A three-arm (laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and robotic) matched-case analysis of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in minimally invasive colorectal surgery

The impact of previous abdominal surgery on colorectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery

The current study aimed to investigate whether previous abdominal surgery (PAS) could affect the outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. We conducted the search strategy in three databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) from inception to May 26, 2022. The short-term and long-term outcomes were compared between the PAS group and the non-PAS group. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled up. Stata (V.16.0) software was used for data analysis. We included 34,827 patients from 14 studies in the current study. After pooling up all the data, we found that there were higher proportions of overall complications (OR = 1.12, I2 = 4.65%, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.23, P = 0.01), ileus (OR = 1.96, I2 = 59.74%, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.44, P = 0.02) and mortality (OR = 1.26, I2 = 0.00%, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.42, P = 0.00) in the PAS group than the non-PAS group. Patients with a history of PAS had higher risks of overall complications and death following CRC surgery. However, it did not appear to significantly affect the short-term outcomes apart from ileus. Surgeons should raise awareness of patients with a history of PAS, and take steps to reduce postoperative complications and mortality.

The risk of postoperative complications is higher in stage I-III colorectal cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery: a propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to investigate whether previous abdominal surgery (PAS) affected stage I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who underwent radical resection.

METHODS

Stage I-III CRC patients who received surgery at a single clinical center from Jan 2014 to Dec 2022 were retrospectively included in this study. Baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes were compared between the PAS group and the non-PAS group. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to find risk factors for overall complications and major complications. A 1:1 ratio propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize the selection bias between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 22.0) software.

RESULTS

A total of 5895 stage I-III CRC patients were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The PAS group had 1336 (22.7%) patients, and the non-PAS group had 4559 (77.3%) patients. After the PSM, there were 1335 patients in each group, and no significant difference was found in all baseline characteristics between the two groups (P > 0.05). After comparing the short-term outcomes, the PAS group had a longer operation time (before PSM, P < 0.01; after PSM, P < 0.01) and more overall complications (before PSM, P = 0.027; after PSM, P = 0.022) whether before or after PSM. In univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, PAS was an independent risk factor for overall complications (univariate analysis, P = 0.022; multivariate analysis, P = 0.029) but not for major complications (univariate analysis, P = 0.688).

CONCLUSION

Stage I-III CRC patients with PAS might experience longer operation time and have a higher risk of postoperative overall complications. However, it did not appear to significantly affect the major complications. Surgeons should take steps to improve surgical outcomes for patients with PAS.

Clinical outcomes of elective robotic vs laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer utilizing a large national database

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have shown comparable outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic approaches across a range of surgeries; however, these have been limited in size. This study investigates differences in outcomes following robotic (RC) vs laparoscopic (LC) colectomy across several years utilizing a large national database.

METHODS

We analyzed data from ACS NSQIP for patients who underwent elective minimally invasive colectomies for colon cancer from 2012 to 2020. Inverse probability weighting with regression adjustment (IPWRA) incorporating demographics, operative factors, and comorbidities was used. Outcomes included mortality, complications, return to the operating room (OR), post-operative length of stay (LOS), operative time, readmission, and anastomotic leak. Secondary analysis was performed to further assess anastomotic leak rate following right and left colectomies.

RESULTS

We identified 83,841 patients who underwent elective minimally invasive colectomies: 14,122 (16.8%) RC and 69,719 (83.2%) LC. Patients who underwent RC were younger, more likely to be male, non-Hispanic White, with higher body mass index (BMI) and fewer comorbidities (for all, P < 0.05). After adjustment, there were no differences between RC and LC for 30-day mortality (0.8% vs 0.9% respectively, P = 0.457) or overall complications (16.9% vs 17.2%, P = 0.432). RC was associated with higher return to OR (5.1% vs 3.6%, P < 0.001), lower LOS (4.9 vs 5.1 days, P < 0.001), longer operative time (247 vs 184 min, P < 0.001), and higher rates of readmission (8.8% vs 7.2%, P < 0.001). Anastomotic leak rates were comparable for right-sided RC vs LC (2.1% vs 2.2%, P = 0.713), higher for left-sided LC (2.7%, P < 0.001), and highest for left-sided RC (3.4%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic approach for elective colon cancer resection has similar outcomes to its laparoscopic counterpart. There were no differences in mortality or overall complications, however anastomotic leaks were highest after left RC. Further investigation is imperative to better understand the potential impact of technological advancement such as robotic surgery on patient outcomes.

Hand-assisted versus straight laparoscopy for colorectal surgery - a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is an alternative to straight laparoscopy (LAP) in colorectal surgery. Many studies have compared the two in terms of efficacy, complications, and outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to uncover if there are any significant differences in conversion rates, operative times, body mass index (BMI), incision lengths, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and length of stay.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed on databases from their respective inceptions to 16 December 2021, with a manual search performed through Scopus. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series involving more than 10 patients were included.

RESULTS

A total of 47 studies were found fitting the inclusion criteria, with 5 RCTs, 41 cohort studies, and 1 case series. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower conversion rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95%CI 0.28-0.60, p < 0.00001), shorter operative times (Mean Difference [MD] - 8.32 min, 95%CI - 14.05- - 2.59, p = 0.004), and higher BMI (MD 0.79, 95%CI 0.46-1.13, p < 0.00001), but it was also associated with longer incision lengths (MD 2.19 cm, 95%CI 1.66-2.73 cm, p < 0.00001), and higher postoperative complication rates (OR 1.15, 95%CI 1.06-1.24, p = 0.0004). Length of stay was not different in HALS as compared to Lap (MD 0.16 days, 95%CI - 0.06-0.38 days, p = 0.16, and intraoperative complications were the same between both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand-assisted laparoscopy is a suitable alternative to straight laparoscopy with benefits and risks. While there are many cohort studies comparing HALS and LAP, more RCTs would be needed for a better quality of evidence.

Robotic colorectal surgery and ergonomics

Improved ergonomics for the operating surgeon may be an advantage of robotic colorectal surgery. Perceived robotic ergonomic advantages in visualisation include better exposure, three-dimensional vision, surgeon camera control, and line of sight screen location. Postural advantages include seated position and freedom from the constraints of the sterile operating field. Manipulation benefits include articulated instruments with seven degrees of freedom movement, elimination of fulcrum effect, tremor filtration, and scaling of movement. Potential ergonomic detriments of robotic surgery include lack of haptic feedback, visual, and mental strain from increased operating time and interruptions to workflow from crowding.

Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Sigmoid Resection

Background and Objectives:

Published comparisons of minimally invasive approaches to colon surgery are limited. The objective of the current study is to compare the effectiveness of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sigmoid resection.

Methods:

A multicenter retrospective comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes from consecutive robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sigmoid resections performed between 2010 and 2015 by six general and colorectal surgeons, who are experienced in both robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgical techniques and who had >50 annual case volumes for each approach. Baseline characteristics and surgical risk factors between the two groups were balanced using a propensity score methodology with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Mean standardized differences were reported, and in all instances, a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Three hundred thirty-six cases (robotic-assisted, n = 211; laparoscopic, n = 125) met eligibility criteria and were included in the study. Following weighting, patient demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable between the robotic-assisted (n = 344) and laparoscopic (n = 349) groups. The laparoscopic group was associated with shorter operating room and surgical times. The robotic-assisted group had lower estimated blood loss and shorter time to first flatus compared to the laparoscopic group. Rates of complications post discharge to 30 d tended to be lower for the RA group: 5.1% vs 8.6% [p = 0.0657]. The RA group also had lower rates of readmissions and reoperations: 4% vs 8% [p = 0.029] and 0.5% vs 5.1% [p = 0.0003], respectively.

Conclusions:

Robotic-assisted sigmoid colon resection is clinically effective and provides a minimally invasive alternative to the laparoscopic approach with improved intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for colorectal patients.

A comparative analysis of outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic elective (procto-) colectomies for benign and malignant disease

Laparoscopy has emerged as a common alternative to the open approach for colorectal operations. Robotic surgery has many advantages, but cost and outcomes are an area of study. There are no randomized-controlled trials of all techniques. The present study evaluated a cohort of veterans undergoing (procto-) colectomy for benign or malignant colorectal disease. This is a single-institution retrospective review. We compared open, laparoscopic, and robotic colectomies. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The secondary endpoints included morbidity, operative times, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), conversion rate, and the learning curve (LC). Subgroup analyses were undertaken for: (1) right hemicolectomies (RHC) and (2) by specific surgeons most familiar with each approach. The cohort included 390 patients (men = 95%, White = 70.8%, BMI = 29.3 ± 6.4 kg/m², age = 63.7 ± 10.2 years) undergoing (open = 117, laparoscopic = 168, and robotic = 105), colorectal operations for colorectal adenocarcinoma (52.8%) and benign disease. Thirty-day morbidity was similar across all techniques (open = 46.2%, laparoscopic = 42.9%, and robotic = 38.1%; NS). EBL and LOS were decreased with minimally invasive techniques compared to open. Operative time was longer in robotic, but equalized to laparoscopic after 90 cases. The learning curve was reduced to 20 when performed by the surgeon most familiar with the robot. EBL and operative time independently predicted complications for the entire cohort. The best technique for colorectal operations rests on the surgeon's experience, but minimally invasive techniques are gaining momentum over open colectomies. Robotic colectomy is emerging as a non-inferior approach to laparoscopy in terms of outcomes, while maintaining all its technical advantages.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Operative Technique and Review of the Literature

The number of patients undergoing robotic surgery for rectal cancer has rapidly increased in Japan, since the government approved the procedure for national insurance coverage in April 2018. Robotic surgery has the potential to overcome some limitations of laparoscopic surgery, especially in the narrow pelvis, providing a three-dimensional view, articulated instruments, and a stable camera platform. Although meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate the superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery with respect to the short-term clinical outcomes, the published findings suggest that robotic surgery may be potentially beneficial for patients who are obese, male, or patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. The safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for lateral lymph node dissection, the standard procedure for locally advanced lower rectal cancer in Japan, have been demonstrated in some retrospective studies. However, additional prospective, randomized trials are required to determine the actual benefits of robotic surgery to ameliorate the urogenital and oncological outcomes. The cost of this approach is a long-standing principal concern. A literature search showed that the cost of robotic surgery for rectal cancer was 1.3-2.5 times higher per patient than that for the laparoscopic approach. We herein describe our surgical technique using a da Vinci Surgical System (S/Si/Xi) with 10 years of experience in performing robotic surgery. We also review current evidence regarding short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes, lateral lymph node dissection, and the cost of the procedure.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I² = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (ρ < 0.001, I² = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (ρ < 0.001, I² = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (ρ < 0.001, I² = 94%; REM: MD - 0.77; 95% CI 1.12, - 0.41; day), time to oral diet (ρ < 0.001, I² = 60%; REM: MD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.64, - 0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (ρ = 0.01, I² = 88%; REM: MD - 18.05; 95% CI - 32.24, - 3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (ρ < 0.001, I² = 93%; REM: MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. Robotic surgery has been recently used as a novel tool for rectal surgery. This study assessed the current evidence regarding the efficiency, safety, and potential advantages of robotic rectal surgery (RRS) compared with laparoscopic rectal surgery (LRS). Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases and performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the 2 approaches. Results. Seven RCTs including a total of 1022 cases were identified. The conversion rate is significantly lower for RRS (odds ratio: 0.29; 95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 0.96; P = .04). The length of the distal margin was significantly shorter in the LRS group than in the RRS group (weighted mean difference: 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 1.10; P = .02). Perioperative complication rates, harvested lymph nodes, positive circumferential resection margins, complete total mesorectal excision, first flatus, and length of stay did not differ significantly between approaches ( P > .05). Conclusions. This meta-analysis indicates that RRS is a safe and effective approach. It is not inferior to LRS in terms of oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications. Future large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-up are awaited to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Lower Gastrointestinal Surgery: Robotic Surgery versus Laparoscopic Procedures

Introduction

For a long time, the comprehensive application of minimally invasive techniques in lower gastrointestinal (GI) surgery was substantially impaired by inherent anatomical and technical complexities. Recently, several new techniques such as robotic operating platforms and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) have revolutionized the minimally invasive approach. This review aims to depict the current state of the art and evaluates the advantages and drawbacks in regard to perioperative outcome and quality of oncological resection.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed using the search terms 'colorectal cancer', 'rectal cancer', 'minimally invasive surgery', 'laparoscopic surgery', and 'robotic' to identify relevant studies reporting on robotic surgery (RS) either alone or in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (LS). Publications on taTME were analyzed separately.

Results

69 studies reporting on RS with a total of 20,872 patients, and 17 articles on taTME including 881 patients, were identified.

Conclusion

Both RS and taTME can facilitate a minimally invasive approach for lower GI surgery in an increasing number of patients. Furthermore, combining both techniques might become an auspicious approach in selected patients; further prospective and randomized trials are needed to verify its benefits over conventional laTME.

Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgeries for Patients With Colorectal Cancer Who Have Had a Previous Abdominal Surgery

PURPOSE

The impact of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) on surgical outcomes from laparoscopic and robot surgeries is inconclusive. This study aimed to investigate the impact of PAS on perioperative outcomes from laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries.

METHODS

From March 2007 to February 2014, a total of 612 and 238 patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic surgeries, respectively. Patients were divided into 3 groups: those who did not have a PAS (NPAS), those who had a major PAS, and those who had a minor PAS. We further divided the patients so that our final groups for analysis were: patients with NPAS (n = 478), major PAS (n = 19), and minor PAS (n = 115) in the laparoscopy group, and patients with NPAS (n = 202) and minor PAS (n = 36) in the robotic surgery group.

RESULTS

In the laparoscopy group, no differences in the conversion rates between the 3 groups were noted (NPAS = 1.0% vs. major PAS = 0% vs. minor PAS = 1.7%, P = 0.701). In the robotic surgery group, the conversion rate did not differ between the NPAS group and the minor PAS group (1.0% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.390). Among the groups, neither the operation time, blood loss, days to soft diet, length of hospital stay, nor complication rate were affected by PAS.

CONCLUSION

PAS did not jeopardize the perioperative outcomes for either laparoscopic or robotic colorectal surgeries. Therefore, PAS should not be regarded as an absolute contraindication for minimally invasive colorectal surgeries.

The robotic approach significantly reduces length of stay after colectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery has helped overcome several of the inherent limitations of conventional laparoscopy. The aim of this study is to identify any short-term advantage of robotic-assisted (RC) over laparoscopic colectomy (LC) using standardized nationwide data.

METHODS

Patients from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2012-2014 datasets who underwent elective LC or RC were compared for patient demographics, comorbidity, diagnosis, extent of colon resection, operative duration, and conversion rates. Thirty-day postoperative complications and post-discharge utilization of resources, readmission, and discharge to another facility were also evaluated. Propensity score matching was used to balance the sample size in the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 35,839 LC and RC procedures, 2482 cases were eligible for propensity score matching for the statistically significant variables (standardized difference > 0.10) and 1241 colectomy procedures were assigned to each group. Most of the major, minor surgical, and medical postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups. However, RC was associated with reduced 30-day postoperative septic complications (2.3 vs. 4%, p = 0.02), hospital stay (mean: 4.8 vs. 6.3 days, p = 0.001), and discharge to another facility (3.5 vs. 5.8%, p = 0.01). RC was, however, associated with readmission within 30 days after surgery (9.4 vs. 9.1%, p = 0.049). Postoperative ileus, anastomotic leak, reoperation, reintubation, and mortality were equivalent between RC and LC.

CONCLUSION

This propensity score-matched analysis suggests that RC is associated with some recovery benefits over LC. Greater experience with the technique may allow these advantages to counter some of the cost-related concerns that have deterred the more widespread utilization of robotic technology for colectomy.

Evaluation of the robotic approach concerning pitfalls in rectal surgery

INTRODUCTION

The feasibility and advantages of robotic rectal surgery (RRS) in comparison to conventional open or laparoscopic rectal resections have been postulated in several reports. But well-known challenges and pitfalls of minimal invasive rectal surgery have not been evaluated by a prospective, multicenter setting so far. Aim of this study was to analyze the perioperative outcome of patients following RRS especially in regard to the pitfalls such as obesity, male patients and low tumors by a European multicenter setting.

METHODS

This prospective study included 348 patients undergoing robotic surgery due to rectal cancer in six major European centers. Clinicopathological parameters, morbidity, perioperative recovery and short-term outcome were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 283 restorative surgeries and 65 abdominoperineal resections were carried out. The conversion rate was 4.3%, mean blood loss was 191 ml, and mean operative time was 315 min. Postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score >2 were observed in 13.5%. Obesity and low rectal tumors showed no significant higher rates of major complications or impaired oncological parameters. Male patients had significant higher rates of major complications and anastomotic leakage (p = 0.048 and p = 0.007, respectively).

DISCUSSION

RRS is a promising tool for improvement of rectal resections. The well-known pitfalls of minimal-invasive rectal surgery like obesity and low tumors were sufficiently managed by RRS. However, RRS showed significantly higher rates of major complications and anastomotic leakage in male patients, which has to be evaluated by future randomized trials.

Total robotic radical rectal resection with da Vinci Xi system: single docking, single phase technique

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the advantages of Da Vinci Xi system in rectal cancer surgery. It also assesses the initial oncological outcomes after rectal resection with this system from a tertiary cancer center in India.

INTRODUCTION

Robotic rectal surgery has distinct advantages over laparoscopy. Total robotic resection is increasing following the evolution of hybrid technology. The latest Da Vinci Xi system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, USA) is enabled with newer features to make total robotic resection possible with single docking and single phase.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-six patients underwent total robotic resection in a single phase and single docking. We used newer port positions in a straight line. Median distance from the anal verge was 4.5 cm. Median robotic docking time and robotic procedure time were 9 and 280 min, respectively. Median blood loss was 100 mL. One patient needed conversion to an open approach due to advanced disease. Circumferential resection margin and longitudinal resection margins were uninvolved in all other patients. Median lymph node yield was 10. Median post-operative stay was 7 days. There were no intra-operative adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The latest Da Vinci Xi system has made total robotic rectal surgery feasible in single docking and single phase. With the new system, four arm total robotic rectal surgery may replace the hybrid technique of laparoscopic and robotic surgery for rectal malignancies. The learning curve for the new system appears to be shorter than anticipated. Early perioperative and oncological outcomes of total robotic rectal surgery with the new system are promising. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Robotic surgery is positioned at the cutting edge of minimally invasive management of colorectal cancer. We performed a meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (NRCTs) that compared the clinicopathological outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) with those of laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery (LACS). Inferences on the feasibility and the relative safety and efficacy have been drawn.

METHODS

A literature search for relevant studies was performed on MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Inter-group differences in the standardized mean differences and relative risk were assessed. Operation times, conversion rates to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), early postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LHS) were compared. Oncologic outcomes assessed were number of lymph nodes harvested and lengths of proximal and distal resection margins.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies (2 RCTs and 22 NRCTs [5 prospective plus 17 retrospective]) with a total of 3318 patients were included. Of these, 1466 (44.18 %) patients underwent RACS and 1852 (55.82 %) underwent LACS. Conversion rates, EBL and LHS were significantly lower, while the operation times and total costs were similar between RACS and LACS. Complication rates and oncological accuracy of resection showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Based on this meta-analysis, RACS appears to be a promising surgical approach with its safety and efficacy comparable to that of LACS in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Further studies are required to evaluate the long-term cost-efficiency as well as the functional and oncologic outcomes of RACS.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Reduction in operative trauma along with an improvement in endoscopic access has undoubtedly occupied surgical minds for at least the past 3 decades. It is not at all surprising that minimally invasive colon surgery has come a long way since the first laparoscopic appendectomy by Semm in 1981. It is common knowledge that the recent developments in video and robotic technologies have significantly furthered advancements in laparoscopic and minimally invasive surgery. This has led to the overall acceptance of the treatment of benign colorectal pathology via the endoscopic route. Malignant disease, however, is still primarily treated by conventional approaches.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This review article is based on a literature search pertaining to advances in minimally invasive colorectal surgery for the treatment of malignant pathology, as well as on personal experience in the field over the same period of time. Our search was limited to level I and II clinical papers only, according to the evidence-based medicine guidelines. We attempted to present our unbiased view on the subject relying only on the evidence available.

CONCLUSION

Focusing on advances in colorectal minimally invasive surgery, it has to be stated that there are still a number of unanswered questions regarding the surgical management of malignant diseases with this approach. These questions do not only relate to the area of boundaries set for the use of minimally invasive techniques in this field but also to the exact modality best suited to the treatment of every particular case whilst maintaining state-of-the-art oncological principles.

Minimally invasive surgery of rectal cancer: current evidence and options

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of colorectal cancer has become more popular in the past two decades. Laparoscopic colectomy has been accepted as an alternative standard approach in colon cancer, with comparable oncologic outcomes and several better short-term outcomes compared to open surgery. Unlike the treatment for colon cancer, however, the minimally invasive approach in rectal cancer has not been established. In this article, we summarize the current status of MIS for rectal cancer and explore the various technical options.

Robotic-laparoscopic rectal cancer excision versus traditional laparoscopy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Robotic surgery has been advocated for the radical excision of rectal cancer. Most data supporting its use have been reported from European and Asian centers, with a paucity of data from the United States documenting clear advantages of the robotic technique. This study compares the short-term outcome of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic (group 1) or robotic (group 2) rectal cancer excision at a single institution over a 2-year period were retrospectively reviewed. The main outcome measures were operative time, blood loss, conversion rates, number of lymph nodes, margin positivity, length of hospital stay, complications, and readmission rates.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were analyzed. The median operative time was shorter in group 1 than that in group 2 (240 minutes vs 260 minutes, P=.04). No difference was noted in blood loss, transfusion rates, intraoperative complications, or conversion rates. There was no difference in circumferential or distal margin positivity. The median length of stay was shorter in group 1 (5 days vs 6 days, P=.05). The 90-day complication rate was similar in both groups (33% vs 43%, P=.75), but there was a trend toward more anastomotic leaks in group 1 (14% vs 0%, P=.23). Similarly, a non-statistically significant trend toward a higher readmission rate was noted in group 1 (24% vs 5%, P=.18).

CONCLUSION

Robotic rectal cancer excision yielded a longer operative time and hospital length of stay, although immediate oncologic results were comparable. The need for randomized data is critical to determine whether the added resource utilization in robotic surgery is justifiable.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) for Sphincter-Saving Surgery: Is There Any Difference in the Transanal TME Rectal Approach? : A Single-Center Series of 120 Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND

Robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME), a novel way for minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer, was shown in previous studies to be safe and effective. However, comparison with laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) has drawn contradictory disputes, especially concerning operative high-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare R-TME and L-TME on the rectal technical approach.

METHODS

Between October 2009 and March 2013, a total of 120 consecutive rectal carcinomas, operated for sphincter-saving procedure, were enrolled. The patient population included the last 60 laparoscopic procedures and the first 60 robotic surgeries (six hybrid approaches, then 54 full robotic surgeries). There were no exclusions.

RESULTS

Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in both the R-TME and L-TME groups. Outcomes were equivalent for blood loss (200 vs. 100 mL), postoperative hospital stay (12 vs. 11 days), conversion rate (3.2 vs. 4.8 %), lymph nodes yield (15 vs. 19), no positive distal margin (0 %), positive radial margin (6.4 vs. 9.3 %), diverting ileostomy (73 vs. 58 %) and severe morbidity (28 vs. 20 %). Significant differences were found for median operative time (274 vs. 228 min; p = 0.003) and proctectomy performed via transanal approach (1.7 vs. 16.7 %; p = 0.004). The R-TME operative time curve stabilized to 245 min after the first 25 procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

For rectal cancer, R-TME may be as feasible and safe as L-TME in terms of technique. In our practice and for difficult cases, R-TME allows complete rectal dissection by an abdominal approach, while L-TME requires a transanal approach.

Standardized single docking, four arms and fully robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer: the key points are the ports and arms placement

Rectal cancer continues to be a surgical challenge. As more technology is developed, the surgeon must both incorporate this new technology into his practice and, at the same time, keep improving oncologic surgery and overall outcomes. We describe a standardized approach and fully robotic proctectomy, using four arms and one single docking (SI system). Patient cart and ports placement, as well as arms position to avoid collision, are key points to perform the entire procedure with one single docking. Although the place of robotic surgery might still need to be defined, standardizing the procedures is a step towards its evaluation. We propose with this report a solution to perform a single docking four arms robotic proctectomy.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery (RS) overcomes the limitations of previous conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). Although meta-analyses have been published recently, our study evaluated the latest comparative surgical, urologic, and sexual results for rectal cancer and compares RS with CLS in patients with rectal cancer only.

METHODS

We searched three foreign databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, and Cochrane Library) and five Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi) during July 2013. The Cochrane Risk of Bias and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized were utilized to evaluate quality of study. Dichotomous variables were pooled using the risk ratio (RR), and continuous variables were pooled using the mean difference (MD). All meta-analyses were conducted with Review Manager, V. 5.3.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies involving 2,224 patients were included. RS was associated with a lower rate of intraoperative conversion than that of CLS (RR, 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.54). Time to first flatus was short (MD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.01). Operating time was longer for RS than that for CLS (MD, 49.97; 95% CI, 20.43-79.52, I(2) = 97%). International Prostate Symptom Score scores at 3 months better RS than CLS (MD, -2.90; 95% CI, -5.31 to -0.48, I(2) = 0%). International Index of Erectile Function scores showed better improvement at 3 months (MD, -2.82; 95% CI, -4.78 to -0.87, I(2) = 37%) and 6 months (MD, -2.15; 95% CI, -4.08 to -0.22, I(2) = 0%).

CONCLUSION

RS appears to be an effective alternative to CLS with a lower conversion rate to open surgery, a shorter time to first flatus and better recovery in voiding and sexual function. RS could enhance postoperative recovery in patients with rectal cancer.

Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: inferior-to-superior approach with intracorporeal anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy has been shown to be safe and feasible; however, it remains technically demanding. We present a single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with an inferior-to-superior approach with intracorporeal anastomosis. This approach may help overcome some of the technical challenges of the conventional technique.

TECHNIQUE

With the patient in steep Trendelenburg and right-side elevated, a single-incision device is placed at the umbilicus. The small bowel is mobilized out of the pelvis, exposing the ileocolic peritoneal attachments. The peritoneum is divided and the retroperitoneal plane is established in a cranial and medial fashion until the duodenum is exposed. The ileocolic pedicle is readily identified and divided. Further exposure of the retroperitoneal plane is developed and the right branch of the middle colic vessel is isolated and divided. Attention is drawn to the remaining attachments of the hepatic flexure, which is then taken down. The resection margins of the transverse colon and terminal ileum are identified and a side-to-side intracorporeal anastomosis using a double-stapled technique is performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Technical challenges of the single-incision laparoscopic right hemicolectomy may be overcome utilizing an inferior-to-superior approach with intracorporeal anastomosis by affording optimal exposure, retraction, and dissection of the tissue planes.

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database

BACKGROUND

Until randomized trials mature, large database analyses assist in determining the role of robotics in colorectal surgery. ACS NSQIP database coding now allows differentiation between laparoscopic (LC) and robotic (RC) colorectal procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare LC and RC outcomes by analyzing the ACS NSQIP database.

METHODS

The ACS NSQIP database was queried to identify patients who had undergone RC and LC during 2013. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were identified. Using propensity score matching, abdominal and pelvic colorectal operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 11,477 cases were identified. In the abdomen, 7790 LC and 299 RC cases were identified, and 2057 LC and 331 RC cases were identified in the pelvis. There were significant differences in operative time, conversion to an open procedure in the pelvis, and hospital length of stay. RC operative times were significantly longer in both abdominal and pelvic cases. Conversion rates in the pelvis were less for RC when compared to LC--10.0 and 13.7%, respectively (p = 0.01). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for RC abdominal cases than for LC abdominal cases (4.3 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001) and for RC pelvic cases when compared to LC pelvic cases (4.5 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, wound complications, anastomotic leak, sepsis/shock, or need for reoperation within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

As the robotic platform continues to grow in colorectal surgery and as technical upgrades continue to advance, comparison of outcomes requires continuous reevaluation. This study demonstrated that robotic operations have longer operative times, decreased hospital length of stay, and decreased rates of conversion to open in the pelvis. These findings warrant continued evaluation of the role of minimally invasive technical upgrades in colorectal surgery.

A population-based study comparing laparoscopic and robotic outcomes in colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Current data addressing the role of robotic surgery for the management of colorectal disease are primarily from single-institution and case-matched comparative studies as well as administrative database analyses. The purpose of this study was to compare minimally invasive surgery outcomes using a large regional protocol-driven database devoted to surgical quality, improvement in patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study from the prospectively collected Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative registry designed to compare outcomes of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and robotic colon and rectal operations between July 1, 2012 and October 7, 2014. We adjusted for differences in baseline covariates between cases with different surgical approaches using propensity score quintiles modeled on patient demographics, general health factors, diagnosis, and preoperative co-morbidities. The primary outcomes were conversion rates and hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes included operative time, and postoperative morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 2735 minimally invasive colorectal operations met inclusion criteria. Conversion rates were lower with robotic as compared to laparoscopic operations, and this was statistically significant for rectal resections (colon 9.0 vs. 16.9%, p < 0.06; rectum 7.8 vs. 21.2%, p < 0.001). The adjusted length of stay for robotic colon operations (4.00 days, 95% CI 3.63-4.40) was significantly shorter compared to laparoscopic (4.41 days, 95% CI 4.17-4.66; p = 0.04) and hand-assisted laparoscopic cases (4.44 days, 95% CI 4.13-4.78; p = 0.008). There were no significant differences in overall postoperative complications among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared to conventional laparoscopy, the robotic platform is associated with significantly fewer conversions to open for rectal operations, and significantly shorter length of hospital stay for colon operations, without increasing overall postoperative morbidity. These findings and the recent upgrades in minimally invasive technology warrant continued evaluation of the role of the robotic platform in colorectal surgery.

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes

BACKGROUND

While robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is becoming increasingly popular, data comparing its outcomes to other established techniques remain limited to small case series. Moreover, there are no large studies evaluating the trends of RACS at the national level.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2009-2010 was retrospectively reviewed for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal procedures performed for cancer, benign polyps, and diverticular disease. Trends in different settings, indications, and demographics were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare selected outcomes between RACS and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

RESULTS

An estimated 128,288 colorectal procedures were performed through minimally invasive techniques over the study period, and RACS was used in 2.78 % of cases. From 2009 to 2010, the use of robotics increased in all hospital settings but was still more common in large, urban, and teaching hospitals. Rectal cancer was the most common indication for RACS, with a tendency toward its selective use in male patients. On multivariate analysis, robotic surgery was associated with higher hospital charges in colonic ($11,601.39; 95 % CI 6,921.82-16,280.97) and rectal cases ($12,964.90; 95 % CI 6,534.79-19,395.01), and higher rates of postoperative bleeding in colonic cases (OR = 2.15; 95 % CI 1.27- 3.65). RACS was similar to CLS with respect to length of hospital stay, morbidity, anastomotic leak, and ileus. Conversion to open surgery was significantly lower in robotic colonic and rectal procedures (0.41; 95 % CI 0.25-0.67) and (0.10; 95 % CI 0.06-0.16), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of RACS is still limited in the United States. However, its use increased over the study period despite higher associated charges and no real advantages over laparoscopy in terms of outcome. The one advantage is lower conversion rates.

Feasibility and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic rectal resection following neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy: A systematic review

AIM: To study the feasibility and oncological outcomes following laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) in patients who have received Neo-adjuvant long course chemo-radiotherapy (LCRT).

METHODS: A protocol driven systematic review of published literature was undertaken to assess the feasibility and oncological outcomes following LTME in patients receiving LCRT. The feasibility was assessed using peri-operative outcomes and short term results. The oncological outcomes were assessed using local recurrence, disease free survival and overall survival.

RESULTS: Only 8 studies-1 randomized controlled trial, 4 Case Matched/Controlled Studies and 3 Case Series were identified matching the search criteria. The conversion rate was low (1.2% to 28.1%), anastomotic leak rates were similar to open total mesorectal excision (0%-4.1% vs 0%-8.3%). Only 3 studies reported on local recurrence rates (5.2%-7.6%) at median 34 mo follow-up. A single study described disease free survival and overall survival at 3 years as 78.8% and 92.1% respectively.

CONCLUSION: LTME following LCRT is feasible in experienced hands, with acceptable short term surgical outcomes and with the usual benefits associated with minimally invasive procedures. The long term oncological outcomes of LTME after LCRT appear to be comparable to open procedures but need further investigation.

A meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotics, as an innovation of minimally invasive surgical methods, is developing rapidly for colectomy. But there is still no consensus on its comparative merit compared with laparoscopic resections. We conducted this meta-analysis that included randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled trials of robotic colectomy (RC) versus laparoscopic colectomy (LC) to evaluate whether the safety and efficacy of RC are equivalent to those of LC.

METHODS

A search of five databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science), gray literature, hand searches, reference, and forward citation were performed for studies that compared clinical or oncologic outcomes of LC with RC. Clinical outcomes evaluated were conversion rates, operation times, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complications. Oncologic outcome evaluated was the number of lymph nodes collected.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies were identified that included 125,989 patients in total, 4934 in the robotic cohort and 121,055 in the laparoscopic cohort. Meta-analysis suggested that there was a significantly longer hospital stay in the laparoscopic group (mean difference [MD] -0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.02 to -0.27; P = 0.0008). Robotic surgery was associated with a significantly lower complication rate (odds ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.72-0.85; P ＜ 0.00001) and a significantly shorter time to recovery of bowel function (MD -0.58; 95% CI -0.96 to -0.20; P = 0.003). There were statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss (MD -19.24; 95% CI -29.38 to -9.09; P = 0.0002) and intraoperative conversion to open (odds ratio 0.56; 95% CI 0.44-0.72; P < 0.00001), but not clinical relevant. There were no significant differences in the number of lymph nodes extracted between the two groups. However, operating time (MD 49.25; 95% CI 36.78-61.72; P < 0.00001) was longer for RC than for LC.

CONCLUSIONS

RC can be performed safely and effectively with the number of lymph nodes extracted similar to LC. In addition, it can provide potential advantages of a shorter hospital stay, a shorter time to recovery of bowel function, and lower occurrence of postoperative complications. These findings seem to support the use of robotics for the minimally invasive surgical management of colectomy. However, RC had longer operating time. Future studies involving RC should focus on minimizing duration of operation.

Comparative effectiveness in colon and rectal cancer

Treatment of colorectal cancer is becoming more uniform, with wider acceptance of standardized guidelines. However, areas of controversy exist where the appropriate treatment is not clear, including: should a segmental colectomy or a more extensive resection be performed in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer? should an asymptomatic primary cancer be resected in the presence of unresectable metastatic disease? what is the role of extended lymph node resection in colon and rectal cancer? are there clinically significant benefits for a robotic approach to colorectal resection versus a laparoscopic approach? This chapter will examine these issues and discuss how they may be resolved.

Three-step hand-assisted laparoscopic d2 radical gastrectomy for chinese obese patients: a highly efficient and feasible surgical approach

Three-step hand-assisted laparoscopic D2 radical gastrectomy (HALG) is a modified surgical procedure that has achieved satisfactory results for obese patients in our surgical center. To fully elucidate the advantages of this procedure, in this study, comprehensive and in-depth comparative analyses were performed to assess clinical data from obese gastric cancer patients who underwent HALG, laparoscopic-assisted D2 radical gastrectomy (LAG), and open D2 radical gastrectomy (OG) in our surgical center during a specific time period. For the 3 groups, incision length was 1.25 cm longer for the HALG group than for the LAG group but was significantly shorter for the HALG group than for the OG group (P =0.00). The rate of conversion to laparotomy , the pneumoperitoneum time and the number of recovered lymph nodes were significantly better for the HALG group than for the LAG group (P <0.05). The pain score at day 2 after surgery, intestinal function recovery time, and duration of postoperative hospital stay were not significantly different for the HALG and LAG groups ( P >0.05) but were significantly better for the HALG group than for the OG group (P <0.05). There were significantly fewer postoperative complications for the HALG group than for the LAG and OG groups (P =0.049). According to the results, the “three-step HALG method” incorporates both the thoroughness of the radical OG approach and the minimal invasiveness of the LAG approach for obese patients. Thus, the HALG approach is a relatively safe and extremely feasible surgical procedure for the treatment of these patients.

Endowrist versus wrist: a case-controlled study comparing robotic versus hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) remains a technically challenging procedure. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of the robotic-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) versus hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL) techniques in performing TME for patients with rectal cancers.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent RAL TME for rectal cancers was performed. These cases were matched for age, sex, and stage of malignancy with patients who underwent HAL TME. Data collected included age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, comorbid conditions, types of surgical resections and operative times, perioperative complications, length of hospital stays, and histopathologic outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

From August 2008 to August 2011, 19 patients, with a median age of 62 (range, 47 to 92) years underwent RAL TME. Eight (42.1%) patients received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The median docking and operative times were 10 (range, 3 to 34) and 390 (range, 289 to 771) minutes, respectively. There was 1 (5.3%) conversion to open surgery. The grade of mesorectal excision was histopathologically reported as complete in all 19 cases. Positive circumferential margin was reported in 1 (5.3%) patient.Comparing the 2 groups, more patients in the RAL group received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (8 vs. 3; P=0.048). The operative times were longer in the RAL group (390 vs. 225 min; P<0.001). A higher proportion of patients in the HAL group required conversion to open surgery (5 vs. 1; P=0.180) and developed perioperative morbidities (3 vs. 7; P=0.269). The median length of hospitalization was comparable between both groups (RAL: 7 vs. HAL: 6 d; P=0.476).The procedural cost was significantly higher in the RAL group (US$12,460 vs. US$8560; P<0.001), whereas the nonprocedural cost remained comparable between the 2 groups (RAL: US$4470 vs. HAL: US$4500; P=0.729).

CONCLUSIONS

RAL TME is associated with lower conversion and morbidity rates compared with HAL TME. The longer operating times and higher procedural costs are current limitations to its widespread adoption.

Use of robotics in colon and rectal surgery

The pace of innovation in the field of surgery continues to accelerate. As new technologies are developed in combination with industry and clinicians, specialized patient care improves. In the field of colon and rectal surgery, robotic systems offer clinicians many alternative ways to care for patients. From having the ability to round remotely to improved visualization and dissection in the operating room, robotic assistance can greatly benefit clinical outcomes. Although the field of robotics in surgery is still in its infancy, many groups are actively investigating technologies that will assist clinicians in caring for their patients. As these technologies evolve, surgeons will continue to find new and innovative ways to utilize the systems for improved patient care and comfort.

An initial experience with 85 consecutive robotic-assisted rectal dissections: improved operating times and lower costs with experience

BACKGROUND

Data are limited about the robotic platform in rectal dissections, and its use may be perceived as prohibitively expensive or difficult to learn. We report our experience with the initial robotic-assisted rectal dissections performed by a single surgeon, assessing learning curve and cost.

METHODS

Following IRB approval, a retrospective chart review was conducted of the first 85 robotic-assisted rectal dissections performed by a single surgeon between 9/1/2010 and 12/31/2012. Patient demographic, clinicopathologic, procedure, and outcome data were gathered. Cost data were obtained from the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) database. The first 43 cases (Time 1) were compared to the next 42 cases (Time 2) using multivariate linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Indications for surgery were cancer for 51 patients (60 %), inflammatory bowel disease for 18 (21 %), and rectal prolapse for 16 (19 %). The most common procedures were low anterior resection (n = 25, 29 %) and abdominoperineal resection (n = 21, 25 %). The patient body mass index (BMI) was statistically different between the two patient groups (Time 1, 26.1 kg/m(2) vs. Time 2, 29.4 kg/m(2), p = 0.02). Complication and conversion rates did not differ between the groups. Mean operating time was significantly shorter for Time 2 (267 min vs. 224 min, p = 0.049) and remained significant in multivariate analysis. Though not reaching statistical significance, the mean observed direct hospital cost decreased ($17,349 for Time 1 vs. $13,680 for Time 2, p = 0.2). The observed/expected cost ratio significantly decreased (1.47 for Time 1 vs. 1.05 for Time 2, p = 0.007) but did not remain statistically significant in multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the series, we demonstrated a significant improvement in operating times. Though not statistically significant, direct hospital costs trended down over time. Studies of larger patient groups are needed to confirm these findings and to correlate them with procedure volume to better define the learning curve process.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of four randomized controlled trials

Background

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy is popularly performed for colorectal disease. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RCS) and laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS) for colorectal disease based on randomized controlled trial studies.

Methods

Literature searches of electronic databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were performed to identify randomized controlled trial studies that compared the clinical or oncologic outcomes of RCS and LCS. This meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager (RevMan) software (version 5.2) that is provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. The data used were mean differences and odds ratios for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Fixed-effects or random-effects models were adopted according to heterogeneity.

Results

Four randomized controlled trial studies were identified for this meta-analysis. In total, 110 patients underwent RCS, and 116 patients underwent LCS. The results revealed that estimated blood losses (EBLs), conversion rates and times to the recovery of bowel function were significantly reduced following RCS compared with LCS. There were no significant differences in complication rates, lengths of hospital stays, proximal margins, distal margins or harvested lymph nodes between the two techniques.

Conclusions

RCS is a promising technique and is a safe and effective alternative to LCS for colorectal surgery. The advantages of RCS include reduced EBLs, lower conversion rates and shorter times to the recovery of bowel function. Further studies are required to define the financial effects of RCS and the effects of RCS on long-term oncologic outcomes.

Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology has been applied to colorectal surgery over the last decade. The aim of this review is to analyze the outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery systematically and to provide objective information to surgeons.

METHODS

Studies were searched and identified using PubMed and Google Scholar from Jan 2001 to Feb 2013 with the search terms "robot," "robotic," "colon," "rectum," "colorectal," and "colectomy." Appropriate data in the studies about the outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine publications were included in this review and composed of 39 case series, 29 comparative studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial. Most of the studies reported that robotic surgery showed a longer operation time, less estimated blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, lower complication and conversion rates, and comparable oncologic outcomes compared to laparoscopic or open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colorectal surgery is a safe and feasible option. Robotic surgery showed comparable short-term outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery or open surgery. However, the long operation time and high cost are the limitations of robotic surgery.

Laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal malignancies: toward the future with caution

After the rapid acceptance of laparoscopy to manage multiple benign diseases arising from gastrointestinal districts, some surgeons started to treat malignancies by the same way. However, if the limits of laparoscopy for benign diseases are mainly represented by technical issues, oncologic outcomes remain the foundation of any procedures to cure malignancies. Cancerous patients represent an important group with peculiar aspects including reduced survival expectancy, worsened quality of life due to surgery itself and adjuvant therapies, and challenging psychological impact. All these issues could, potentially, receive a better management with a laparoscopic surgical approach. In order to confirm such aspects, similarly to testing the newest weapons (surgical or pharmacologic) against cancer, long-term follow-up is always recommendable to assess the real benefits in terms of overall survival, cancer-free survival and quality of life. Furthermore, it seems of crucial importance that surgeons will be correctly trained in specific oncologic principles of surgical oncology as well as in modern miniinvasive technologies. Therefore, laparoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies requires more caution and deep analysis of published evidences, as compared to those achieved for inflammatory bowel diseases, gastroesophageal reflux disease or diverticular disease. This review tries to examine the evidence available to date for the use of laparoscopy and robotics in malignancies arising from the gastrointestinal district.

Robotic colorectal surgery

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery has many potential benefits, and the application of recently developed robotic technology to patients with colorectal diseases is rapidly gaining popularity.

QUALITY AND OUTCOMES

However, the literature evaluating such techniques, including the outcomes, risks, and costs, is limited. In this review, we evaluate and summarize the existing information, calling attention to areas where future investigation should occur.

Improved perioperative and short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal operations

BACKGROUND

Robotic assistance may offer unique advantages over conventional laparoscopy in colorectal operations.

METHODS

This prospective observational study compared operative measures and postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic abdominal and pelvic resections for benign and malignant disease.

RESULTS

From 2005 through 2012, 200 (58%) laparoscopic and 144 (42%) robotic operations were performed by a single surgeon. After adjustment for differences in demographics and disease processes using propensity score matching, all laparoscopic operations had a significantly shorter operative time (P < .01), laparoscopic left colectomies had a longer length of hospital stay (2009 and 2010: 6.5 vs 3.6 days, P = .01); and laparoscopic right colectomies had a higher risk for overall complications (P = .03) and postoperative ileus (P = .04). There were no significant differences in the outcomes of pelvic operations (P = .15).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional laparoscopy, some types of robotic-assisted colorectal operations may offer advantages regarding postoperative length of stay and perioperative complications.

Is hybrid robotic laparoscopic assistance the ideal approach for restorative rectal cancer dissection?

AIM

While the use of robotic assistance in the management of rectal cancer has gradually increased in popularity over the years, the optimal technique is still under debate. The authors' preferred technique is a robotic low anterior resection that requires a hybrid approach with laparoscopic hand-assisted mobilization of the left colon and robotic assistance for rectal dissection. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of this approach as it relates to intra-operative and short-term outcomes.

METHOD

Between August 2005 and July 2011, consecutive patients undergoing rectal dissection for cancer via the hybrid robotic technique were included in our study. Demographics, margin positivity, intra-operative and short-term outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The preferred approach was performed in 77 patients with rectal adenocarcinoma. Of these, 68 underwent low anterior resection and nine had a coloanal pull-through procedure (mean age 60.1 years; mean body mass index 28.0 kg/m(2) ; mean operative time 327 min; conversion rate 3.9%). Three patients (3.9%) had positive resection margins (one circumferential, two distal). Five patients had an anastomotic leak (6.4%). No robot-specific complications were observed.

CONCLUSION

The hybrid approach involving hand-assisted left colon mobilization and robotic rectal dissection is a safe and feasible technique for minimally invasive low anterior resection. This approach can be considered an viable option for surgeons new to robotic rectal dissection.

Robotic colonic surgery: is it advisable to commence a new learning curve?

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has potential advantages in rectal and pelvic surgery, in which the dissection is performed within a confined operative field. However, the position of robotic colonic surgery remains largely undefined with limited insight of whether it offers any potential advantages over open or laparoscopic colon surgery.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the short-term outcomes of the published robotic colonic surgery with those of laparoscopic colonic surgery.

DATA SOURCES

The search was performed in September 2012 with the use of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search terms used were "colorectal," "colon," "colectomy," and "robotic/robot."

DATA SELECTION

All studies reporting outcomes on robotic colonic resection were included in the review process. Colonic robotic data were compared with data on the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colonic surgery from a Cochrane review and 4 main randomized controlled trials.

INTERVENTIONS

A comparison was conducted of robotic colonic surgery vs standard laparoscopic colonic surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Short-term outcomes and the complication profile of colonic robotic surgery were compared with conventional multiple-port laparoscopic colonic surgery.

RESULTS

Fifteen robotic colonic surgery articles with 351 patients (173 males, 178 females) were considered for analysis. The operative time and financial cost of robotic colonic surgery was greater than standard laparoscopic colonic surgery with comparable short-term outcomes and early postoperative complications profile.

CONCLUSIONS

The present evidence on robotic colonic surgery has shown both feasibility and a safety profile comparable to standard laparoscopic colonic surgery. However, operative time and cost were greater in robotic colonic surgery, with no difference in the length of postoperative stay in comparison with standard laparoscopic colonic surgery. Whether the general surgical community should embark on a new learning curve for robotic colonic surgery can only be answered in the light of future studies.

Impact of robotic general surgery course on participants' surgical practice

BACKGROUND

Courses, including lectures, live surgery, and hands-on session, are part of the recommended curriculum for robotic surgery. However, for general surgery, this approach is poorly reported. The study purpose was to evaluate the impact of robotic general surgery course on the practice of participants.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2011, 101 participants attended the Geneva International Robotic Surgery Course, held at the University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland. This 2-day course included theory lectures, dry lab, live surgery, and hands-on session on cadavers. After a mean of 30.1 months (range, 2-48), a retrospective review of the participants' surgical practice was performed using online research and surveys.

RESULTS

Among the 101 participants, there was a majority of general (58.4 %) and colorectal surgeons (10.9 %). Other specialties included urologists (7.9 %), gynecologists (6.9 %), pediatric surgeons (2 %), surgical oncologists (1 %), engineers (6.9 %), and others (5.9 %). Data were fully recorded in 99 % of cases; 46 % of participants started to perform robotic procedures after the course, whereas only 6.9 % were already familiar with the system before the course. In addition, 53 % of the attendees worked at an institution where a robotic system was already available. All (100 %) of participants who started a robotic program after the course had an available robotic system at their institution.

CONCLUSIONS

A course that includes lectures, live surgery, and hands-on session with cadavers is an effective educational method for spreading robotic skills. However, this is especially true for participants whose institution already has a robotic system available.