Conversions related to adhesions in abdominal surgery. Robotic versus laparoscopic approach: A multicentre experience

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in high-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence of superiority of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal resections remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgical techniques in high-risk patients undergoing resections for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Systematic searches were performed using Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane library databases from inception until December 2024. Randomised and non-randomised studies reporting outcomes of robotic-assisted or laparoscopic resections in the following high-risk categories were included: obesity, male gender, the elderly, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and previous abdominal surgery. Comparative meta-analyses for all sufficiently reported outcomes were completed. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 tools for non-randomised and randomised studies, respectively.

RESULTS

48 studies, including a total of 34,846 patients were eligible for inclusion and 32 studies were utilised in the comparative meta-analyses. Conversion to open rates were significantly lower for robotic-assisted surgery in patients with obesity, male patients and patients with low rectal tumours (obese OR 0.41 [CI 0.32-0.51], p < 0.00001); male gender (OR 0.28 [CI 0.22-0.34], p < 0.00001); low tumours OR 0.10 [CI 0.02-0.58], p = 0.01). Length of stay was significantly reduced for robotic-assisted surgery in patients with obesity (SMD 0.25 [CI - 0.41 to - 0.09], p = 0.002). Operative time was significantly longer in all subgroups (obesity SMD 0.57 [CI 0.31-0.83], p < 0.0001; male gender SMD 0.77 [CI 0.17-1.37], p = 0.01; elderly SMD 0.50 [CI 0.18-0.83], p = 0.002; low rectal tumours SMD 0.48 [CI 0.12-0.84], p = 0.008; neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy SMD 0.72 [CI 0.34-1.09], p = 0.0002; previous surgery SMD 1.55 [CI 0.05-3.06], p = 0.04). When calculable, blood loss, length of stay, complication rate and lymph node yield were comparable in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides further evidence of non-inferiority of robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer and demonstrates conversion rates are superior in specific, technically challenging operations.

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer after low anterior resection: A case report

Radical cystectomy after low anterior resection is rare, and no cases of robotic surgery have been reported. Cystectomy in patients who have undergone a previous pelvic surgery, whether open or endoscopic, requires caution to avoid damaging other organs due to anatomical changes caused by adhesions in a limited space. Additionally, the curative nature of the treatment must be maintained. We describe a 69-year-old man with a history of open low anterior resection for rectal cancer who underwent robot-assisted radical cystectomy with extracorporeal ileal conduit construction. Although this procedure is challenging, it was performed safely with the collaboration of colorectal surgeons. The patient was discharged without perioperative complications and remained recurrence-free for 5 years.

Robotic gastrectomy for remnant gastric cancer after pancreaticoduodenectomy

The utility of robotic surgery for remnant gastric cancer remains unclear. We report a case of a robotic gastrectomy for remnant gastric cancer after pancreaticoduodenectomy and Child reconstruction with Braun enteroenterostomy. Adhesiolysis, lymphadenectomy, and gastrectomy were robotically performed. Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging confirmed the tissue perfusion of the reconstructive tract. The patient's postoperative course was uneventful. Robotic surgery facilitates safety for gastrectomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy because of its precise manipulation; its advantages can be further exploited by maximizing usage of the assistant's forceps. Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging capability of the da Vinci Xi Surgical System allows timely evaluation of tissue perfusion at the site of interest, leading to a more reliable procedure.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection in posterosuperior region: a retrospective study of consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection of the posterosuperior region is considered a challenging procedure due to poor exposure and difficult bleeding control. A robotic approach is supposed to be advantageous in posterosuperior segmentectomy. Its benefits over laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) remain undetermined. This study compared robotic liver resection (RLR) and LLR in the posterosuperior region performed by a single surgeon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive RLR and LLR performed by a single surgeon between December 2020 and March 2022. Patient characteristics and perioperative variables were compared. A 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) analysis was performed between both groups.

RESULTS

The analysis included 48 RLR and 57 LLR procedures in the posterosuperior region. After PSM analysis, 41 cases of both groups were retained. In pre-PSM cohort, the operative time in the RLR group was significantly shorter than in the LLR group (160 vs. 208 min, P = 0.001), especially in radical resection of malignant tumors (176 vs. 231 min, P = 0.004). The total Pringle maneuver duration was also markedly shorter (40 vs. 51 min, P = 0.047), and the estimated blood loss in the RLR group was lower (92 vs. 150 mL, P = 0.005). The postoperative hospital stay (POHS) in the RLR group was significantly shorter (5.4 vs. 7.5 days, P = 0.048). In PSM cohort, operative time in the RLR group was also significantly shorter (163 vs. 193 min, P = 0.036), and the estimated blood loss was lower (92 vs. 144 mL, P = 0.024). However, the total Pringle maneuver duration and POHS showed no significant difference. The complications were similar between two groups in both pre-PSM and PSM cohorts.

CONCLUSION

RLR in the posterosuperior region was as safe and feasible as LLR. RLR was associated with reduced operative time and blood loss than LLR.

Safety and feasibility of robotic liver resection after previous abdominal surgeries

BACKGROUND

While minimally invasive liver surgery has been increasingly adopted at least for minor resections, experience with robotic liver surgery is still limited to a few highly specialized centers. Due to the fear of abdominal adhesions, a history of prior surgeries is still used as an argument for open approaches.

METHODS

Clinical data of all consecutive robotic resections at our center, using the da Vinci Xi surgical system, between April, 2018 and December, 2020, were collected and analyzed as part of a prospective, post-marketing observational study (DRKS00017229). Prior abdominal surgeries were specified according to the surgical approach and localization. Baseline and perioperative outcome criteria were compared between patients with prior surgeries (PS) and patients with no prior surgeries (NPS) in univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Out of the 126 patients undergoing robotic liver resections, 59% had a history of abdominal surgeries, which were most often colorectal resections (28%) followed by liver resections (20%). Patients with NPS were more likely to undergo robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma or benign tumors, and to have underlying liver cirrhosis when compared to patients with PS. Other baseline characteristics as well as the extent of resections were similar. Duration of surgery (258 min), conversion rates (6%), and postoperative complications rates (21% Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) showed no differences between NPS and PS. A subgroup of patients with a history of prior liver surgery showed a longer duration of surgery in univariate analysis. However, this was not confirmed in multivariate analysis which instead revealed tumor entity and liver cirrhosis as independently correlated with duration of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose robotic liver resection to be safe and feasible, including in patients with prior abdominal surgeries. Each patient should be evaluated for a minimally invasive procedure regardless of a history of previous operations.

Robotic hepatectomy and biliary reconstruction for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a pioneer western case series

Open surgery is the standard of care for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). With the aim of oncologic radicality, it requires a complex major hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction. The postoperative course is consequently often complicated, with severe morbidity and mortality rates of up to 27.5–54% and 18%, respectively. Robotic liver surgery is emerging as a safe, minimally-invasive technique with huge potential for pCCA management. After the first case described by Giulianotti in 2010, here we present the first western series of robot-assisted liver resections with biliary reconstruction for pCCA with the aim to preliminarily assess the feasibility and repeatability of the procedure. At our high-volume teaching hospital center dedicated to HPB surgery, 128 pCCA patients have been surgically treated in the last 15 years whereas more than 800 laparoscopic liver resections have been performed. Since the Da Vinci Xi Robotic platform was introduced in late 2018, 6 major robotic liver resections with biliary reconstruction have been performed, 4 of which were for pCCA. All 4 cases involved a left hepatectomy with caudate lobectomy. The median operating time was 840 min, with a median blood loss of 700 ml. One case was converted to open surgery during the reconstruction due to a short mesentery preventing the hepatico-jejunostomy. None of the patients experienced major complications, while minor complications occurred in 3 out of 4 cases. One biliary leak was managed conservatively. The median postoperative stay was 9 days. Negative biliary margins were achieved in 3 of the 4 cases. An included video clip shows the most relevant technical details. This preliminary series demonstrates that robot-assisted liver resection for pCCA is feasible. We speculate that the da Vinci platform has a relevant potential in pCCA surgery with particular reference to the multi-duct biliary reconstruction. Further studies are needed to better clarify the role of this high-cost technology in the minimally-invasive treatment of pCCA.