Robotic-assisted laparoscopic primary repair of acute iatrogenic colonic perforation: case report

Emergency robotic surgery: the experience of a single center and review of the literature

BACKGROUNDS

Laparoscopic surgery is widely used in abdominal emergency surgery (AES), and the possibility of extending this approach to the more recent robotic surgery (RS) arouses great interest. The slow diffusion of robotic technology mainly due to high costs and the longer RS operative time when compared to laparoscopy may represent disincentives, especially in AES. This study aims to report our experience in the use of RS in AES assessing its safety and feasibility, with particular focus on intra- and post-operative complications, conversion rate, and surgical learning curve. Our data were also compared to other experiences though an extensive literature review.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed a single surgeon series of the last 10 years. From January 2014 to December 2023, 36 patients underwent urgent or emergency RS. The robotic devices used were Da Vinci Si (15 cases) and Xi (21 cases).

RESULTS

36 (4.3%) out of 834 robotic procedures were included in our analysis: 20 (56.56%) females. The mean age was 63 years and 30% of patients were ≥ 70 years. 2 (5.55%) procedures were performed at night. No conversions to open were reported in this series. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, 2 (5.5%) major complications were collected. Intraoperative and 30-day mortality were 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that RS may be a useful and reliable approach also to AES and intraoperative laparoscopic complications when performed in selected hemodynamically stable patients in very well-trained robotic centers. The technology may increase the minimally invasive use and conversion rate in emergent settings in a completely robotic or hybrid approach.

Methods of Surgical Repair for Iatrogenic Sigmoid Colon Perforation Following Colonoscopy: A Case Report and Literature Review

Iatrogenic colonic perforation is a relatively infrequent yet perilous complication arising from both diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies, potentially leading to severe septic complications and increased morbidity or mortality. Given the gravity of potential complications, surgical intervention stands as the principal treatment strategy, with various modalities selected based on clinical discretion. In this context, we present the case of a patient who underwent primary laparoscopic repair following the identification of a sigmoid colon perforation during a routine colonoscopy. Intraoperatively, a Jackson-Pratt drain was placed to facilitate postoperative monitoring and drainage. The patient's hospitalization extended to a total of seven days due to sustained drainage and leukocytosis, highlighting the complexities of managing postoperative complications in such cases. This report underscores the current landscape of published data guiding the surgical management of iatrogenic colonic perforation following colonoscopy and highlights both the existing strengths and gaps within the current body of literature. As colonic perforation remains a critical concern in endoscopic procedures, a comprehensive understanding of optimal surgical interventions is crucial for minimizing patient morbidity and ensuring successful outcomes.

Robotic operations in urgent general surgery: a systematic review

Robotically assisted operations are the state of the art in laparoscopic general surgery. They are established predominantly for elective operations. Since laparoscopy is widely used in urgent general surgery, the significance of robotic assistance in urgent operations is of interest. Currently, there are few data on robotic-assisted operations in urgent surgery. The aim of this study was to collect and classify the existing studies. A two-stage, PRISMA-compliant literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted. We analyzed all articles on robotic surgery associated with urgent general surgery resp. acute surgical diseases of the abdomen. Gynecological and urological diseases so as vascular surgery, except mesenterial ischemia, were excluded. Studies and case reports/series published between 1980 and 2021 were eligible for inclusion. In addition to a descriptive synopsis, various outcome parameters were systematically recorded. Fifty-two studies of operations for acute appendicitis and cholecystitis, hernias and acute conditions of the gastrointestinal tract were included. The level of evidence is low. Surgical robots in the narrow sense and robotic camera mounts were used. All narrow-sense robots are nonautonomous systems; in 82%, the Da Vinci^® system was used. The most frequently published emergency operations were urgent cholecystectomies (30 studies, 703 patients) followed by incarcerated hernias (9 studies, 199 patients). Feasibility of robotic operations was demonstrated for all indications. Neither robotic-specific problems nor extensive complication rates were reported. Various urgent operations in general surgery can be performed robotically without increased risk. The available data do not allow a final evidence-based assessment.

Robotic surgery in emergency setting: 2021 WSES position paper

BACKGROUND

Robotics represents the most technologically advanced approach in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Its application in general surgery has increased progressively, with some early experience reported in emergency settings. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a systematic review of the literature to develop consensus statements about the potential use of robotics in emergency general surgery.

METHODS

This position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee was constituted to draft the position paper according to the literature review. An international expert panel then critically revised the manuscript. Each statement was voted through a web survey to reach a consensus.

RESULTS

Ten studies (3 case reports, 3 case series, and 4 retrospective comparative cohort studies) have been published regarding the applications of robotics for emergency general surgery procedures. Due to the paucity and overall low quality of evidence, 6 statements are proposed as expert opinions. In general, the experts claim for a strict patient selection while approaching emergent general surgery procedures with robotics, eventually considering it for hemodynamically stable patients only. An emergency setting should not be seen as an absolute contraindication for robotic surgery if an adequate training of the operating surgical team is available. In such conditions, robotic surgery can be considered safe, feasible, and associated with surgical outcomes related to an MIS approach. However, there are some concerns regarding the adoption of robotic surgery for emergency surgeries associated with the following: (i) the availability and accessibility of the robotic platform for emergency units and during night shifts, (ii) expected longer operative times, and (iii) increased costs. Further research is necessary to investigate the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings and to explore the possibility of performing telementoring and telesurgery, which are particularly valuable in emergency situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Many hospitals are currently equipped with a robotic surgical platform which needs to be implemented efficiently. The role of robotic surgery for emergency procedures remains under investigation. However, its use is expanding with a careful assessment of costs and timeliness of operations. The proposed statements should be seen as a preliminary guide for the surgical community stressing the need for reevaluation and update processes as evidence expands in the relevant literature.

Ocular complications in robotic surgery

BACKGROUND

The penetration of robotic technology in various surgical fields may increase ocular complications.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in both PubMed and Scopus databases.

RESULTS

Eight articles were retrieved by the literature search. In total, 142 patients were included in the study. The most frequent complication was increased intra-ocular pressure. Corneal abrasion, ischaemic optic neuropathy and postoperative visual loss were also reported. The duration of operations was 1.7-9.9 h; mean intra-ocular pressure was 3.6-13.3 mmHg; estimated blood loss was 29.7-1200 ml; and administered intravenous fluids were 1.600-4.300 ml.

CONCLUSIONS

Meticulous preoperative ophthalmological assessment, restriction of intravenous fluids, 'rest stops', eyelid taping and ocular dressings are the major protective measures suggested by the literature. Collaboration between the surgical team and the anaesthetist is also essential. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.