Robotic surgery: colon and rectum. Cancer J. 2013;19:140-146. [PMID: 23528722 DOI: 10.1097/ppo.0b013e31828ba0fd]

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.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Current status and implementation of the latest technological innovations

The introduction of laparoscopy is an example of surgical innovation with a rapid implementation in many areas of surgery. A large number of controlled studies and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with the same benefits than other minimally invasive procedures, including lesser pain, earlier recovery of bowel transit and shorter hospital stay. On the other hand, despite initial concerns about oncological safety, well-designed prospective randomized multicentre trials have demonstrated that oncological outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery are similar. Although the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery has increased in recent years, the percentages of patients treated with surgery using minimally invasive techniques are still reduced and there are also substantial differences among centres. It has been argued that the limiting factor for the use of laparoscopic procedures is the number of surgeons with adequate skills to perform a laparoscopic colectomy rather than the tumour of patients’ characteristics. In this regard, future efforts to increase the use of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery will necessarily require more efforts in teaching surgeons. We here present a review of recent controversies of the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery, such as in rectal cancer operations, the possibility of reproducing complete mesocolon excision, and the benefits of intra-corporeal anastomosis after right hemicolectomy. We also describe the results of latest innovations such as single incision laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for colon and rectal diseases.

Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery

There are an estimated 39,000 new cases of rectal cancer in the United States per year which makes it the third most prevalent cancer when paired with colon cancer. Given its complexity, there are now multiple modalities available for its successful treatment. This includes innovative chemotherapy, radiation, transanal resection techniques, and minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer represents the current pinnacle of minimally invasive technology for this disease process.

Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review

AIM: To review current applications of the laparoscopic surgery while highlighting the standard procedures across different fields.

METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken using the PubMed Advanced Search Builder. A total of 321 articles were found in this search. The following criteria had to be met for the publication to be selected: Review article, randomized controlled trials, or meta-analyses discussing the subject of laparoscopic surgery. In addition, publications were hand-searched in the Cochrane database and the high-impact journals. A total of 82 of the findings were included according to matching the inclusion criteria. Overall, 403 full-text articles were reviewed. Of these, 218 were excluded due to not matching the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 185 relevant articles were identified matching the search criteria for an overview of the current literature on the laparoscopic surgery. Articles covered the period from the first laparoscopic application through its tremendous advancement over the last several years. Overall, the biggest advantage of the procedure has been minimizing trauma to the abdominal wall compared with open surgery. In the case of cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and adrenalectomy, the procedure has become the gold standard without being proven as a superior technique over the open surgery in randomized controlled trials. Faster recovery, reduced hospital stay, and a quicker return to normal activities are the most evident advantages of the laparoscopic surgery. Positive outcomes, efficiency, a lower rate of wound infections, and reduction in the perioperative morbidity of minimally invasive procedures have been shown in most indications.

CONCLUSION: Improvements in surgical training and developments in instruments, imaging, and surgical techniques have greatly increased safety and feasibility of the laparoscopic surgical procedures.

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.

Therapeutic Evaluation of Biofeedback Therapy in the Treatment of Anterior Resection Syndrome After Sphincter-Saving Surgery for Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Anterior resection syndrome (ARS) is common after sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer. It includes changes in the frequency and urgency of bowel movements and fecal incontinence. The therapeutic efficacy of biofeedback on ARS is unclear. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of biofeedback therapy in patients with ARS after anterior resection for rectal cancer and to investigate the associated factors for therapeutic success.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was designed as a retrospective review of the data from 61 patients with ARS collected from a prospectively maintained institutional cancer database. Therapeutic efficacy was evaluated using anorectal manometry, the number of bowel movements daily, and fecal incontinence scoring systems (Vaizey and/or Wexner scores). Changes of > 15% in the Vaizey and/or Wexner scores were considered to indicate effectiveness. Stepwise logistic regression models were performed to evaluate whether the associated factors influenced therapeutic efficacy.

RESULTS

The parameters of anorectal manometry in patients with rectal cancer were significantly lower than those in control group (P < .01). After biofeedback therapy, significant improvements were observed in the incontinence scale scores (P < .001), number of bowel movements (P < .001), and anorectal manometry data (maximum resting pressure, P < .001; maximum squeeze pressure, P = .001; and rectal capacity, P = .015). In contrast, no significant difference in the rectal initial sensation threshold was observed (P = .089). Patients with fecal incontinence as the primary symptom experienced significant improvements in all variables (P < .01), except for the rectal initial sensation threshold (P = .125). Age at surgery, current smoking status, diabetes, treatment cycles, laparoscopic surgery, interval from surgery to biofeedback therapy, and the use of radiation therapy were closely associated with therapeutic success. On multivariate analysis, current smoking status (odds ratio [OR], 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.87), number of biofeedback therapy cycles (OR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.00-0.06), and laparoscopic surgery (OR, 11.53; 95% CI, 1.17-113.61) were factors contributing to biofeedback therapeutic success.

CONCLUSION

Biofeedback therapy can improve the anal function of patients after restorative resection for rectal cancer.

A Review of the Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

The goal of this review was to compare long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer. A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Medline (2002-2014). Search terms: laparoscopic, robotic, rectal, colon, surgery, oncologic, and outcomes. Studies comparing overall and disease free survival of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer were included. Meta-analysis was performed using OpenMeta[Analyst] for Windows 8. Five studies were identified reporting on overall survival, disease free survival, lymph node extraction, and distal and circumferential resection margin. Three hundred and seventeen patients underwent robotic resection and 368 underwent laparoscopic resection, with similar demographics. Operative times were longer with robotic resections, with no difference in estimated blood loss (EBL) or length of stay. The disease stage was distributed similarly in both groups. Similar numbers underwent neo-adjuvant therapy. Laparoscopic resection was associated with 3.2 mm larger distal resection margins (p = 0.04) and 2.2 more lymph nodes removed (p = 0.001), but with equivalent circumferential resection margin status. Disease-free and overall survival was equivalent. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer offer comparable overall and disease free survival. Laparoscopic surgery offered a slight advantage in operative time, distal margin, and lymph node yield. Larger, prospective trials are needed to confirm the equivalence of these approaches.

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.

Rectal cancer: An evidence-based update for primary care providers

Rectal adenocarcinoma is an important cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, and key anatomic differences between the rectum and the colon have significant implications for management of rectal cancer. Many advances have been made in the diagnosis and management of rectal cancer. These include clinical staging with imaging studies such as endorectal ultrasound and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, operative approaches such as transanal endoscopic microsurgery and laparoscopic and robotic assisted proctectomy, as well as refined neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies. For stage II and III rectal cancers, combined chemoradiotherapy offers the lowest rates of local and distant relapse, and is delivered neoadjuvantly to improve tolerability and optimize surgical outcomes, particularly when sphincter-sparing surgery is an endpoint. The goal in rectal cancer treatment is to optimize disease-free and overall survival while minimizing the risk of local recurrence and toxicity from both radiation and systemic therapy. Optimal patient outcomes depend on multidisciplinary involvement for tailored therapy. The successful management of rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary approach, with the involvement of enterostomal nurses, gastroenterologists, medical and radiation oncologists, radiologists, pathologists and surgeons. The identification of patients who are candidates for combined modality treatment is particularly useful to optimize outcomes. This article provides an overview of the diagnosis, staging and multimodal therapy of patients with rectal cancer for primary care providers.

Genetics, diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer (Review)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common type of cancer worldwide and a leading cause of cancer death. Surgery represents the mainstay of treatment in early cases but often patients are primarily diagnosed in an advanced stage of disease and sometimes also distant metastases are present. Neoadjuvant therapy is therefore needed but drug resistance may influence response and concur to recurrent disease. At molecular level, it is a very heterogeneous group of diseases with about 30% of hereditary or familial cases. During colorectal adenocarcinomas development, epithelial cells from gastrointestinal trait acquire sequential genetic and epigenetic mutations in specific oncogenes and/or tumour suppressor genes, causing CRC onset, progression and metastasis. Molecular characterization of cancer associated mutations gives valuable information about disease prognosis and response to the therapy. Very early diagnosis and personalized care, as well as a better knowledge of molecular basis of its onset and progression, are therefore crucial to obtain a cure of CRC. In this review, we describe updated genetics, current diagnosis and management of CRC pointing out the extreme need for a multidisciplinary approach to achieve the best results in patient outcomes.

Robotic colorectal surgery for laparoscopic surgeons with limited experience: preliminary experiences for 40 consecutive cases at a single medical center

BACKGROUND

We present our preliminary experiences and results for forty consecutive patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) who were treated by robotic surgery.

METHODS

Between May 2013 and September 2014, forty patients with CRC received robotic surgery at a single institution. The clinicopathological features and perioperative parameters were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 40 patients with CRC, 33 (82.5 %) had rectal cancers, and 22 (66.7 %) of those 33 patients also underwent pre-operative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). The two most frequent surgical procedures were intersphincteric resection (ISR) with coloanal anastomosis (16/40, 40 %) and lower anterior resection (LAR) (15/40, 37.5 %). Among all 40 patients, the median time to first flatus passage was 2 days. The median time to soft diet resumption was 4 days. The median post operative hospital stay was 7 days. The overall complication rate was 20 % (8/40 patients), of which most of the complications were mild, although one laparotomy was required to check for post-operative bleeding. There was no 30-day hospital mortality, nor conversion to open surgery and laparoscopy.

CONCLUSION

We present our preliminary experiences of robotic colorectal surgery and demonstrate that robotic colorectal surgery is a safe and feasible surgery even when conducted by laparoscopic surgeons with limited experience.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal operations: a-single center experience

OBJECTIVE

Robotic surgery was first introduced in 2000 especially to overcome the limitations of low rectum cancer surgery. There is still no consensus regarding the standard method for colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare robotic surgery with laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study. Data of patients with a diagnosis of colon or rectal cancer were analyzed for robotic colorectal surgery and laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

The cost of robotic surgery group was statistically higher than the laparoscopic surgery group (p=0.032). The average operation duration was 178 minutes in the laparoscopic surgery group and 228 minutes in the robotic surgery group, and this difference was statistically significant (p=0.044). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding other parameters.

DISCUSSION

Disadvantages of robotic surgery seem to be its higher cost and longer operation duration as compared to laparoscopic surgery. We claim that an increase in the number of cases and experience may shorten the operation time while the increase in commercial interest may decrease the cost disadvantage of robotic surgery.

Robotic oncologic complexity score - a new tool for predicting complications in computer-enhanced oncologic surgery

BACKGROUND

While there is little doubt that robotic interventions have already opened new horizons in surgery due to its inherent complexity, there is still an unmet need for tools allowing center-to-center performance comparisons. A complexity score could be a valuable instrument for further research.

METHODS

The items of the robotic oncologic complexity score (ROCS) were based on risk factors identified in previous studies. We attempt to build the score and validate it on 400 consecutive cases of robotic oncologic surgery. The primary endpoint is to assess the value of ROCS in predicting major complications.

RESULTS

The mean ROCS in the group was 3.3(+/-1.4). Different correlations were calculated: the score and the complications (r=0.38), the major complications (r=0.42), Clavien grade (r=0.5), the operating time (r=0.35), and the length of stay (r=0.47). On the ROC-curve a score >4 has the best specificity and sensibility for predicting major complications (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

ROCS has potential in predicting complications and hospital length of stay, as well as a role in classifying oncologic robotic surgical interventions. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Anatomical features of skull base and oral cavity: a pilot study to determine the accessibility of the sella by transoral robotic-assisted surgery

The role of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) in the skull base emerges and represents the natural progression toward miniinvasive resections in confined spaces. The accessibility of the sella via TORS has been recently described on fresh human cadavers. An anatomic study is mandatory to know if this approach would be feasible in the majority of patients regardless of their oral morphological features. From 30 skull base CT scans from patients who were asked to open their mouth as wide as they can, we measured specific dimensions of the oral cavity and the skull base, such as length of the palate, mouth opening and distance from the sella to the palate. All data were acquired on a sagittal midline plane and on a 25° rotation plane, which simulated the axis of the robotic instruments. Looking at the projection of the dental palatine line on the sella, we studied possible predictive factors of sellar accessibility and tried to bring objective data for surgical feasibility. We also proposed an angle α to study the working angle at the skull base. We observed that the maximal mouth opening was a good predictive factor of sellar accessibility by TORS (p < 0.05). The mouth aperture threshold value for a good sensitivity, over 80 %, was comparable to the mean value of mouth opening in our series, 38.9 and 39.4 mm respectively. Moreover, we showed a statistically significant increase of the working angle α at the skull base comparing the lateral access to the midline one (p < 0.05). This seemed to quantitatively demonstrate that the robotic arms placed at the labial commissure of the mouth can reach the sella. From these anatomical features and previous cadaveric dissections, we assume that TORS may be feasible on a majority of patients to remove pituitary adenomas.

Robot-assisted one-stage resection of rectal cancer with liver and lung metastases

The Da Vinci Surgical System may help to overcome some of the difficulties of laparoscopy for complicated abdominal surgery. The authors of this article present a case of robot-assisted, one-stage radical resection of three tumors, including robotic anterior resection for rectal cancer, segmental hepatectomy for liver metastasis, and wedge-shaped excision for lung metastasis. A 59-year-old man with primary rectal cancer and liver and lung metastases was operated upon with a one-stage radical resection approach using the Da Vinci Surgical System. Resection and anastomosis of rectal cancer were performed extracorporeally after undocking the robot. The procedure was successfully completed in 500 min. No surgical complications occurred during the intervention and postoperative period, and no conversion to laparotomy or additional trocars were required. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of simultaneous resection for rectal cancer with liver and lung metastases using the Da Vinci Surgery System to be reported. The procedure is feasible and safe and its main advantages for patient are avoiding repeated operation, reducing surgical trauma, shortening recovery time, and early implementation of postoperative adjuvant therapy.

Comparison of minimally invasive and open colorectal resections for patients undergoing simultaneous R0 resection for liver metastases: a propensity score analysis

PURPOSE

The role of minimally invasive colorectal resection for patients undergoing a simultaneous resection for synchronous liver metastases had not been established. This study compared the short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open colorectal resection for patients undergoing simultaneous resection for liver metastases.

METHODS

This study reviewed 101 consecutive patients undergoing simultaneous colorectal resection and R0 resection of synchronous liver metastases between January 2008 and December 2012. In the study, 36 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive colorectal resection were matched with 36 patients who had an open approach by propensity scoring. The analyzed variables included patient and tumor characteristics and short-term and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, the two groups had similar clinicopathologic variables. No patient undergoing the minimally invasive procedure experienced conversion to the open technique. No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. In the minimally invasive group, the estimated blood loss (P < 0.007), bowel function return time (P < 0.016), and postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.011) were significantly lower than those in the open group, although the operating time was significantly longer (P < 0.001). No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the groups. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of the 5-year overall survival rate (51 vs. 55 %; P = 0.794) and disease-free survival rate (38 vs. 27 %; P = 0.860).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive colorectal resection with simultaneous resection of liver metastases has an outcome similar to open approach but some short-term advantages.

Robotic transanal surgery for local excision of rectal neoplasia, transanal total mesorectal excision, and repair of complex fistulae: clinical experience with the first 18 cases at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic transanal surgery represents a natural evolution of transanal minimally invasive surgery. This new approach to rectal surgery provides the ability to perform local excision of rectal neoplasia with precision. Robotic transanal surgery can also be used to perform more advanced procedures including repair of complex fistulae and transanal total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent transanal robotic surgery over a 33-month period were retrospectively reviewed. Patients underwent three types of procedures using this approach: (a) local excision of rectal neoplasia, (b) transanal total mesorectal excision, and (c) closure of complex fistulae, such as rectourethral fistulae.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients underwent robotic transanal surgery during the 33-month study period. Of these, nine patients underwent local excision of rectal neoplasia; four patients underwent transanal total mesorectal excision; four patients underwent repair of rectourethral fistulae; and one patient underwent repair of an anastomotic fistula. Of the patients undergoing robotic transanal surgery for local excision, 6/9 were resections of benign neoplasia, while 3/9 were resections for invasive adenocarcinoma. There was no fragmentation (0/9) noted on any of the locally excised specimens, while one patient (1/9) had a positive lateral margin. During the mean follow-up of 11.4 months, no recurrence was detected. Four patients underwent robotic-assisted transanal total mesorectal excision for curative intent resection of rectal cancer confined to the distal rectum. Mesorectal quality was graded as complete or near complete, and an R0 resection was performed in all four cases. Other transanal robotic procedures performed were the repair of rectourethral fistulae (n = 3) and anastomotic fistula (n = 1). This approach was met with limited success, and only half of the rectourethral fistulae were closed.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic transanal surgery for local excision, transanal total mesorectal excision, and repair of fistulae is feasible, although these new approaches represent a work-in-progress. Improvement in platform design will likely facilitate the ability to perform more complex procedures. Further research with robotic transanal approaches is necessary to determine whether or not this approach can provide patients with significant benefit.

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.

Total mesorectal excision: open, laparoscopic or robotic

Goals Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the gold standard technique for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. Despite the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic TME (LTME) is a technically challenging procedure with a long learning curve. Robotic TME (RTME) has been advocated as an alternative to conventional LTME, but large studies supporting the efficacy or RTME are scarce. This work will review the current literature on minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer and discuss future directions in the field. Methods A review of recent large single and multicenter studies on minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer was conducted. Results Based on two large randomized clinical studies (CLASICC (Green et al. 2013) and COLOR II (van der Pas et al. 2013)). LTME is safe and feasible for the treatment of rectal cancer. Compared to open surgery, LTME has been shown to result in superior postoperative outcomes and similar oncologic results. However, the conversion rate of LTME is around 17 %. The literature supporting RTME is more limited. Robotic rectal resection appears to have similar postoperative and oncologic outcomes compared to LTME. RTME results in higher costs and possibly lower conversion rates. A large randomized clinical trial (ROLARR) comparing robotic to laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is underway. Conclusions Despite the technical challenges, current data supports the use of minimally invasive technique for rectal cancer surgery with superior short-term outcomes compared to an open approach. The use of robotic surgery is promising, but still limited and awaiting the conclusion of randomized clinical trials.

Evolution and future of laparoscopic colorectal surgery

The advances of laparoscopic surgery since the early 1990s have caused one of the largest technical revolutions in medicine since the detection of antibiotics (1922, Flemming), the discovery of DNA structure (1953, Watson and Crick), and solid organ transplantation (1954, Murray). Perseverance through a rocky start and increased familiarity with the chop-stick surgery in conjunction with technical refinements has resulted in a rapid expansion of the indications for minimally invasive surgery. Procedure-related factors initially contributed to this success and included the improved postoperative recovery and cosmesis, fewer wound complications, lower risk for incisional hernias and for subsequent adhesion-related small bowel obstructions; the major breakthrough however came with favorable long-term outcomes data on oncological parameters. The future will have to determine the specific role of various technical approaches, define prognostic factors of success and true progress, and consider directing further innovation while potentially limiting approaches that do not add to patient outcomes.

Comparison of CT Fluoroscopy-Guided Manual and CT-Guided Robotic Positioning System for In Vivo Needle Placements in Swine Liver

PURPOSE

To compare CT fluoroscopy-guided manual and CT-guided robotic positioning system (RPS)-assisted needle placement by experienced IR physicians to targets in swine liver.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Manual and RPS-assisted needle placement was performed by six experienced IR physicians to four 5 mm fiducial seeds placed in swine liver (n = 6). Placement performance was assessed for placement accuracy, procedure time, number of confirmatory scans, needle manipulations, and procedure radiation dose. Intra-modality difference in performance for each physician was assessed using paired t test. Inter-physician performance variation for each modality was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Paired comparison of manual and RPS-assisted placements to a target by the same physician indicated accuracy outcomes was not statistically different (manual: 4.53 mm; RPS: 4.66 mm; p = 0.41), but manual placement resulted in higher total radiation dose (manual: 1075.77 mGy/cm; RPS: 636.4 mGy/cm; p = 0.03), required more confirmation scans (manual: 6.6; RPS: 1.6; p < 0.0001) and needle manipulations (manual: 4.6; RPS: 0.4; p < 0.0001). Procedure time for RPS was longer than manual placement (manual: 6.12 min; RPS: 9.7 min; p = 0.0003). Comparison of inter-physician performance during manual placement indicated significant differences in the time taken to complete placements (p = 0.008) and number of repositions (p = 0.04) but not in other study measures (p > 0.05). Comparison of inter-physician performance during RPS-assisted placement suggested statistically significant differences in procedure time (p = 0.02) and not in other study measures (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

CT-guided RPS-assisted needle placement reduced radiation dose, number of confirmatory scans, and needle manipulations when compared to manual needle placement by experienced IR physicians, with equivalent accuracy.

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.

A comparison of the technical and oncologic validity between robot-assisted and conventional open abdominoperineal resection

PURPOSE

This study was to ascertain whether a robot-assisted (RA) approach to APR might facilitate a cylindrical APR by enabling a deeper pelvic dissection during an abdominal approach, concurrently comparing the feasibility and short-term oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

Forty-eight consecutive patients with lower rectal cancer who had undergone curative APR (21 RA vs. 27 open) were prospectively enrolled. The short-term operative outcomes and oncologic feasibility were evaluated and compared. A levator muscle excision was performed concomitantly with the abdominal procedure in the RA group and with the perineal procedure in the open group.

RESULTS

No patients in the RA group experienced intraoperative perforation or required conversion to open APR. Overall, a cylindrical APR was performed in 72 % of patients, and subtotal excision of the levator muscle, i.e., either one or both sides of the puborectalis and pubococcygeus muscles, was more likely in the RA group (P = 0.019). A positive CRM was exclusively identified in four open APR patients. The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was greater in the RA group (20 vs. 16, P = 0.035). There was no difference in perineal morbidity between the two groups (P = 0.445).

CONCLUSIONS

The RA approach facilitates an efficient excision in the pelvic region than open APR during the abdominal procedure. The RA approach also demonstrated a trend toward improved oncologic outcomes with equivalent postoperative morbidities than with the open approach.

Predicting the pathological features of the mesorectum before the laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer

Pelvic anatomy and tumour features play a role in the difficulty of the laparoscopic approach to total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer. The aim of the study was to analyse whether these characteristics also influence the quality of the surgical specimen. We performed a prospective study in consecutive patients with rectal cancer located less than 12 cm from the anal verge who underwent laparoscopic surgery between January 2010 and July 2013. Exclusion criteria were T1 and T4 tumours, abdominoperineal resections, obstructive and perforated tumours, or any major contraindication for laparoscopic surgery. Dependent variables were the circumferential resection margin (CMR) and the quality of the mesorectum. Sixty-four patients underwent laparoscopic sphincter-preserving total mesorectal excision. Resection was complete in 79.1% of specimens and CMR was positive in 9.7%. Univariate analysis showed tumour depth (T status) (P = 0.04) and promontorium-subsacrum angle (P = 0.02) independently predicted CRM (circumferential resection margin) positivity. Tumour depth (P < 0.05) and promontorium-subsacrum axis (P < 0.05) independently predicted mesorectum quality. Multivariate analysis identified the promontorium-subsacrum angle (P = 0.012) as the only independent predictor of CRM. Bony pelvis dimensions influenced the quality of the specimen obtained by laparoscopy. These measurements may be useful to predict which patients will benefit most from laparoscopic surgery and also to select patients in accordance with the learning curve of trainee surgeons.

Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection: is there any real difference? A comparative single center study

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has gained worldwide acceptance in the past decade, and several studies have shown that this technique is safe and feasible. The aim of this study is to compare main outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection.

METHODS

In total, 143 consecutive patients treated for rectal cancer in our department with laparoscopic or robotic-assisted surgery from October 2010 to July 2013 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients underwent laparoscopic rectal resection, and 56 patients were treated using a robotic approach. The conversion rate was 11.5% in the laparoscopic group and 3.5% in the robotics group (P =  0.09). The low rectal cancer conversion rate was significantly lower in the robotic group (1.8%) than in the laparoscopy group (9.2%) (P = 0.04). Mean operation time was 252 min in the laparoscopic group and 309 min in the robotic group (P =  0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach shows a lower conversion rate in low rectal cancer but with a longer operative time compared with the laparoscopic technique.

Mini-invasive surgery for colorectal cancer

Laparoscopic techniques have been extensively used for the surgical management of colorectal cancer during the last two decades. Accumulating data have demonstrated that laparoscopic colectomy is associated with better short-term outcomes and equivalent oncologic outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, some controversies regarding the oncologic quality of mini-invasive surgery for rectal cancer exist. Meanwhile, some progresses in colorectal surgery, such as robotic technology, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, natural orifice specimen extraction, and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, have been made in recent years. In this article, we review the published data and mainly focus on the current status and latest advances of mini-invasive surgery for colorectal cancer.

Robotic technology for pelvic exenteration in cases of cervical cancer

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer represents one of the most common types of neoplasia among women; the use of minimally invasive techniques in the treatment of cervical cancer is a challenge.

OBJECTIVES

To present evidence regarding robotic technology in the performance of pelvic exenteration in cases of cervical cancer.

SEARCH STRATEGY

PubMed and Scopus databases were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Articles examining the use of robotic technology for pelvic exenteration in cases of cervical cancer were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four studies were included.

MAIN RESULTS

Most cancers treated with robotic-assisted pelvic exenteration were squamous cell carcinomas of the cervix. The stage of primary cancer ranged from IB2 to IVA. In 7 of the 8 patients, anterior pelvic exenteration was performed; the other patient underwent total pelvic exenteration. Procedure duration ranged from 375 to 600 minutes; blood loss was 200-550 mL. Postoperative complications occurred in 2 of the 8 patients and included perineal abscess, Miami pouch fistula, and ureteral stenosis. Postoperative hospital stay ranged from 3 to 53 days, and postoperative follow-up ranged from 2 to 31 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The gold standard for pelvic exenteration remains the open surgical approach; however, the application of robotic technology could be an alternate choice associated with excellent results.

A review on functional results of sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer: the anterior resection syndrome

The aim of this review is to characterize the functional results and "anterior resection syndrome" (ARS) after sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer. The purpose of sphincter-saving operations is to save the anal sphincters by avoiding the need for rectal abdomino-perineal resection with a permanent stoma. A variety of alternative techniques have been proposed and, today, ultra-low anterior resections of the rectum are commonplace. Inevitably rectal resections modify anorectal physiology. The backdrop of the functional asset for ultralow anterior resections is related to a small neorectal capacity with high endo-neorectal pressures that act together on a weakened sphincteric mechanism. Sometimes a defecation disorder called ARS may be induced and the patient experiences an extremely low quality of life. Impaired bowel function is usually provoked either by colonic dysmotility, neorectal reservoir dysfunction, anal sphincter damage or by a combination of these factors. Surgical technique defects can contribute to these possible causes: anastomotic ischemia, short length of the descending colon and stretching of neorectal mesentery may play a role. Unfortunately, there is no therapeutic algorithm or gold standard treatment that may be used for ARS. Nevertheless, it is rational to use conservative therapy first and then resort to surgery. Drugs, rehabilitative treatment and sacral neuromodulation may be used; after failure of conservative methods, surgical treatment can be considered.