Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role?

A comparison of postoperative outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy: a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The application of robot-assisted technology in gastric cancer surgery is gradually gaining attention from surgeons. In this meta-analysis, our main objective was to assess whether robot-assisted techniques are more advantageous than laparoscopic-assisted technology in total gastrectomy.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for clinical studies published before October 2023 comparing robotic-assisted total gastrectomy (RATG) and laparoscopic-assisted total gastrectomy (LATG) for gastric cancer. Non-clinical studies, data unavailability, or fewer than 50 included cases were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias by determining the quality of the observational studies. Statistical meta-analysis and drawing were performed using the Software Review Manager version 5.3 and Stata version 16.0. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Nine studies that included 1,864 patients with gastric cancer were included, published between 2012 and 2023. The results of the analysis showed that RATG has advantages in the following aspects: intraoperative blood loss was 17.69 ml lower in the RATG group than in the LATG group (WMD: -17.69,95% CI:-20.90 ∼ -14.49; P < 0.05); In terms of the number of resected lymph nodes, the RATG group had 2.65 more than the LATG group (WMD: 2.65,95% CI:0.88 ∼ -4.42); P < 0.05); the time to start liquid and postoperative hospital stays were 0.62 and 0.90 days shorter in the RATG group than in the LATG group, respectively (WMD: -0.62,95%CI: -1.06 ∼ -0.19; P < 0.05), (WMD: -0.90,95%CI: -1.43 ∼ -0.37; P < 0.05)); the incidence of major complications and pancreas fistula in the RATG group was 0.59% and 0.17% lower than in the LATG group, respectively (OR: 0.59,95% CI: 0.38 ∼ 0.93; P < 0.05), (OR: 0.17,95% CI: 0.03 ∼ 0.94; P < 0.05). However, the analysis showed that the operative time in the RATG group was 30.96 min longer than in the LATG group (WMD: 30.96,95% CI: 21.24 ∼ 40.69; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this meta-analysis, we concluded that robotic-assisted technology may be a worthwhile technique to apply in the surgical treatment of total gastrectomy. However, this meta-analysis has the limitations that the included studies were all non-randomized controlled trials and published in Asian countries, and more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed for further validation in the future.

THE REGISTERED NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study protocol for this meta-analysis is registered on the PROSPERO website under registration number CRD42024500512.

Feasibility of hybrid robotic rectal surgery

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility of combined robotic rectal surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision (hybrid robotic surgery).

METHODS

Among 143 robotic rectal surgeries performed from 2017 to 2022, 85 were hybrid robotic surgeries and were analyzed in this study. The cohort comprised 59 males and 26 females with a mean age of 65.8 years old and a mean body mass index of 22.6 kg/m2. The cStage was I in 20 cases, II in 21, III in 36, IV in 4, and other in 4. The operation types were low anterior resection in 21 cases, intersphincteric resection in 27, abdominoperineal resection in 32, total pelvic exenteration in 2, and other in 3. Twelve patients (14.1%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, and 39 (45.9%) underwent lateral lymph node dissection.

RESULTS

The mean operation time for total mesorectal excision was 302.7 min, and the median blood loss was 71.5 ml. No cases required conversion to laparotomy. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 15.9 days. Complications of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 occurred in 3 cases (4.2%). Urinary dysfunction occurred in 6 cases (8.3%). Three (4.2%) patients were diagnosed with positive circumferential resection margins.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid robotic surgery is safe and oncologically feasible.

Self-Supervised Cyclic Diffeomorphic Mapping for Soft Tissue Deformation Recovery in Robotic Surgery Scenes

The ability to recover tissue deformation from surgical video is fundamental for many downstream applications in robotic surgery. Despite noticeable advancements, this task remains under-explored due to the complex dynamics of soft tissues manipulated by surgical instruments. Achieving dense and accurate tissue tracking is further complicated by ambiguous pixel correspondence in regions with homogeneous texture. In this paper, we introduce a novel self-supervised framework to recover tissue deformations from stereo surgical videos. Our approach integrates semantics, cross-frame motion flow, and long-range temporal dependencies to accurately represent tissue dynamics for deformation recovery. Moreover, we incorporate diffeomorphic mapping to regularize the warping field to be physically more realistic. To comprehensively evaluate our method, we collected stereo surgical video clips containing three types of tissue manipulation (i.e., pushing, dissection and retraction) from two surgical procedures (i.e., hemicolectomy and mesorectal excision). Our method demonstrates promising results in capturing tissue 3D deformation, and generalizes well across different actions and procedures. It also outperforms current state-of-the-art approaches based on non-rigid registration and optical flow estimation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work on self-supervised learning for dense tissue deformation modeling from stereo surgical videos. The paper's code is available at: https://github.com/ med-air/RecoverTissueDeform.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted comparative laparoscopic surgery in lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

A meta-analysis was conducted on the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection in rectal cancer. There are few articles and reports on this topic, and a lack of high-quality research results in unreliable research conclusions. This study includes prospective and retrospective studies to obtain more reliable findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Databases were searched, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. The search was conducted from the time of database construction to March 2024. The quality of the literature was evaluated using the NOS scoring system. Meta-analysis was performed using R language software. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, and sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Six relevant literatures that met the criteria were finally included, and 652 patients were included, including 316 (48.5%) in the robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer group (RLLND) and 336 (51.5%) in the laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer group (LLLND). Analysis of the results showed that compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had less mean intraoperative blood loss (MD = - 22, 95% CI - 40.03 to - 3.97, P < 0.05), longer operative time (MD = 51.57, 95%CI 7.69 to 95.45, P < 0.05), and a shorter mean hospital stay (MD = - 1.25, 95%CI - 2.46 to - 0.05, P < 0.05), a low rate of urinary complications (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.23 to 0.64, P < 0.01), a low overall rate of postoperative complications (OR 0.6, 95%CI 0.42 to 0.87, P < 0.01), and a high number of lateral lymph node dissection (MD = 1.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.23, P < 0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative anastomotic leakage, postoperative intestinal obstruction, and total number of lymph nodes obtained (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with laparoscopy, robotic lateral lymph node dissection for rectal cancer reduces intraoperative blood loss, shortens the average length of hospital stay, reduces urologic complications, decreases overall postoperative complications, and collects more lateral lymph nodes. However, the surgical time is prolonged.

Comparison of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For right colon surgery, there is an increasing body of literature comparing the safety of robotic right colectomy (RRC) with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the safety and efficacy of RRC versus LRC, including homogeneous subgroup analyses for extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and January 2022. Length of hospital stay, operation time, rate of conversion to laparotomy, time to first flatus, number of harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, rate of overall complication, ileus, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, and total costs were measured.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies (RRC: 2772 patients; LRC: 12,469 patients) were evaluated. Regardless of the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter length of hospital stay, lower rate of conversion to laparotomy, shorter time to first flatus, lower rate of overall complications, and a higher number of harvested lymph nodes compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the IA subgroup, RRC had a shorter length of hospital stay, longer operative time, and lower rate of conversion to laparotomy compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes. In the EA subgroup, RRC had a longer operative time, lower estimated blood loss, lower rate of overall complications, and higher total costs compared with LRC, with the other outcomes being similar.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of RRC is superior to LRC, especially when an intracorporeal anastomosis is performed. Most included articles were retrospective, offering low-quality evidence and limited conclusions.

A Comparative Analysis of Short-term Patient Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The popularity of robot-assisted colorectal surgery has risen over recent years; however, patient-related advantages over laparoscopic surgery remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to compare short-term patient outcomes following robotic and laparoscopic partial or complete rectal resections.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 5 large tertiary care Kaiser Permanente medical centers across Southern California.

PATIENTS

There were 863 consecutive robotic and laparoscopic pelvic rectal surgeries, including low anterior resections, proctectomies with coloanal anastomosis, and abdominoperineal resections, performed between January 2010 and December 2019.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Short-term patient outcomes, including postoperative length of hospital stay, emergency department returns, and 30-day readmissions, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 458 surgical procedures were performed via robotic versus 405 via laparoscopic approaches. The robotic group had a higher proportion of male patients (57.4% vs 50.4%; p = 0.04) and a higher proportion of obese (27.1% vs 26.9%; p = 0.02) and overweight patients (36.9% vs 35.1%; p = 0.01). There was no difference in underlying comorbidities of diabetes or smoking, or in the rate of ileostomy creation. After adjusting for Charlson Comorbidity Index, no significant difference was found in emergency department returns between robotic and laparoscopic surgical patients ( p = 0.17). There were no significant outcome differences between the 2 groups with regards to length of stay during procedure, 30-day readmission, or death rates.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the lack of randomization in its design, selection of patients for surgical approach, and training and familiarity with robotic rectal surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows length of stay during the procedure and postoperative 30-day readmission rates were generally similar between robotic and laparoscopic patients. Male patients and those with a higher BMI were more likely to have been operated via a robotic method. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B857 .

UN ANLISIS COMPARATIVO DE LOS RESULTADOS A CORTO PLAZO DE LOS PACIENTES DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA RECTAL LAPAROSCPICA VERSUS LA ROBTICA

ANTECEDENTES:La popularidad de la cirugía colorrectal asistida por robot ha aumentado en los últimos años. Sin embargo, las ventajas relacionadas con el paciente siguen siendo inciertas sobre la cirugía laparoscópica.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo era comparar los resultados de los pacientes a corto plazo después de resecciones rectales completas o parciales robóticas y laparoscópicas.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTE:El estudio se llevó a cabo en cinco grandes centros médicos de Kaiser Permanente de atención terciaria en el sur de California.PACIENTES:Se realizaron 863 cirugías robóticas y laparoscópicas rectales pélvicas consecutivas, incluidas resecciones anteriores bajas, proctectomías con anastomosis coloanal y resecciones abdominoperineales, realizadas entre enero de 2010 y diciembre de 2019.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Resultados de los pacientes a corto plazo, incluida la duración de la estancia hospitalaria después del procedimiento, los retornos al departamento de emergencias y los reingresos y la mortalidad a los 30 días.RESULTADOS:Se realizaron un total de 458 procedimientos quirúrgicos a través del robot versus 405 con laparoscopia. El grupo robótico tuvo una mayor proporción de pacientes masculinos (57,4 vs 50,4%, p = 0,04) y una mayor proporción de pacientes obesos (27,1 vs 26,9%, p = 0,02) y con sobrepeso (36,9 vs 35,1%, p = 0,01). No hubo diferencia en las comorbilidades subyacentes de la diabetes y el tabaquismo, y en la tasa de creación de ileostomía. Después de ajustar por el índice de comorbilidad de Charlson, no se encontraron diferencias significativas en los retornos al servicio de urgencias entre los pacientes robóticos y laparoscópicos ( p = 0,17). No hubo diferencias significativas en los resultados entre los dos grupos con respecto a la duración de la estadía durante el procedimiento, las tasas de readmisión a los 30 días y las tasas de muerte.LIMITACIONES:Falta de aleatorización en el diseño del estudio, selección de pacientes para abordaje quirúrgico, capacitación y familiaridad con la cirugía rectal robótica.CONCLUSIONES:Este estudio muestra la duración de la estadía durante el procedimiento y las tasas de reingreso a los 30 días después del procedimiento fueron generalmente similares entre los pacientes robóticos y laparoscópicos. Los pacientes masculinos y aquellos con un índice de masa corporal más alto tenían más probabilidades de haber sido operados mediante un método robótico. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B857 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Right colectomy from open to robotic - a single-center experience with functional outcomes in a learning-curve setting

Purpose

Right colectomy (RC) is a frequently performed procedure. Beneath standard conventional open surgery (COS), various minimally invasive techniques had been introduced. Several advantages had recently been described for robotic approaches over COS or conventional laparoscopy. Nevertheless, novel minimally invasive techniques require continuous benchmarking against standard COS to gain maximum patient safety. Bowel dysfunction is a frequent problem after RC. Together with general complication rates postoperative bowel recovery are used as surrogate parameters for postoperative patient outcome in this study.

Methods

Retrospective, 10-year single-center analysis of consecutive patients who underwent sequentially either COS (n = 22), robotic-assisted (ECA: n = 39), or total robotic surgery (ICA: n = 56) for oncologic RC was performed.

Results

The conversion from robotic to open surgery rate was low (overall: 3.2%). Slightly longer duration of surgery had been observed during the early phase after introduction of the robotic program to RC (ECA versus COS, p = 0.044), but not anymore thereafter (versus ICA). No differences were observed in oncologic parameters including rates of tumor-negative margins, lymph node-positive patients, and lymph node yield during mesocolic excision. Both robotic approaches are beneficial regarding postoperative complication rates, especially wound infections, and shorter length of in-hospital stay compared with COS. The duration until first postoperative stool is the shortest after ICA (COS: 4 [2–8] days, ECA: 3 [1–6] days, ICA: 3 [1–5] days, p = 0.0004). Regression analyses reveal neither a longer duration of surgery nor the extent of mesocolic excision, but the degree of minimally invasiveness and postoperative systemic inflammation contribute to postoperative bowel dysfunction, which prolongs postoperative in-hospital stay significantly.

Conclusion

The current study reflects the institutional learning curve of oncologic RC during implementation of robotic surgery from robotic-assisted to total robotic approach without compromises in oncologic results and patient safety. However, the total robotic approach is beneficial regarding postoperative bowel recovery and general patient outcome.

Short- and Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic- versus Robotic-Assisted Right Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to revise current comparative literature systematically. Methods: A systematic review of comparative studies published between 2000 to 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term oncological results. Secondary endpoints consist of blood loss, conversion rates, complications, time to first flatus, hospital stay and incisional hernia rate. Results: 25 of 322 studies were considered for data extraction. A total of 16,099 individual patients who underwent RRC (n = 1842) or LRC (n = 14,257) between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRC group (LRC 165.31 min ± 43.08 vs. RRC 207.38 min ± 189.13, MD: −42.01 (95% CI: −51.06−32.96), p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the RRC group (LRC 63.57 ± 35.21 vs. RRC 53.62 ± 34.02, MD: 10.03 (95% CI: 1.61−18.45), p = 0.02) as well as conversion rate (LRC 1155/11,629 vs. RRC 94/1534, OR: 1.65 (1.28−2.13), p < 0.001) and hospital stay (LRC 6.15 ± 31.77 vs. RRC 5.31 ± 1.65, MD: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.29−1.38), p = 0.003). Oncological long-term results did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: The advantages of robotic colorectal procedures were clearly demonstrated. RRC can be regarded as safe and feasible. Most of the included studies were retrospective with a limited level of evidence. Further randomized trials would be suitable.

Potential Contenders for the Leadership in Robotic Surgery

Purpose: To summarize the scientific published literature on new robotic surgical platforms with potential use in the urological field, reviewing their evolution from presentation until the present day. Our goal is to describe the current characteristics and possible prospects for these platforms. Materials and Methods: A nonsystematic search of the PubMed, Cochrane library's Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases was conducted to identify scientific literature about new robotic platforms other than the Da Vinci^® system, reviewing their evolution from inception until December 2020. Only English language publications were included. The following keywords were used: "new robotic platforms," "Revo-I robot," "Versius robot," and "Senhance robot." All relevant English-language original studies were analyzed by one author (R.F.) and summarized after discussion with an independent third party (E.M., S.Y., S.P., and M.A.). Results: Since 1995, Intuitive Surgical, Inc., with the Da Vinci surgical system, is the leading company in the robotic surgical market. However, Revo-I^®, Versius^®, and Senhance^® are the other three platforms that recently appeared on the market with available articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Among these three new surgical systems, the Senhance robot has the most substantial scientific proof of its capacity to perform minimally invasive urological surgery and as such, it might become a contender of the Da Vinci robot. Conclusions: The Da Vinci surgical platform has allowed the diffusion of robotic surgery worldwide and showed the different advantages of this type of technique. However, its use has some drawbacks, especially its price. New robotic platforms characterized by unique features are under development. Of note, they might be less expensive compared with the Da Vinci robotic system. We found that these new platforms are still at the beginning of their technical and scientific validation. However, the Senhance robot is in a more advanced stage, with clinical studies supporting its full implementation.

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

An umbrella review was performed to summarize literature data and to investigate benefits and harm of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared to laparoscopic (LG) approach. To overcome the intrinsic limitations of laparoscopy, the robotic approach is claimed to facilitate lymph-node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all meta-analyses published up to December 2019. The search strategy was previously published in a protocol. We selected fourteen meta-analyses comparing outcomes between LG and RG with curative intent in patients with diagnosis of resectable gastric cancer. We highlight that RG has a longer operation time, inferior blood loss, reduction in hospital stay and a more rapid recovery of bowel function. In meta-analyses with statistical significance the number of nodes removed in RG is higher than LG and the distal margin of resection is higher. There is no difference in terms of total complication rate, mortality, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, anastomotic stenosis, intestinal obstruction and in conversion rate to open technique. The safety and efficacy of robotic gastrectomy are not clearly supported by strong evidence, suggesting that the outcomes reported for each surgical technique need to be interpreted with caution, in particular for the meta-analyses in which the heterogeneity is large. Certainly, robotic gastrectomy is associated with shorter time to oral intake, lesser intraoperative bleeding and longer operation time with an acceptable level of evidence. On the other hand, the data regarding other outcomes are insufficient as well as non-significant, from an evidence point of view, to draw any robust conclusion.

Role of minimally invasive techniques in gastrointestinal surgery: Current status and future perspectives

In recent years, the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer has remained high. Currently, surgical resection is still the most effective method for treating gastrointestinal cancer. Traditionally, radical surgery depends on open surgery. However, traditional open surgery inflicts great trauma and is associated with a slow recovery. Minimally invasive surgery, which aims to reduce postoperative complications and accelerate postoperative recovery, has been rapidly developed in the last two decades; it is increasingly used in the field of gastrointestinal surgery and widely used in early-stage gastrointestinal cancer. Nevertheless, many operations for gastrointestinal cancer treatment are still performed by open surgery. One reason for this may be the challenges of minimally invasive technology, especially when operating in narrow spaces, such as within the pelvis or near the upper edge of the pancreas. Moreover, some of the current literature has questioned oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Overall, the current evidence suggests that minimally invasive techniques are safe and feasible in gastrointestinal cancer surgery, but most of the studies published in this field are retrospective studies and case-matched studies. Large-scale randomized prospective studies are needed to further support the application of minimally invasive surgery. In this review, we summarize several common minimally invasive methods used to treat gastrointestinal cancer and discuss the advances in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal cancer in detail.

Teaching and Training Surgeons in Robotic Colorectal Surgery

Robotic surgery is becoming more popular among practicing physicians as a new modality with improved visualization and mobility (1-2). As patients also desire minimally invasive procedures with quicker recoveries, there is a desire for new surgical residents and fellows to pursue robotic techniques in training (3-4). To develop a new colorectal robotics training program, an institution needs a well-formulated plan for the trainees and mentors with realistic expectations. The development of a robotics training program has potential obstacles, including increased initial cost, longer operative times, and overcoming learning curves. We have devised a four-phase training protocol for residents in colorectal surgical fellowship. Each of these phases attempts to create a curricular framework that outlines logical progression and sets expectations for trainees, Program Directors, and residency faculty. Phase zero begins prior to fellowship and is preparatory. Phase one focuses on an introduction to robotics with learning bedside console troubleshooting and simulation exercises. Phase Two prioritizes operative experience and safety while completing steps independently in a progressive fashion. Phase Three polishes the resident prior to graduation for future practice. We recommend frequent evaluation and open-mindedness while establishing a focused robotics program. The end goal is to graduate fellows with an equivalency certificate who can continue to practice colorectal robotic surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study

The current gold standard surgical treatment for right colonic malignancy is the laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH). However, laparoscopic surgery has limitations which can be overcome by robotic surgery. The benefits of robotics for rectal cancer are widely accepted but its use for right hemicolectomy remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) and LRH in a university teaching hospital. Demographic, perioperative and postoperative data along with early oncological outcomes of patients who underwent RRH and LRH with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) were identified from a prospectively maintained database. A total of 70 patients (35 RRH, 35 LRH) were identified over a 4-year period. No statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, 30-day reoperation, 30-day mortality, surgical site infection or lengths of stay were demonstrated. Surgical specimen quality in both groups was favourable. The mean duration of surgery was longer in RRH (p <  < 0.00001). A statistically significant proportion of RRH patients had a higher BMI and ASA grade. The results demonstrate that RRH is safe and feasible when compared to LRH, with no statistical difference in postoperative morbidity, mortality and early oncological outcomes. A difference was noted in operating time, however was influenced by training residents in docking the robot and a technically challenging cohort of patients. Operative time has shortened with further experience. Incorporating an intracorporeal anastomosis technique in RRH offers the potential to improve outcomes compared to LRH.

Learning curve for laparoscopic cholecystectomy has not been defined: A systematic review

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is one of the most performed surgeries worldwide but its learning curve is still unclear.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses guidelines. Two independent reviewers searched the literature in a systematic manner through online databases, including Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar. Human studies investigating the learning curve of laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale for cohort studies and the GRADE scale were used for the quality assessment of the selected articles.

Results

Nine cohort studies published between 1991 and 2020 were included. All studies showed a great heterogeneity among the considered variables. Seven articles (77.7%) assessed intraoperative variables only, without considering patient's characteristics, operator's experience, and grade of gallbladder inflammation. Only five articles (55%) provided a precise cut‐off value to see proficiency in the learning curve, ranging from 13 to 200 laparoscopic cholecystectomies.

Conclusions

The lack of clear guidelines when evaluating the learning curve in surgery, probably contributed to the divergent data and heterogeneous results among the studies. The development of guidelines for the investigation and reporting of a surgical learning curve would be helpful to obtain more objective and reliable data especially for common operation such as laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Initial experience with a suprapubic single-port robotic right hemicolectomy in patients with colon cancer

BACKGROUND

We developed a novel suprapubic single-port robotic right hemicolectomy (spRHC) procedure for patients with right colon cancer using a da Vinci SP Surgical System. The aim of this study was to determine the safety and feasibility of this technique.

METHODS

We performed the spRHC procedure on five patients with right colon cancers between July and September 2020. All procedures including colon mobilization, D3 lymphadenectomy, and intracorporeal anastomosis were completed using the single-port robotic platform through a mini-transverse suprapubic incision and an additional assistant port. Data regarding patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes and pathologic results were analyzed.

RESULTS

Four of the five patients were males. The median age was 69 years (range, 58-77 years).Two patients received preoperative chemotherapy for advanced colon cancer. The median total operative time was 160 min (range, 150-240 min). The median docking time was 4 min 40 s (range, 2 min 10 s-5 min 10 s). The median console time was 105 min (range, 100-120 min). There were no conversions to multiport or open surgeries. The median hospital stay was 7 days (range, 5-12 days). One patient experienced a wound infection. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 41 (range, 39-50 lymph nodes).

CONCLUSIONS

SpRHC is safe and feasible. However, further comparative studies are needed to assess whether this procedure can provide patients with significant benefits compared with multiport robotic surgery.

Is newer always better?: comparing cost and short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomy

BACKGROUND

Enthusiasm is high for expansion of robotic assisted surgery into right hemicolectomy. But data on outcomes and cost is lacking. Our objective was to determine the association between surgical approach and cost for minimally invasive right hemicolectomy. We hypothesized that a robot approach would have increased costs (both economic and opportunity) while achieving similar short-term outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis with a simulation of operating room utilization at a quaternary care, academic institution. We enrolled patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemicolectomy from November 2017 to August 2019. Patients were categorized by the intended approach- laparoscopic or robotic. The primary outcome was the technical variable direct cost. Secondary outcomes included total cost, supply cost, operating room utilization, operative time, conversion, length of stay and 30-day post-operative outcomes.

RESULTS

79 patients were included in the study. A robotic approach was used in 22% of the cohort. The groups differed significantly only in etiology of surgery. Robotic surgery was associated with a 1.5 times increase in the technical variable direct cost (p < 0.001), increased supply cost (2.6 times; p < 0.001) and increased total cost (1.3 times; p < 0.001). Significant differences were observed in median room time (Robotic: 285 min vs. Laparoscopic: 170 min; p < 0.001) and procedure time (Robotic: 203 min vs. Laparoscopic: 118 min; p < 0.001). There were no differences observed in post-operative outcomes including length of stay or readmission. In a simulation of OR utilization, 45 laparoscopic right hemicolectomies could be performed in an OR in a month compared to 31 robotic cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic right hemicolectomy was associated with increased costs with no improvement in post-operative outcomes. In a simulation of operating room efficiency, a robotic approach was associated with 14 fewer cases per month. Practitioners and administrators should be aware of the increased cost of a robotic approach.

Comparison of outcome and costs of robotic and laparoscopic right hemicolectomies

To compare the outcomes of patients undergoing right hemicolectomy using laparoscopic or robotic approaches and perform a cost analysis. Retrospective review of all patients undergoing elective laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomies at a public and private hospital in NSW/QLD from January 2015 to June 2018. Cost analysis was calculated using actual and estimated costs by the local health district. A total of 101 patients were identified. 59 (58%) had Robotic resection, of which 44 (75%) had an intra-corporeal anastomosis. There were no demographic or oncological differences between the two groups. The robotic group had a significantly earlier time to bowels opening (2 vs 4 days, p < 0.001) and shorter length of stay (3 vs 5 days, p < 0.001). The robotic group had a lower rate of ileus (2% vs 14%, p = 0.02) and complications (5% vs 33%, p = 0.006). The mean lymph node harvest was higher in the robotic group (18 vs 14, p = 0.001). The operative time was longer in the robotic group (110 vs 97 min, p = 0.021). The total instrument costs of robotic surgery were A$2565.37 compared with $1507.50 for laparoscopic surgery. The cost of bed days was A$1167.00/day. The average difference in cost of care was calculated as A$1276.13 and A$464.43 less in the robotic with intra-corporeal and extra-corporeal anastomosis, respectively. Patients have significantly faster return to bowel function and shorter length of stay after Robotic vs laparoscopic right hemicolectomy and experience fewer complications. This difference in length of stay may make robotic right hemicolectomies more cost effective.

Optimizing outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery with robotic platforms

Advanced robotic technology makes it easier to perform total mesorectal excision procedures in the narrow pelvis for rectal cancer while maintaining the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer leads to lower conversion rates and faster recovery of urogenital function than conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, longer operative time and high cost are major weaknesses of robotic surgery. To date, most other short-term surgical outcomes, pathologic outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery have not shown significant advantages over laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery is still a valid and highly anticipated surgical approach for rectal cancer because it greatly reduces the surgeon's workload and learning curve. There are also advantages when robotic techniques are applied to technically demanding procedures such as lateral pelvic lymph node dissection or intersphincteric resection. The introduction of new surgical robot systems, including the da Vinci® SP system, is expected to expand the applications of robotic surgery and provide new advantages.

Risk Factors for Prolonged Postoperative Ileus in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) represents a frequent complication following colorectal surgery, affecting approximately 10-15% of these patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perioperative risk factors for PPOI development in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. PubMed, EMBASE, SciELO, and LILACS databases were searched, without language or time restrictions, from inception until December 2018. The keywords used were: Ileus, colon, colorectal, sigmoid, rectal, postoperative, postoperatory, surgery, risk, factors. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Jadad scale were used for bias assessment, while the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for quality assessment of evidence on outcome levels.

RESULTS

Of the 64 studies included, 42 were evaluated in the meta-analysis, comprising 29,736 patients (51.84% males; mean age 62 years), of whom 2844 (9.56%) developed PPOI. Significant risk factors for PPOI development were: male sex (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.25-1.63), age (MD 3.17; 95% CI 1.63-4.71), cardiac comorbidities (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.19-2.00), previous abdominal surgery (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.19, 1.75), laparotomy (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.77-3.44), and ostomy creation (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.04-1.98). Included studies evidenced a moderate heterogeneity. The quality of evidence was regarded as very low-moderate according to the GRADE approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple factors, including demographic characteristics, past medical history, and surgical approach, may increase the risk of developing PPOI in colorectal surgery patients. The awareness of these will allow a more accurate assessment of PPOI risk in order to take measures to decrease its impact on this population.

Cholecystectomy using the Revo-i robotic surgical system from Korea: the first clinical study

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the newly developed Revo-i (Meerecompany, Yongin, Republic of Korea) robotic surgical system during robot-assisted cholecystectomy. This prospective, phase I clinical study involved 15 patients with gallbladder-related disease. The primary outcome evaluated was the intraoperative safety of the Revo-i; the secondary outcomes measured were the 30-day postoperative complications and patient satisfaction with the Revo-i's performance. Between August 17 and December 23, 2016, we performed 15 robot-assisted cholecystectomies. The operations were successfully completed, without any conversions to open or laparoscopic approaches. The mean patient age (53.07 years), mean operative time (115.3 ± 17.31 min [± standard deviation]), docking time (10.6 ± 3.16 min), console time (49.7 ± 15.41 min), actual dissection time (33.1 ± 10.53 min), and estimated blood loss (3.33 ± 6.17 mL) were determined. There were no intra- or postoperative complications, including gallbladder perforations. The mean hospital stay was 2.0 ± 1.00 days. Most patients reported satisfaction with the Revo-i's performance. Performing robot-assisted cholecystectomies using the Revo-i is feasible and safe. This report describes the first clinical study of the Revo-i robotic surgical system in human patients.

Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) versus robotic right colectomy (RRC) using homogeneous subgroup analyses for extra-corporeal anastomosis (EA) and intra-corporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2020 for prospective or retrospective studies comparing LRC versus RRC on at least one short- or long-term outcome. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes included operative and pathological results, survival, and total costs. LRC and RRC were compared using three homogeneous subgroups: without distinction by the type of anastomosis, EA only, and IA only. Pooled data analyses were performed using mean difference (MD) and random effects model.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 448 studies were selected. The included patients were 21,397 for the LRC group and 2796 for the RRC group. Regardless for the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter LOS, lower blood loss, lower conversion rate, shorter time to flatus, and lower overall complication rate compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the EA subgroup, RRC showed similar LOS, longer operative time, and higher costs compared with LRC, the other outcomes being similar. In the IA subgroup, RRC showed shorter LOS and longer operative time compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most included articles are retrospective, providing low-quality evidence and limiting conclusions. The more frequent use of the IA seems to explain the advantages of RRC over LRC.

Robotic ileocolic resection with intracorporeal anastomosis for Crohn's disease

The robotic platform can overcome limitations of the laparoscopic approach, particularly in the facilitation of intracorporeal anastomosis creation. We aim to share our institutional experience with robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease (CD) and compare it to a laparoscopic cohort. We identified patients who underwent ileocolic resection for CD with a purely robotic (R) or laparoscopic (L) approach between February 2015 and 2018. Chart review was performed and preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data was collected. A total of 47 patients with a mean age of 35.2 years old were identified and 61% were female. Seventy percent [n = 33, (23 females, 69.6%)] of the cases were performed robotically and 30% of the cases [n = 14, (6 females, 42.8%)] were performed laparoscopically. The groups were well matched for age, gender, BMI as well as disease related factors (CD duration; clinical classification and location), perioperative immunosuppression, and surgical history. Time to bowel function was shorter by about 1 day in the robotic group (R: 1.9 ± 0.88 days vs. L: 2.7 ± 0.8 days, p = 0.003). Mean operative time was longer in the robotic group by 51 min and this difference was significant (p = 0.03), however 30.3% of patients underwent ureteral stent placement, which can account for added time in robotic cases. There were less conversions in the robotic group [R: 1(4.3%) vs. L: 1(7%)], but this was not significant. There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Complication (L: 21.4% vs. R: 15.1%, p = 0.605) and reoperation rates (L: 0% vs. R: 3.03%, p = 0.429) were similar. Robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease is as safe and feasible as the laparoscopic approach. This was accomplished with no leaks, major morbidity or mortality and comparable length of stay, with 1 day shorter return of bowel function, and with a lower overall complication rate. The robotic approach offers advantages in Crohn's disease which should be studied further in prospective studies.

Robotic or three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and intracorporeal anastomosis? A propensity score-matching study comparison

BACKGROUND

We describe our preliminary experience in complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) and intracorporeal anastomosis for right colon cancer, comparing the robotic and the three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational clinical cohort study on patients who underwent radical curative surgical resection of right colon cancer with CME from January 2014 to June 2019. Propensity scores were calculated by bivariate logistic regression, including the following variables: age, BMI, and size of tumor.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients underwent CME with CVL: 26 by means of robot-assisted surgery and 29 by means of 3D laparoscopic procedure. There were not statistically significant differences about all the intra- and postoperative outcomes (operative time, length of the specimen, time to bowel canalization, time to soft oral intake, length of hospital stay, postoperative complication, number of retrieved lymph nodes, number of positive lymph nodes and lymph node ratio) between the robotic and the 3D laparoscopic approach. After the matching procedure, 20 patients of the robotic group and 20 patients of the 3D laparoscopic group were selected for the analysis. There were no differences in any of the analyzed variables between the two groups except for longer operative time in the robotic group (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The 3D vision revealed an important advantage in order to achieve the correct identification of surgical anatomy allowing a safe and effective right colectomy with CME, CVL, and intracorporeal anastomosis, either using laparoscopic or with robotic approach, providing similar short-term outcomes. Taking into account the high costs and the longer operative time of robotic procedure, the 3D laparoscopy could be considered in performing right colectomy with CME, while the robotic approach should be considered as a first choice approach for challenging situations (obese patient, complex associated procedures).

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy within a systematic ERAS protocol: a propensity-weighted analysis

The purpose of this study is to compare the early postoperative and pathological outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to those of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) with intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) within the systematic application of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. A single-institution prospective database of patients who underwent elective RRC or LRC with IA for neoplastic lesions between April 2010 and June 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. The patients' demographic characteristics, and perioperative and pathological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity-weighted analysis was employed to address potential selection biases of treatment allocation. A total of 216 patients (46 RRC, 170 LRC) were included. RRC demonstrated a significantly longer operative time (mean 242.43 min, SD 47.51) compared to LRC (mean 187.60 min, SD 56.60) (p = 0.001), confirmed by the propensity-weighted analysis (Coefficient 50.65; p < 0.001). Conversion rate between the two groups was comparable (p = 0.99). Median length of hospital stay (LOS) was the same in the RRC and the LRC group (4 days, p = 0.35). Readmission rate within 30 days in the RRC and LRC group was 2.2% and 2.4%, respectively (p = 0.99). Overall 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality was 32.6% versus 27.1% (p = 0.46), and 0% versus 1.2% (p = 0.99) in the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. No difference was found in the number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.75). In an ERAS environment, without the bias of mixed techniques of anastomosis, RRC had similar postoperative and pathological outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach, but was associated with a longer operative time.

Laparoscopic Versus Robotic-assisted Suturing Performance Among Novice Surgeons: A Blinded, Cross-Over Study

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) presents several advantages over 3-dimensional conventional laparoscopy (3D-CL) that may facilitate laparoscopic suturing especially with novice surgeons. This study compares novice surgeons' suturing performance by 3D-CL and RAL using Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (OSATS), an objective, validated scoring tool. Twenty-two surgeons with no robotic experience completed a standardized suturing task in an experimental setup by both 3D-CL and RAL in a randomized, cross-over design. Two experienced surgeons blindly assessed their performance using OSATS. Median (interquartile range) OSATS scores for 3D-CL and RAL were, respectively, 22.8 (17.4 to 25.8) versus 25.0 (21.9 to 26.5), P=0.032. There was no association between laparoscopic experience and robotic-assisted suturing performance. Thus, this study is, to our knowledge, the first to compare novice surgeons' suturing performance by 3D-CL and RAL using an objective, validated scoring tool and to show better suturing performance when assisted by the robot regardless of experience level.

Robotic right colonic resection. Is the robotic third arm a game-changer?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches have produces relevant advancements in the pre/intra/postoperative outcomes. The conventional laparoscopic approach presents similar oncological results in comparison to laparotomic approaches. Despite these evidences, a considerable part of the colorectal operations are still being performed in an open way. This is in part because traditional laparoscopy may have some hurdles and a long learning curve to reach mastery. The robotic technology may help in increasing the MIS penetrance in colorectal surgery. The use of the R3 can potentially increase the number of surgical options available.

METHODS

In this retrospective case series, after a long robotic colorectal experience connected to a robotic program started by Giulianotti et al. in October 2000, we present our results regarding a subset of colorectal patients who underwent robotic right colonic resections performed, all by a single surgeon (P.C.G.), using the R3 according to our standardized technique.

RESULTS

Out of all the robotic colorectal operations performed, this sub-sample sample included 33 patients: 21 males and 12 females. The age range was between 51 and 95 years old. The Body Mass Index (BMI) was between 21.6 to 43.1. The conversion rate to laparoscopy or to open surgery has been 0%. No intraoperative complications have been registered. The postoperative complications rates are reported in this manuscript. The perfusion check of the anastomosis by Near-infrared ICG (Indocyanine Green) enhanced fluorescence has been used. In 11.2% of the sample, the site of the anastomosis has been changed after ICG-Test. Moreover, when the ICG perfusion test has been performed no leakage occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This subset of patients suggests the potential role of R3 and the benefits correlated to robotic surgery. In fact, the laparoscopic approach uses mostly a medial to lateral mobilization. Indeed, during laparoscopic surgery an early right colon mobilization may create problems in the surgical field visualization. In robotic surgery, R3 can lift upwards the cecum/ascending colon/hepatic flexure exposing, in doing so, the anatomical structures. Hence, we can use also the same approach of the open surgery (where the first step is usually the mobilization of the ascending colon mesentery). In other words, the R3 offers more operative options in terms of surgical pathways maintaining at the same time good perioperative outcomes. However, more studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives

Purpose

As robotic surgery is increasingly performed in patients with colorectal diseases, understanding proper port placement for robotic colorectal surgery is necessary. This review summarizes current port placement during robotic surgery for colorectal diseases and provides future perspective on port placements.

Methods

PubMed were searched from January 2009 to December 2018 using a combination of the search terms “robotic” [MeSH], “colon” [MeSH], “rectum” [MeSH], “colorectal” [MeSH], and “colorectal surgery” [MeSH]. Studies related to port placement were identified and included in the current study if they used the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi robotic system and if they described port placement.

Results

This review included 77 studies including a total of 3,145 operations. Fifty studies described port placement for left-sided and mesorectal excision; 17, 3, and 7 studies assessed port placement for right-sided colectomy, rectopexy, transanal surgery, respectively; and one study assessed surgery with reduced port placement. Recent literatures show that the single-docking technique included mobilization of the second and third robotic arms for the different parts without movement of patient cart and similar to previous dual or triple-docking technique. Besides, use of the da Vinci Xi system allowed a more simplified port configuration.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted colorectal surgery can be efficiently achieved with successful port placement without movement of patient cart dependent on the type of surgery and the robotic system.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a multicenter comparative analysis on short-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

In literature, most of the comparative studies of robotic (RRC) versus laparoscopic (LRC) right colectomy are biased by the type of the anastomotic technique adopted. With this study, we aim to understand whether there is a role for robotics in performing right colectomies, comparing RRC versus LRC, both performed with intracorporeal anastomosis.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, all consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive right colectomy (robotic or laparoscopic) with intracorporeal anastomosis in three Italian high-volume centers between February 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017 were included. Patients were grouped according to the method of surgery: RRC or LRC.

RESULTS

A total of 389 patients were included in the study (305 RRC vs. 84 LRC). Patients' baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Operative time was significantly longer in RRC (250 min, IQR 209-305) group than LRC group (160 min, IQR 130-200) (p < 0.001). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 22 (IQR 18-29) in RRC group while it was 19 (IQR 15-27) in LRC one (p = 0.028). No significant differences between the groups were seen in terms of time-to-first flatus, postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. Re-admission rate was significantly higher in LRC (n = 3, 3.6%) group than in RRC group (n = 1, 0.3%) (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, RRC and LRC are comparable in terms of functional postoperative outcomes and length of hospital stay. RRC requires longer operative time, but the number of lymph nodes harvested may be higher.

Right hemicolectomy: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, total laparoscopic, and robotic approach

BACKGROUND

There are a variety of surgical approaches for the management of right-sided colonic neoplasms. To date, no method has been shown superior in terms of surgical and perioperative outcomes. This meta-analysis compared open (ORH), laparoscopic-assisted (LRH), total laparoscopic (TLRH), and robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) to assess surgical outcomes and perioperative morbidity and mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted an electronic systematic search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science that compared RRH, TLRH, LRH, and ORH. Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria: 5 randomized controlled trials, 25 retrospective, and 18 prospective studies totalling 5652 patients were included.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate was similar between RRH and TLRH (RR 1.0; Crl 0.66-1.5). The anastomotic leak rate was higher in LRH and ORH compared to RRH (RR 1.9; Crl 0.99-3.6 and RR 1.2; Crl 0.55-2.6, respectively), whereas it was lower in TLRH compared to RRH (RR 0.88 Crl 0.41-1.9). The risk of reoperation was significantly higher in ORH compared to TLRH (RR 3.3; Crl 1.3-8.0). Operative time was similar in RRH compared to LRH (RR - 27.0; Crl - 61.0 to 5.9), and to TLRH (RR - 24.0; Crl - 70.0 to 21.0). The hospital stay was significantly longer in LRH compared to RRH (RR 3.7; Crl 0.7-6.7).

CONCLUSION

The surgical management of right-sided colonic disease is evolving. This network meta-analysis observed that short-term outcomes following RRH and TLRH were superior to standard LRH and ORH. The adoption of more advanced minimally invasive techniques can be costly and have associated learning phases, but will ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Short- and long-term outcomes of totally robotic versus robotic-assisted right hemicolectomy for colon cancer: A retrospective study

Totally robotic right hemicolectomy (TRRH) is a novel alternative surgical method used for the treatment of colon cancer. The aim of this study was to compare both the short-and long-term outcomes of TRRH and robotic-assisted right hemicolectomy (RARH) for the treatment of colon cancer.We performed a 1:2 matched propensity score analysis. We then retrospectively analyzed all procedures (64 cases TRRH and 128 cases RARH) carried out by a single surgeon between December 4, 2014 and June 20, 2018 at a large center. Both short-and long-term surgical outcomes were compared between 2 different groups.Based on the propensity score matching, we selected 64 patients that had undergone TRRH treatment and 128 patients who had undergone RARH treatment. The preoperative clinical-pathological characteristics were well matched between the 2 groups. We observed no significant differences between the 2 groups in postoperative pathological outcomes. The mean operative time was found to be significantly longer in the TRRH group compared to the RARH group (168.2 ± 9.1 minutes vs 153.4 ± 7.4 minutes, P = .034). The mean operative incision length was found to be significantly longer in the TRRH group than in the RARH group (4.5 ± 0.6 cm vs 6.9 ± 1.1 cm, P = .023). Postoperative pain score (visual analog scale at day 1) was found to be significantly lower in the TRRH group than in the RARH group (2.9 ± 1.3 vs 4.1 ± 2.1, P = .005). The time to pass flatus was observed to be statistically lower in the TRRH group (P = .042). We observed 3 twists of mesentery in the RARH group, while none were observed in the TRRH group (P < .050). Both the 3-year overall survival (TRRH [91.6%] vs RARH [89.2%], P = .467) and the 3-year disease-free survival (TRRH [81.4%] vs RARH [78.2%], P = .551) were determined to be comparable between the 2 groups studied here.We show that TRRH is a safe and feasible treatment option for colon cancer patients in terms of both short- and long-term outcomes. High-volume, randomized, controlled trials with sufficient follow-up studies will need to be carried out in order to confirm this rationale.

Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted right colectomy compared with laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted right colectomy (RRC) with conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published studies. All published literature for comparative studies reporting preoperative outcomes of RRC and LRC were searched. We searched the databases included Cochrane Library of Clinical Comparative Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) from 1973 to 2018. The censor date was up to January 2018. Operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, conversion rates to open surgery, postoperative complications, and related outcomes were evaluated. All calculations and statistical tests were performed using Stata 12.0 software. A total of 7769 patients with colon cancer enrolled in 13 trials were divided into a study group (n = 674) and a control group (n = 7095). Meta-analysis suggested significantly greater length of hospital stay in the LRC group [MD = -0.85; 95% CI: -1.07 to -0.63; P < 0.00001]. Robotic surgery was also associated with a significantly lower complication rate [OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.01; P = 0.05]. There were statistically significant differences between the groups in estimated blood loss [MD = -16.89; 95% CI: -24.80 to -8.98; P < 0.00001] and the rate of intraoperative conversion to open surgery [OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.75; P = 0.008)], but these differences were not clinically relevant. The recovery of bowel function in two groups is no significant differences [MD = -0.58, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.20, P = 0.0008]. However, operation times [MD = 43.61, 95% CI: 39.11 to 48.10, P < 0.00001] were longer for RRC than for LRC. Compared to LRC, RRC was associated with reduced estimated blood loss, reduced postoperative complications, longer operation times. Recovery of bowel function and other perioperative outcomes were equivalent between the two surgeries.

Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of robot-assisted right colectomy (RAC) with those for conventional laparoscopy-assisted right surgery (LAC) for treating right-sided colon cancer.

BACKGROUND

The enthusiasm for the robotic techniques has gained increasing interest in colorectal malignancies. However, the role of robotic surgery in the oncologic safety has not yet been defined.

METHODS

From September 2009 to July 2011, 71 patients with right-sided colonic cancer were randomized in the study. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were similar in both groups. The primary and secondary endpoints of the study were hospital stay and survival, respectively. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The RAC and LAC groups did not differ significantly in terms of baseline clinical characteristics. Compared with the LAC group, RAC was associated with longer operation times (195 min vs. 129 min, P < 0.001) and higher cost ($12,235 vs. $10,319, P = 0.013). The median follow-up was 49.23 months (interquartile range 40.63-56.20). The combined 5-year disease-free rate for all tumor stages was 77.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60.6-92.1%) in the RAC group and 83.6% (95% CI 72.1-0.97.0%) in the LAC group (P = 0.442). The combined 5-year overall survival rates for all stages were 91.1% (95% CI 78.8-100%) in the RAC group and 91.0% (95% CI 81.3-100%) in the LAC group (P = 0.678). Using multivariate analysis, RAC was not a predictor of recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

RAC appears to similar long-term survival as compared with LAC. However, we did not observe any clinical benefits of RAC which could translate to a decrease in expenditures.

TRIAL REGISTRY

http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00470951.

Appraisal and Current Considerations of Robotics in Colon and Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology aims to obviate some of the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, yet the role of robotics in colorectal surgery is still largely undefined and varies with respect to its application in abdominal versus pelvic surgery.

METHODS

With this review, we aimed to highlight current developments in colorectal robotic surgery. We systematically searched the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. We critically reviewed the available literature on the use of robotic technology in colon and rectal surgery.

RESULTS

Robotic colorectal surgery is oncologically safe and has short-term outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopy, with potential benefits in rectal surgery. It has a shorter learning curve but increased operative times and costs. It offers potential advantages in the resection of rectal cancer, due to lower conversion rates. There is also a trend toward better outcomes in anastomotic leak rates, circumferential margin positivity, and perseveration of autonomic function.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy remains technically challenging and conversion rates are still high. Therefore, most cases of colorectal surgery are still performed open. Robotic surgery aims to overcome the limits of the laparoscopic technique. This new technology has many advantages in terms of articulating instruments, advanced three-dimensional optics, surgeon ergonomics, and improved accessibility to narrow spaces, such as the pelvis. However, further studies are needed to assess long-term results and benefits.

Long-Term Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology has been proven to be a safe alternative to conventional laparoscopy with regards to the peri- and postoperative clinical outcomes. Oncological outcomes have been scarcely examined. The purpose of this study was to examine the disease-free survival in relation to the two surgical approaches: robot-assisted surgery and conventional laparoscopy. In addition, all-cause mortality and recurrence-free survival were investigated.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2015, patients, undergoing either laparoscopic or robot-assisted elective, curative-intended surgery for colorectal cancer were included.

RESULTS

A total of 9184 patients underwent surgery in the study period: 5978 patients for colon cancer and 3206 patients for rectal cancer. Among patients with colon cancer, 331 patients (5.5%) underwent robot-assisted surgery, and 449 patients (14.0%) underwent robot-assisted surgery in the rectal cancer group. In the adjusted analyses, the hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival, for patients with colon cancer was 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.18]. For patients with rectal cancer, the adjusted HR was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.06). No difference in all-cause mortality and recurrence-free survival were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated comparable rates of disease-free survival, all-cause mortality, and recurrence-free survival when comparing robot-assisted surgery with conventional laparoscopy in patients with colorectal cancer.

The role of robotics in colorectal surgery

Robotic surgery is safe and feasible offering many potential advantages to the colorectal surgeon.

Advantages of Robotic Right Colectomy With Intracorporeal Anastomosis

Through retrospective review of consecutive charts, we compare the short-term and long-term clinical outcomes after robotic-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (RIA) (n=89) and laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (LEA) (n=135). Cohorts were similar in demographic characteristics, comorbidities, pathology, and perioperative outcomes (conversion, days to flatus and bowel movement, and length of hospitalization). The RIA cohort experienced statistically significant: less blood loss, shorter incision lengths, and longer specimen lengths than the LEA cohort. Operative times were significantly longer for the RIA group. No incisional hernias occurred in the RIA group, whereas the LEA group had 5 incisional hernias; mean follow-up was 33 and 30 months, respectively. RIA is effective and safe and provides some clinical advantages. Future studies may show that, in obese and other technically challenging patients, RIA facilitates resection of a longer, consistent specimen with less mesentery trauma that can be extracted through smaller incisions.

Comparison of robot-assisted surgery, laparoscopic-assisted surgery, and open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to find the better treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) by comparing robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS), laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS), and open surgery using network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search updated to August 15, 2017 was performed. All the included literatures were evaluated according to the quality evaluation criteria of bias risk recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. All data were comprehensively analyzed by ADDIS. Odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to show the effect index of all data. The degree of convergence of the model was evaluated by the Brooks-Gelman-Rubin method with the potential scale reduction factor (PSRF) as the evaluation indicator.

RESULTS

The PSRF values of operation time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication, mortality, and anastomotic leakage ranged from 1.00 to 1.01, and those of wound infection, bleeding, and ileus ranged from 1.00 to 1.02. Open surgery had the shortest operation time compared with LACS and RACS. Furthermore, compared with LACS, the amount of blood loss, complication, mortality, bleeding rate, and ileus rate for RACS were the least, and the length of hospital stay for RACS was the shortest. The anastomotic leakage rate for LACS was the least, but there was no significant difference compared with those of RACS and open surgery. The wound infection rate for LACS was the least, but there was no significant difference compared with that of RACS.

CONCLUSION

RACS might be a better treatment for patients with CRC.

Association between robot-assisted surgery and resection quality in patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Resection quality after robot-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer have not previously been investigated in a nationwide study. The aim of the study was to examine the resection quality in robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Furthermore, 30-day mortality, postoperative complications, and conversion to open surgery were investigated.

METHODS

Patients undergoing either laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 were included. The primary outcome was whether R0 resection was achieved. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, postoperative complications, and conversions to laparotomy.

RESULTS

A total of 8615 and 3934 patients had a diagnosis of colon cancer and rectal cancer respectively. Of the patients with colon cancer, 511 patients underwent robot-assisted surgery and of the patients with rectal cancer, 706 patients underwent robot-assisted surgery. In the multivariate analysis, patients with colon cancer had an odds ratio (OR) = 0.63 (95%CI 0.45-0.88) for receiving R0 resection in the robot-assisted group compared to laparoscopy. For patients with rectal cancer, the OR was 1.20 (95%CI 0.89-1.61). No difference in 30-day mortality or postoperative complications were observed. The OR of conversion to laparotomy was lower in the robot-assisted group compared to the laparoscopic group in both patients with colon - and rectal cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed significant lower odds of receiving R0 resection in patients with colon cancer undergoing robot-assisted surgery. In patients with rectal cancer the robot-assisted surgery non-significantly increased the odds of receiving R0 resection.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In the right colon surgery, there is a growing literature comparing the safety of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). With this paper we aim to systematically revise and meta-analyze the latest comparative studies on these two minimally invasive procedures.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies published from 2000 to 2017 in the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases was performed. Primary endpoints were postoperative morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints were blood loss, conversion to open surgery, harvested lymph node anastomotic leak, postoperative hemorrhage, abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, time to first flatus, non-surgical complications, wound infections, hospital stay, and incisional hernia and costs. A subgroup analysis was performed on those series presenting only extracorporeal anastomosis in both arms.

RESULTS

After screening 355 articles, 11 articles with a total of 8257 patients were eligible for inclusion. Operative time was found to be significantly shorter for the laparoscopic procedures in the pooled analysis (SMD - 0.99 95% CI - 1.4 to - 0.6, p < 0.001). Conversion to open surgery was more common during laparoscopic procedures than during the robotic ones (RR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.6, p = 0.02). No significant differences in mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.18-1.23, p = 0.124) and postoperative complications (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.9-1.2, p = 0.5) were found between LRC versus RRC. The pooled mean time to first flatus was higher in the laparoscopic group (SMD 0.85 days; 95% CI 0.16-1.54, p = 0.016). Hospital costs were significantly higher in RRCs (SMD - 0.52; 95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.04, p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

RRC can be regarded as a feasible and safe technique. Its superiority in terms of postoperative recovery must be confirmed by further large prospective series comparing RRC and LRC performed with the same anastomotic technique. RRC seemed to be associated with higher costs than LRC.

Robotics confers an advantage in right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis when matched against conventional laparoscopy

Comparisons between robotic and laparoscopic right hemicolectomy have been confounded by variations in operative technique. This study evaluates the two procedures after standardizing the intraoperative steps and perioperative management. Patients who underwent robotic right hemicolectomy with intracorporeal bowel anastomosis between July 2015 and June 2017 were matched with a laparoscopic group. Perioperative management was in accordance to an enhanced recovery protocol. Outcomes and histopathological data were compared. Thirty-two patients were included. Amongst the patients who did not undergo complete mesocolic excision, the median operative time did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.413). The robotic group recorded a statistically shorter time for intracorporeal anastomosis (13 vs 19 min, p = 0.024). Postoperative recovery and complication rates were similar, except for a greater lymph node harvest in the robotic group (41 vs 31, p = 0.038). Robotic surgery achieves short-term results comparable to existing conventional laparoscopy, notwithstanding the advantages of enhanced ergonomics.

Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis for malignancy

Techniques for robotic resection of the right colon have not been extensively published or adopted. We report our initial experience of robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision retrospectively. Twenty-one consecutive patients with a right colon cancer (n = 18) or polyp too large to remove endoscopically (n = 3) were treated at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota. Main outcomes measured were estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, return of gastrointestinal function, length of stay, overall and severe complications, discharge status, and pathology. All 21 procedures were technically successful without the need for conversion. The mean total operative time was 250 ± 56 min, estimated blood loss was less than 100 mL in 19 (90%), only 1 (5%) ileus occurred, mean length of stay and return of gastrointestinal function was 4 ± 1.3 and 1 ± 0.6 days, respectively, only 1 (5%) patient experienced a Dindo grade ≥ 3 complication, and 20 (95%) were discharged to home. Mean number of nodes resected was 26 ± 12. Tumors were diagnosed as stage 0 in 3 (14%), stage I in 7 (33%), stage II in 4 (19%), stage III in 6 (28%), and stage IV in 1 (5%). Main limitations were nonrandomized nature, single institution experience, small patient sample size, and procedures only being performed by two surgeons. Finally, we conclude that robotic right colectomy with central mesocolic excision, intracorporeal anastomosis, and extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision is technically feasible, efficacious, oncologically acceptable, and safe to perform.

Differences in Effectiveness and Use of Robotic Surgery in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Colectomy

BACKGROUND

We compared patient outcomes of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and laparoscopic colectomy without robotic assistance for colon cancer or nonmalignant polyps, comparing all patients, obese versus nonobese patients, and male versus female patients.

METHODS

We used the 2013-2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data to examine a composite outcome score comprised of mortality, readmission, reoperation, wound infection, bleeding transfusion, and prolonged postoperative ileus. We used propensity scores to assess potential heterogeneous treatment effects of RAS by patient obesity and sex.

RESULTS

In all, 17.1% of the 10,844 of patients received RAS. Males were slightly more likely to receive RAS. Obese patients were equally likely to receive RAS as nonobese patients. In comparison to nonRAS, RAS was associated with a 3.1% higher adverse composite outcome score. Mortality, reoperations, wound infections, sepsis, pulmonary embolisms, deep vein thrombosis, myocardial infarction, blood transfusions, and average length of hospitalization were similar in both groups. Conversion to open surgery was 10.1% lower in RAS versus nonRAS patients, but RAS patients were in the operating room an average of 52.4 min longer. We found no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) by obesity status and gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Worse patient outcomes and no differential improvement by sex or obesity suggest more cautious adoption of RAS.