotic surgery has been widely used in the radical treatment of colonic cancer. However, it is unclear what advantages the robotic approach offers over other approaches in left colectomy. This study aims to explore the advantage of robotic surgery in left colectomy by comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of patients with radical left colectomy for colon cancer who were admitted to the Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, from November 2012 to November 2017. Two hundred eleven patients included were divided into the open surgery group (OS, n=49), laparoscopic surgery group (LS, n=92), and robotic surgery group (RS, n=70) according to surgical techniques. The clinicopathologic data were collected for clinical outcome assessment. Finally, the clinical value of RS in radical left colectomy was further evaluated by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Results

Three groups were similar in demographics and clinical characteristics. Compared with OS, LS and RS groups had better intraoperative and perioperative clinical outcomes. Moreover, the RS group exhibited the minimum operative times, length of stay (LOS), and evaluated blood loss. LS and RS also exhibited less perioperative and postoperative long-term complications. Three groups showed similar postoperative pathological outcomes. The overall survival and disease-free survival were also similar among the three groups (all P > 0.05). Cox regression analysis showed surgical approach was not a prognostic factor for overall survival (P = 0.671) and disease-free survival (P = 0.776). PSM analysis of RS and LS by clinical characteristics showed RS showed shorter operation time (P < 0.001) and LOS for patients without complications (P = 0.005). However, no significant differences were found in perioperative and long-term postoperative complications, pathological outcomes, overall survival, and disease-free survival.

Conclusions

Among three techniques for radical left colectomy, LS and RS had significant advantages over OS in short-term clinical outcomes, and no significant differences were found in overall, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and distant metastasis incidence. Moreover, RS shows better perioperative clinical outcomes but without compromising survival compared with LS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-022-02796-8.

Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. However, the added benefit of the robotic platform over conventional laparoscopy is a matter of ongoing investigation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an up-to-date and balanced evaluation of the benefits and shortcomings of robotic liver surgery for the modern hepatobiliary surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Advantages of a robotic approach to liver resection include a shortened learning curve, the ability to complete more extensive or complex minimally invasive operations, and integrated fluorescence guidance. However, the robotic platform remains limited by a paucity of parenchymal transection devices, complete lack of haptic feedback, and added operating time associated with docking and instrument exchange. Like laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy may provide patients with more rapid recovery and a shorter hospital stay, which can help offset the substantial costs of robot acquisition and maintenance. The oncologic outcomes of robotic hepatectomy appear to be equivalent to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for appropriately selected patients.

Management of intraoperative complications during laparoscopic left colectomy

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery has gained a major role in the current management of colorectal disease since the introduction of laparoscopy in the early 1990s for colorectal procedures. The laparoscopic approach, in fact, is not exempt from the risk of intraoperative complications, some of which can occur outside the field of view. Aim of this chapter is to review the different types of complications that can happen during left colectomy, analyzing the causes, how to prevent them and what to do in case they occur.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was carried out using the MEDLINE and PubMed databases for studies published between January 1980 and October 2020. The following terms were used for the search: complications, risk factors, colorectal surgery, colorectal resection, laparoscopy, left colectomy, intraoperative complications, splenic injury, intraoperative bleeding.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

From our literature search we identified twenty-four studies, including two systematic reviews and metanalyses, that were the most pertinent to the subject.

CONCLUSIONS

Many different complications can occur during laparoscopic left colectomy. Maintaining control of the situation is important to provide a prompt solution to the occurred injury. Increasing the reporting rate of complications may help, in the future, to analyze the causes and improve management strategies, keeping in mind that the only surgeon who does not have complications is the one who does not operate.

Inequalities in access to minimally invasive general surgery: a comprehensive nationwide analysis across 20 years

Background

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has profoundly changed standards of care and lowered perioperative morbidity, but its temporal implementation and factors favoring MIS access remain elusive. We aimed to comprehensibly investigate MIS adoption across different surgical procedures over 20 years, identify predictors for MIS amenability and compare propensity score-matched outcomes among MIS and open surgery.

Methods

Nationwide retrospective analysis of all hospitalizations in Switzerland between 1998 and 2017. Appendectomies (n = 186,929), cholecystectomies (n = 57,788), oncological right (n = 9138) and left hemicolectomies (n = 21,580), rectal resections (n = 13,989) and gastrectomies for carcinoma (n = 6606) were included. Endpoints were assessment of temporal MIS implementation, identification of predictors for MIS access and comparison of propensity score-matched outcomes among MIS and open surgery.

Results

The rates of MIS increased for all procedures during the study period (p ≤ 0.001). While half of all appendectomies were performed laparoscopically by 2005, minimally invasive oncological colorectal resections reached 50% only by 2016. Multivariate analyses identified older age (p ≤ 0.02, except gastrectomy), higher comorbidities (p ≤ 0.001, except rectal resections), lack of private insurance (p ≤ 0.01) as well as rural residence (p ≤ 0.01) with impaired access to MIS. Rural residence correlated with low income regions (p ≤ 0.001), which themselves were associated with decreased MIS access. Geographical mapping confirmed strong disparities for rural and low-income areas in MIS access. Matched outcome analyses revealed benefits of MIS for length of stay, decreased surgical site infection rates for MIS appendectomies and cholecystectomies and higher mortality for open cholecystectomies. No consistent morbidity or mortality benefit for MIS compared to open colorectal resections was observed.

Conclusion

Unequal access to MIS exists in disfavor of older and more comorbid patients and those lacking private insurance, living in rural areas, and having lower income. Efforts should be made to ensure equal MIS access regardless of socioeconomic or geographical factors.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-08123-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.