Current status of robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A bird's eye view

Propensity matched analysis of robotic and laparoscopic operations for mid-low rectal cancer: short-term comparison of anal function and oncological outcomes

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer, while in some respects equivalent or even preferable to open surgery, is challenged in specific conditions where the tumor is located in the middle and lower third of the rectum. Robotic surgery equipped with a superior arm of machinery and gained better visualization can compensate for the deficiency of the laparoscopic approach. This study adopted a propensity matched analysis to compare the functional and oncological short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic surgery. All patients who underwent proctectomy have been collected prospectively between December 2019 and November 2022. After censoring for inclusion criteria, we performed a propensity matching analysis. A detailed collection of post-operative examination indicators was performed, while the K-M survival curves were plotted to analyze post-operative oncology outcomes. The LARS scale was designed to evaluate the anal function of patients in the form of questionnaires. Totally, 215 patients underwent robotic operations while 1011 patients selected laparoscopic operations. Patients matched 1∶1 by propensity score were divided into the robotic and laparoscopic groups, 210 cases were included in each group. All patients underwent a follow-up for a median period of 18.3 months. Robotic surgery was connected with an enhanced recovery including the earlier time to first flatus passage without ileostomy (P = 0.050), the earlier time to liquid diet without ileostomy (P = 0.040), lower incidence of urinary retention (P = 0.043), better anal function 1 month after LAR without ileostomy (P < 0.001), longer operative time (\P = 0.042), compared with laparoscopic operations. The oncological outcomes and occurrence of other complications were comparable between the two approaches. For mid-low rectal cancer, robotic surgery could be recognized as an effective technique with identical short-term outcomes of oncology and better anal function in comparison to laparoscopic surgery. However, multi-center studies with larger samples are expected to validate the long-term outcomes of robotic surgery.

Comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic left-sided colorectal cancer resections

Robotic assisted surgery (RAS) has become increasingly adopted in colorectal cancer surgery. This study aims to compare robotic and laparoscopic approaches to left sided colorectal resections in terms of surgical outcomeswith no formal enhanced recovery programme. All patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic left sided or rectal (high and low anterior resection) cancer surgery at a single tertiary referral centre over 3 years were included.A total of 184 consecutive patients from July 2017 to December 2020 were included in this study, with 40.2% (n=74/184) undergoing RAS. The median age at time of surgery was 68 years (IQR 60-73 years). RAS had a significantly shorter length of median stay of 3 days, compared to 5 days in the conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) group (p<0.001). RAS had a significantly lower rate of conversion to open surgery (0% vs 16.4%, p<0.001). The median operative time was also shorter in RAS (308 minutes), compared to CLS (326 minutes, p=0.019). The overall rate of any complication was 16.8%, with the RAS experiencing a lower complication rate (12.2% vs 20.0%, p=0.041). There was no significant difference in anastomotic leak rates between the two groups (4.0% vs 5.5%, p=0.673), or in terms of complete resection (R0) (robotic 98.6%, laparoscopic 100%, p=0.095). Robotic left sided colorectal surgery delivers equivalent oncological resection compared to laparoscopic approaches, with the added benefits of reduced length of stay and lower rates of conversion to open surgery. This has both clinical and healthcare economic benefits.

Index cost comparison of laparoscopic vs robotic surgery in colon and rectal cancer resection: a retrospective financial investigation of surgical methodology innovation at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic assisted colorectal cancer resection (R-CR) has become increasingly commonplace in contrast to traditional laparoscopic cancer resection (L-CR). The aim of this study was to compare the total direct costs of R-CR to that of L-CR and to compare the groups with respect to costs related to LOS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colon and/or rectal cancer resection via R-CR or L-CR instrumentation between January 1, 2015 and December 31 2018, at our institution, were evaluated and compared. Primary outcomes were overall cost, supply cost, operating time and cost, postoperative length of stay (LOS), and postoperative LOS cost. Secondary outcomes were readmission within 30 days and mortality during the surgery.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty R-CR (mean age 64.9 ± 12.4 years) and 258 L-CR (mean age 66.4 ± 15.5 years) patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall mean direct cost between R-CR and L-CR was significantly higher ($8756 vs $7776 respectively, p=0.001) as well as the supply cost per case ($3789 vs $2122, p < 0.001). Operating time was also higher for R-CR than L-CR (224 min vs 187 min, p = 0.066) but LOS was slightly lower (5.08 days vs 5.55 days, p = 0.113).

CONCLUSIONS

Cost is the main obstacle to easy and widespread use of the platform at this junction, though new developments and competition could very well reduce costs. Supply cost was the main reason for increased costs with robotic resection.

Robotic-assisted completion cholecystectomy: A safe and effective approach to a challenging surgical scenario - A single center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Reoperation following a previous subtotal or aborted cholecystectomy presents a challenging surgical scenario that has traditionally required an open completion cholecystectomy. The aim of this study was to describe an institutional experience with a robotic-assisted approach to completion cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A database was retrospectively audited to identify all patients who underwent robotic-assisted cholecystectomy performed by two hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons at a single centre from 2010 to 2019.

RESULTS

Twenty six patients who underwent a robotic-assisted completion cholecystectomy were identified. Median operative time was 142 min (48-247 min) with a blood loss of 50 cc (0-500 cc). Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo ≤ II 90 days) occurred in three patients (11.5%) with no major complication or mortality reported. Median hospital length of stay was 1 day (0-6 days) with one patient readmitted.

CONCLUSION

This study represents to our knowledge the largest series of robotic-assisted completion cholecystectomies to date. The robotic approach appears to be a safe and effective procedure associated with a low morbidity and high success rate.

Colorectal robotic surgery: INCA's experience

Introduction Minimally invasive surgery has revolutionized surgical management in the treatment of colorectal neoplasms, reducing morbidity and mortality, hospitalization, inactivity time and minimizing cost, as well as providing adequate oncological results when compared to the conventional approach. Robotic surgery, with Da Vinci Platform, emerges as a step ahead for its potentials. The objective of this article is to report the single institutional experience with the use of Da Vinci Platform in robotic colorectal surgeries performed at a reference center in oncological surgery in Brazil.

Materials and methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on the prospective database of patients from the institution submitted to robotic surgery for treatment of colorectal cancer from July 2012 to September 2017. Clinical and surgical variables were analyzed as predictors of morbidity and mortality.

Results A total of 117 patients underwent robotic surgery. The complications related to surgery occurred in 33 patients (28%), the most frequent being anastomotic fistula and surgical wound infection, which corresponded to 11% and 3%, respectively. Conversion rate was 1.7%. Median length of stay was 5 days. The only variable associated with increase of complications and death risk was BMI >30, with p-value of 0.038 and 0.027, respectively.

Conclusion Robotic surgery is safe and feasible for approaching colorectal cancer surgeries, presenting satisfactory results regarding length of hospital stay and rate of operative complications, as well as presenting a low rate of conversion. Obesity has been shown to be a risk factor for surgical complication in robotic colorectal surgery.

Effective implementation and adaptation of structured robotic colorectal programme in a busy tertiary unit

BACKGROUND

Safety and feasibility of robotic colorectal surgery has been reported as increasing over the last decade. However safe implementation and adaptation of such a programme with comparable morbidities and acceptable oncological outcomes remains a challenge in a busy tertiary unit. We present our experience of implementation and adaptation of a structured robotic colorectal programme in a high-volume center in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Two colorectal surgeons underwent a structured robotic colorectal training programme consisting of time on simulation console, dry and wet laboratory courses, case observation, and initial mentoring. Data were collected on consecutive robotic colorectal cancer resections over a period of 12 months and compared with colorectal cancer resections data of the same surgeons' record prior to the adaptation of the new technique. Patient demographics including age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (ASA), Clavien-Dindo grading, previous abdominal surgeries, and BMI were included. Short-term outcomes including conversion to open, length of stay, return to theatre, 30- and 90-days mortality, blood loss, and post-operative analgesia were recorded. Tumour site, TNM staging, diverting stoma, neo-adjuvant therapy, total mesorectal excision (TME) grading and positive resection margins (R1) were compared. p values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Ninety colorectal cancer resections were performed with curative intent from June 2018 to June 2020. Thirty robotic colorectal cancer resections (RCcR) were performed after adaption of programme and were compared with 60 non-robotic colorectal cancer resections (N-RCcR) prior to implementation of technique. There was no conversion in the RCcR group; however, in N-RCcR group, five had open resection from start and the rest had laparoscopic surgery. In laparoscopic group, there were six (10.9%) conversions to open (two adhesions, three multi-visceral involvements, one intra-operative bleed). Male-to-female ratio was 20:09 in RCcR group and 33:20 in N-RCcR groups. No significant differences in gender (p = 0.5), median age (p = 0.47), BMI (p = 0.64) and ASA scores (p = 0.72) were present in either groups. Patient characteristics between the two groups were comparable aside from an increased proportion of rectal and sigmoid cancers in RCcR group. Mean operating time, and returns to theaters were comparable in both groups. Complications were fewer in RCcR group as compared to N-RCcR (16.6% vs 25%). RCcR group patients have reduced length of stay (5 days vs 7 days) but this is not statistically significant. Estimated blood loss and conversion to open surgery was significantly lesser in the robotic group (p < 0.01). The oncological outcomes from surgery including TNM, resection margin status, lymph node yield and circumferential resection margin (for rectal cancers) were all comparable. There was no 30-day mortality in either group.

CONCLUSION

Implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery is safe and effective in a busy tertiary center through a structured training programme with comparable short-term survival and oncological outcomes during learning curve.

Population demographics in geographic proximity to hospitals with robotic platforms do not correlate with disparities in access to robotic surgery

BACKGROUND

Disparities in access to robotic surgery have been shown on the local, regional, and national level. This study aims to see if the location of hospitals with robotic platforms (HWR) correlates with population trends to explain the disparity in access to robotic surgery.

METHODS

Hospitals with da Vinci surgical systems were identified by compiling data from the publicly available da Vinci surgeon locator website. Demographic, and economic data were compiled. Multivariate logistic regression and place-based analysis were used to determine population characteristics associated with geographic proximity to HWR.

RESULTS

The United States has 1971 HWR (5.93 hospitals with robots per 1 million people). The states with the most HWR are Texas (203), California (175), and Florida (162). Multivariate logistic regression analysis of Texas counties determined population (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.40-3.38) education level (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.07-3.21), and urban designation (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.31) remained significantly associated with HWR. When applied to a national level, population remained associated with higher numbers of HWR (R = 0.945), however level of education and urbanization were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this study of population-level data, disparities in access to robotic surgery seen in prior literature cannot be explained exclusively by sociodemographic factors related to the geographic proximity of HWR. This suggests other biases are involved in the lack of robotic procedures performed among minority and underprivileged populations.

4K ultra HD technology reduces operative time and intraoperative blood loss in colorectal laparoscopic surgery

Background: HD systems are routinely used in laparoscopic surgery, 4K ultra HD monitors are mainly available within specialized, high-volume laparoscopic centers. The higher resolution of 4K ultra HD video could upgrade the surgical performance improving intraoperative and post-operative outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective comparative analysis of intraoperative parameters and post-operative outcomes in a cohort of patients operated on for elective laparoscopic procedures for colo-rectal cancer during two different time frames: 2017 procedures performed using the Visera Elite full HD technology (® Olympus America, Medical) and the 2018 procedures performed the Visera 4K Ultra HD System (® Olympus America, Medical). Results: There was a statistically significant reduction in operative time in patients operated on with the 4K ultra HD technology compared to HD technology (p < 0.05). Intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced in patients operated in 2018 (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in complication rate and postoperative outcomes between the two groups.

Expert consensus on a train-the-trainer curriculum for robotic colorectal surgery

AIM

Robotic techniques are being increasingly used in colorectal surgery. There is, however, a lack of training opportunities and structured training programmes. Robotic surgery has specific problems and challenges for trainers and trainees. Ergonomics, specific skills and user-machine interfaces are different from those in traditional laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to establish expert consensus on the requirements for a robotic train-the-trainer curriculum amongst robotic surgeons and trainers.

METHOD

This is a modified Delphi-type study involving 14 experts in robotic surgery teaching. A reiterating 19-item questionnaire was sent out to the same group and agreement levels analysed. A consensus of 0.8 or higher was considered to be high-level agreement.

RESULTS

Response rates were 93-100% and most items reached high levels of agreement within three rounds. Specific requirements for a robotic faculty development curriculum included maximizing dual-console teaching, theatre team training, nontechnical skills training, patient safety, user-machine interface training and telementoring.

CONCLUSION

A clear need for the development of a train-the-trainer curriculum has been identified. Further research is needed to assess feasibility, effectiveness and clinical impact of a robotic train-the-trainer curriculum.

TME for rectal cancer: consecutive 70 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique-cumulative experience in a single centre

From January 2011 to December 2015, 70 consecutive patients underwent either laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic surgery (RS) total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy. Data were prospectically recorded in a dedicated local database including ASA score, age, operative time, conversion rate, re-operation rate, early complications, length of stay, and pathological results. We enrolled 70 consecutive patients, 35 treated with LS (18 M, 17 F), 35 treated with RS (23 M, 12 F). Median total operative time was 225 min in LS group (IQR 194-255) and 252.5 min for RS group (IQR 214-300). Median first flatus time was 2 days for LS group (IQR 1-3) and 1 day for RS group (IQR 1-2). Stool discharge time (median) was 4 days for LS group (IQR 2-5) and 2 days for RS group (IQR 1-3). Length of stay (median) was 8 days in LS group (IQR 7-10) and 7 days in RS group (IQR 5-8). It was not found any statistically significant difference between the two groups when we analyzed the number nodes harvested the postoperative complications. The 30 day mortality was 0% in both two groups. The conversion rate for LS group was 23% (8/35 pts) and that for RS group was 0% (0/35). The RS may overcome technical limitations of LS. In our experience, it is a feasible and safe technique, it achieves better clinical outcomes due to the lower conversion rate compared to LS, although with higher costs.

Critical analysis of the literature investigating urogenital function preservation following robotic rectal cancer surgery

AIM

To analyses the current literature regarding the urogenital functional outcomes of patients receiving robotic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of electronic databases was performed in October 2015. The following search terms were applied: “rectal cancer” or “colorectal cancer” and robot* or “da Vinci” and sexual or urolog* or urinary or erect* or ejaculat* or impot* or incontinence. All original studies examining the urological and/or sexual outcomes of male and/or female patients receiving robotic rectal cancer surgery were included. Reference lists of all retrieved articles were manually searched for further relevant articles. Abstracts were independently searched by two authors.

RESULTS

Fifteen original studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 1338 patients were included; 818 received robotic, 498 laparoscopic and 22 open rectal cancer surgery. Only 726 (54%) patients had their urogenital function assessed via means of validated functional questionnaires. From the included studies, three found that robotic rectal cancer surgery leads to quicker recovery of male urological function and five of male sexual function as compared to laparoscopic surgery. It is unclear whether robotic surgery offers favourable urogenital outcomes in the long run for males. In female patients only two studies assessed urological and three sexual function independently to that of males. In these studies there was no difference identified between patients receiving robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, in females the presented evidence was very limited making it impossible to draw any substantial conclusions.

CONCLUSION

There seems to be a trend towards earlier recovery of male urogenital function following robotic surgery. To evaluate this further, larger well designed studies are required.

Developing a robotic colorectal cancer surgery program: understanding institutional and individual learning curves

IMPORTANCE

Robotic colorectal resection continues to gain in popularity. However, limited data are available regarding how surgeons gain competency and institutions develop programs.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the number of cases required for establishing a robotic colorectal cancer surgery program.

DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

Cancer center.

PATIENTS

We reviewed 418 robotic-assisted resections for colorectal adenocarcinoma from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2014, by surgeons at a single institution. The individual surgeon's and institutional learning curve were examined. The earliest adopter, Surgeon 1, had the highest volume. Surgeons 2-4 were later adopters. Surgeon 5 joined the group with robotic experience.

INTERVENTIONS

A cumulative summation technique (CUSUM) was used to construct learning curves and define the number of cases required for the initial learning phase. Perioperative variables were analyzed across learning phases.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Case numbers for each stage of the learning curve.

RESULTS

The earliest adopter, Surgeon 1, performed 203 cases. CUSUM analysis of surgeons' experience defined three learning phases, the first requiring 74 cases. Later adopters required 23-30 cases for their initial learning phase. For Surgeon 1, operative time decreased from 250 to 213.6 min from phase 1-3 (P = 0.008), with no significant changes in intraoperative complication or leak rate. For Surgeons 2-4, operative time decreased from 418 to 361.9 min across the two phases (P = 0.004). Their intraoperative complication rate decreased from 7.8 to 0 % (P = 0.03); the leak rate was not significantly different (9.1 vs. 1.5 %, P = 0.07), though it may be underpowered given the small number of events.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that establishing a robotic colorectal cancer surgery program requires approximately 75 cases. Once a program is well established, the learning curve is shorter and surgeons require fewer cases (25-30) to reach proficiency. These data suggest that the institutional learning curve extends beyond a single surgeon's learning experience.

Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

Over the past few decades, robotic surgery has developed from a futuristic dream to a real, widely used technology. Today, robotic platforms are used for a range of procedures and have added a new facet to the development and implementation of minimally invasive surgeries. The potential advantages are enormous, but the current progress is impeded by high costs and limited technology. However, recent advances in haptic feedback systems and single-port surgical techniques demonstrate a clear role for robotics and are likely to improve surgical outcomes. Although robotic surgeries have become the gold standard for a number of procedures, the research in colorectal surgery is not definitive and more work needs to be done to prove its safety and efficacy to both surgeons and patients.

The circumferential resection margins status: A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer (RC) is now widely performed via the laparoscopic approach, but robotic-assisted surgery may overcome some limitations of laparoscopy in RC treatment. We compared the rate of positive circumferential margins between robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision (TME) for RC in our institution.

METHODS

Mid and low rectal adenocarcinoma patients consecutively submitted to robotic surgery were compared to laparoscopic and open approach. From our prospective database, 59 patients underwent robotic-assisted rectal surgery from 2012 to 2015 (RTME group) were compared to our historical control group comprising 200 open TME (OTME group) and 41 laparoscopic TME (LTME group) approaches from July 2008 to February 2012. Primary endpoint was to compare the rate of involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) and the mean CRM between the three groups. Secondary endpoint was to compare the mean number of resected lymph nodes between the three groups.

RESULTS

CRM involvement was demonstrated in 20 patients (15.5%) in OTME, 4 (16%) in LTME and 9 (16.4%) in the RTME (p = 0.988). The mean CRM in OTME, LTME and RTME were respectively 0.6 cm (0-2.7), 0.7 cm (0-2.0) and 0.6 cm (0-2.0) (p = 0.960). Overall mean LN harvest was 14 (0-56); 16 (0-52) in OTME, 13 (1-56) in LTME and 10 (0-45) in RTME (p = 0.156).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that robotic TME has the same oncological short-term results when compared to the open and laparoscopic technique, and it could be safely offered for the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer.

Oncologic Outcomes of Extended Robotic Resection for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery for locally advanced rectal cancers beyond the plane of total mesorectal excision (TME) or extramesorectal nodal involvement should include complete resection. This study evaluated the oncologic feasibility and safety of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer beyond the TME plane.

METHODS

The study analyzed the operative, perioperative, and oncologic outcomes for all patients who underwent robot-assisted extended rectal cancer surgery from April 2009 to February 2015.

RESULTS

Of 36 patients, 22 underwent multivisceral en bloc resection, and 18 underwent extramesorectal lymph node (EMRLN) dissection. The median tumor location was 5 cm [interquartile range (IQR), 2.2-9.0 cm] from the anal verge. A total of 32 patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy. The median body mass index of the patients was 26.8 kg/m(2) (IQR, 24.0-31.9 kg/m(2)). Conversion was required for one patient because of inability to tolerate the Trendelenburg position. All the resections were R0, and there were no incomplete TMEs. The vagina and prostate or periprostatic structures were the most commonly resected (n = 13/22), and the lateral pelvic nodes were the most common EMRLNs (n = 16/18). The median numbers of examined mesorectal lymph nodes and EMRLNs were respectively 20 (IQR, 18.0-28.0) and 2.5 (IQR, 1.0-6.0). The median hospital stay was 4 days (IQR, 3.0-5.5 days). Six patients experienced Clavien-Dindo grade 3 complications, the most common of which was deep abscess (n = 5, 13.8 %). The 5-year actuarial local recurrence rate was 3.6 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive resection for rectal cancer can be performed with extended lymph node dissection or en bloc multivisceral resection using the surgical robot in selected patients. This technique is feasible and has acceptable morbidity.

Dealing with robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current status and perspectives

The laparoscopic approach for treatment of rectal cancer has been proven feasible and oncologically safe, and is able to offer better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures, mainly in terms of reduced length of hospital stay and time to return to working activity. In spite of this, the laparoscopic technique is usually practised only in high-volume experienced centres, mainly because it requires a prolonged and demanding learning curve. It has been estimated that over 50 operations are required for an experienced colorectal surgeon to achieve proficiency with this technique. Robotic surgery enables the surgeon to perform minimally invasive operations with better vision and more intuitive and precise control of the operating instruments, thus promising to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with standard laparoscopy. It has high-definition three-dimensional vision, it translates the surgeon’s hand movements into precise movements of the instruments inside the patient, the camera is held and moved by the first surgeon, and a fourth robotic arm is available as a fixed retractor. The aim of this review is to summarise the current data on clinical and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer, focusing on short- and long-term results, and providing original data from the authors’ centre.