Robotic vs laparoscopic right colectomy – the burden of age and comorbidity in perioperative outcomes: An observational study

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for nonmetastatic pT4 colon cancer: A European multicentre propensity score-matched analysis

AIM

Minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly adopted for locally advanced colon cancer. However, evidence comparing robotic (RRC) versus laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) for nonmetastatic pT4 cancers is lacking.

METHODS

This was a multicentre propensity score-matched (PSM) study of a cohort of consecutive patients with pT4 right colon cancer treated with RRC or LRC. The two surgical approaches were compared in terms of R0, number of lymph nodes harvested, intra- and postoperative complication rates, overall (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Among a total of 200 patients, 39 RRC were compared with 78 PS-matched LRC patients. The R0 rate was similar between RRC and LRC (92.3% vs. 96.2%, respectively; p = 0.399), as was the odds of retrieving 12 or more lymph nodes (97.4% vs. 96.2%; p = 1). No significant difference was noted for the mean operating time (192.9 min vs. 198.3 min; p = 0.750). However, RRC was associated with fewer conversions to laparotomy (5.1% vs. 20.5%; p = 0.032), less blood loss (36.9 vs. 95.2 mL; p < 0.0001), fewer postoperative complications (17.9% vs. 41%; p = 0.013), a shorter time to flatus (2 vs. 2.8 days; p = 0.009), and a shorter hospital stay (6.4 vs. 9.5 days; p < 0.0001) compared with LRC. These results were confirmed even when converted procedures were excluded from the analysis. The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS (p = 0.757) and DFS (p = 0.321) did not significantly differ between RRC and LRC.

CONCLUSION

Adequate oncological outcomes are observed for RRC and LRC performed for pT4 right colon cancer. However, RRC is associated with lower conversion rates and improved short-term postoperative outcomes.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Colon Cancer: Efficacy, Safety, and Outcomes-A Focus on Studies from 2020-2024

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of colon cancer has significantly advanced over the years. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the operative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of colon cancer, focusing on operative time, hospital stay, conversion rates, anastomotic leak rates, and total number lymph node harvested.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic search across four databases up to January 2024, registering our protocol with PROSPERO (CRD42024513326). We included studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for colon cancer, assessing operative time, hospital length of stay, and other perioperative outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist. Statistical analysis utilized a mix of fixed and random-effects models based on heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 50,771 patients, with 21.75% undergoing robotic surgery and 78.25% laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery was associated with longer operative times (SMD = -1.27, p < 0.00001) but shorter hospital stays (MD = 0.42, p = 0.003) compared to laparoscopic surgery. Conversion rates were significantly higher in laparoscopic procedures (OR = 2.02, p < 0.00001). No significant differences were found in anastomotic leak rates. A higher number of lymph nodes was harvested by robotic approach (MD = -0.65, p = 0.04). Publication bias was addressed through funnel plot analysis and Egger's test, indicating the presence of asymmetry (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of surgical method should be individualized, considering factors such as surgeon expertise, medical facilities, and patient-specific considerations. Future research should aim to elucidate long-term outcomes to further guide the clinical decision-making.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review of the evidence

Robotics may facilitate the realization of fully minimally invasive right hemicolectomy, including intra-corporeal anastomosis and off-midline extraction, when compared to laparoscopy. Our aim was to compare laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with robotic right hemicolectomy in terms of peri-operative outcomes. MEDLINE was searched for original studies comparing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with robotic right hemicolectomy in terms of peri-operative outcomes. The systematic review complied with the PRISMA 2020 recommendations. Variables related to patients' demographics, surgical procedures, post-operative recovery and pathological outcomes were collected and qualitatively assessed. Two-hundred and ninety-three publications were screened, 277 were excluded and 16 were retained for qualitative analysis. The majority of included studies were observational and of limited sample size. When the type of anastomosis was left at surgeon's discretion, intra-corporeal anastomosis was favoured in robotic right hemicolectomy (4/4 studies). When compared to laparoscopy, robotics allowed harvesting more lymph nodes (4/15 studies), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (5/14 studies), a shorter time to faeces (2/3 studies) and a shorter length of stay (5/14 studies), at the cost of a longer operative time (13/14 studies). Systematic review of existing studies, which are mostly non-randomized, suggests that robotic surgery may facilitate fully minimally invasive right hemicolectomy, including intra-corporeal anastomosis, and offer improved post-operative recovery.

A retrospective comparison of 90-day outcomes, length of stay, and readmissions between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colectomy

Investigations generally assess 30 days of perioperative outcomes with robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colectomy. Outcomes beyond 30 days serve as a quality metric of surgical services and an assessment of 90 days of outcomes may have greater clinical utility. The purpose of this study was to assess 90 days of outcomes, length of stay (LOS), and readmissions among patients who underwent a robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colectomy using a national database. Patients undergoing either robotic-assisted or laparoscopic colectomy were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes within PearlDiver, a national, inpatient records database from 2010 to 2019. Outcomes were defined using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) risk calculator and identified using International Classification of Disease (ICD) diagnosis codes. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square tests, and continuous variables were compared using paired t tests. Covariate-adjusted regression models were also constructed to evaluate these associations while accounting for potential confounders. A total of 82,495 patients were assessed in this study. At 90 days, patients of the laparoscopic colectomy cohort experienced a higher rate of complications than patients who underwent robotic-assisted colectomy (9.5 vs. 6.6%, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in LOS (6 vs. 6.5 days, p = 0.08) and readmissions (6.1 vs. 6.7%, p = 0.851) at 90 days. Patients undergoing robotic-assisted colectomy have a lower risk for morbidity at 90 days. Neither approach is superior for LOS nor 90 days of readmissions. Both techniques are effective minimally invasive procedures, yet patients may gain a greater risk benefit from robotic colectomy.

Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy outcomes in colon adenocarcinoma in the elderly population: a propensity-score matched analysis of the National Cancer Database

PURPOSE

While robotic surgery is more costly and involves longer intra-operative time, it has a technical advantage over laparoscopic surgery. With our aging population, patients are being diagnosed with colon cancer at older ages. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic versus robotic colectomy short- and long-term outcomes in elderly patients diagnosed with colon cancer at a national level.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Cancer Database. Subjects ≥ 80-years-old who were diagnosed with stage I to III colon adenocarcinoma and underwent a robotic or laparoscopic colectomy from 2010-2018 were included. The laparoscopic group was propensity-score matched in a 3:1 ratio to the robotic group with 9343 laparoscopic and 3116 robotic cases matched. The main outcomes evaluated were 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission rate, median survival, and length of stay.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the 30-day readmission rate (OR = 1.1, CI = 0.94-1.29, p = 0.23) or 30-day mortality rate (OR = 1.05, CI = 0.86-1.28, p = 0.63) between both groups. Robotic surgery was associated with higher overall survival (42 vs 44.7 months, p < 0.001) using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve. Robotic surgery had a statistically significant shorter length of stay (6.4 vs. 5.9 days, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic colectomies are associated with higher median survival rates and decrease in the length of hospital stay compared to laparoscopic colectomies in the elderly population.

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.

Single-port laparoscopic versus single-port robotic right hemicolectomy: Postoperative short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the short-term postoperative outcomes of single-port robotic (SPR) using da Vinci SP^® system and single port laparoscopic (SPL) right hemicolectomy and determine whether the novel SPR system is safe and feasible.

METHODS

From January 2019 to December 2020, a total of 141 patients (41 patients for SPR and 100 patients for SPL) who electively underwent right hemicolectomy for colon cancer performed by a single surgeon were included in the study.

RESULTS

The time to the first bowel movement was 3 (range, 1-4) days after surgery in the SPR group and 3 (2-9, range) days in the SPL group (p = 0.017). However, there were no differences in pathologic outcomes or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

SPR is a safe and feasible surgical technique and has an advantage in the time to first postoperative bowel movement over SPL with no other complications.

Short- and Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic- versus Robotic-Assisted Right Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to revise current comparative literature systematically. Methods: A systematic review of comparative studies published between 2000 to 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term oncological results. Secondary endpoints consist of blood loss, conversion rates, complications, time to first flatus, hospital stay and incisional hernia rate. Results: 25 of 322 studies were considered for data extraction. A total of 16,099 individual patients who underwent RRC (n = 1842) or LRC (n = 14,257) between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRC group (LRC 165.31 min ± 43.08 vs. RRC 207.38 min ± 189.13, MD: −42.01 (95% CI: −51.06−32.96), p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the RRC group (LRC 63.57 ± 35.21 vs. RRC 53.62 ± 34.02, MD: 10.03 (95% CI: 1.61−18.45), p = 0.02) as well as conversion rate (LRC 1155/11,629 vs. RRC 94/1534, OR: 1.65 (1.28−2.13), p < 0.001) and hospital stay (LRC 6.15 ± 31.77 vs. RRC 5.31 ± 1.65, MD: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.29−1.38), p = 0.003). Oncological long-term results did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: The advantages of robotic colorectal procedures were clearly demonstrated. RRC can be regarded as safe and feasible. Most of the included studies were retrospective with a limited level of evidence. Further randomized trials would be suitable.

Comparison of clinical efficacy of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy for right colon tumor: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of robotic right colectomy (RRC) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) in the treatment of right colon tumor.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of science, EMBASE ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register for studies (studies published between January 2011 and June 2020). The included studies compared the clinical efficacy of RRC and LRC in the treatment of right colon tumor, and analyzed the perioperative data.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 10 studies involving 1180 patients who underwent 2 surgical procedures, RRC and LRC. This study showed that compared with LRC, there was no significant difference in first flatus passage (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.37, 95% CI: -1.09-0.36, P = .32), hospital length of stay (WMD: -0.23, 95% CI: -0.73-0.28, P = .32), reoperation (OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 0.67-4.10, P = .27), complication (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60-1.14, P = .25), mortality (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.02-11.22, P = .63), wound infection (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.34-1.25, P = .20), and anastomotic leak (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.33-1.63, P = .44). This study showed that compared with LRC, the lymph nodes retrieved (WMD: 1.47, 95% CI: -0.00-2.94, P = .05) of RRC were similar, with slight advantages, and resulted in longer operative time (WMD: 65.20, 95% CI: 53.40-77.01, P < .00001), less estimated blood loss (WMD: -13.43, 95% CI: -20.65-6.21, P = .0003), and less conversion to open surgery (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.17-0.54, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

RRC is equivalent to LRC with respect to first flatus passage, hospital length of stay, reoperation, complication, and results in less conversion to LRC.