Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery (RS) is gaining prominence in colorectal procedures owing to advantages like three-dimensional vision and enhanced dexterity, particularly in rectal surgery. Although recent reviews report similar outcomes between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and RS, this study investigates the evolving trends in outcomes over time, paralleling the increasing experience in RS.

METHODS

A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted of randomised controlled trials exploring postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing RS or LS for colorectal pathology. The primary outcome measure was postoperative complications. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Randomised controlled trials were identified from the PubMed®, Embase® and CINAHL® (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases via the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

RESULTS

Of 491 articles screened, 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of postoperative complications revealed no significant difference between RS and LS (relative risk [RR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.18, p=0.72). Meta-regression analysis of postoperative complications demonstrated a significant trend favouring RS over time (yearly change in Ln(RR): -0.0620, 95% CI: -0.1057 to -0.0183, p=0.005). Secondary outcome measures included operative time, length of stay, blood loss, conversion to open surgery, positive circumferential resection margins and lymph nodes retrieved. The only significant findings were shorter operative time favouring LS (mean difference: 41.48 minutes, 95% CI: 22.15 to 60.81 minutes, p<0.001) and fewer conversions favouring RS (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.85, p=0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

As experience in RS grows, evidence suggests an increasing safety profile for patients. Meta-regression revealed a significant temporal trend with complication rates favouring RS over LS. Heterogeneous reporting of complications hindered subgroup analysis of minor and major complications. LS remains quicker. Rising adoption of RS coupled with emerging evidence is expected to further elucidate its clinical efficacy.

Early Single-Center Experience of DaVinci® Single-Port (SP) Robotic Surgery in Colorectal Patients

Background: DaVinci® single-port (SP) robotic surgery offers several benefits compared to traditional multiport laparoscopic or robotic surgeries. One of the main advantages is that it allows for a minimally invasive approach, resulting in a single, smaller incision and reduced trauma to the patient's body, leading to less postoperative pain, faster recovery, and reduced risk of complications. The cosmesis of a single port with minimal visible scarring is also an attractive aspect to the patients; however, many surgeons use an additional port for energy device, stapler use, and drain insertion. Pure single-port surgery with one incision is still rare. Here, we share our experience of our first 10 cases using the SP robotic platform in colorectal surgery. Methods: From May 2023 to December 2023, colorectal patients who underwent SP robotic surgery were analyzed. Placement of the incision was the umbilicus for eight patients, and right lower quadrant for two patients, through which ileostomy maturation was performed. Data on perioperative parameters and postoperative outcomes were analyzed, with a median follow-up of 4.6 months (range 0.6-7.4 months). Results: A total of 10 colorectal patients underwent DaVinci® single-port robotic colorectal surgery at our institution during this period. The patient demographic was four males (40%) and six females (60%) with a median age of 63.5 years (range 50-75 years). Median body mass index (BMI) was 22.89 kg/m2 (range 19.92-26.84 kg/m2). Nine patients were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, and one patient was diagnosed with a rectal gastrointestinal tumor. One patient underwent anterior resection and cholecystectomy simultaneously. Mean operation time was 222 min (range 142-316 min), and mean wound size was 3.25 cm (range 2.5-4.5 cm). Nine patients underwent surgery with single incision through which a single-port trocar was inserted, and one patient had one additional port for drain insertion. Mean hospital stay was 6 days (range 4-8 days) with one postoperative complication of bleeding requiring transfusion, but there was no readmission within 30 days. Conclusions: Overall, our experience with single-port robotic colorectal surgery has been promising. With only one patient with additional port for drain insertion, all nine patients underwent SP-robotic surgery with single incision for colon as well as rectal surgeries. Compared to an average postoperative length of stay of 6.5-8 days in laparoscopic colorectal surgeries reported in literature, SP-robotic surgery 33showed faster recovery of 6 days highlighting its benefits in patient recovery and satisfaction.

Does robotic TME bring difference in lymph node yield and quality of TME?

BACKGROUNDS

Oncological outcomes of the robotic low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) are still under discussion. Few studies have proven that robotic TME (rTME) is a safe and equivalent method for treatment of rectal carcinoma. But there is almost no comparison between the rTME and conventional TME in terms of the number of lymph nodes obtained and the quality of the TME.

METHODS

A single institution retrospective study was designed in a cohort of 261 patients. Cohort was divided into two groups depending on the type of surgery (rTME versus TME) and within these two groups, patients were divided according to whether they underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCHRT) or did not. The primary objective of the study was to compare obtained number of the lymph nodes in specimen. Secondary objectives were comparison of the quality of the TME and the number of positive circumferential resection margins.

RESULTS

Results of the study have shown no significant difference in number of the lymph nodes obtained by the rTME and TME. There was no difference in the quality of the TME, neither in the group with the previous nCHRT nor in the group without a nCHRT.

CONCLUSION

With results from the study we consider the rTME to be non-inferior to the conventional TME. Therefore, at least identical oncological results can be expected in patients treated by the rTME.

Surgical outcomes and cost analysis of a multi-specialty robotic-assisted surgery caseload in the Australian public health system

This study aims to compare surgical outcomes and in-hospital cost between robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), laparoscopic and open approaches for benign gynaecology, colorectal and urological patients and to explore the association between cost and surgical complexity. This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing RAS, laparoscopic or open surgery for benign gynaecology, colorectal or urological conditions between July 2018 and June 2021 at a major public hospital in Sydney. Patients' characteristics, surgical outcomes and in-hospital cost variables were extracted from the hospital medical records using routinely collected diagnosis-related groups (DRG) codes. Comparison of the outcomes within each surgical discipline and according to surgical complexity were performed using non-parametric statistics. Of the 1,271 patients included, 756 underwent benign gynaecology (54 robotic, 652 laparoscopic, 50 open), 233 colorectal (49 robotic, 123 laparoscopic, 61 open) and 282 urological surgeries (184 robotic, 12 laparoscopic, 86 open). Patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (robotic or laparoscopic) presented with a significantly shorter length of hospital stay when compared to open surgical approach (P < 0.001). Rates of postoperative morbidity were significantly lower in robotic colorectal and urological procedures when compared to laparoscopic and open approaches. The total in-hospital cost of robotic benign gynaecology, colorectal and urological surgeries were significantly higher than other surgical approaches, independent of the surgical complexity. RAS resulted in better surgical outcomes, especially when compared to open surgery in patients presenting with benign gynaecology, colorectal and urological diseases. However, the total cost of RAS was higher than laparoscopic and open surgical approaches.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic colorectal surgery is becoming the preferred surgical approach for colorectal cancer (CRC). It offers several technical advantages over conventional laparoscopy that could improve patient outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we compared robotic and laparoscopic surgery for CRC using a national cohort of patients.

METHODS

Using the colectomy-targeted ACS-NSQIP database (2015-2020), colorectal procedures for malignant etiologies were identified by CPT codes for right colectomy (RC), left colectomy (LC), and low anterior resection (LAR). Optimal pair matching was performed. "Textbook outcome" was defined as the absence of 30-day complications, readmission, or mortality and a length of stay < 5 days.

RESULTS

We included 53,209 out of 139,759 patients screened for eligibility. Laparoscopic-to-robotic matching of 2:1 was performed for RC and LC, and 1:1 for LAR. The largest standardized mean difference was 0.048 after matching. Robotic surgery was associated with an increased rate of textbook outcomes compared to laparoscopy in RC and LC, but not in LAR (71% vs. 64% in RC, 75% vs. 68% in LC; p < 0.001). Robotic LAR was associated with increased major morbidity (7.1% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.012). For all three procedures, the mean conversion rate of robotic surgery was lower than laparoscopy (4.3% vs. 9.2%; p < 0.001), while the mean operative time was higher for robotic (225 min vs. 177 min; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery for CRC offers an advantage over conventional laparoscopy by improving textbook outcomes in RC and LC. This advantage was not found in robotic LAR, which also showed an increased risk of serious complications. The associations highlighted in our study should be considered in the discussion of the surgical management of patients with colorectal cancer.

Robotic colorectal surgery in the emergent diverticulitis setting: is it safe? A review of large national database

BACKGROUND

As robotic colorectal surgery continues to advance in conjunction with improved recovery protocols, we began implementing robotic surgery (RS) as an option for emergent diverticulitis surgery. Our hospital system utilizes the Da Vinci Xi system, and staff are required to undergo training, making emergent colorectal surgery a feasible option. However, it is essential to determine the safety with reproducibility of our experiences.

METHODS

A de-identified retrospective review was performed of Intuitive's national database which obtained data from 262 facilities from January 2018 through December 2021. This identified over 22,000 emergent colorectal surgeries. Of those, over 2500 were performed for diverticulitis in which 126 were RS, 446 laparoscopic surgery (LS), and 1952 open surgery (OS). Clinical outcome metrics including conversion rates, anastomotic leaks, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of stay, mortality, and readmissions were obtained. The cohort was defined by patients who were seen in the emergency department (ED) with diverticulitis and proceeded to have a sigmoid colectomy within 24 h of ED arrival.

RESULTS

RS was associated with increased operating time (RS 262, LS 207, OS 182 min), but data has shown many benefits of emergent RS compared to OS. We identified significant decreases in ICU admission rates (OS 19.0%, RS 9.5%, p = 0.01) and anastomotic leak rates (OS 4.4%, RS 0.8%, p = 0.04), with borderline improvement in overall length of stay (OS 9.9, RS 8.9 days, p = 0.05). When compared with LS, RS showed many comparable results. However, RS witnessed a statistically significant improvement in anastomotic leak rates (LS 4.5%, RS 0.8%, p = 0.04). Importantly, there was a striking difference in conversion rates to OS. LS converted over 28.7% of cases to OS, whereas RS only converted 7.9%, p = 0.000005.

CONCLUSION

Given these findings, RS is another MIS tool that could be a safe and feasible option for the acute management of emergent diverticulitis.

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.

A Review of Robotic Surgery in Colorectal Surgery

Colorectal surgery is a treatment for colorectal lesions. Technological advancements have given the rise to robotic colorectal surgery, a procedure that limits excessive blood loss via 3D pin-point precision capabilities during surgeries. The aim of this study is to review robotic surgery in colorectal treatment procedures in order to dictate its ultimate merits. This is a literature review utilising PubMed and Google Scholar; it only includes case studies and case reviews related to robotic colorectal surgeries. Literature reviews are excluded. We incorporated abstracts from all articles and full publications were examined to compare the benefits of robotic surgery in colorectal treatments. The number of articles reviewed was 41 literature spanning from 2003 to 2022. We found that robotic surgeries yielded finer marginal resections, greater amounts of lymph node resections and earlier recovery of bowel functions. The patients also spent less time in hospital after surgery. The obstacles on the other hand are it costs longer operative hours and further training, which is expensive. Studies show robotic approach is a choice for treating rectal cancer. However further studies would be needed to conclude the best approach. This is especially true with patients treated for anterior colorectal resections. Based on the evidence it's safe to say that the upsides outweigh the downsides, but advancements and further research in robotic colorectal surgeries are still necessary to reduce operative hours and cost. Surgical societies should also take the initiative and set up effective training programmes for colorectal robotic surgeries, as trained physicians result in better treatment outcomes.

A Cost Overview of Minimally Invasive Total Mesorectal Excision in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Population-based Cohort in Experienced Centres

Background

Total mesorectal excision has been the gold standard for the operative management of rectal cancer. The most frequently used minimally invasive techniques for surgical resection of rectal cancer are laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal total mesorectal excision. As studies comparing the costs of the techniques are lacking, this study aims to provide a cost overview.

Method

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent total mesorectal resection between 2015 and 2017 at 11 dedicated centers, which completed the learning curve of the specific technique. The primary outcome was total in-hospital costs of each technique up to 30 days after surgery including all major surgical cost drivers, while taking into account different team approaches in the transanal approach. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization and complication rates. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariable linear regression analysis.

Results

In total, 949 patients were included, consisting of 446 laparoscopic (47%), 306 (32%) robot-assisted, and 197 (21%) transanal total mesorectal excisions. Total costs were significantly higher for transanal and robot-assisted techniques compared to the laparoscopic technique, with median (interquartile range) for laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and transanal at €10,556 (8,642;13,829), €12,918 (11,196;16,223), and € 13,052 (11,330;16,358), respectively (P < 0.001). Also, the one-team transanal approach showed significant higher operation time and higher costs compared to the two-team approach. Length of stay and postoperative complications did not differ between groups.

Conclusion

Transanal and robot-assisted approaches show higher costs during 30-day follow-up compared to laparoscopy with comparable short-term clinical outcomes. Two-team transanal approach is associated with lower total costs compared to the transanal one-team approach.

Increased cost burden associated with robot-assisted rectopexy: do patient outcomes justify increased expenditure?

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgical techniques have flourished over the years, with refinement in instrumentation and optics allowing for adaptation and increasing utilization across surgical fields. Transabdominal rectopexy with mesh for rectal prolapse may stand to benefit significantly from the use of a robotic platform. However, increased operative times and immediate associated costs of robotic surgery may provide a counterargument to widespread adoption.

METHODS

To determine which approach to the treatment of rectal prolapse, laparoscopic or robotic, is more cost effective and provides better outcomes with fewer complications, a retrospective review was performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from May 2013 to December 2020. Twenty-two patients underwent transabdominal mesh rectopexy through a robot-assisted DaVinci platform (Intuitive Sunnyvale, CA), and thirty through a laparoscopic platform. Main outcome measures included operative, hospital, and total cost as defined by total charges billed. Secondary outcomes included rate of recurrence, intra-operative complications, median operative time, post-operative complications, average hospital length of stay, inpatient pain medication usage, and post-operative functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Cost analysis for robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectopexy demonstrated operating room costs of $46,118 ± $9329 for the robotic group, versus $33,090 ± $15,395 (p = 0.002) for the laparoscopic group. Inpatient hospital costs were $60,723 ± $20,170 vs. $40,798 ± $14,325 (p = 0.001), and total costs were $106,841 ± $25,513 vs. $73,888 ± $28,129 (p ≤ 0.001). When secondary outcomes were compared for the robotic versus laparoscopic groups, there were no differences in any of the aforementioned outcome variables except for operative time, which was 79 min longer in the robotic group (p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted mesh rectopexy demonstrated no clinical benefit over traditional laparoscopic mesh rectopexy, with significantly higher operative and hospital costs. A reduction in the acquisition and maintenance costs for robotic surgery is needed before large-scale adoption and implementation of the robotic platform for this procedure.

Robotic-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Proctectomy with Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis for Ulcerative Colitis: An Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes from a Tertiary Referral Center

Background: Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery is gaining popularity, but limited data are available on the safety, efficacy, and cost of robotic-assisted restorative proctectomy with the construction of an ileal pouch and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods: A retrospective study was conducted comparing consecutively performed robotic-assisted and laparoscopic proctectomy with IPAA between 1 January 2016 and 31 September 2021. In total, 67 adult patients with medically refractory UC without proven dysplasia or carcinoma underwent surgery: 29 operated robotically and 38 laparoscopically. Results: There were no differences between both groups regarding postoperative complications within 30 days according to Clavien-Dindo classification’ grades 1−5 (51.7% vs. 42.1%, p = 0.468) and severe grades 3b−5 (17.2% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.485). Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with an increased urinary tract infection rate (n = 7, 24.1% vs. n = 1, 2.6%; p = 0.010) and longer operative time (346 ± 65 min vs. 281 ± 66 min; p < 0.0001). Surgery costs were higher when operated robotically (median EUR 10.377 [IQR EUR 4.727] vs. median EUR 6.689 [IQR EUR 3.170]; p < 0.0001), resulting in reduced total inpatient profits (median EUR 110 [IQR EUR 4.971] vs. median EUR 2.853 [IQR EUR 5.386]; p = 0.001). Conclusion: Robotic-assisted proctectomy with IPAA can be performed with comparable short-term clinical outcomes to laparoscopy but is associated with a longer duration of surgery and higher surgery costs. As experience increases, some advantages may become evident regarding operative time, postoperative recovery, and length of stay. The robotic procedure might then become cost-efficient.

All-cause 30- and 90-day inpatient readmission costs associated with 4 minimally invasive colon surgery approaches: A propensity-matched analysis using Medicare and commercial claims data

Background

The purpose of this study is to assess which minimally invasive colon surgery approach may be associated with the least 30- and 90-day inpatient readmission costs from a payer perspective.

Methods

This retrospective claims analysis included adult Medicare and commercially insured beneficiaries who underwent minimally invasive sigmoid, left, or right colon surgery between January 2016 and December 2019. Two cohorts were created based on the use of near-infrared fluorescence (NIF) and were propensity-score matched 1 NIF:5 NoNIF. Four subgroups were then created based on the presence of robotics (R): NIF-NoR, NIF-R, NoNIF-R, and NoNIF-NoR.

Results

A total of 50,148 patients were identified, of which 165 (0.3%) indicated the use of NIF and 49,983 (99.7%) did not. After propensity score matching, 990 patients were included (NIF cohort: 165; NoNIF cohort: 825). Of the 165 NIF patients, 87 were robotic-assisted and 78 were conventional laparoscopy. Of the 825 NoNIF patients, 136 were robotic-assisted and 689 were conventional laparoscopy. Postindex inpatient readmission costs were significantly different between the NIF and NoNIF cohorts with the NIF cohort having the lowest 30- and 90-day postindex readmission costs. Postindex readmission costs were also significantly different across the 4 subgroups at 30 and 90 days, with the NIF-NoR group having the lowest postindex readmission costs (all P < .05).

Conclusion

Using NIF without the robot during minimally invasive colon surgery is associated with the least 30- and 90-day inpatient readmission costs compared to the other 3 approaches. Hospitals may want to consider these potential cost savings when evaluating technologies for laparoscopic colon surgery.

Key Message

Near-infrared fluorescence (NIF) imaging without the robot during minimally invasive colon surgery may significantly save hospitals 30- and 90-day inpatient readmission costs compared to NIF with the robot, NoNIF with the robot, and NoNIF without the robot. This is important as hospitals may want to consider these cost findings in addition to capital equipment and disposable costs when evaluating technologies for laparoscopic colon surgery.

Robotic multiquadrant colorectal procedures: A single-center experience and a systematic review of the literature

Purpose

Robotic surgery has been progressively implemented for colorectal procedures but is still limited for multiquadrant abdominal resections. The present study aims to describe our experience in robotic multiquadrant colorectal surgeries and provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature investigating the outcomes of robotic total proctocolectomy (TPC), total colectomy (TC), subtotal colectomy (STC), or completion proctectomy (CP) compared to laparoscopy.

Methods

At our institution 16 consecutive patients underwent a 2- or 3-stage totally robotic total proctocolectomy (TPC) with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. A systematic review of the literature was performed to select studies on robotic and laparoscopic multiquadrant colorectal procedures. Meta-analyses were used to compare the two approaches.

Results

In our case series, 14/16 patients underwent a 2-stage robotic TPC for ulcerative colitis with a mean operative time of 271.42 (SD:37.95) minutes. No conversion occurred. Two patients developed postoperative complications. The mean hospital stay was 8.28 (SD:1.47) days with no readmissions. Mortality was nil. All patients underwent loop-ileostomy closure, and functional outcomes were satisfactory. The literature appraisal was based on 23 retrospective studies, including 736 robotic and 9,904 laparoscopic multiquadrant surgeries. In the robotic group, 36 patients underwent STC, 371 TC, 166 TPC, and 163 CP. Pooled data analysis showed that robotic TC and STC had a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.17;95% CI, 0.04–0.82; p = 0.03) than laparoscopic TC and STC. The robotic approach was associated with longer operative time for TC and STC (MD = 104.64;95% CI, 18.42–190.87; p = 0.02) and TPC and CP (MD = 38.8;95% CI, 18.7–59.06; p = 0.0002), with no differences for postoperative complications and hospital stay. Reports on urological outcomes, sexual dysfunction, and quality of life were missing.

Conclusions

Our experience and the literature suggest that robotic multiquadrant colorectal surgery is safe and effective, with low morbidity and mortality rates. Nevertheless, the overall level of evidence is low, and functional outcomes of robotic approach remain largely unknown.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022303016.

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies: intra- and postoperative outcomes of 683 patients

Background

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery has gained more and more popularity over the last years. It seems to be advantageous to laparoscopic surgery in selected situations, especially in confined regions like a narrow male pelvis in rectal surgery. Whether robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies can serve as safe training operations for less frequent, low anterior resections for rectal cancer is still under debate. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate intra- and postoperative results of robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) compared to laparoscopic (LSC) surgery in left-sided colectomies.

Methods

Between June 2015 and December 2019, 683 patients undergoing minimally invasive left-sided colectomies in two Swiss, high-volume colorectal centers were included. Intra- and postoperative outcome parameters were collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 179 patients undergoing RAL and 504 patients undergoing LSC were analyzed. Baseline characteristics showed similar results. Intraoperative complications occurred in 0.6% of RAL and 2.0% of LSC patients (p = 0.193). Differences in postoperative complications graded Dindo ≥ 3 were not statistically significant (RAL 3.9% vs. LSC 6.3%, p = 0.227). Occurrence of anastomotic leakages showed no statistically significant difference [RAL n = 2 (1.1%), LSC n = 8 (1.6%), p = 0.653]. Length of hospital stay was similar in both groups. Conversions to open surgery were significantly higher in the LSC group (6.2% vs.1.7%, p = 0.018), while stoma formation was similar in both groups [RAL n = 1 (0.6%), LSC n = 5 (1.0%), p = 0.594]. Operative time was longer in the RAL group (300 vs. 210.0 min, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies are safe and feasible compared to laparoscopic resections. Intra- and postoperative complications are similar in both groups. Most notably, the rate of anastomotic leakages is similar. Compared to laparoscopic resections, the analyzed robotic-assisted resections have longer operative times but less conversion rates. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies as training procedures for low anterior resections.

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.

Safety with Innovation in Colon and Rectal Robotic Surgery

Robotic colorectal surgery has been touted as a possible way to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and has shown promise in rectal resections, thus shifting traditional open surgeons to a minimally invasive approach. The safety, efficacy, and learning curve have been established for most colorectal applications. With this and a robust sales and marketing model, utilization of the robot for colorectal surgery continues to grow steadily. However, this disruptive technology still requires standards for training, privileging and credentialing, and safe implementation into clinical practice.

Robotic colorectal surgery and ergonomics

Improved ergonomics for the operating surgeon may be an advantage of robotic colorectal surgery. Perceived robotic ergonomic advantages in visualisation include better exposure, three-dimensional vision, surgeon camera control, and line of sight screen location. Postural advantages include seated position and freedom from the constraints of the sterile operating field. Manipulation benefits include articulated instruments with seven degrees of freedom movement, elimination of fulcrum effect, tremor filtration, and scaling of movement. Potential ergonomic detriments of robotic surgery include lack of haptic feedback, visual, and mental strain from increased operating time and interruptions to workflow from crowding.

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resections for rectal and rectosigmoid cancer: an institutional experience

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal surgery has evolved with the advent of laparoscopic techniques and now robotic-assisted surgery. There is significant literature supporting the use of laparoscopic techniques over open surgery with evidence of enhanced post-operative recovery, reduced use of opioids, smaller incisions and equivalent oncological outcomes. Robotic minimally invasive surgery addresses some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, providing surgical precision and improvements in perception and dexterity with a resulting decrease in tissue damage.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent robotic-assisted anterior resection for cancer of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction in our institution since our robotic programme began in 2017. Patient demographics were identified via electronic databases and patient charts. A matched cohort of laparoscopic cases was identified.

RESULTS

A total of 51 consecutive robotic-assisted anterior resections were identified and case matched with laparoscopic resections for comparison. Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a shorter length of stay (p = 0.04), reduced initial post-operative analgesia requirements (p < 0.01) and no significant difference in time to bowel movement or stoma functioning (p = 0.84). All patients had an R0 resection, and there was no statistical difference in lymph node yield between the groups (p = 0.14). Robotic surgery was associated with a longer operative duration (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this early experience, robotic surgery has proven feasible and safe and is comparable to laparoscopic surgery in terms of completeness of resection and recovery. As costs and operating times decline and as technology progresses, robotic surgery may one day replace traditional laparoscopic techniques.

Optimizing outcomes in colorectal surgery: cost and clinical analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches to colon resection

The use of robotics in colorectal surgery has been steadily increasing, however, reported longer operative times and increased cost has limited its widespread adoption. We investigated the cost of elective colorectal surgery based on type of anatomic resection and the impact of a standardized protocol for robotic colectomies. A retrospective review was conducted of 279 elective colectomies at a single institution between 2013 and 2017. Clinical outcomes and detailed cost data were compared based on open, laparoscopic, or robotic surgical approach and stratified by anatomic resection. Robotic, laparoscopic and open colectomy rates were 35, 34 and 31%, respectively. While total costs were similar in robotic and laparoscopic surgery, anatomic resection stratification showed that low anterior resection (LAR) was significantly cheaper ($14,093 vs $17,314). When a standardized surgical protocol was implemented for robotic colectomies, significant reductions in operative times, length of stay, total cost, and operative cost were observed. Robotic surgery may be most cost effective for elective LAR compared to laparoscopic or open approaches. A standardized surgical protocol for robotic surgery may help reduce costs by reducing operative times, operating rooms expenditure, and lengths of stay.

Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) versus robotic right colectomy (RRC) using homogeneous subgroup analyses for extra-corporeal anastomosis (EA) and intra-corporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2020 for prospective or retrospective studies comparing LRC versus RRC on at least one short- or long-term outcome. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes included operative and pathological results, survival, and total costs. LRC and RRC were compared using three homogeneous subgroups: without distinction by the type of anastomosis, EA only, and IA only. Pooled data analyses were performed using mean difference (MD) and random effects model.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 448 studies were selected. The included patients were 21,397 for the LRC group and 2796 for the RRC group. Regardless for the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter LOS, lower blood loss, lower conversion rate, shorter time to flatus, and lower overall complication rate compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the EA subgroup, RRC showed similar LOS, longer operative time, and higher costs compared with LRC, the other outcomes being similar. In the IA subgroup, RRC showed shorter LOS and longer operative time compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most included articles are retrospective, providing low-quality evidence and limiting conclusions. The more frequent use of the IA seems to explain the advantages of RRC over LRC.

Comparison of outcome and cost between the open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis using nationwide hospital record database

BACKGROUND

There are limited studies that compare the cost and outcome of robotic-assisted surgery to open and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer treatment. We aimed to compare the three surgical modalities for colon cancer treatment.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study using the population-based Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Patients with a primary diagnosis of colon cancer who underwent robotic, laparoscopic, or open surgeries between 2008 and 2014 were eligible for enrollment. We compared in-hospital mortality, complications, length of hospital stay, and cost for patients undergoing one of these three procedures using a multivariate adjusted logistic regression analysis and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of the 531,536 patients undergoing surgical treatment for colon cancer during the study period, 348,645 (65.6%) patients underwent open surgeries, 174,748 (32.9%) underwent laparoscopic surgeries, and 8143 (1.5%) underwent robotic surgeries. In-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, wound complications, general medical complications, general surgical complications, and costs of the three surgical treatment modalities. Compared to those undergoing laparoscopic surgery, patients undergoing open surgery had a higher mortality rate (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.61-3.40), more general medical complications (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.67-1.87), a longer length of hospital stay (6.60 vs. 4.36 days), and higher total cost ($18,541 vs. $14,487) in the propensity score matched cohort. Mortality rate and general medical complications were equivalent in the laparoscopic and robotic surgery groups, but the median cost was lower in the laparoscopic group ($14641 vs. $16,628 USD).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colon cancer surgery was associated with a favourable short-term outcome and lower cost compared with open surgery. Robot-assisted surgery had comparable outcomes but higher cost as compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Short-term postoperative outcomes following robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis are equivalent

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches have become the standard of care for ileal pouch-anal anastomoses (IPAA). There are few reports comparing outcomes following a laparoscopic versus robotic approach. Our aim was to determine if there were any differences in the 30-day postoperative outcomes following IPAA performed laparoscopically versus robotically.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic and robotic IPAA performed between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018 was carried out. Patients included were adult patients who underwent a proctectomy and IPAA utilizing either a laparoscopic or robotic approach. Data collected included patient demographics, operative variables, and 30-day postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients had a minimally invasive IPAA; 58 were performed laparoscopically and 74 robotically. Less than half the patients were female (n = 55; 41.7%) with a median age of 37 years (range 18-68 years). The majority of patients had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (n = 103; 78.0%) with medically refractory disease (n = 87; 65.9%). A greater proportion of patients in the laparoscopic cohort had a prolonged length of stay (n = 27; 46.6% versus n = 18; 24.3%; p < 0.001) and a two-stage approach (n = 56; 96.6% versus n = 37; 50%; p < 0.001), but there were no differences in the rates between the laparoscopic versus robotic cohorts of superficial surgical site infection (6.9% versus 6.8%; p = 0.99), peripouch abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), anastomotic leak (6.9% versus 2.7%; p = 0.21), pelvic abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), and pelvic sepsis (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), readmission (24.1% versus 17.6%; p = 0.35) or reoperation (6.9% versus 5.4%; p = 0.72). On multivariable analysis, only male sex remained predictive of prolonged length of stay, and a robotic approach trended toward a decreased rate of prolonged length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and robotic IPAA have equivalent postoperative morbidity underscoring the safety of the continued expansion of the robotic platform for pouch surgery.

The role of robotics in colorectal surgery

Robotic surgery is safe and feasible offering many potential advantages to the colorectal surgeon.

Robotic Right Colectomy for Colon Cancer: Comparison of Outcomes from a Single Institution with the ACS-NSQIP Database

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has increased in recent years for the treatment of colorectal cancer; however, it is not yet the standard of care. This study aims to compare the 30-day outcomes after robotic colectomy for right-sided colon cancer from our institution with those from a national dataset, the targeted colectomy American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective, robotic, right colon resection for stage I, II, and III colon cancer were identified within the targeted colectomy ACS-NSQIP database from 2012 to 2014. Patients meeting the same criteria were identified within a prospectively maintained institutional database from 2009 to 2015. Univariate analyses using chi-square tests and Student's t-tests were done where appropriate to compare baseline characteristics and outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

Patients at our institution had a significantly higher average number of lymph nodes retrieved (24.4 versus 20.1, P = .046). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of wound infections, anastomotic leaks, blood transfusions, unplanned return to the operating room, or prolonged length of hospital stay. There were no 30-day mortalities at our institution and only one in the ACS-NSQIP database.

CONCLUSIONS

Our institutional experience with robotic right colon resection is equivalent to that of a national sample. This study demonstrates the safety of performing robotic right hemicolectomy for the treatment of colon cancer.

Operative time and length of stay is similar between robotic assisted and laparoscopic colon and rectal resections

Robotic-assisted surgery is increasingly being utilized for colorectal surgery. Data are scarce and contradictory when outcomes are compared between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. All patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery were compared from 2011 to 2016. Outcomes between the two groups were statistically analyzed. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. 185 patients underwent laparoscopic resection and 70 underwent robotic resection. Demographics, ASA score, and BMI were similar between the two groups (p > 0.05). There was no statistical difference in median length of stay between laparoscopic and robotic colon (both 4 days; p = 0.5) and rectal (6 vs 4.5 days; p = 0.2) resections. Median operative times were also similar between the two approaches for colon (150.5 vs 169.5 min, p = 0.2) and rectal (197.0 vs 231.5 min, p = 0.9) resections. There was also no difference in operative time between the two approaches for right (median = 137 vs 130.5 min; p = 0.9) and left (median = 162.0 vs 170.5 min; p = 0.6) colectomies. Robotic surgery results in similar operative times and length of stay as laparoscopic surgery for patients undergoing colon and rectal resections.

Prior experience in laparoscopic rectal surgery can minimise the learning curve for robotic rectal resections: a cumulative sum analysis

BACKGROUND

The learning curve for robotic colorectal surgery is ill-defined. This study aimed to investigate the learning curve of experienced laparoscopic rectal surgeons when starting with robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) using cumulative sum (CUSUM) charts.

METHODS

This retrospective case series analysed patients who underwent curative and elective laparoscopic or robotic TMEs for rectal cancer performed by two surgeons. The first consecutive robotic TME cases of each surgeon were 1:1 propensity score matched to their laparoscopic TME cases using age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, T stage (AJCC) and tumour location height. The matched laparoscopic cases defined individual standards for the quality indicators: operating time, R stage, lymph node harvest, length of hospital stay and major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3-5). Deviation of more than a quarter of a standard deviation from the mean for the continuous indicators, or exceeding the observed risk for the binary indicators was defined as off-target with an upward inflection in the CUSUM curve.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2015, 384 (294 laparoscopic; 90 robotic) TMEs met the inclusion criteria. Surgeon A performed 206 (70.1%) of the laparoscopic and 43 (47.8%) of the robotic cases. Surgeon B performed 88 (29.9%) of the laparoscopic and 47 (52.2%) of the robotic cases. After matching, no covariate exhibited an absolute standardised mean difference >0.25. For surgeon A, the CUSUM curves showed no apparent learning process compared to his laparoscopic standards. For surgeon B, a learning process for operation time, lymph node harvest and major complications was demonstrated by an initial upward inflection of the CUSUM curves; after 15 cases, all quality indicators were generally on target.

CONCLUSIONS

For experienced laparoscopic colorectal surgeons, the formal learning process for robotic TME may be short to reach a similar performance level as obtained in conventional laparoscopy.

Recent surgical advances in colorectal cancer excision: toward optimal outcomes

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer affecting both males and females in the western world. Despite all the developments in the current treatment of colorectal cancer, it is still continuing to be an important factor of patient morbidity and mortality worldwide. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for colorectal cancer. Over the last decade, there have been major changes and developments in the surgical treatment. Understanding the importance of the anatomy, technological advances in minimally invasive surgery and effects of chemoradiotherapy have changed the approaches to colorectal cancer treatment. Today, novel treatment strategies must be targeted not only minimally invasive approaches, but also aiming to increase patients’ quality of life without compromising the oncological principles.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Resection for Mid and Low Rectal Cancers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The current study was conducted to determine whether robotic low anterior resection (RLAR) has real benefit over laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR) in terms of surgical and early oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 35 RLARs and 28 LLARs, performed for mid and low rectal cancers, from January 2013 through June 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients were included in the study. All surgeries were performed successfully. The clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had less intraoperative blood loss (165 vs. 120 mL; P < .05) and higher mean operative time (252 vs. 208 min; P < .05). No significant differences were observed in the time to flatus passage, length of hospital stay, and postoperative morbidity. Pathological examination of total mesorectal excision (TME) specimens showed that both circumferential resection margin and transverse (proximal and distal) margins were negative in the RLAR group. However, 1 patient each had positive circumferential resection margin and positive distal transverse margin in the LLAR group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 27 in the RLAR group and 23 in the LLAR group.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancers were similar to those of laparoscopic surgery. The quality of TME specimens was better in the patients who underwent robotic surgery. However, the longer operative time was a limitation of robotic surgery.

Assessment of lymph node involvement in colorectal cancer

Lymph node metastasis informs prognosis and is a key factor in deciding further management, particularly adjuvant chemotherapy. It is core to all contemporary staging systems, including the widely used tumor node metastasis staging system. Patients with node-negative disease have 5-year survival rates of 70%-80%, implying a significant minority of patients with occult lymph node metastases will succumb to disease recurrence. Enhanced staging techniques may help to identify this subset of patients, who might benefit from further treatment. Obtaining adequate numbers of lymph nodes is essential for accurate staging. Lymph node yields are affected by numerous factors, many inherent to the patient and the tumour, but others related to surgical and histopathological practice. Good lymph node recovery relies on close collaboration between surgeon and pathologist. The optimal extent of surgical resection remains a subject of debate. Extended lymphadenectomy, extra-mesenteric lymph node dissection, high arterial ligation and complete mesocolic excision are amongst the surgical techniques with plausible oncological bases, but which are not supported by the highest levels of evidence. With further development and refinement, intra-operative lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy may provide a guide to the optimum extent of lymphadenectomy, but in its present form, it is beset by false negatives, skip lesions and failures to identify a sentinel node. Once resected, histopathological assessment of the surgical specimen can be improved by thorough dissection techniques, step-sectioning of tissue blocks and immunohistochemistry. More recently, molecular methods have been employed. In this review, we consider the numerous factors that affect lymph node yields, including the impact of the surgical and histopathological techniques. Potential future strategies, including the use of evolving technologies, are also discussed.

Effect of BMI on Short-Term Outcomes with Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery: a Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Many benefits of minimally invasive surgery are lost in the obese, but robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) may offer advantages in this population. Our goal was to compare outcomes for RALS in obese and non-obese patients.

METHODS

A prospective database was reviewed for colorectal resections using RALS. Patients were stratified into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)), then case-matched for comparability. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay and complication, readmission, and reoperation rates between groups.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were evaluated in each cohort. The BMI was significantly different (p < 0.01). All other demographics were well matched. There were no significant differences in operative time (p = 0.86), blood loss (p = 0.38), intraoperative complications (p = 0.54), or conversion rates (p = 0.91) across cohorts. Length of stay was comparable between groups (p = 0.45). Postoperatively, the complication (p = 0.87), readmission (p = 1.00), and reoperation rates (p = 0.95) were similar. There were no mortalities. For malignant cases (37.8 %), the lymph node yield (p = 0.48) and positive margins (p = 1.00) were similar and acceptable in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

In our matched RALS series, perioperative and postoperative outcomes were similar between obese and non-obese patients undergoing colorectal surgery. RALS is a feasible option in the surgical setting of the obese patient. Further controlled studies are warranted to explore the full benefits.

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database

BACKGROUND

Until randomized trials mature, large database analyses assist in determining the role of robotics in colorectal surgery. ACS NSQIP database coding now allows differentiation between laparoscopic (LC) and robotic (RC) colorectal procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare LC and RC outcomes by analyzing the ACS NSQIP database.

METHODS

The ACS NSQIP database was queried to identify patients who had undergone RC and LC during 2013. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were identified. Using propensity score matching, abdominal and pelvic colorectal operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 11,477 cases were identified. In the abdomen, 7790 LC and 299 RC cases were identified, and 2057 LC and 331 RC cases were identified in the pelvis. There were significant differences in operative time, conversion to an open procedure in the pelvis, and hospital length of stay. RC operative times were significantly longer in both abdominal and pelvic cases. Conversion rates in the pelvis were less for RC when compared to LC--10.0 and 13.7%, respectively (p = 0.01). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for RC abdominal cases than for LC abdominal cases (4.3 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001) and for RC pelvic cases when compared to LC pelvic cases (4.5 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, wound complications, anastomotic leak, sepsis/shock, or need for reoperation within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

As the robotic platform continues to grow in colorectal surgery and as technical upgrades continue to advance, comparison of outcomes requires continuous reevaluation. This study demonstrated that robotic operations have longer operative times, decreased hospital length of stay, and decreased rates of conversion to open in the pelvis. These findings warrant continued evaluation of the role of minimally invasive technical upgrades in colorectal surgery.