Cost implications and oncological outcomes for laparoscopic versus open surgery for right hemicolectomy

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Procedural and post-operative complications associated with laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery for right-sided colonic cancer resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the procedural and post-operative complications (POC) associated with laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery for right-sided colonic cancer resection.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Google scholar for English studies comparing the POC in patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery (OS) for right colonic cancer. Data were assessed by the Cochrane-based RevMan 5.4 software (The Cochrane Community, London, UK). Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to represent the results for continuous variables, whereas risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs were used for dichotomous data.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies involving a total number of 3410 participants with right colonic carcinoma were included in this analysis. One thousand five hundred and fifteen participants were assigned to undergo invasive laparoscopic surgery whereas 1895 participants were assigned to the open abdominal surgery. Our results showed that the open resection was associated with a shorter length of surgery (MD: 48.63, 95% CI: 30.15-67.12; P = .00001) whereas laparoscopic intervention was associated with a shorter hospital stay [MD (-3.09), 95% CI [-5.82 to (-0.37)]; P = .03]. In addition, POC such as anastomotic leak (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.60-1.55; P = .88), abdominal abscess (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.52-2.49; P = .75), pulmonary embolism (RR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.09-1.69; P = .21) and deep vein thrombosis (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.39-2.28; P = .89) were not significantly different. Paralytic ileus (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.67-1.11; P = .26), intra-abdominal infection (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.15-4.48; P = .82), pulmonary complications (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.57-1.20; P = .32), cardiac complications (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.42-1.27; P = .27) and urological complications (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.52-1.33; P = .44) were also similarly manifested. Our analysis also showed 30-day re-admission and re-operation, and mortality to be similar between laparoscopic versus OS for right colonic carcinoma resection. However, surgical wound infection (RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.50-0.86; P = .002) was significantly higher with the OS.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, laparoscopic surgery was almost comparable to OS in terms of post-operative outcomes for right-sided colonic cancer resection and was not associated with higher unwanted outcomes. Therefore, laparoscopic intervention should be considered as safe as the open abdominal surgery for right-sided colonic cancer resection, with a decreased hospital stay.