Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role?

The da Vinci Xi: a review of its capabilities, versatility, and potential role in robotic colorectal surgery

The Xi is the latest da Vinci surgical system approved for use in colorectal surgery. With its novel overhead architecture, slimmer boom-mounted arms, extended instrument reach, guided targeting, and integrated auxiliary technology, the Xi manages to address several limitations of earlier models. The versatility of this new system allows it to be implemented in a wide range of colorectal procedures - from complex multiquadrant colectomies to challenging mesorectal dissections in the pelvis. While commonly criticized for its cost and prolonged operative time, robotic colorectal surgery holds the potential for enhanced ergonomics, superior precision, and a reduction in the learning curve involved in training an expert surgeon. This review appraises the existing literature on robotic colorectal surgery while elaborating how the improved capabilities of the Xi serve to usher in a new era of minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

Is the bipolar vessel sealer device an effective tool in robotic surgery? A retrospective analysis of our experience and a meta-analysis of the literature about different robotic procedures by investigating operative data and post-operative course

BACKGROUND

The latest robotic bipolar vessel sealing tools have been described to be effective allowing to perform procedures with reduced blood loss and shorter operative times. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and reliability of these devices applied in different robotic procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All robotic operations, between 2014 and 2016, were performed using the EndoWrist One VesselSealer (EWO, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA), a bipolar fully wristed device. Data, including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), were collected. Robot docking time, intraoperative blood loss, robot malfunctioning and overall operative time were analyzed. A meta-analysis of the literature was carried out to point the attention to three different parameters (mean blood loss, operating time and hospital stay) trying to identify how different coagulation devices may affect them.

RESULTS

In 73 robotic procedures, the mean operative time was 118.2 minutes (75-125 minutes). Mean hospital stay was four days (2-10 days). There were two post-operative complications (2.74%).

CONCLUSIONS

The bipolar vessel sealer offers the efficacy of bipolar diathermy and the advantages of a fully wristed instrument. It does not require any change of instruments for coagulation or involvement of the bedside assistant surgeon. These characteristics lead to a reduction in operative time.

Is right colectomy a complete learning procedure for a robotic surgical program?

This study analyses the utility of right colectomy as a learning procedure at the beginning of a robotic surgical program. The hypothesis is that right colectomy contains all the technical steps necessary to acquire basic abilities in robotics surgery. The first 23 consecutive robotic right colectomy performed at the beginning of a robotic program were analysed. All surgical times were recorded in the operating room and second checked on a dedicated video-database. Specific robotic times were analysed using CUSUM method to evaluate the learning curve. CUSUM-derived learning phases were compared. Fourteen males and nine females with a mean age of 68.7 (46-84) underwent robotic right colectomy. The mean overall time was 265.3 min (180-320 min), docking time was 7 min (5-12 min), console time was 205.9 min (145-260 min), and anastomotic time was 43.6 (25-60 min). CUSUM analyses identified two learning phases: "starting phase" and "consolidation phase". Interphase comparison confirmed the significant (p < 0.05) differences between the two phases. Robotic technology facilitates the training process in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. At the beginning of the learning curve, right colectomy could represent a complete procedure to be proficient in robotic colorectal surgery.

A Comparison of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery in the Treatment of Right-sided Colon Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Multidimensional comparison between open, laparoscopy, and robotic surgery in the management of right-sided colon cancer are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the early perioperative results and oncologic outcomes among the 3 different methods.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between June 2007 and 2011, a total of 96 patients who underwent right hemicolectomy in a single institution were classified into the open surgery (OS; n=33), the laparoscopy surgery (LS; n=43), and the robot surgery (RS; n=20) groups. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were comparable. Operation time was significantly longer in the RS and LS than the OS (P<0.001). There was 1 OS conversion in LS. There was no difference of total retrieved lymph node numbers among the 3 groups. Postoperative recovery was faster and hospital stay was shorter in RS than OS. However, there was no difference between LS and RS. After the median 40 months' follow-up, 5-year disease-free survival was similar among the OS, LS, and RS (87.7%, 84%, and 89.5%, respectively). Total charge and total patient charge were significantly higher in RS than the others.

CONCLUSIONS

Our comparative study demonstrates that the RS have better short-term outcomes in reducing hospital stay compared with the OS, but similar to the LS. Although the oncologic outcomes are similar, the benefit of RS in right hemicolectomy is unclear considering a high cost of RS.

A Pooled Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

OBJECTIVE

We conducted the meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) compared with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) in treatment of rectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of Medline, Embase databases, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify studies that compared RTME versus LTME for rectal cancer and were published up to July 2014. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed. Depending on statistical heterogeneity, the fixed or random effect model was used for the meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest and related outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. These studies involved a total of 1229 patients, 554 of whom underwent RTME and 675 of whom underwent LTME. The meta-analysis showed that RTME had lower conversion rate and positive rate of circumferential resection margins, and lesser incidence of erectile dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that RTME for rectal cancer appears to be a safe, feasible, and minimally invasive alternative to its laparoscopic counterpart. But the long-term outcomes between the 2 techniques need to be further examined.

Re-appraisal and consideration of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer

Throughout history, surgeons have been on a quest to refine the surgical treatment options for their patients and to minimize operative trauma. During the last three decades, there have been tremendous advances in the field of minimally invasive colorectal surgery, with an explosion of different technologies and approaches offered to treat well-known diseases. Laparoscopic surgery has been shown to be equal or superior to open surgery. The boundaries of laparoscopy have been pushed further, in the form of single-incision laparoscopy, natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery and robotics. This paper critically reviews the pathway of development of minimally invasive surgery, and appraises the different minimally invasive colorectal surgical approaches available to date.

Robotics in general surgery: A systematic cost assessment

The utilisation of robotic-assisted techniques is a novelty in the field of general surgery. Our intention was to examine the up to date available literature on the cost assessment of robotic surgery of diverse operations in general surgery. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched in a systematic way to retrieve the included studies in our review. Thirty-one studies were retrieved, referring on a vast range of surgical operations. The mean cost for robotic, open and laparoscopic ranged from 2539 to 57,002, 7888 to 16,851 and 1799 to 50,408 Euros, respectively. The mean operative charges ranged from 273.74 to 13,670 Euros. More specifically, for the robotic and laparoscopic gastric fundoplication, the cost ranged from 1534 to 2257 and 657 to 763 Euros, respectively. For the robotic and laparoscopic colectomy, it ranged from 3739 to 17,080 and 3109 to 33,865 Euros, respectively. For the robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, ranged from 1163.75 to 1291 and from 273.74 to 1223 Euros, respectively. The mean non-operative costs ranged from 900 to 48,796 from 8347 to 8800 and from 870 to 42,055 Euros, for robotic, open and laparoscopic technique, respectively. Conversions to laparotomy were present in 34/18,620 (0.18%) cases of laparoscopic and in 22/1488 (1.5%) cases of robotic technique. Duration of surgery robotic, open and laparoscopic ranged from 54.6 to 328.7, 129 to 234, and from 50.2 to 260 min, respectively. The present evidence reveals that robotic surgery, under specific conditions, has the potential to become cost-effective. Large number of cases, presence of industry competition and multidisciplinary team utilisation are some of the factors that could make more reasonable and cost-effective the robotic-assisted technique.

Robotic right hemicolectomy: Analysis of 108 consecutive procedures and multidimensional assessment of the learning curve

PURPOSE

Surgeons tend to view the robotic right colectomy (RRC) as an ideal beginning procedure to gain proficiency in robotic general and colorectal surgery. Nevertheless, oncological RRC, especially if performed with intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis confectioning, cannot be considered a technically easier procedure. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curve of the RRC performed for oncological purposes and to evaluate its safety and efficacy investigating the perioperative and pathology outcomes in the different learning phases.

METHODS

Data on a consecutive series of 108 patients undergoing RRC with intracorporeal anastomosis between June 2011 and September 2015 at our institution were prospectively collected to evaluate surgical and short-term oncological outcomes. CUSUM (Cumulative Sum) and Risk-Adjusted (RA) CUSUM analysis were performed in order to perform a multidimensional assessment of the learning curve for the RRC surgical procedure. Intraoperative, postoperative and pathological outcomes were compared among the learning curve phases.

RESULTS

Based on the CUSUM and RA-CUSUM analyses, the learning curve for RRC could be divided into 3 different phases: phase 1, the initial learning period (1st-44th case); phase 2, the consolidation period (45th-90th case); and phase 3, the mastery period (91th-108th case). Operation time, conversion to open surgery rate and the number of harvested lymph nodes significantly improve through the three learning phases.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve for oncological RRC with intracorporeal anastomosis is composed of 3 phases. Our data indicate that the performance of RRC is safe from an oncological point of view in all of the three phases of the learning curve. However, the technical skills necessary to significantly reduce operative time, conversion to open surgery rate and to significantly improve the number of harvested lymph nodes were achieved after 44 procedures. These data suggest that it might be prudent to start the RRC learning curve by treating only benign diseases and to reserve the performance of oncological resection to when at least the initial learning phase has been completed.

Robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy: a case-matched comparison from the ACS-NSQIP

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy using a procedure-targeted database.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients undergoing elective colectomy in 2013 was conducted using the procedure-targeted database of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). Robotic, laparoscopic, and open groups were matched (1:1:1) based on age, gender, body mass index, surgical procedure, diagnosis and ASA classification. Demographics, comorbidities, and short-term (30 day) outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Out of 12 790 patients, 387 fulfilled criteria per group after matching. Univariate comparison showed operating time was longer (P < 0.001) and hospital stay was shorter (P < 0.001) in the robotic group. Morbidity (P < 0.001), superficial SSI (P < 0.001), bleeding requiring transfusion (P < 0.001), ventilator dependency (P = 0.003), and ileus (P < 0.001) rates were lower in the robotic group. After adjusting for confounders, outcomes were comparable between the groups except hospital stay which was shorter in the robotic group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ACS-NSQIP data demonstrated several short-term advantages of robotic surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery.

Future of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery is slowly taking over as the preferred operative approach for colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain technically difficult. This article will give an overview of the state of minimally invasive surgery and the many advances that have been made over the last two decades. Specifically, we discuss the introduction of the robotic platform and some of its benefits and limitations. We also describe some newer techniques related to robotics.

Time to Initiation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Colon Cancer: Comparison of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery

BACKGROUND

The time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (TIC) can be used as a recovery parameter after surgery. The effect of laparoscopic or robotic surgery on TIC has not been thoroughly studied. This study aimed to compare the impact of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted surgery on TIC after colon cancer surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent curative resection for stage II or III colon cancer between January 2007 and June 2013 and who received adjuvant chemotherapy from surgeons capable of performing open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgeries were included in this study. Patient demographics, clinicopathologic variables, and TIC were compared among the three groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors affecting TIC.

RESULTS

Of the 252 patients, 40, 161, and 51 patients underwent open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomy, respectively. The postoperative complication rate was lower in the laparoscopic and robotic groups compared to the open group (P = .002). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group compared with the open and robotic groups (P < .001). Multivariate analysis revealed that the operation method was the only factor affecting TIC, with laparoscopic and robotic surgery being favorable (regression coefficient -5.1, 95% confidence interval -7.6 to -2.6; P < .001). However, there was no difference in TIC between the laparoscopic and robotic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and robotic surgeries were associated with shorter TIC. This study demonstrates another benefit of minimally invasive surgery with regard to early initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Right Colectomy for Colon Cancer: Analysis of the Initial Simultaneous Learning Curve of a Surgical Fellow

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery was introduced to overcome laparoscopic drawbacks. This study aimed to compare the learning curve of robotic-assisted right colectomy (RRC) versus laparoscopic-assisted right colectomy (LRC) for colon cancer with respect to operative times and perioperative outcomes. In addition, the health-related costs associated with both procedures were analyzed and compared.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2015, 30 consecutive patients underwent RRC and 50 patients LRC for colon cancer. All procedures were performed by a surgical fellow novice in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The operative time and the cumulative sum method were used to evaluate the learning curve of RRC versus LRC.

RESULTS

The mean operative times were 200.5 minutes for RRC and 204.1 minutes for LRC (P = .408) and showed a significant decrease over consecutive procedures (P < .0001). The number of cases necessary to identify a drop in the operative time was 16 for RRC and 25 for LRC. RRC procedures were associated with significantly reduced blood loss (P = .012). Two patients (4%) in the LRC group were converted to laparotomy, whereas no conversion was required in the RRC group. Surgery-related costs were significantly more expensive for RRC, but when combined with the hospitalization-related costs, LRC and RRC did not differ (P = .632).

CONCLUSIONS

Both robotic and laparoscopic operative times decrease rapidly with practice. However, RRC is associated with a faster learning curve than LRC. The simultaneous development of these two minimally invasive approaches appears to be safe and feasible with acceptable health-related costs.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Robotic surgery is positioned at the cutting edge of minimally invasive management of colorectal cancer. We performed a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (NRCTs) that compared the clinicopathological outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) with those of laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS). Inferences on the feasibility and the relative safety and efficacy have been drawn.

METHODS

A literature search for relevant studies was performed on MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Inter-group differences in the standardized mean differences and relative risk were assessed. Operation times, conversion rates to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), early postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LHS) were compared. Oncologic outcomes assessed were number of lymph nodes harvested and lengths of proximal and distal resection margins.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies (2 RCTs and 22 NRCTs [5 prospective plus 17 retrospective]) with a total of 3318 patients were included. Of these, 1466 (44.18 %) patients underwent RACS and 1852 (55.82 %) underwent LACS. Conversion rates, EBL and LHS were significantly lower, while the operation times and total costs were similar between RACS and LACS. Complication rates and oncological accuracy of resection showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis, RACS appears to be a promising surgical approach with its safety and efficacy comparable to that of LACS in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Further studies are required to evaluate the long-term cost-efficiency as well as the functional and oncologic outcomes of RACS.

Comparison of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Colectomies Using a Large National Database: Outcomes and Trends Related to Surgery Center Volume

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that high-volume centers and laparoscopic techniques improve outcomes of colectomy. These evidence-based measures have been slow to be accepted, and current trends are unknown. In addition, the current rates and outcomes of robotic surgery are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine current national trends in the use of minimally invasive surgery and to evaluate hospital volume trends over time.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital.

PATIENTS

Using the National Inpatient Sample, we evaluated trends in patients undergoing elective open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies from 2009 to 2012. Patient and institutional characteristics were evaluated and outcomes compared between groups using multivariate hierarchical-logistic regression and nonparametric tests. The National Inpatient Sample includes patient and hospital demographics, admission and treating diagnoses, inpatient procedures, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, hospital charges, and discharge status.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

In-hospital mortality and postoperative complications of surgery were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 509,029 patients underwent elective colectomy from 2009 to 2012. Of those 266,263 (52.3%) were open, 235,080 (46.2%) laparoscopic, and 7686 (1.5%) robotic colectomies. The majority of minimal access surgery is still being performed at high-volume compared with low-volume centers (37.5% vs 28.0% and 44.0% vs 23.0%; p < 0.001). A total of 36% of colectomies were for cancer. The number of robotic colectomies has quadrupled from 702 in 2009 to 3390 (1.1%) in 2012. After adjustment, the rate of iatrogenic complications was higher for robotic surgery (OR = 1.73 (95% CI, 1.20-2.47)), and the median cost of robotic surgery was higher, at $15,649 (interquartile range, $11,840-$20,183) vs $12,071 (interquartile range, $9338-$16,203; p < 0.001 for laparoscopic).

LIMITATIONS

This study may be limited by selection bias by surgeons regarding the choice of patient management. In addition, there are limitations in the measures of disease severity and, because the database relies on billing codes, there may be inaccuracies such as underreporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the majority of colectomies in the United States are still performed open, although rates of laparoscopy continue to increase. There is a trend toward increased volume of laparoscopic procedures at specialty centers. The role of robotics is still being defined, in light of higher cost, lack of clinical benefit, and increased iatrogenic complications, albeit comparable overall complications, as compared with laparoscopic colectomy.

Comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes between robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Reports from several case series have described the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery (RS) for colonic cancer. Experience is still limited in robotic colonic surgery, and a few meta-analysis has been conducted to integrate the results for colon cancer specifically. We conducted a systematic review of the available evidence comparing the surgical safety and efficacy of RS with that of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.

Methods

We searched English databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library), and Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi). Dichotomous variables were pooled using the risk ratio, and continuous variables were pooled using the mean difference (MD).

Results

The present study found that the RS group had a shorter time to resumption of a regular diet (MD, –0.62 days; 95% CI, –0.97 to –0.28), first passage of flatus (MD, –0.44 days; 95% CI, –0.66 to –0.23) and defecation (MD, –0.62 days; 95% CI, –0.77 to –0.47). Also, RS was associated with a shorter hospital stay (MD, –0.69 days; 95% CI, –1.12 to –0.26), a lower estimated blood loss (MD, –19.49 mL; 95% CI, –27.10 to –11.89) and a longer proximal margin (MD, 2.29 cm; 95% CI, 1.11-3.47). However, RS was associated with a longer surgery time (MD, 51.00 minutes; 95% CI, 39.38–62.62).

Conclusion

We found that the potential benefits of perioperative and short-term outcomes for RS than for CLS. For a more accurate understanding of RS for colonic cancer patients, robust comparative studies and randomized clinical trials are required.

Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal cancer were identified for this meta-analysis. Compared with ORCS, RRCS is associated with a lower estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −139.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −159.11 to −120.86; P < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay length (MD: −2.10, 95% CI: −3.47 to −0.73; P = 0.003), lower intraoperative transfusion requirements (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.05), shorter time to flatus passage (MD: −0.97, 95% CI = −1.06 to −0.88, P < 0.00001), and shorter time to resume a normal diet (MD: −1.71.95% CI = −3.31 to −0.12, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications, oncologic clearance, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the two groups. However, RRCS was associated with a longer operative time. RRCS is safe and effective.

Minimally invasive surgery of rectal cancer: current evidence and options

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of colorectal cancer has become more popular in the past two decades. Laparoscopic colectomy has been accepted as an alternative standard approach in colon cancer, with comparable oncologic outcomes and several better short-term outcomes compared to open surgery. Unlike the treatment for colon cancer, however, the minimally invasive approach in rectal cancer has not been established. In this article, we summarize the current status of MIS for rectal cancer and explore the various technical options.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Update in 2015

During the last decade, robotic surgery for rectal cancer has rapidly gained acceptance among colorectal surgeons worldwide, with well-established safety and feasibility. The lower conversion rate and better surgical specimen quality of robotic compared with laparoscopic surgery potentially improves survival. Earlier recovery of voiding and sexual function after robotic total mesorectal excision is another favorable outcome. Long-term survival data are sparse with no evidence that robotic surgery offers major benefits in oncological outcomes. Although initial reports are promising, more rigorous scientific evaluation in multicenter, randomized clinical trials should be performed to definitely determine the advantages of robotic rectal cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted colectomy and rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Lately, the main technical innovations in the field of colorectal surgery have been the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic techniques; the aim of this study is to investigate the results and the advantages of these two surgical approaches.

METHODS

Twenty-two studies including 1652 laparoscopic and 1120 robotic-assisted resections were analyzed and categorized into right, left, and pelvic resections of the middle/low rectum, aiming to the following outcomes: operating time, blood loss, bowel function recovery, return to oral intake, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs.

RESULTS

The vast majority of the studies were non-randomized investigations (19/22 studies) enrolling small cohorts of patients (median 55.0 laparoscopic and 34.5 robotic-assisted group) with a mean age of 62.2-61.0 years. Funnel plot analysis documented heterogeneity in studies which combined cancers and benign diseases. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a significant difference in favor of laparoscopic procedures regarding costs and operating time (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.686 and 0.493) and in favor of robotic surgery concerning morbidity rate (odds ratio (OR) 0.763), although no benefits were documented when analyzing exclusively randomized trials. When we differentiated approaches by side of resections, a significant difference was found in favor of the laparoscopic group when analyzing operating time in left-sided and pelvic procedures (SMD 0.609 and 0.529) and blood loss in pelvic resections (SMD 0.339).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic techniques were documented as the shorter procedures, which provided lower blood loss in pelvic resections, while morbidity rate was more favorable in robotic surgery. However, these results could not be confirmed when we focused the analysis on randomized trials only.

Laparoscopy Versus Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Initial Experience

Background Minimally invasive approach has gained interest in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study is to analyze the differences between laparoscopy and robotics for colorectal cancer in terms of oncologic and clinical outcomes in an initial experience of a single center. Materials and Methods Clinico-pathological data of 100 patients surgically treated for colorectal cancer from March 2008 to April 2014 with laparoscopy and robotics were analyzed. The procedures were right colonic, left colonic, and rectal resections. A comparison between the laparoscopic and robotic resections was made and an analysis of the first and the last procedures in the 2 groups was performed. Results Forty-two patients underwent robotic resection and 58 underwent laparoscopic resection. The postoperative mortality was 1%. The number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in robotics. The conversion rate was 7.1% for robotics and 3.4% for laparoscopy. The operative time was lower in laparoscopy for all the procedures. No differences were found between the first and the last procedures in the 2 groups. Conclusions This initial experience has shown that robotic surgery for the treatment of colorectal adenocarcinoma is a feasible and safe procedure in terms of oncologic and clinical outcomes, although an appropriate learning curve is necessary. Further investigation is needed to demonstrate real advantages of robotics over laparoscopy.

Totally robotic vs 3D laparoscopic colectomy: A single centers preliminary experience

AIM: To compare robotic and three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic colectomy based on the literature and our preliminary experience.

METHODS: This retrospective observational study compared operative measures and postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic 3D and robotic colectomy for cancer. From September 2013 to September 2014, 24 robotic colectomies and 23 3D laparoscopic colectomy were performed at our Department. Data were analyzed and reported both by approach and by colectomy side. Robotic left colectomy (RL) vs laparoscopic 3D left colectomy (LL 3D) and Robotic right colectomy (RR) vs laparoscopic 3D (LR 3D). Rectal cancer procedures were not included.

RESULTS: There were 18 RR and 11 LR 3D, 6 RL and 12 LL 3D. As regards LR 3D, extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) was performed in 7 patients and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) in 4; the RR group included 14 IA and 4 EA. There was no mortality. Median operative time was higher for the robotic group while conversion rate (12.5% vs 13%) and lymph nodes removed (14 vs 13) were similar for both. First flatus time was 1 d for RR and 2 d the other patient groups. Oral intake was resumed in 1 d by LR and in 2 d by the other patients (P = 0.012). Overall cost was €4950 and €1950 for RL and LL 3D, and €4450 and €1450 for RR and LR 3D, respectively.

CONCLUSION: There were no differences between RR and LR 3D, except that IA was easier with RR, and probably contributed with the learning curve to the longer operative time recorded. Both techniques offer similar advantages for the patient with significantly different costs. In left colectomies robotic colectomy provided better outcomes, especially in resections approaching the rectum.

How Has the Robot Contributed to Colon Cancer Surgery?

Robotic surgery is an emerging field in colorectal surgery and may overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, such as rigid instrumentation, poor ergonomics, and assistant-dependent camera movements and retraction. In addition, robotic-assisted colectomy appears to offer comparable outcomes to laparoscopic colectomy with limited long-term outcomes data. Prolonged operating time, increased costs and learning curve are the major drawbacks of robotic colectomy for colon cancer. Although new robotic platforms promise improved ingenuity through developing technology, the role of the robot in colon cancer surgery is still unclear.

The influence of body mass index on clinical short-term outcomes in robotic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been developed to address the technical limitations of laparoscopic surgery and might result in similar outcomes for patients with low and high body mass index (BMI).

METHODS

Demographic, peri-operative data and surrogate oncologic markers for colorectal cancer of patients that underwent robotic colorectal procedures were collected in a prospective database and analyzed.

RESULTS

103 consecutive patients (36 normal-weight, 33 overweight, 34 obese) underwent robotic colorectal surgery from 11/2011 to 05/2012. While operating room (OR) time was longer for the obese patients (123.4 vs 137.9 and 154.7 min), results for estimated blood loss (104.2 vs 153 and 155.9 mL), conversions (2.8 vs 6.1 and 5.9%), complications (19.4 vs 21.2 and 32.4%), re-admissions (11.1 vs 112.1 and 20.6) and mortality (0% for all) were comparable. BMI did not affect the surrogate markers in patients with malignancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Data demonstrates that patient BMI does not have a significant impact on short-term clinical outcomes during robotic colorectal surgery. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Approach in Colonic Resections for Cancer and Benign Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic colectomy (RC) with laparoscopic colectomy (LC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

Materials and Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to retrieve comparative studies of robotic and laparoscopic colectomy. The databases searched were PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2000 to October 2014. The Odds ratio, Risk difference and Mean difference were used as the summary statistics.

Results

A total of 12 studies, which included a total of 4,148 patients who had undergone robotic or laparoscopic colectomy, were included and analyzed. RC demonstrated a longer operative time (MD 41.52, P<0.00001) and higher cost (MD 2.42, P<0.00001) than did LC. The time to first flatus passage (MD -0.51, P = 0.003) and the length of hospital stay (MD -0.68, P = 0.01) were significantly shorter after RC. Additionally, the intraoperative blood loss (MD -16.82, P<0.00001) was significantly less in RC. There was also a significantly lower incidence of overall postoperative complications (OR 0.74, P = 0.02) and wound infections (RD -0.02, P = 0.03) after RC. No differences in the postoperative ileus, in the anastomotic leak, or in the conversion to open surgery rate and in the number of harvested lymph nodes outcomes were found between the approaches.

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis, mainly based on observational studies, suggests that RC is more time-consuming and expensive than laparoscopy but that it results in faster recovery of bowel function, a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower rates of both overall postoperative complications and wound infections.

SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci ® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA)

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci(®) Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is a computer-assisted (robotic) surgical system designed to enable and enhance minimally invasive surgery. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared computer-assisted surgical systems for use by trained physicians in an operating room environment for laparoscopic surgical procedures in general, cardiac, colorectal, gynecologic, head and neck, thoracic and urologic surgical procedures. There are substantial numbers of peer-reviewed papers regarding the da Vinci(®) Surgical System, and a thoughtful assessment of evidence framed by clinical opinion is warranted.

METHODS

The SAGES da Vinci(®) TAVAC sub-committee performed a literature review of the da Vinci(®) Surgical System regarding gastrointestinal surgery. Conclusions by the sub-committee were vetted by the SAGES TAVAC Committee and SAGES Executive Board. Following revisions, the document was evaluated by the TAVAC Committee and Executive Board again for final approval.

RESULTS

Several conclusions were drawn based on expert opinion organized by safety, efficacy, and cost for robotic foregut, bariatric, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, colorectal surgery, and single-incision cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrointestinal surgery with the da Vinci(®) Surgical System is safe and comparable, but not superior to standard laparoscopic approaches. Although clinically acceptable, its use may be costly for select gastrointestinal procedures. Current data are limited to the da Vinci(®) Surgical System; further analyses are needed.

Robotic colonic resection

Innovative robotic technologies are aiming to help surgeons overcome the limits of conventional laparoscopic surgery. Recent studies have shown that robotic colorectal surgery is safe and provides favorable results in comparison to conventional laparoscopic techniques. Further studies and long-term follow-up are required to assess the outcomes and potential benefits of robotic colon surgery over laparoscopic surgery.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for rectal cancer focusing on short-term outcomes: a propensity score-matching analysis

Although the total cost of robotic surgery (RS) is known to be higher than that of laparoscopic surgery (LS), the cost-effectiveness of RS has not yet been verified. The aim of the study is to clarify the cost-effectiveness of RS compared with LS for rectal cancer.From January 2007 through December 2011, 311 and 560 patients underwent totally RS and conventional LS for rectal cancer, respectively. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed with a ratio of 1:1 to reduce the possibility of selection bias. Costs and perioperative short-term outcomes in both the groups were compared. Additional costs due to readmission were also analyzed.The characteristics of the patients were not different between the 2 groups. Most perioperative outcomes were not different between the groups except for the operation time. Complications within 30 days of surgery were not significantly different. Total hospital charges and patients' bill were higher in RS than in LS. The total hospital charges for patients who recovered with or without complications were higher in RS than in LS, although their short-term outcomes were similar. In patients with complications, the postoperative course after RS appeared to be milder than that of LS. Total hospital charges for patients who were readmitted due to complications were similar between the groups.RS showed similar short-term outcomes with higher costs than LS. Therefore, cost-effectiveness focusing on short-term perioperative outcomes of RS was not demonstrated.

Is robot-assisted laparoscopic right colectomy more effective than the conventional laparoscopic procedure? A meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

AIM

The use of robotic technology procedures has proved to be safe and effective, arising as a helpful alternative to standard laparoscopic surgery in a variety of colorectal procedures. However, the role of robotic assistance in laparoscopic right colectomy is still not demonstrated.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out performing an unrestricted search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar up to 30th August 2014. Reference lists of retrieved articles and review articles were manually searched for other relevant studies. We meta-analyzed the currently available data regarding the incidence of anastomotic leakage, operative time, intra-operative blood loss, conversion rate, retrieved lymphnodes, post-operative hemorrhage, intra-abdominal abscess, time to 1st flatus, post-operative ileus, wound infection, incisional hernia, not-surgical complications, total complications, hospital stay, post-operative mortality, surgery-related costs and total costs, in conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) compared to robot-assisted laparoscopic right colectomy (RRC).

RESULTS

Overall 8 studies were included, thus resulting in 616 patients. The meta-analysis showed that the RRC decreases the intra-operative blood loss and the time to the 1st flatus, if compared to the LRC. On the other hand, the robotic assistance increases the operative time and the surgery-related costs. No statistically significant differences were found about the other post-operative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

RRC may ensure limited improvements in post-operative outcome, thus increasing procedural costs and without a proved enhanced oncological accuracy to date, if compared to the LRC.

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes

BACKGROUND

While robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is becoming increasingly popular, data comparing its outcomes to other established techniques remain limited to small case series. Moreover, there are no large studies evaluating the trends of RACS at the national level.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009-2010 was retrospectively reviewed for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal procedures performed for cancer, benign polyps, and diverticular disease. Trends in different settings, indications, and demographics were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare selected outcomes between RACS and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

RESULTS

An estimated 128,288 colorectal procedures were performed through minimally invasive techniques over the study period, and RACS was used in 2.78 % of cases. From 2009 to 2010, the use of robotics increased in all hospital settings but was still more common in large, urban, and teaching hospitals. Rectal cancer was the most common indication for RACS, with a tendency toward its selective use in male patients. On multivariate analysis, robotic surgery was associated with higher hospital charges in colonic ($11,601.39; 95 % CI 6,921.82-16,280.97) and rectal cases ($12,964.90; 95 % CI 6,534.79-19,395.01), and higher rates of postoperative bleeding in colonic cases (OR = 2.15; 95 % CI 1.27- 3.65). RACS was similar to CLS with respect to length of hospital stay, morbidity, anastomotic leak, and ileus. Conversion to open surgery was significantly lower in robotic colonic and rectal procedures (0.41; 95 % CI 0.25-0.67) and (0.10; 95 % CI 0.06-0.16), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of RACS is still limited in the United States. However, its use increased over the study period despite higher associated charges and no real advantages over laparoscopy in terms of outcome. The one advantage is lower conversion rates.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colonic disease: a meta-analysis of postoperative variables

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of studies have been published since the introduction of robotic technology into general surgery. Gastrointestinal surgery is an area of special interest for the robotic surgeon. Colonic surgery can be challenging depending on the disease and the operative approach. We seek to perform a meta-analysis comparing robotic surgery against laparoscopic surgery in this particular field.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE database from January 2001 to July 2013 supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies of key relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were selected for review and for collection of postoperative data (length of stay, time to first flatus and complications).

RESULTS

After careful review, nine studies were considered for analysis. Non-pooled data showed a slight trend toward laparoscopy with increased number of events without statistical significance. Pooled data demonstrated a statistical significance for return to bowel function in the right and mixed robotic colectomy arm (WSMD -0.33, 95 % CI -0.5, -0.1; p < 0.005 and WSMD -0.26, 95 % CI -0.51, 0.0; p = 0.05). Pooled data of length of stay and complications showed no statistical significance between robotic and laparoscopic colonic surgery.

DISCUSSION

Robotic surgery is a comparable option when dealing with colonic disease, either benign or malignant. No difference in complication rate or length of stay was found when comparing the two. Robotic surgery appears to have an advantage over laparoscopy in regards to return of bowel function when dealing with right colectomies.

Robotic transverse colectomy for mid-transverse colon cancer: surgical techniques and oncologic outcomes

Robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer has been reported in many studies, most of which worked on right and/or sigmoid colectomy. The aim of this study was to report our experience of robotic transverse colectomy with an intracorporeal anastomosis, provide details of the surgical technique, and present the theoretical benefits of the procedure. This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer performed by a single surgeon between May 2007 and February 2011. Out of 162 consecutive cases, we identified three robotic transverse colectomies, using a hand-sewn intracorporeal anastomosis. Two males and one female underwent transverse colectomies for malignant or premalignant disease. The mean docking time, time spent using the robot, and total operative time were 5, 268, and 307 min, respectively. There were no conversions to open or conventional laparoscopic technique. The mean length of specimen and number of lymph nodes retrieved were 14.1 cm and 6.7, respectively. One patient suffered from a wound seroma and recovered with conservative management. The mean hospital stay was 8.7 days. After a median follow-up of 72 months, there were no local or systemic recurrences. Robotic transverse colectomy seems to be a safe and feasible technique. It may minimize the necessity of mobilizing both colonic flexures, with facilitated intracorporeal hand-sewn anastomosis. However, further prospective studies with a larger number of patients are required to draw firm conclusions.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: experience with 52 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

In laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRC), extracorporeal or intracorporeal (ICA) anastomosis can be performed. Several authors have suggested advantages to ICA. This study reports our transition to and our experience with robotic right colectomy (RRC) with ICA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From June 2009 to September 2012 we performed 58 consecutive RRCs, of which 52 were with ICA. Data were prospectively stored and retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight female and 30 male patients with a mean age of 71.6 ± 8.3 years (range, 52-89 years) were studied. Indications for surgery included adenocarcinoma (n=30), adenoma (n=20), diverticulitis (n=1), and Crohn's disease (n=1). For RRC with ICA (n=52), mean operative time (OT) was 193.2 ± 42.2 minutes (range, 123-239 minutes). Mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 47.8 ± 59.5 mL (range, 5-300 mL). Mean length of hospital stay (LOS) was 3.7 ± 3.2 days (range, 1-21 days). Mean extraction-site incision size was 4.61 ± 0.78 cm (range, 2.5-6.5 cm). Mean lymph node harvest was 20.7 ± 8.2 (range, 6-40). Mean specimen length was 18.9 ± 7.2 cm (range 10-37). No intraoperative complications, conversions, or 30-day mortality occurred. Nine postoperative complications (19.1%) occurred, with one anastomotic leak (1.7%). For LRC with ICA as reported in the literature, OT ranges from 136 to 190 minutes, EBL ranges from 0 to 500 mL, median LOS ranges from 3 to 5 days, complication rates range from 6% to 15%, with ileus <22%, and conversion rates are <5%.

CONCLUSIONS

RRC with ICA is safe and feasible. OTs and outcomes compare favorably with those published in the literature for LRC with ICA. The robot may facilitate transition to ICA, and if future studies confirm advantages of ICA, the role of RRC may gain importance.

A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotics, as an innovation of minimally invasive surgical methods, is developing rapidly for colectomy. But there is still no consensus on its comparative merit compared with laparoscopic resections. We conducted this meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled trials of robotic colectomy (RC) versus laparoscopic colectomy (LC) to evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of RC are equivalent to those of LC.

METHODS

A search of five databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science), gray literature, hand searches, reference, and forward citation were performed for studies that compared clinical or oncologic outcomes of LC with RC. Clinical outcomes evaluated were conversion rates, operation times, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complications. Oncologic outcome evaluated was the number of lymph nodes collected.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies were identified that included 125,989 patients in total, 4934 in the robotic cohort and 121,055 in the laparoscopic cohort. Meta-analysis suggested that there was a significantly longer hospital stay in the laparoscopic group (mean difference [MD] -0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.02 to -0.27; P = 0.0008). Robotic surgery was associated with a significantly lower complication rate (odds ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.72-0.85; P ＜ 0.00001) and a significantly shorter time to recovery of bowel function (MD -0.58; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.20; P = 0.003). There were statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss (MD -19.24; 95% CI -29.38 to -9.09; P = 0.0002) and intraoperative conversion to open (odds ratio 0.56; 95% CI 0.44-0.72; P < 0.00001), but not clinical relevant. There were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes extracted between the two groups. However, operating time (MD 49.25; 95% CI 36.78-61.72; P < 0.00001) was longer for RC than for LC.

CONCLUSIONS

RC can be performed safely and effectively with the number of lymph nodes extracted similar to LC. In addition, it can provide potential advantages of a shorter hospital stay, a shorter time to recovery of bowel function, and lower occurrence of postoperative complications. These findings seem to support the use of robotics for the minimally invasive surgical management of colectomy. However, RC had longer operating time. Future studies involving RC should focus on minimizing duration of operation.

Robotic right colectomy: A worthwhile procedure? Results of a meta-analysis of trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic right colectomy (RRC) is a complex procedure, offered to selected patients at institutions highly experienced with the procedure. It is still not clear if this approach is worthwhile in enhancing patient recovery and reducing post-operative complications, compared with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). Literature is still fragmented and no meta-analyses have been conducted to compare the two procedures. This work aims at reducing this gap in literature, in order to draw some preliminary conclusions on the differences and similarities between RRC and LRC, focusing on short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing RRC and LRC, and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Peri-operative outcomes (e.g., morbidity, mortality, anastomotic leakage rates, blood loss, operative time) constituted the study end points.

RESULTS

Six studies, including 168 patients undergoing RRC and 348 patients undergoing LRC were considered as suitable. The patients in the two groups were similar with respect to sex, body mass index, presence of malignant disease, previous abdominal surgery, and different with respect to age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. There were no statistically significant differences between RRC and LRC regarding estimated blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, number of retrieved lymph nodes, development of anastomotic leakage and other complications, overall morbidity, rates of reoperation, overall mortality, hospital stays. RRC resulted in significantly longer operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

The RRC procedure is feasible, safe, and effective in selected patients. However, operative times are longer comparing to LRC and no advantages in peri-operative and post-operative outcomes are demonstrated with the use of the robotic surgical system.

Comparative effectiveness in colon and rectal cancer

Treatment of colorectal cancer is becoming more uniform, with wider acceptance of standardized guidelines. However, areas of controversy exist where the appropriate treatment is not clear, including: should a segmental colectomy or a more extensive resection be performed in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer? should an asymptomatic primary cancer be resected in the presence of unresectable metastatic disease? what is the role of extended lymph node resection in colon and rectal cancer? are there clinically significant benefits for a robotic approach to colorectal resection versus a laparoscopic approach? This chapter will examine these issues and discuss how they may be resolved.

Beginning robotic assisted colorectal surgery - it's harder than it looks!

Introduction

Laparoscopy has been introduced into the field of colorectal surgery with the aim of reducing morbidity. One of the major barriers to overcome is the steep learning curve. Robotic surgery offers substantial advantages over traditional laparoscopy, which make the whole procedure more user friendly.

Aim

To present our initial experiences with robotic assisted colorectal surgery.

Material and methods

Thirty-five patients with colorectal cancer underwent robotic assisted procedures between 2011 and 2013.

Results

In total we performed 16 low anterior resections, 14 right colectomies, 3 abdominosacral resections and 2 left colectomies. There were 22 males and 13 females. The mean operative time was 315 ±65 min for a low anterior resection. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.4 ±1 days. There were 4 conversions to open procedures, 2 anastomotic leaks, and 1 colovaginal fistula. The mean lymph node yield was 12.7 ±4.3. The resection margin was negative in all but 1 patient.

Conclusions

We agree with the opinion that robotic surgery brings many advantages in pelvic dissections. In order to facilitate safe acquisition of robotic total mesorectal excision skills, surgeons should begin with female patients, and less advanced rectal cancer. In some instances robotic assistance can be helpful in right colectomies.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis

Background

The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of robotic right colectomy (RRC) with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC).

Methods

A literature search was performed for comparative studies reporting perioperative outcomes of RRC and LRC. The methodological quality of the selected studies was assessed. Depending on statistical heterogeneity, the fixed effects model or the random effects model were used for the meta-analysis. Operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, conversion rates to open surgery, postoperative complications, and related outcomes were evaluated.

Results

Seven studies, including 234 RRC cases and 415 conventional LRC cases, were analyzed. The meta-analysis showed that RRC had longer operative times (P < 0.00001), lower estimated blood losses (P = 0.0002), lower postoperative overall complications (P = 0.02), and significantly faster bowel function recovery (P < 0.00001). There were no differences in the length of hospital stay (P = 0.12), conversion rates to open surgery (P = 0.48), postoperative ileus (P = 0.08), anastomosis leakage (P = 0.28), and bleeding (P = 0.95).

Conclusions

Compared to LRC, RRC was associated with reduced estimated blood losses, reduced postoperative complications, longer operative times, and a significantly faster recovery of bowel function. Other perioperative outcomes were equivalent.

Robot-assisted single-incision total colectomy: a case report

BACKGROUND

Literature reports shows that robots provide an opportunity for meeting technical challenges associated with Laparo-endoscopic Single Site Surgery (LESS). Following previous success with robot-assisted single-incision right hemicolectomy, this paper reports experience with robot-assisted single-incision total colectomy.

METHODS

Through a single incision around the umbilicus, three robotic ports and a laparoscopic port were placed through the GelPOINT. With one intraoperative redocking of the robot, it was possible to access both right and left sides of the colon. The entire colon was externalized through the GelPOINT and the umbilical incision closed in layers.

RESULTS

The entire procedure took 227 minutes. There was minimal blood loss. The patient was discharged on post-operative day four with no complications. No wound site complications were observed in clinic one week after discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted single-incision total colectomy is a feasible procedure associated with little increase in operative time.

A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted gastrectomy (RAG) for gastric cancer is still a controversial surgical technique for adequate tumor resection, lymphadenectomy, and postoperative outcome.

METHODS

A meta-analysis analyzed updated clinical trials that have compared RAG with laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) to evaluate whether RAG is equivalent to LAG.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in the analysis, comprising 1,875 patients. RAG was associated with a longer operative time (p < 0.05), lower estimated blood loss (p < 0.05), and a longer distal margin (p < 0.05). RAG can be performed safely with lower estimated blood loss and a longer distal margin than with LAG. Complications, hospital stay, proximal margin, and harvested lymph nodes for RAG and LAG were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

RAG is as acceptable as LAG for obtaining safe complications and for performing radical gastrectomy.

Robotics in general surgery: an evidence-based review

Since its introduction, robotic surgery has been rapidly adopted to the extent that it has already assumed an important position in the field of general surgery. This rapid progress is quantitative as well as qualitative. In this review, we focus on the relatively common procedures to which robotic surgery has been applied in several fields of general surgery, including gastric, colorectal, hepato-biliary-pancreatic, and endocrine surgery, and we discuss the results to date and future possibilities. In addition, the advantages and limitations of the current robotic system are reviewed, and the advanced technologies and instruments to be applied in the near future are introduced. Such progress is expected to facilitate the widespread introduction of robotic surgery in additional fields and to solve existing problems.