Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches?: First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Surgical and Oncological Outcome of Laparoscopic Resection of Colorectal Cancers: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is one of the major advances in surgery in the last 30 years and has many benefits. Although laparoscopy was initially used for resection of benign colon lesions, it is now widely used for colorectal cancer resections after strong evidence has confirmed its safety and efficacy. We aim to report both the surgical and oncological outcomes of our first series of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections.

METHODS

In 2013, a laparoscopic colorectal resection service was established in northern Iraq at Zheen Hospital, Erbil. Data from all consecutive colorectal cancers were collected. Patients with locally advanced diseases and those who required emergency operations for bowel obstruction or perforation were excluded. We analyzed demographic, operative, postoperative, and histopathological data for all patients who were included in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients with colorectal cancers presented to our unit between January 2013 and January 2023. Only 112 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and underwent laparoscopic resections. The median age of the patients was 54.5 years. The majority of patients were men (n=62; 55.4%). In 39 patients (35%), the cancer was located in the sigmoid; in 33 patients (29.5%) the cancer was in the rectum. Laparoscopic anterior resection was the most common procedure (n=50; 45%), followed by right hemicolectomy in 17 cases (15.1%). The conversion rate to open surgery was 8% (nine cases). The most common causes of conversion to open surgery were dilated bowel loops and tumour adherence to other structures. The mean operative time was 190 minutes and the mean hospital stay was three days. No complications were reported in 94 patients (84%). Among the complications, wound infection was seen in seven patients (7.8%). There were six anastomotic leaks (6.7%). The mean number of lymph nodes harvested was 13. In 70 patients (62.5%), the lymph node count was ≥12 with a median of 13. The mean distal resection margin was 6 cm and 2.5 cm for colon and rectal resections, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals that laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancers is surgically practicable and safe with the benefits of a short hospital stay, adequate resection margins, and adequate lymph node yield.

A sutureless overlapped anastomosis technique using linear staplers with reinforced bioabsorbable material in robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis

AIM

Creation of an overlapped anastomosis using handsewn sutures for common enterotomy is very popular in robotic right colectomy (RRC) with intracorpareal anastomosis (IA). The aim of this study is to present a simple method for constructing a sutureless overlapped anastomosis using a 60 mm linear stapler with a reinforced bioabsorbable material in RRC with IA.

METHOD

The distal ileum and proximal colon were put in overlapping positions. Enterotomies were created 2 cm proximal to the ileal stump and 8 cm distal to the colonic stump on the antimesenteric side. Subsequently, a 60 mm linear stapler with a reinforced bioabsorbable material was inserted into each lumen and fired. Finally, the bowel was elevated while holding the bioabsorbable material, and the common enterotomy was grasped with the robotic instrument in the middle and closed using a linear stapler with a reinforced bioabsorbable material.

RESULTS

This technique was applied to 10 patients with tumours of the caecum, ascending colon, or transverse colon. The median operating time, anastomosis construction time, blood loss, and postoperative stay were 281 min (range 228-459 min), 12 min (range 11-17 min), 10 mL (range 0-110 mL), and 10 days (range 8-15 days), respectively. No adverse intraoperative events were observed. Postoperatively, one patient developed chylous ascites, but there were no other complications.

CONCLUSION

The simple technique for constructing a sutureless overlapped anastomosis using a 60 mm linear stapler with a reinforced bioabsorbable material in robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis appears to be safe and feasible.

Single-Center Experiences: A Comparison of Intracorporeal and Extracorporeal Anastomosis Outcomes in Right Hemicolectomy

Background Anastomosis formed in minimally invasive laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) may be achieved intra-corporeally (ICA) or extra-corporeally (ECA). This study compared the return of bowel function and other associated early patient outcomes and morbidity rates after an ICA or ECA in LRH. Methodology The study conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of elective LRH from January 2021 to September 2023. Patient demographics, surgical techniques, and outcomes were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 29.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Results Ninety participants underwent LRH, and the anastomotic type was evenly distributed - with male patients comprising 53 (58.9%) of the total. The mean age was 64 (standard deviation [SD] ±16.8) years, and the median body mass index (BMI) was 27.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 7.8). The mean follow-up period was 5.1 (SD ± 6.0) months. Univariate analysis showed that ICA had a shorter time for return of bowel function (P < 0.01). Additionally, ICA was associated with lower pain scores (P < 0.01), low morbidity (P = 0.02), and shorter hospital stays (P = 0.01). When comparing ICA to ECA, no significant difference was observed for procedure duration (P = 0.13), anastomotic leak (AL, P = 1.00), surgical-site infections (P = 0.36), lymph node yield (P = 0.26), and any-cause mortality. Multivariate logistic regression, controlling for statistically insignificant confounding factors, revealed that ECA was significantly and independently associated with increased time to first flatus (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, P = 0.01) and higher average postoperative pain (OR 1.5, P = 0.02) compared to ICA. Conclusions This single-center experience showed that ICA is associated with a quicker return to normal bowel function and low morbidity outcomes. ICA participants were positively associated with clinically relevant and health economics outcomes of shorter hospital stays without significantly adding to the procedure's duration times or compromising principles of oncological resection yield.

Early Discharge after Uncomplicated Elective Colectomy and Risk of Postdischarge Complication

BACKGROUND

This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing uncomplicated elective colectomy using the NSQIP database from January 2012 to December 2019. A colectomy is deemed uncomplicated if there are no complications reported during the hospitalization. The objective of this study was to examine the association between discharge timing and postdischarge complications in patients who undergo uncomplicated elective colectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients were stratified into an early discharge group if their length of postoperative hospitalization was ≤3 days for laparoscopic or robotic approaches, or ≤5 days for the open approach, and otherwise into delayed discharge groups. The association between early discharge and any postdischarge complication was examined using unadjusted logistic regression after propensity score matching between early and delayed discharge groups.

RESULTS

Of the 113,940 patients included, 77,979, 15,877, and 20,084 patients underwent uncomplicated laparoscopic, robotic, and open colectomy, respectively. After propensity score matching, the odds of a postdischarge complication were lower for the early discharge group in laparoscopic (odds ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.79) and robotic (odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.76) approaches, and not different in the open approach (odds ratio 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15). There were no clinically meaningful differences in the risk of return to the operating room for all surgical approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Early discharge after uncomplicated colectomy appears to be safe and is associated with lower odds of postdischarge complications in minimally invasive approaches. Our findings suggest that surgical teams practice sound clinical judgments on selecting patients who benefit from early discharge.

Oncological right hemicolectomy in a trimodal comparison: open surgery versus laparoscopic procedures with extra- and intracorporeal anastomosis technique

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the surgical short- and mid-term outcomes, as well as the impact on quality of life and recovery, following oncological right hemicolectomy. To accomplish this, three patient cohorts were examined, which included laparotomy OA), laparoscopy with intracorporeal anastomosis (LIA), and laparoscopy with extracorporeal anastomosis (LEA). Our hypothesis was that the group undergoing intracorporeal anastomosis would demonstrate superior outcomes compared to the other cohorts.

METHODS

The analysis included a total of 135 patients who were enrolled between 2015 and 2020. In addition to retrospectively collected data, we conducted follow-up surveys using a validated Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. These surveys were conducted between July and September 2021 to gather comprehensive information regarding the patients' quality of life.

RESULTS

The study cohort was divided into OA (n = 67), LEA (n = 14), and LIA (n = 54). The duration of surgery was significantly longer in the laparoscopic groups (median = 200.5 (LEA) and 184.0 (LIA) min vs 170.0 min (OA); p = 0.007), while the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (median = 6.0 and 7.0 days vs 9.0 days; p = 0.005). The overall postoperative complication rate was significantly higher in the laparotomy group compared to the intracorporeal group (64.2% vs 35.2%; p = 0.006), with the extracorporeal group having a rate of 42.9%. Reoperation within 30 days occurred exclusively in the open surgery group (n = 9; 13.43%; p = 0.007). The overall response rate to the survey was 75%. Overall, the GIQLI score was comparable among the three groups, and there were no significant differences in the questions related to recovery, regained function, and contentment.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approaches demonstrated significantly lower complication rates compared to laparotomy, while no significant differences were observed between the two laparoscopic techniques.

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for anterior resection

Minimally invasive colorectal surgery is currently well-accepted, with open techniques being reserved for very difficult cases. Laparoscopic colectomy has been proven to have lower mortality, complication, and ostomy rates; a shorter median length of stay; and lower overall costs when compared to its open counterpart. This trend is seen in both benign and malignant indications. Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) in colorectal surgery was first described in the early 1990s. Three recent meta-analyses comparing transabdominal extraction against NOSES concluded that NOSES was superior in terms of overall postoperative complications, recovery of gastrointestinal function, postoperative pain, aesthetics, and hospital stay. However, NOSES was associated with a longer operative time. Herein, we present our technique of robotic NOSES anterior resection using the da Vinci Xi platform in diverticular disease and sigmoid colon cancers.

Intracorporeal Versus Extracorporeal Colo-colic Anastomosis in Minimally-invasive Left Colectomy: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The primary aim was to investigate the operative outcomes of intracorporeal (IA) and extracorporeal (EA) anastomosis in left-sided minimally-invasive colectomy.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted for studies comparing operative outcomes and follow-up data of IA versus EA in minimally-invasive left colectomy. Studies that investigated recto-sigmoid resections using transanal circular staplers were excluded. Data from eligible studies were extracted, qualitatively assessed, and included in a meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences with 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Eight studies with a total of 750 patients were included (IA n = 335 versus EA n = 415). IA was associated with significantly lower overall morbidity (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26-0.61, p < 0.0001) and less frequent surgical site infection (SSI) (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12-0.61, p = 0.002) as primary outcomes compared to EA. Of the secondary outcomes, length of incision (SMD -2.51, 95% CI -4.21 to -0.81, p = 0.004), time to first oral diet intake (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.22, p = 0. 0004) and time to first bowel movement (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.09, p = 0.01) were significantly in favor of IA, while operative time was significantly shorter in the EA group (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.14-0.59, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

IA proves to be a safe and feasible option as it demonstrates benefits in terms of lower overall morbidity, fewer rates of SSI, smaller incision length, and faster postoperative gastrointestinal recovery despite a longer operative time compared to EA.

Intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis after minimally invasive right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

As part of the wide adoption of minimally invasive surgery, intracorporeal anastomosis is becoming increasingly common. The benefits of minimally invasive versus open right colectomy are well known although the additional benefits of an intracorporeal anastomosis, performed laparoscopically or robotically, are unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the current literature comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in the setting of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA and AMSTAR methods. Studies included were randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies, between January 1 2010 and July 1 2021, comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis with laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Four groups were identified: laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (L-ECA), laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (L-ICA), robotic extracorporeal anastomosis (R-ECA), and robotic intracorporeal anastomosis (R-ICA). Operative time, rate of conversion to an open procedure, surgical site infection, reoperation within 30 days, postoperative complications within 30 days, and length of hospital stay were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one retrospective cohort studies were included in the final analysis. R-ICA and R-ECA had comparable operative times, but a robotic approach required more time than laparoscopic (68 min longer, p < 0.00001). Conversion to open surgery was 55% less likely in the R-ICA group vs. L-ICA, and up to 94% less likely in the R-ICA group in comparison to the R-ECA group. Length of hospital stay was shorter for R-ICA by a half day vs. R-ECA, and up to 1 day less vs. L-ECA. There were no differences in postoperative complications, reoperations, or surgical site infections, regardless of approach. However, the included studies all had high risks of bias due to confounding variables and patient selection.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with shorter length of hospitalization and decreased rate of conversion to open surgery, compared to either laparoscopic or extracorporeal robotic approaches. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the true impact of robotic approach and intracorporeal anastomosis in right colectomy.

Specialization Reduces Costs Associated With Colon Cancer Care: A Cost Analysis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgeons have been reported to have superior outcomes to general surgeons in the management of colon cancer, but it is unclear whether this leads to a difference in costs associated with cancer care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate whether colorectal surgeons versus general surgeons performing elective colectomies for colon cancer resulted in cost savings.

DESIGN

A decision analysis model was built to evaluate the cost of care. One-way and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were performed to test the assumptions of the model.

SETTING

Data for the model were taken from previously published studies.

PATIENTS

This study included a simulated cohort of patients undergoing elective colectomy for colon cancer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total cost of care from the societal and health care system perspectives.

RESULTS

In the base case scenario, from the societal perspective, colectomy performed by a colorectal surgeon costs $38,798 during the 5-year window versus $46,571 when performed by a general surgeon (net savings, $7773). From the health care system perspective, surgery performed by a colorectal surgeon costs $25,125 versus surgery performed by a general surgeon, which costs $29,790 (net savings, $4665). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, surgeries performed by colorectal surgeons were cost saving or equivalent to those performed by general surgeons in 997 of 1000 simulations in the societal perspective and 989 of 1000 simulations in the health care system perspective. Overall, this finding was primarily driven by differences in reported overall recurrence rates and patient loss of productivity.

LIMITATIONS

The limitation of this study was reliance on published data, some of which included rectal cancer cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In our decision analysis model, elective colectomies for colon cancer had lower associated costs when performed by colorectal versus general surgeons. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B974 .

LA ESPECIALIZACIN REDUCE LOS COSTOS ASOCIADOS CON LA ATENCIN DEL CNCER DE COLON UN ANLISIS DE COSTOS

ANTECEDENTES: Se ha informado que los cirujanos colorrectales obtienen mejores resultados que los cirujanos generales en el tratamiento del cáncer de colon, pero no está claro si esto conduce a una diferencia en los costos asociados con la atención del cáncer.OBJETIVO: Investigar si los cirujanos colorrectales que realizan colectomías electivas para el cáncer de colon generaron ahorros de costos en comparación con los cirujanos generales.DISEÑO: Se construyó un modelo de análisis de decisiones para evaluar el costo de la atención. Se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad unidireccional y de Monte Carlo para probar los supuestos del modelo.AJUSTE: Los datos para el modelo se tomaron de estudios publicados previamente.PACIENTES: Una cohorte simulada de pacientes sometidos a colectomía electiva por cáncer de colon.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Costo total de la atención y desde la perspectiva de la sociedad y del sistema de salud.RESULTADOS: El escenario del caso base incluyó suposiciones sobre las diferencias en los resultados, incluida la recurrencia general y local, el porcentaje de recurrencia operable, la mortalidad a los 30 días, la duración de la estadía, el porcentaje de cirugía mínimamente invasiva, las complicaciones y los costos asociados. En el escenario de caso base, desde la perspectiva social, la colectomía con un cirujano colorrectal costó $38 798 durante la ventana de cinco años, frente a $46 571 con un cirujano general (ahorros netos, $7 773). Desde la perspectiva del sistema de atención médica, la cirugía realizada por un cirujano colorrectal fue de $25 125 frente a $29 790 con la cirugía realizada por un cirujano general (ahorro neto, $4665). En los análisis de sensibilidad de probabilidad, los cirujanos colorrectales ahorraron costos o fueron equivalentes a los cirujanos generales en 997 de 1000 simulaciones en la perspectiva social y 989 de 1000 simulaciones en la perspectiva del sistema de salud. En general, este hallazgo se debió principalmente a las diferencias en las tasas de recurrencia generales informadas y la pérdida de productividad de los pacientes.LIMITACIONES: Dependencia de los datos publicados, algunos de los cuales incluyeron casos de cáncer de rectoCONCLUSIONES: En nuestro modelo de análisis de decisiones, las colectomías electivas por cáncer de colon tuvieron menores costos asociados cuando las realizaron cirujanos colorrectales versus generales. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B974 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado).

Potentially Avoidable Admissions and Prolonged Hospitalization in Patients with Suspected Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Suspicion of cancer in the Emergency Department (ED) may lead to potentially avoidable and prolonged admissions. We aimed to examine the reasons for potentially avoidable and prolonged hospitalizations after admissions from the ED for new colon cancer diagnoses (ED-dx).

METHODS

A retrospective, single-institution analysis was conducted of patients with ED-dx between 2017 and 2018. Defined criteria were used to identify potentially avoidable admissions. Patients without avoidable admissions were examined for ideal length of stay (iLOS), using separate defined criteria. Prolonged length of stay (pLOS) was defined as actual length of stay (aLOS) being greater than 1 day longer than iLOS.

RESULTS

Of 97 patients with ED-dx, 12% had potentially avoidable admissions, most often (58%) for cancer workup. Very little difference in demographic, tumor characteristics, or symptoms were found, except patients with potentially avoidable admissions were more functional (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] score 0-1: 83% vs. 46%; p = 0.049) and had longer symptom duration prior to ED presentation {24 days (interquartile range [IQR] 7-75) vs. 7 days (IQR 2-21)}. Among the 60 patients who had necessary admissions but did not require urgent intervention, 78% had pLOS, most often for non-urgent surgery (60%) and further oncologic workup. The median difference between iLOS and aLOS was 12 days (IQR 8-16) for pLOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Potentially avoidable admissions following Ed-dx were uncommon but were mostly for oncologic workup. Once admitted, the majority of patients had pLOS, most often for definitive surgery and further oncologic workup. This suggests a lack of systems to safely transition to outpatient cancer management.

A national qualitative study of surgical coaching: Opportunities and barriers for colorectal surgeons

BACKGROUND

Surgical coaching interventions have been recommended as a method of technological skills improvement for individual surgeons and lifelong occupational learning. Patient outcomes for laparoscopic colectomy vary significantly based on surgeon experience and case volume. As surgical coaching is an emerging area, little is known about how surgeons view coaching interventions.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews with 68 colorectal surgeons from across the country who were e-mail recruited from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons focused on exploring the attitudes surrounding surgical coaching programs among colorectal surgeons. Interviews were performed via telephone, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim with redaction of identifying information. Interviews were analyzed by iterative steps informed by thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Surgeons reported the desire to participate in coaching programs to improve patient outcomes through technical skill advancement, to keep pace with surgical innovation, and to fulfill a desire for lifelong learning. However, surgeons varied in their beliefs over who should be coached, who should coach, the format of coaching, and the topics addressed in coaching. Obstacles identified included time, financial and medicolegal concerns, balance with resident education, and vulnerability.

CONCLUSION

Widespread enthusiasm for surgical coaching programs exists among colorectal surgeons. However, there is variability in what surgeons believe an ideal surgical coaching program would look like. Therefore, in alignment with adult learning theory, we recommend the creation of several different models of surgical coaching to allow each surgeon to benefit from this advancement in continuous professional development.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy: updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Selection of intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) in laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IA compared with EA in LRC patients.

Methods

Literature was searched systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IA with EA in LRC patients until May 2021. The eligible studies for risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data were extracted and analysed for the following outcomes of interest: operative time, length of incision, nodal harvest, bowel function recovery, postoperative pain, postoperative complications (wound infection, anastomotic leak, ileus, obstruction, reoperation), death at 30 days, duration of hospital stay and 30-day readmission.

Results

Five RCTs, including a total of 559 patients, were eligible for meta-analysis. All of the trials reported adequate random sequence generation and allocation concealment. There were significantly better outcomes in the IA group than in the EA group in time to first flatus (mean difference (MD) −0.71 (95 per cent c.i. −1.12 to −0.31), P = 0.0005), time to first passage of stool (MD −0.53 (95 per cent c.i. −0.69 to −0.37), P < 0.00001), visual analogue scale of pain on postoperative day (POD) 3 (MD −0.76 (95 per cent c.i. −1.23 to −0.28), P = 0.002), POD 4 (MD −0.83 (95 per cent c.i. −1.46 to −0.20), P = 0.01), POD 5 (MD −0.60 (95 per cent c.i. −0.95 to −0.25), P = 0.0007), length of incision (MD −1.52 (95 per cent c.i. −2.30 to −0.74), P = 0.0001) and wound infection (relative risk 0.46 (95 per cent c.i. 0.23 to 0.91), P = 0.02). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in duration of hospital stay (P = 0.47), operative time (P = 0.07), number of lymph nodes harvested (P = 0.70), anastomotic leak (P = 0.88), postoperative ileus (P = 0.48), bleeding (P = 0.15), bowel obstruction (P = 0.24), reoperation (P = 0.34), readmission within 30 days (P = 0.26), and death (P = 0.70).

Conclusion

Compared with EA, IA shows a faster recovery of bowel function with fewer wound infections.

Cost-conscious robotic restorative proctectomy has similar economic and oncologic outcomes to open restorative proctectomy: Results of a long-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND

In this study, we hypothesised that the direct hospital costs of robotic restorative proctectomy (RP) would be similar to those of open RP when a cost-conscious approach was employed in rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RP between 12/2011 and 10/2014. A cost-conscious approach was employed in robotic surgery. We compared demographics, long-term oncologic outcomes, and direct hospital costs between the open and robotic groups.

RESULTS

There were 32 robotic and 68 open RP procedures performed. Compared to open RP, the robotic RP group had a longer operative time but less estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusions, overall short-term morbidity, decreased length of stay. After the initial five robotic cases, overall hospital costs were comparable between the groups (1 ± 0.5 vs. 1 ± 0.4, open and robotic RP, respectively, p = 0.90).

CONCLUSION

Increasing surgeon experience and a cost-conscious approach may improve the value of care of robotic RP in patients with rectal cancer.

Evaluating the Regional Uptake of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery: a Report from the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colorectal disease has well-known benefits, but many patients undergo open operations. When choosing an MIS approach, robotic technology may have benefits over traditional laparoscopy and is increasingly used. However, the broad adoption of MIS, and specifically robotics, across colorectal operations has not been well described. Our primary hypothesis is that rates of MIS in colorectal surgery are increasing, with different contributions of robotics to abdominal and pelvic colorectal operations.

METHODS

Rates of MIS colorectal operations are described using a prospective cohort of elective colorectal operations at hospitals in the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) from 2011 to 2018. The main outcome was proportion of cases approached using open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Factors associated with increased use of MIS approaches were described.

RESULTS

Across 21,423 elective colorectal operations, rates for MIS (laparoscopic or robotic surgery) increased from 44% in 2011 to 75% in 2018 (p < 0.001). Approaches for abdominal operations (n = 12,493) changed from 2 to 11% robotic, 43 to 63% laparoscopic, and 56 to 26% open (p < 0.001). Approaches for pelvic operations (n = 8930) changed from 3 to 33% robotic, 40 to 42% laparoscopic, and 57 to 24% open(p < 0.001). These trends were similar for high-(100 + operations/year) and low-volume hospitals and surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

At SCOAP hospitals, the majority of elective colorectal operations is now performed minimally invasively. The increase in the MIS approach is primarily driven by laparoscopy in abdominal procedures and robotics in pelvic procedures.

Quality and Location of the Surgical Episode Mediate a Large Proportion of Socioeconomic-Based Survival Disparities in Patients with Resected Stage I-III Colon Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Lower socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with shorter overall survival (OS) in patients with locoregional colon cancer. We aimed to estimate: (1) the proportion of SES-based OS disparities mediated by disparities in the quality and location of surgical treatment in patients with resected stage I-III colon cancer and (2) the relative importance of components of surgical quality.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We examined patients ages 18-80 years with resected stage I-III colon adenocarcinoma using the 2010-2016 National Cancer Database. SES was defined at the zip code level. Inverse odds weighting mediation analysis was used to estimate the proportion mediated (PM) for nine treatment quality-related and facility-related factors and composite PMs in models including all nine mediators. Models compared high SES patients with each lower SES stratum.

RESULTS

Among 171,009 patients, 5-year OS increased from 70.4% in low SES patients to 78.1% in high SES. When high SES patients were compared with low, lower-middle, and upper-middle SES patients, PM ranges among lower SES strata were: minimally invasive surgery 16.0-16.6%, lymph nodes examined 7.7-9.6%, positive margins 3.8-6.5%, length of stay 16.7-28.1%, readmissions insignificant to 3.7%, treatment at > 1 CoC facility 2.7-3.1%, facility type insignificant to 7.3%, facility volume 2.9-8.2%, and adjusted facility 90-day mortality rates 33.2-42.8%. Composite PMs were 76.9% (95% CI 61.3%, 92.4%) for low SES, 68.7% (95% CI 56.4%, 81.1%) for lower-middle SES, and 60.9% (95% CI 43.1%, 78.6%) for upper-middle SES.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that improving the quality of the surgical episode for disadvantaged patients undergoing resection for locoregional colon cancer could decrease SES-based survival disparities by over half.

The impact of operative approach on postoperative outcomes and healthcare utilization after colectomy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate national trends in adoption of different surgical approaches for colectomy and compare clinical outcomes and resource utilization between approaches.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients aged ≥18 years who underwent elective inpatient left or right colectomy between 2010 and 2019 from the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients were classified by operative approach: open, minimally invasive: either laparoscopic or robotic. Postoperative outcomes assessed within index hospitalization include operating room time, hospital length of stay, rates of conversion to open surgery, reoperation, and complications. Post-discharge readmission, hospital-based encounters, and costs were collected to 30 days post-discharge. Multivariable regression models were used to compare outcomes between operative approaches adjusted for patient baseline characteristics and clustering within hospitals.

RESULTS

Among 206,967 patients, the robotic approach rates increased from 2.1%/1.6% (2010) to 32.6%/26.8% (2019) for left/right colectomy, offset by a decrease in both open and laparoscopic approaches. Median length of stay for both left and right colectomies was significantly longer in open (6 days) and laparoscopic (5 days) compared to robotic surgery (4 days; all P values <.001). Robotic surgery compared to open and laparoscopic was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate, development of ileus, overall complications, and 30-day hospital encounters. Robotic surgery further demonstrated lower mortality, reoperations, postoperative bleeding, and readmission rates for left and right colectomies than open. Robotic surgery had significantly longer operating room times and higher costs than either open or laparoscopic.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is increasingly being used in colon surgery, with outcomes equivalent and in some domains superior to laparoscopic.

Perioperative Outcomes and Trends in the Use of Robotic Colectomy for Medicare Beneficiaries From 2010 Through 2016

Importance

The use of robotic surgery for common operations like colectomy is increasing rapidly in the United States, but evidence for its effectiveness is limited and may not reflect real-world practice.

Objective

To evaluate outcomes of and trends in the use of robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy across diverse practice settings.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based study of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective colectomy was conducted between January 2010 and December 2016. We used an instrumental variable analysis to account for both measured and unmeasured differences in patient characteristics between robotic, open, and laparoscopic colectomy procedures. Data were analyzed from January 21, 2019, to March 1, 2019.

Exposures

Receipt of robotic colectomy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Incidence of postoperative medical and surgical complications and length of stay.

Results

A total of 191 292 procedures (23 022 robotic procedures [12.0%], 87 639 open procedures [45.8%], and 80 631 laparoscopic colectomy procedures [42.0%]) were included. Robotic colectomy was associated with a lower adjusted rate of overall complications than open colectomy (17.6% [95% CI, 16.9%-18.2%] vs 18.6% [95% CI, 18.4%-18.7%]; relative risk [RR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.91-0.98]). This difference was driven by lower rates of medical complications (15.5% [95% CI, 14.8%-16.2%] vs 16.9% [95% CI, 16.7%-17.1%]; RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87-0.96]) because surgical complications were higher with the robotic approach (3.0% [95% CI, 2.8%-3.2%] vs 2.4% [95% CI, 2.3%-2.5%]; RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.04-1.35]). There were no differences in complications between robotic and laparoscopic colectomy (11.1% [95% CI, 10.5%-11.6%] vs 11.0% [95% CI, 10.8%-11.2%]; RR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95-1.05]). There was an overall shift toward greater proportional use of robotic colectomy from 0.7% (457 of 65 332 patients) in 2010 to 10.9% (8274 of 75 909 patients) in 2016. In hospitals with the highest adoption of robotic colectomy between 2010 and 2016, increasing use of robotic colectomy (0.8% [100 of 12 522 patients] to 32.8% [5416 of 16 511 patients]) was associated with a greater replacement of laparoscopic operations (43.8% [5485 of 12 522 patients] to 25.2% [4161 of 16 511 patients]) than open operations (55.4% [6937 of 12 522 patients] to 41.9% [6918 of 16 511 patients]).

Conclusions and Relevance

While robotic colectomy was associated with minimal safety benefit over open colectomy and had comparable outcomes with laparoscopic colectomy, population-based trends suggest that it replaced a greater proportion of laparoscopic rather than open colectomy, especially in hospitals with the highest adoption of robotics.

A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Surgical Approaches to Proctectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is increasingly used for proctectomy, but the cost-effectiveness of this approach is uncertain. Robotic surgery is considered more expensive than open or laparoscopic approaches, but in certain situations has been demonstrated to be cost-effective. We examined the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches to proctectomy from societal and healthcare system perspectives.

METHODS

We developed a decision-analytic model to evaluate one-year costs and outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic, and open proctectomy based on data from the available literature. The robustness of our results was tested with one-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Open proctectomy had increased cost and lower quality of life (QOL) compared with laparoscopy and robotic approaches. In the societal perspective, robotic proctectomy costs $497/case more than laparoscopy, with minimal QOL improvements, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $751,056 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). In the healthcare sector perspective, robotic proctectomy resulted in $983/case more and an ICER of $1,485,139/QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated factors influencing cost-effectiveness primarily pertained to the operative cost and the postoperative length of stay (LOS). In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the cost-effective approach to proctectomy was laparoscopic in 42% of cases, robotic in 39%, and open in 19% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $100,000/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy cost less and have higher QALY than the open approach. Based on current data, laparoscopy is the most cost-effective approach. Robotic proctectomy can be cost-effective if modest differences in costs or postoperative LOS can be achieved.

Competency-Based Education in Minimally Invasive and Robotic Colorectal Surgery

Minimally invasive and robotic techniques have become increasingly implemented into surgical practice and are now an essential part of the foundational skills of training colorectal surgeons. Over the past 5 years there has been a shift in the surgical educational paradigm toward competency-based education (CBE). CBE recognizes that trainees learn at different rates but regardless, are required to meet a competent threshold of performance prior to independent practice. Thus, CBE attempts to replace the traditional "time" endpoint of training with "performance." Although conceptually sensible, implementing CBE has proven challenging. This article will define competence, outline appropriate assessment tools to assess technical skill, and review the literature on the number of cases required to achieve competence in colorectal procedures while outlining the barriers to implementing CBE.

Intraureteral indocyanine green augments ureteral identification and avoidance during complex robotic-assisted colorectal surgery

AIM

Up to 10% of patients who undergo nonurological abdominopelvic operations suffer a ureteral injury. While preoperative ureteral stenting to facilitate identification of the ureter is common, it does not reduce the incidence of intraoperative ureteral injury and is not without risk. As we continue to broaden the application of minimally invasive surgical techniques, a new form of ureteral identification and avoidance that does not rely on tactile feedback is needed. We report our initial experience with intraureteral indocyanine green (ICG) for ureteral identification and avoidance during complex robotic-assisted colorectal surgery.

METHOD

Patients undergoing adjunctive ureteral identification during robotic-assisted colorectal surgery were prospectively identified. Each patient underwent intraureteral ICG administration using rigid cystoscopy (22 Fr). A 5-Fr open-ended ureteral catheter was inserted up to 20 cm and used to inject 5 ml of 2.5 mg/ml ICG as the catheter was withdrawn to the ureteral orifice. Intraureteral ICG was then detected using near-infrared laser fluorescence technology (Firefly®).

RESULTS

Successful ICG-enhanced ureteral identification and avoidance was performed in 15 of 16 (94%) patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal surgery. The median ICG instillation time was 11.5 min (range 4-21 min) and the median operative time with ICG visualization was 489 min (8 h 9 min) [range 268-738 min (4 h 28 min-12 h 18 min)]. No patient experienced intraoperative ureteral injury and there were no adverse sequelae or complications associated with intraureteral ICG administration.

CONCLUSION

Intraureteral ICG is a safe and effective method of intraoperative ureteral identification and avoidance during complex robotic-assisted colorectal surgery. Precise and prolonged ureteral visualization was achieved, allowing for long operative times compatible with complex robotic-assisted operations.

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

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

Comparison of postoperative recovery of patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of right colon cancer with modified triangular anastomosis or tubular anastomosis: a retrospective cohort study

Background

We compared the advantages and disadvantages of modified triangular anastomosis and tubular anastomosis for digestive tract reconstruction in patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of right colon cancer.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 92 cases of laparoscopic-assisted resection of right colon cancer, treated from June 2017 to June 2018, at the Huai’an No. 1 People’s Hospital in China. Patients were divided into a modified triangular anastomosis group (n = 33) and a tubular anastomosis group (n = 59). In the modified triangular anastomosis group, digestive tract reconstruction was conducted using side-to-side anastomosis of the ileo-transverse colon with a 60-mm linear stapler. The common entry hole was closed with a running suture. The tubular anastomosis group underwent end-to-side anastomosis of the ileo-transverse colon with a tubular stapler anchor placed at the end of the ileum.

Results

At baseline and perioperatively, there were no significant between-group differences in age, sex, body mass index, tumor location, pathological stage, or tumour size (P > 0.05). There were also no significant between-group differences in operation time, estimated blood loss, the number of harvested lymph nodes, the first postoperative flatulence time, hospitalisation time, or postoperative complications (P > 0.05); however, the total cost of hospitalization for the triangular anastomosis group was significantly lower than the tubular anastomosis group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Modified triangular anastomosis is a safe and feasible procedure for laparoscopic-assisted radical resection of right colon cancer. These results affirm the safety and effectiveness of total laparoscopic radical resection of right colon cancer. Given the equivalent outcomes between the two procedures, the modified triangular procedure may be more a more cost-effective option for clinical application.

The robotic colorectal experience: an outcomes and learning curve analysis of 502 patients

AIM

This study aimed to present our experience with robotic colorectal surgery since its establishment at our institution in 2009. By examining the outcomes of over 500 patients, our experience provides a basis for assessing the introduction of a robotic platform in a colorectal practice. Specific measures investigated include intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes for all operations using the robotic platform. In addition, for our most commonly performed operations we wished to analyse the learning curve to improve operative proficiency. This is the largest single-surgeon robotic database analysed to date.

METHOD

A prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery by a single surgeon at the George Washington University Hospital was retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data and perioperative outcomes were assessed. Additionally, an operating time learning curve analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria identified 502 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery between October 2009 and December 2018. The most common indications for surgery were diverticulitis (22.9%), colon adenocarcinoma (22.1%) and rectal adenocarcinoma (19.5%). The most common operations were anterior/low anterior resection (33.9%), right hemicolectomy/ileocaecectomy (24.9%) and left hemicolectomy/sigmoidectomy (21.9%). The rate of conversion to open surgery was 4.8%. The most common postoperative complications were wound infection (5.0%), anastomotic leakage (4.0%) and abscess formation (2.8%). The operating time learning curve plateaued at 55-65 cases for anterior and low anterior resection and 35-45 cases for left hemicolectomy and sigmoidectomy. A clear learning curve was not seen in right hemicolectomy.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted surgery can be performed in a diverse colorectal practice with low rates of conversion and postoperative complications. Plateau performance was achieved after 65 anterior/low anterior resections and 45 left and sigmoid colectomies.

Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Minimally Invasive Colectomy

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomy.

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic-assisted colon surgery is increasing. Robotic technology is more expensive and whether a robotically assisted approach is cost-effective remains to be determined.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed to evaluate the 1-year costs and quality-adjusted time between robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy. Model inputs were derived from available literature for costs, quality of life (QOL), and outcomes. Results are presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), defined as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the effect of clinically reasonable variations in the inputs on our results.

RESULTS

Open colectomy cost more and achieved lower QOL than robotic and laparoscopic approaches. From the societal perspective, robotic colectomy costs $745 more per case than laparoscopy, resulting in an ICER of $2,322,715/QALY because of minimal differences in QOL. From the healthcare sector perspective, robotics cost $1339 more per case with an ICER of $4,174,849/QALY. In both models, laparoscopic colectomy was more frequently cost-effective across a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses suggest robotic colectomy becomes cost-effective at $100,000/QALY if robotic disposable instrument costs decrease below $1341 per case, robotic operating room time falls below 172 minutes, or robotic hernia rate is less than 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and robotic colectomy are more cost-effective than open resection. Robotics can surpass laparoscopy in cost-effectiveness by achieving certain thresholds in QOL, instrument costs, and postoperative outcomes. With increased use of robotic technology in colorectal surgery, there is a burden to demonstrate these benefits.

Single-incision robotic adrenalectomy (SIRA): the future of adrenal surgery?

In compliance with the trend toward less invasive techniques, single incision robotic surgeries have become more common and they have been increasingly used for several surgeries including adrenalectomy. Single incision robotic adrenalectomy (SIRA) aims to combine the merits of robotic surgery with previously defined single incision laparoscopic techniques. It has been shown to be safe and feasible, however, there are only few studies on this new technique. Due to scant data on SIRA in the current literature, it remains to be a current challenge in adrenal surgery. In this review, our goal is to present current literature on SIRA and discuss the data regarding perioperative outcomes, patient selection, learning curve, and its limitations.

The hospital costs of complications following colonic resection surgery: A retrospective cohort study

Background

Colonic resection is a common surgical procedure associated with a high rate of postoperative complications. The aim of this observational study is to estimate the in-hospital costs of complications and to identify perioperative variables associated with complication development following colon resection surgery.

Materials and methods

We conducted a single-centre cohort study with retrospective data collection of 487 patients undergoing colonic resection surgery between 2013 and 2018. Postoperative complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system. In-hospital cost of index admission is reported in 2019 United States Dollars. Regression modelling was used to investigate the relationship of a priori selected perioperative variables and presence of complications and costs.

Results

Overall complication prevalence was 69.6% (95%CI:65.5%–73.7%). Median [interquartile range] cost of patients with postoperative complications was significantly increased as compared to patients without complications ($17,963 [13,533:25,178] vs $12,578 [10,196:16,140]; p < 0.0001). Clavien-Dindo Grade I, II, III and IV complications increased costs by 15.8%, 36.8%, 169.4% and 240.1% respectively (p < 0.0001). Presence of complications was significantly associated with Charlson Comorbidity Index (Odds ratio (OR) per 1-unit increase: 1.09; 95%CI:1.02 to 1.17), preoperative albumin levels (OR per 1-unit increase: 0.94; 95%CI:0.90 to 0.98) and open as compared to laparoscopic resection (OR: 2.41; 95%CI:1.32 to 4.42).

Conclusions

There is a high prevalence of complications following colonic resection surgery. Postoperative complications, including minor complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade I-II), were associated with a significant increase in hospital costs and are a key target for cost containment strategies.

•

Almost 7 out of every 10 patients experienced one or more complications.

•

Most complications were minor (Clavien-Dindo grade I-II).

•

Minor complications significantly increased costs by over 20%.

•

Major complications resulted in an exponential increase in costs and length of stay.

•

Charlson Comorbidity Index and hypoalbuminemia are associated with complications.

Workplace absenteeism amongst patients undergoing open vs. robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, and partial colectomy

BACKGROUND

There is controversy regarding the widespread uptake of robotic surgery across several surgical disciplines. While it has been shown to confer clinical benefits such as decreased blood loss and shorter hospital stays, some argue that the benefits of this technology do not outweigh its high cost. We performed a retrospective insurance-based analysis to investigate how undergoing robotic surgery, compared to open surgery, may impact the time in which an employed individual returns to work after undergoing major surgery.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of US adults with employer-sponsored insurance using claims data from the MarketScan database who underwent either open or robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy/myomectomy, and partial colectomy from 2012 to 2016. We performed multiple regression models incorporating propensity scores to assess the effect of robotic vs. open surgery on the number of absent days from work, adjusting for demographic characteristics and baseline absenteeism.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 1157 individuals with employer-sponsored insurance, those undergoing open surgery, compared to robotic surgery, had 9.9 more absent workdays for radical prostatectomy (95%CI 5.0 to 14.7, p < 0.001), 25.3 for hysterectomy/myomectomy (95%CI 11.0-39.6, p < 0.001), and 29.8 for partial colectomy (95%CI 14.8-44.8, p < 0.001) CONCLUSION: For the three major procedures studied, robotic surgery was associated with fewer missed days from work compared to open surgery. This information helps payers, patients, and providers better understand some of the indirect benefits of robotic surgery relative to its cost.

Association of laparoscopic colectomy versus open colectomy on the long-term health-related quality of life of colon cancer survivors

Background

Laparoscopic colectomy (LC) is a less invasive alternative to open colectomy (OC) in the treatment of stage I–III colon cancer. Research on the long-term (5-year post-diagnosis) health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of LC patients is scarce. Our study aimed to compare the long-term HRQOL and psychological well-being of stage I–III colon cancer survivors treated either with LC or OC.

Methods

This study used a German population-based cohort of patients treated with either LC (n = 86) or OC (n = 980). LC patients were matched to OC patients using a propensity score. At 5-year follow-up, patients completed assessments on HRQOL (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CR29) and psychological well-being (distress and disease/treatment burden). Least square mean scores of HRQOL were derived using linear regression. Proportions of patients with moderate/high distress and disease/treatment burden were compared with Chi-square tests.

Results

In total, 81 LC patients were matched to 156 OC patients. Generally, LC patients had HRQOL comparable to OC patients, albeit LC patients reported significantly better body image (87.1 versus 81.0, p = 0.03). Distress levels were generally low and comparable between the two groups, even though LC patients were more likely to experience disease recurrence (16% versus 7%, p = 0.02) than OC patients. OC patients were more likely to feel moderate/high levels of burden associated with the treatment (72% versus 56%, p = 0.01) and the time after treatment completion (43% versus 28%, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

LC patients reported comparable long-term HRQOL outcomes but higher levels of psychological well-being than OC patients 5 years after diagnosis, even though LC was associated with higher risk of disease recurrence.

Trends in the Adoption of Robotic Surgery for Common Surgical Procedures

IMPORTANCE

Increasing use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures with limited evidence and unclear clinical benefit is raising concern. Analyses of population-based trends in practice and how hospitals' acquisition of robotic surgical technologies is associated with their use are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize trends in the use of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used clinical registry data from Michigan from January 1, 2012, through June 30, 2018. Trends were characterized in the use of robotic surgery for common procedures for which traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery was already considered a safe and effective approach for most surgeons when clinically feasible. A multigroup interrupted time series analysis was performed to determine how procedural approaches (open, laparoscopic, and robotic) change after hospitals launch a robotic surgery program. Data were analyzed from March 1 through April 19, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Initiation of robotic surgery.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Procedure approach (ie, robotic, open, or laparoscopic).

RESULTS

The study cohort included 169 404 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.4 [16.9] years; 90 595 women [53.5%]) at 73 hospitals. The use of robotic surgery increased from 1.8% in 2012 to 15.1% in 2018 (8.4-fold increase; slope, 2.1% per year; 95% CI, 1.9%-2.3%). For certain procedures, the magnitude of the increase was greater; for example, for inguinal hernia repair, the use of robotic surgery increased from 0.7% to 28.8% (41.1-fold change; slope, 5.4% per year; 95% CI, 5.1%-5.7%). The use of robotic surgery increased 8.8% in the first 4 years after hospitals began performing robotic surgery (2.8% per year; 95% CI, 2.7%-2.9%). This trend was associated with a decrease in laparoscopic surgery from 53.2% to 51.3% (difference, -1.9%; 95% CI, -2.2% to -1.6%). Before adopting robotic surgery, hospitals' use of laparoscopic surgery increased 1.3% per year. After adopting robotic surgery, the use of laparoscopic surgery declined 0.3% (difference in trends, -1.6%; 95% CI, -1.7% to -1.5%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These results suggest that robotic surgery has continued to diffuse across a broad range of common surgical procedures. Hospitals that launched robotic surgery programs had a broad and immediate increase in the use of robotic surgery, which was associated with a decrease in traditional laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery.

Robotic surgery in colorectal cancer: the way forward or a passing fad

Introduced mainly to overcome the technical limitations of laparoscopy, robotic colorectal surgery (CRS) has been touted to provide superior optics, ergonomics, and surgeon autonomy. This technological advancement is nonetheless associated with certain drawbacks, mainly involving its cost and the lack of unequivocal benefit over conventional laparoscopy. In this era of evidence-based medicine, robotic CRS remains predominantly a subject of individual institution case series, retrospective studies, matched comparisons at best, and repeated reviews of the above literature. This article provides a critique of the more contemporary data regarding the use of robotics in colorectal cancer surgery and the controversies surrounding the literature.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

How robotics is changing and will change the field of colorectal surgery

During the last decade there has been a significant upward trend in colon and rectal minimally invasive surgery which can be attributed largely to the acceptance of robotic surgery platforms such as the da Vinci^® robotic system. The fourth generation da Vinci^® system, introduced in 2014, includes integrated table motion, intelligent laser targeted docking and more sophisticated instrumentation and imaging. These developments have enabled more surgeons to efficiently and safely perform multi-quadrant operations. Firefly^® technology allows assessment of colon perfusion and identification of ureters, and has shown potential in detecting occult recurrence or metastasis using molecular-labelled tumor markers. Wristed instrumentation has increased the technical ease of intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) for many surgeons, leading to more common use of ICA during right colectomy. Advanced imaging has shown potential to decrease the incidence of presacral nerve injury and improve urogenital outcomes after pelvic surgery, as has been the case in robotic urologic procedures. Finally, the robotic platform lends itself to surgical simulation for surgical trainees, as a pre-operative tool for mock operations and as an ongoing assessment tool for established colorectal surgeons. Given these advantages, surgeons should anticipate continued and increased utilization of this beneficial technology.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in minimally invasive right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive colectomy has become the standard for treatment of colonic disease in many centers. Restoration of bowel continuity following resection can be achieved by intracorporeal (IC) or extracorporeal (EC) anastomosis. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the outcomes of IC compared to EC anastomosis in minimally invasive right colectomy.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic literature search for studies assessing the outcome of IC and EC anastomosis in laparoscopic and robot-assisted right colectomy was conducted. The primary outcome of this review was postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, length of stay, conversion to open surgery, and bowel recovery.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies including 4450 patients were evaluated. 47.7% of patients had IC anastomosis and 52.3% had EC anastomosis. The weighted mean length of extraction site incision in the IC group was shorter than the EC group. The EC group had significantly higher odds of conversion to open surgery (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1-3.45, p = 0.046), total complications (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.11, p = 0.007), anastomotic leakage (AL) (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.4-2.7, p = 0.003), surgical site infection (SSI) (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.4-2.6, p = 0.002), and incisional hernia (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85-5.33, p < 0.001) compared to the IC group. Both groups had similar rates of ileus, small bowel obstruction, bleeding, and intra-abdominal infection.

CONCLUSION

IC anastomosis was associated with significantly shorter extraction site incisions, earlier bowel recovery, fewer complications, and lower rates of conversion, AL, SSI, and incisional hernia than has the EC anastomosis.

Reducing anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: The old dogmas and the new challenges

Anastomotic leak (AL) constitutes a significant issue in colorectal surgery, and its incidence has remained stable over the last years. The use of intra-abdominal drain or the use of mechanical bowel preparation alone have been proven to be useless in preventing AL and should be abandoned. The role or oral antibiotics preparation regimens should be clarified and compared to other routes of administration, such as the intravenous route or enema. In parallel, preoperative antibiotherapy should aim at targeting collagenase-inducing pathogens, as identified by the microbiome analysis. AL can be further reduced by fluorescence angiography, which leads to significant intraoperative changes in surgical strategies. Implementation of fluorescence angiography should be encouraged. Progress made in AL comprehension and prevention might probably allow reducing the rate of diverting stoma and conduct to a revision of its indications.

Utilization of Laparoscopic Colon Surgery in the Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (PUDF)

Background:

Laparoscopic surgery has become the standard of care for the most common surgical procedures performed. However, laparoscopic techniques have not reached this same penetrance in colorectal surgery. We wanted to determine the percentage of colon operations performed in Texas that were done via laparoscopic, robotic and open techniques.

Methods:

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (PUDF) was queried using ICD-9-CM diagnostic and procedure codes to determine overall utilization of laparoscopic colectomies (LC) in Texas between 2013-14 for reporting facilities. We specifically looked at cost and the length of stay for LC, open colectomy (OC) and robotic assisted colectomy (RAC).

Results:

In the state of Texas between 2013-14 there were 20,454 colectomies performed. Of these 12,328 (60.3%) were OC, 7,536 (36.8%) were LC, and 590 (3.9%) were RAC. Average total cost was $117,113 for OC, $75,741.9 for LC, and $81,996.2 for RAC. Average length of stay for each technique was 10.6 days for OC, 6.1 days for LC, and 5.1 days for RAC. The risk of a postoperative complication occurring was higher in the open procedure than a laparoscopic procedure.

Conclusions:

LC accounted for only 36.8% of all colectomies performed in Texas between 2013-14. OC costs twice as much as LC and increased the length of stay by nearly 4 d. LC and RAC are both associated with significantly less cost and length of stay for patients undergoing surgery, while lowering perioperative complications.

Disclosures:

None of the authors have any relevant disclosures.

Laparoscopic and open surgery in rectal cancer patients in Germany: short and long-term results of a large 10-year population-based cohort

Background

Rectal cancer is frequent in Germany and worldwide. Several studies have assessed laparoscopic surgery as a treatment option and most have shown favorable results. However, long-term oncologic safety remains a controversial issue.

Methods

The current dataset derives from 30 clinical cancer registries in Germany and includes 16,378 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer between 2007 and 2016. Outcomes were 90-day mortality, overall survival (OS), local recurrence-free survival (RFS) and relative survival of patients treated with either open or laparoscopic surgery. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate factors that affected the probability of a patient undergoing laparoscopic surgery as well as to evaluate short-term mortality. OS and RFS were analyzed by Kaplan–Meier plots and multivariable Cox regression conducted separately for UICC stages I–III, tumor location, and sex as well as by propensity score matching followed by univariable and multivariable survival analysis.

Results

Of 16,378 patients, 4540 (27.7%) underwent laparoscopic surgery, a trend which increased during the observation period. Patients undergoing laparoscopy attained better results for 90-day mortality (odds ratio, OR 0.658, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.526–0.822). The 5-year OS rate in the laparoscopic group was 82.6%, vs. 76.6% in the open surgery group, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.819 in multivariable Cox regression (95% CI 0.747–0.899, p < 0.001). The laparoscopic group showed a better 5-year RFS, with 81.8 vs. 74.3% and HR 0.770 (95% CI 0.705–0.842, p < 0.001). The 5-year relative survival rates were also in favor of laparoscopy, with 93.1 vs. 88.4% (p = 0.012).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer can be performed safely and, according to this study, is associated with an oncological outcome superior to that of the open procedure. Therefore, in the absence of individual contraindications, it should be considered as a standard approach.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Long-term results after elective laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in octogenarians

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the short- and long-term outcomes after elective laparoscopic surgery (LPS) for colorectal cancer patients over 80 years of age.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all patients of 80 and above, who underwent elective colorectal resection, between January 2007 and January 2016. Data were analysed from a prospectively collected cancer database and cross checked with patient records. Determinants of survival were analysed using log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

We identified 293 patients; 110 underwent LPS. LPS had significantly better overall survival (p = 0.0065) and disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.006). The LPS group also had a shorter length of stay (LOS)-9 vs 11 days (p < 0.00001), 90-day mortality-5.5 vs 13.7% (p = 0.03) and required fewer blood transfusions 22.7 vs 40.4% (p = 0.002), when compared to open surgery (OPS). There was no difference in 30-day mortality 1.8 vs 4.9% (p = 0.22), anastomotic leakage 2.3 vs 6% (p = 0.20) or post-operative complication rates 44.5 vs 50.8% (p = 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

LPS for patients in their 80s is characterised by better overall and DFS compared to open procedures and is associated with shorter post-operative LOS, and significantly lower 90-day mortality. Patients operated on laparoscopically also required fewer post-operative blood transfusions.

Three trocars laparoscopic right ileocolectomy for advanced small bowel neuroendocrine tumor

BACKGROUND

In the last decade Reduced Port Laparoscopy (RPL) has been introduced to reduce the risks related to the trocars and abdominal wall trauma, with enhanced cosmetic outcomes. The authors report a 59 year old man with a small bowel neuroendocrine tumor, submitted to three trocars right ileocolectomy.

VIDEO

Preoperative work-up, including endoscopic ultrasound, octreo-PET-CT and FDG PET-CT, showed a 15 mm small bowel low grade well differentiated neuroendocrine tumor with mesenteric and transverse mesocolic extension, until the muscularis propria of the 3rd duodenum. The procedure was performed using three trocars: 12-mm in the umbilicus, 5-mm in the right and left flanks. After mobilization of the right colon, the 2nd and 3rd duodenal segments were exposed, showing tumor extension to the anterior duodenal wall. After encircling the anterior aspect of the duodenal wall with a piece of cotton tape, a linear stapler was inserted through the umbilical trocar under a 5-mm scope in the left flank, and it was fired. The specimen was removed through a suprapubic access. Frozen section biopsy showed free duodenal margin, hence the procedure was finished with handsewn intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis.

RESULTS

Operative time was 4 hours. No added trocars were necessary. Patient was discharged on 4th day. Pathology showed a grade I, well differentiated small bowel neuroendocrine tumor, with lymphovascular emboli and perinervous infiltration; 1/20 metastatic nodes, free margins; stage (8 UICC edition): pT3N1. At 12 months of follow-up the patient is free of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

RPL offers all MIS advantages, including reduced trocar complications and enhanced cosmetic outcomes.

The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the growth in laparoscopic surgery, comparable oncological outcomes, and reduced complication rates, the majority of colorectal surgery is still performed via an open approach. Reasons for this may include technical difficulties associated with operating in narrow spaces such as in the pelvis and inadequate experience. Robotic surgery provides potential solutions to some of these challenges. This review will summarize the state of the literature regarding robotic colorectal surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The most consistent benefit of robotic surgery is decreasing operative conversions, specifically in rectal cancer. In partial colectomies, there is evidence to support quicker return to bowel function. Oncologic outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach are equivalent. Robotic surgery provides solutions to the challenges posed by laparoscopy, including wristed instruments, ease of intracorporeal suturing, and ergonomic advantages. Randomized trials to evaluate peri-operative outcomes will be important. If robotics is able to facilitate conversion of open colectomies to their minimally invasive equivalent, robotics may end up proving to be advantageous in the peri-operative and post-operative period. Continued studies are warranted.