Does telerobotic assistance improve laparoscopic colorectal surgery?

Short-term clinical outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted rectal resections: a multicenter real-world evidence study from Indian collaborative group on rectal resections (ICGRR)

This multi-centric real-world study was carried out to assess the perioperative and histopathological clinical outcomes of rectal resections employing open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted techniques. A retrospective chart review was undertaken for patients who underwent rectal resections for Stages I, II, and III rectal cancer (RC) between April 2012 and August 2023. All surgical procedures were performed with the principles of total mesorectal excision (TME) or partial mesorectal excision (for tumors located higher in the rectum). The study analyzed data from 829 patients of which 314 were in the robotic-assisted group (RAS), 206 in the laparoscopic surgery group (LG), and 309 in the open-surgery group (OG). The TNM staging and location of RC were evenly distributed across the three groups. The RAS group had a significantly lower length of hospital stay than LG and OG. Compared to LG and OG, the RAS group had less blood loss and postoperative complications, but significantly longer mean operating room time. The conversion rate of the RAS group was significantly lower than that of the LG group (p = 0.03). In comparison to the OG and LG groups, the RAS group had significantly lower (p < 0.05) rates of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM). Adjuvant treatment was administered in the RAS group significantly earlier (median, 24.5 days, IQR 18-37) compared to the LG (median, 31 days, IQR 23-41) and OG (median, 32.5 days, IQR 27-42). This largest multi‑centric study by the ICRR group has validated the value of a relatively newer technology like RAS in real-world Indian settings for rectal resections.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates.

RESULTS

Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5-0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3-60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8-0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7-0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8-3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8-1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic technique for the treatment of left-sided colonic diverticular disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive surgery has been universally accepted as a valid option for the treatment of diverticular disease, provided specific expertise is available. Over the last decade, there has been a growing interest in the application of robotic approaches for diverticular disease. We aimed at evaluating whether robotic colectomy may offer some advantages over the laparoscopic approach for surgical treatment of diverticular disease by meta-analyzing the available data from the medical literature.

METHODS

The PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Web Of Sciences electronic databases were searched for literature up to December 2020. Inclusion criteria considered all comparative studies evaluating robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for diverticulitis eligible. The conversion rate to the open approach was evaluated as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The data of 4177 patients from nine studies were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy compared to those who underwent surgery with a robotic approach had a significantly higher risk of conversion into an open procedure (12.5% vs. 7.4%, p < 0.00001) and abbreviated hospital stay (p < 0.0001) at the price of a longer operating time (p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the robotic approach offers significant advantages in terms of conversion rate and shortened hospital stay for the treatment of diverticular disease. However, because of the lack of available evidence, it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions.

Robotic colorectal surgery in Australia: a cohort study examining clinical outcomes and cost

Objective The aim of this study was to compare robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal operations for clinical outcomes, safety and cost. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed of 213 elective colorectal operations (59 robotic, 154 laparoscopic), matched by surgeon and operation type. Results No differences in age, body mass index, median American Society of Anesthesiologists score or presence of cancer were observed between the laparoscopic or robotic surgery groups. However, patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery were more frequently male (P = 0.004) with earlier T stage tumours (P = 0.02) if cancer present. Procedures took longer in cases of robotic surgery (302 vs 130 min; P < 0.001), and patients in this group were more frequently admitted to intensive care units (P < 0.001). Overall length of stay was longer (7 vs 5 days; P = 0.03) and consumable cost was A$2728 higher per patient in the robotic surgery group. Conclusion Robotic colorectal surgery appears to be safe compared with current laparoscopic techniques, albeit with longer procedure times and overall length of stay, more frequent intensive care admissions and higher consumables cost. What is known about the topic? Robotic surgery is an emerging alternative to traditional laparoscopic approaches in colorectal surgery. International trials suggest the two techniques are equivalent in safety. What does this paper add? This is an original cohort study examining clinical outcomes in Australian colorectal robotic surgery. The data suggest it may be safe, but this paper demonstrates key issues in the implementation and audit of novel surgical technologies in relatively low-volume centres. What are implications for practitioners? In our study, patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery at a single centre in Australia had equivalent measured clinical outcomes to those undergoing laparoscopic surgery. However, practitioners may counsel patients that robotic procedures are typically longer and more expensive, with a longer overall hospital admission and a higher likelihood of intensive care admission.

TME for rectal cancer: consecutive 70 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique-cumulative experience in a single centre

From January 2011 to December 2015, 70 consecutive patients underwent either laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic surgery (RS) total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy. Data were prospectically recorded in a dedicated local database including ASA score, age, operative time, conversion rate, re-operation rate, early complications, length of stay, and pathological results. We enrolled 70 consecutive patients, 35 treated with LS (18 M, 17 F), 35 treated with RS (23 M, 12 F). Median total operative time was 225 min in LS group (IQR 194-255) and 252.5 min for RS group (IQR 214-300). Median first flatus time was 2 days for LS group (IQR 1-3) and 1 day for RS group (IQR 1-2). Stool discharge time (median) was 4 days for LS group (IQR 2-5) and 2 days for RS group (IQR 1-3). Length of stay (median) was 8 days in LS group (IQR 7-10) and 7 days in RS group (IQR 5-8). It was not found any statistically significant difference between the two groups when we analyzed the number nodes harvested the postoperative complications. The 30 day mortality was 0% in both two groups. The conversion rate for LS group was 23% (8/35 pts) and that for RS group was 0% (0/35). The RS may overcome technical limitations of LS. In our experience, it is a feasible and safe technique, it achieves better clinical outcomes due to the lower conversion rate compared to LS, although with higher costs.

Right colectomy: consecutive 100 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique for malignancy. Cumulative experience in a single centre

Robotic-assisted resections prove beneficial in overcoming potential limitation of laparoscopy, but clear evidences on patient's benefits are still lacking. We report our experience on 100 consecutive patients who underwent right colectomy with either robotic or laparoscopic approaches. Data were prospectively collected on a dedicated database (ASA score, age, operative time, conversion rate, re-operation rate, early complications, length of stay, and pathological results). Median total operative time was 160 min in LS group (IQR = 140-180) and 204 min for RS group (IQR = 180-230). Median time to first flatus was 2.5 days for LS group (IQR = 2 - 3) and 2 days for RS group (IQR = 1-2). Length of stay (median) was 8 days in LS group (IQR = 6-10) and 5 days in RS group (IQR = 5-7). No statistically significant difference was found between the 2 groups when the number of harvested nodes, the anastomotic leakage and the postoperative bleeding were analyzed. The 30-day mortality was 0% in LS and RS groups. Conversion rate for LS group was 14% (7/50 pts) and for RS group was 0% (0/50). Minimally invasive surgery is a feasible and safe technique. The RS may overcome some technical limitations of laparoscopic surgery and it achieves the same oncological results compared to LS but with higher costs. The lower conversion rate allows to expect better clinical outcomes and lower complication rate.

Splenic flexure mobilization in rectal cancer surgery: do we always need it?

Splenic flexure (SFM) in rectal cancer surgery is a crucial step which may increase the difficulty of the operation. The aim of this retrospective single-center study is to demonstrate if the selective omission of SFM during anterior rectal resection can reduce the complexity of the operation, without affecting post-operative and oncologic outcomes. Data of 112 consecutive rectal resections for cancer from March 2010 to March 2017 were analyzed and divided into two groups: SFM and No-SFM. A sub-analysis was then performed for laparoscopy and traditional cases. Post-operative and oncologic outcomes, including overall (OS) and cancer-related survival (CRS), were analyzed and compared. SFM was performed in 42% of cases and laparoscopy was used in 73.2%. Operative time resulted significantly lower in the No-SFM group (190 vs. 225 min, p = 0.01). In laparoscopy in the No-SFM group, operative time and post-operative stay were significantly lower (205.5 vs. 222.5 min, p = 0.04; 9 vs. 10 days, p = 0.01). Most of the open resections were performed without SFM (35.4% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.02). No statistical significant differences were found in OS and CRS in the two groups. We support the hypothesis that every surgeon should carry out an accurate intra-operative evaluation to perform a selective SFM. When possible, SFM can be safely avoided with no additional risks in terms of post-operative and oncologic outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted colectomy and rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Lately, the main technical innovations in the field of colorectal surgery have been the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic techniques; the aim of this study is to investigate the results and the advantages of these two surgical approaches.

METHODS

Twenty-two studies including 1652 laparoscopic and 1120 robotic-assisted resections were analyzed and categorized into right, left, and pelvic resections of the middle/low rectum, aiming to the following outcomes: operating time, blood loss, bowel function recovery, return to oral intake, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs.

RESULTS

The vast majority of the studies were non-randomized investigations (19/22 studies) enrolling small cohorts of patients (median 55.0 laparoscopic and 34.5 robotic-assisted group) with a mean age of 62.2-61.0 years. Funnel plot analysis documented heterogeneity in studies which combined cancers and benign diseases. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a significant difference in favor of laparoscopic procedures regarding costs and operating time (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.686 and 0.493) and in favor of robotic surgery concerning morbidity rate (odds ratio (OR) 0.763), although no benefits were documented when analyzing exclusively randomized trials. When we differentiated approaches by side of resections, a significant difference was found in favor of the laparoscopic group when analyzing operating time in left-sided and pelvic procedures (SMD 0.609 and 0.529) and blood loss in pelvic resections (SMD 0.339).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic techniques were documented as the shorter procedures, which provided lower blood loss in pelvic resections, while morbidity rate was more favorable in robotic surgery. However, these results could not be confirmed when we focused the analysis on randomized trials only.

Male urinary and sexual function after robotic pelvic autonomic nerve-preserving surgery for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Urinary and sexual dysfunction is the potential complication of rectal cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the urinary and sexual function in male patients with robotic surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

This prospective study included 137 of the 336 male patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer. Urinary and male sexual function was studied by means of a questionnaire based on the International Prostatic Symptom Score and International Index of Erectile Function. All data were collected before surgery and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent robotic surgery had significantly decreased incidence of partial or complete erectile dysfunction and sexual dysfunction than patients with laparoscopic surgery. The pre- and post-operative total IPSS scores in patients with robotic surgery were significantly less than that with laparoscopic surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery shows distinct advantages in protecting the pelvic autonomic nerves and relieving post-operative sexual dysfunction.

Single stage robotic total mesorectal excision-a stepwise approach

Background

The totally robotic procedure was traditionally described as a two-stage technique or a three-stage technique. The number of stages corresponds to the number of movements of the robotic cart. In this video article, we develop a stepwise approach video of robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) for mid rectal cancer (the surgery was performed by SHK) using a da Vinci^® Si HD Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) at Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul.

Methods

After the induction of general anesthesia, the patient is placed in a modified lithotomy position. Six ports are used, including one 12-mm camera port, four 8-mm robotic working ports, and one 5-mm port for the assistant. The patient is tilted to the right side and placed in the Trendelenburg position. The small-bowel loops retracted out from the pelvic cavity to the right upper quadrant (RUQ) to expose the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA). The surgery is divided into three phases: (I) abdominal phase: vascular ligation, and sigmoid colon to splenic flexure mobilization; (II) pelvic dissection phase; and (III) rectal reconstruction phase. Mesorectal clearing was done at the level of rectal transection line (1-2 cm from distal tumor margin), then the rectum was transected with robotic stapler. Once this step is finished, the robotic arms are undocked and the cart is moved away from the patient. The remaining steps are performed in a conventional laparoscopic method.

Results

Robotic TME was performed in a 56-year-old man with an endoscopically define rectal mass. The lesion was moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma, 8 cm from the anal verge (AV). The rectal mass was managed with single stage robotic TME. The operative time was 160 minutes and the patient was discharge on post operative day 10. Final pathology revealed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma.

Conclusions

Single stage robotic TME was efficient and feasible technique for mid rectal cancer resection.

Robotic colonic resection

Innovative robotic technologies are aiming to help surgeons overcome the limits of conventional laparoscopic surgery. Recent studies have shown that robotic colorectal surgery is safe and provides favorable results in comparison to conventional laparoscopic techniques. Further studies and long-term follow-up are required to assess the outcomes and potential benefits of robotic colon surgery over laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colonic disease: a meta-analysis of postoperative variables

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of studies have been published since the introduction of robotic technology into general surgery. Gastrointestinal surgery is an area of special interest for the robotic surgeon. Colonic surgery can be challenging depending on the disease and the operative approach. We seek to perform a meta-analysis comparing robotic surgery against laparoscopic surgery in this particular field.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE database from January 2001 to July 2013 supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies of key relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies were selected for review and for collection of postoperative data (length of stay, time to first flatus and complications).

RESULTS

After careful review, nine studies were considered for analysis. Non-pooled data showed a slight trend toward laparoscopy with increased number of events without statistical significance. Pooled data demonstrated a statistical significance for return to bowel function in the right and mixed robotic colectomy arm (WSMD -0.33, 95 % CI -0.5, -0.1; p < 0.005 and WSMD -0.26, 95 % CI -0.51, 0.0; p = 0.05). Pooled data of length of stay and complications showed no statistical significance between robotic and laparoscopic colonic surgery.

DISCUSSION

Robotic surgery is a comparable option when dealing with colonic disease, either benign or malignant. No difference in complication rate or length of stay was found when comparing the two. Robotic surgery appears to have an advantage over laparoscopy in regards to return of bowel function when dealing with right colectomies.

Initial experiences of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer, focusing on short-term outcomes: a matched case-control study

Background

Robotic surgery is a new technique with the benefits of a three-dimensional view, the ability to use multi-degree-of-freedom forceps, the elimination of physiological tremors, and a stable camera view. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer as initial cases, compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

From July 2010 to June 2013, ten patients with left-sided colon and rectal cancer underwent robotic surgery, and 121 received conventional laparoscopic surgery. Both groups were balanced in terms of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index (BMI), operative history, TNM staging, and tumor location. Moreover, in order to improve objectivity and approximate a randomized controlled study, we used the propensity score matching method. The matching was successful because the ROC analysis showed a well-balanced curve (C = 0.535).

Results

Following propensity score matching, ten patients were included in the robotic surgery group and 20 patients were included in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group. There were no significant differences in the short-term clinicopathologic outcomes between the robotic surgery group and the conventional laparoscopic surgery group. However, the operative time was significantly longer in the robotic surgery group than in the conventional laparoscopic surgery group.

Conclusions

There were no significant differences between the robotic surgery group and the conventional laparoscopic surgery group with respect to short-term clinicopathologic outcomes, with the exception of the operative time. Our early experience indicates that robotic surgery is a promising tool, particularly in patients with rectal cancer.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12957-015-0517-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Robotic-Assisted Surgery with Traditional Laparotomy for Rectal Cancer-Indian Study

Rectal cancer is one of the common cancers in India. Surgical management is the mainstay of initial treatment for majority of patients. Minimally invasive surgery has gained acceptance for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer because, compared with laparotomy, it is associated with fewer complications, shorter hospitalization, and faster recovery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety, feasibility, technique, and outcomes (postoperative, oncological, and functional) of robotic-assisted rectal surgery in comparison with open surgery in the Indian population. A prospective randomized study was undertaken from August 2011 to December 2012. Fifty patients who presented with rectal carcinoma were randomized to either robotic arm (RA) or open arm (OA) group. Both groups were matched for clinical stage and operation type. Technique and feasibility of robotic-assisted surgery in terms of operating time, estimated blood loss, margins status, total number of lymph nodes retrieved, hospital stay, conversion to open procedure, complications, and functional outcomes were analyzed. The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RA than in the OA group (310 vs 246 min, P < 0.001) but was significantly reduced in the latter part of the robotic-assisted patients compared with the initial patients. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly less in the RA compared with the OA group (165.14 vs 406.04 ml, P < 0.001). None of the patients had margin positivity. The mean distal resection margin was significantly longer in the RA than in the OA group (3.6 vs 2.4 cm, P < 0.001). A total of 100 % of patients in the RA group had complete mesorectal excision while two patients in the OA group had incomplete mesorectal excision. The average number of retrieved lymph nodes was adequate for accurate staging. The number of lymph nodes removed by robotic method is slightly higher than the open method (16.88 vs 15.20) but with no statistical significance. Conversion rate was nil. The mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RA group (7.52 vs 13.24 days, P < 0.001). Postoperative and functional outcomes were comparable between the two groups. Robotic-assisted surgery is an emerging technique in our country. Robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery is safe with low conversion rates and acceptable morbidity and is oncologically feasible.

No differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after robot-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopic resection for colonic cancer: a case-control study of 263 patients

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopy has been reported to be a safe and feasible alternative to traditional laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare short-term results in patients with colonic cancer who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic colonic resection (RC) or laparoscopic colonic resection (LC).

METHODS

The study was a retrospective case control study of all patients with colonic cancer who underwent RC from March 2010 to March 2012 or LC from January 2009 to December 2011 at a tertiary-care university hospital. Data were retrieved from the national chart database and patient journals. Biochemical markers [C-reactive protein (CRP), hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and thrombocyte count] were recorded before surgery and for the first 3 days after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients underwent RC and 162 patients underwent LC. There were no significant differences in the rate of conversion to open surgery, number of permanent enterostomies, number of intraoperative complications, level of postoperative cellular stress response, number of postoperative complications, length of postoperative hospital stay, or 30-day mortality between the two groups. There was a significantly longer setup time for RC (77.1 vs. 69.7 min, P = 0.000), but surgical time was significantly shorter for RC (165.8 vs. 183.4 min, P = 0.006) and there was no difference in the overall procedure time (254.0 vs. 243.6 min, P = 0.086).

CONCLUSION

We found RC to be a safe and feasible alternative to LC for colonic cancer. We found that for RC surgical time was shorter and overall procedure time was comparable to that for LC; however, these results should be confirmed in future randomized clinical trials.

An extended medial to lateral approach to mobilize the splenic flexure during laparoscopic low anterior resection

AIM

The aim of this retrospective study of laparoscopic low anterior resection was to compare splenic flexure mobilization (SFM) carried out by an extended medial to lateral approach with that by a lateral approach.

METHOD

Records of patients with rectal cancer on a prospectively maintained database undergoing laparoscopic low anterior resection performed between January 2009 and November 2011 by a single surgeon were analysed. The extended medial to lateral approach involved continuing the medial to lateral approach upwards to enter the lesser sac over the pancreas, thus permitting detachment of the splenic flexure.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-seven patients, including 164 undergoing a lateral SFM and 73 an extended medial to lateral SFM, were evaluated. Both patient groups had similar characteristics except for operative time (152.7 ± 32.7 min extended medial to lateral; 171.5 ± 40.8 min lateral; P < 0.001), postoperatively the interval to oral intake (3.1 ± 0.8 days extended medial to lateral; 3.7 ± 0.9 lateral; P < 0.001) and duration of hospital stay (8.2 ± 2.8 days extended medial to lateral; 10.3 ± 7.5 days lateral; P = 0.002) favoured the extended medial to lateral group.

CONCLUSION

An extended medial to lateral approach for SFM during laparoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer appears to be an improvement over the previously used lateral approach, because it may provide a shorter operation time and shorter hospital stay.

Robotic total mesorectal excision: operative technique and review of the literature

In recent years, an increasing number of reports have been published on robotic colorectal surgery; this modality has also garnered an increasing amount of attention from the colorectal society. Most of the interest has been in robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. The purpose of this article is to briefly introduce our technique for total robotic TME and to review the recent literature regarding robotic TME for rectal cancer to summarize the current evidence on clinical and oncologic outcomes.

Robot-assisted low anterior resection in fifty-three consecutive patients: an Indian experience

From December 2005 to December 2009, we performed 150 laparoscopic colorectal procedures. Based on this experience, we started offering robot-assisted colorectal surgery from December 2009. This study is a prospective evaluation of consecutive patients in order to study the technical feasibility and oncological outcome of robot-assisted low anterior resection. This investigation was conducted at a single minimal access surgery institute. Between December 2009 and December 2011, 53 consecutive patients with rectal adenocarcinoma underwent a robot-assisted low anterior resection (LAR) or ultralow anterior resection (ULAR) with total mesorectal excision (TME), using the standard da Vinci 'S' model. Patient demographics, mean operative time, mean postoperative hospital stay, blood loss, days to first flatus, resumption of oral feeds, urinary incontinence, and sexual dysfunction were studied. Surgical and pathological outcomes such as quality of TME, free circumferential margins, and number of lymph nodes dissected were also evaluated. Robot docking and undocking times were noted. Of the 53 patients, 41 were men and 12 were women. Their mean age was 66.7 years (range 37-90 years). The ASA grades were distributed as follows: ASA I 15 (28.3 %), ASA II 25 (47.16 %), ASA III 12 (22.64 %), ASA IV 1 (1.88 %). The mean operative time was 180 min (150-230 min) and the mean blood loss was 101.6 ml (50-300 ml). The robot docking time was 10 min (15-25 min) and the undocking time was 5 min (3-10 min). The mean hospital stay was 8 days (7-15 days). None of the patients was converted to either laparoscopic or open procedure. The longitudinal and circumferential margins were negative in all patients. Histopathological reports of 45 patients showed complete TME while 8 patients showed nearly complete TME. No repositioning of the robot was needed for splenic flexure mobilization, thus decreasing the operative time. Along with TME, even the splenic flexure mobilization was achieved through the same robotic ports without undocking the robot. Robot-assisted LAR and ULAR is technically feasible, and a complete TME is possible.

Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal disease, focusing on rectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic colorectal surgery may solve some of the problems inherent to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). We sought to evaluate the advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) using the da Vinci Surgical System over CLS in patients with benign and malignant colorectal diseases.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies published before July 2011. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of RALS with CLS for benign and malignant colorectal diseases were selected. Operative and postoperative measures, resection margins, complications, and related outcomes were evaluated. Weighted mean differences, relative risks, and hazard ratios were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 16 studies comparing RALS and CLS in patients with colorectal diseases and 7 studies in rectal cancer. RALS was associated with lower estimated blood loss in colorectal diseases (P = 0.04) and rectal cancer (P < 0.001) and lower rates of intraoperative conversion in colorectal diseases (P = 0.03) and rectal cancer (P < 0.001) than CLS. In patients with colorectal diseases, however, operating time (P < 0.001) and total hospitalization cost (P = 0.06) were higher for RALS than for CLS.

CONCLUSIONS

RALS was associated with reduced estimated blood loss and a lower intraoperative conversion rate than CLS, with no differences in complication rates and surrogate markers of successful surgery. Robotic colorectal surgery is a promising tool, especially for patients with rectal cancer.

Robotic colorectal surgery: a systematic review

Aim. Robotic colorectal surgery may be a way to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. It is an emerging field; so, we aim in this paper to provide a comprehensive and data analysis of the available literature on the use of robotic technology in colorectal surgery. Method. A comprehensive systematic search of electronic databases was completed for the period from 2000 to 2011. Studies reporting outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery were identified and analyzed. Results. 41 studies (21 case series, 2 case controls, 13 comparative studies 1 prospective comparative, 1 randomized trial, 3 retrospective analyses) were reviewed. A total of 1681 patients are included in this paper; all of them use Da Vinci except 2 who use Zeus. Short-term outcome has been evaluated with 0 mortality and191 total major and minor complications. Pathological results were not analyzed in all studies and only 20 out of 41 provide data about the pathological results. Conclusion. Robotic surgery is safe and feasible option in colorectal surgery and a promising field; however, further prospective randomized studies are required to better define its role.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic techniques have induced a tremendous revolution in the field of general surgery. Recent multicenter trials have demonstrated similar patient-oriented and oncologic outcomes for laparoscopic colon and rectal resections compared with their open counterparts. Meanwhile, robotic technology has gradually entered the field of general surgery, allowing increased dexterity, improved operative view, and optimal ergonomics. The objective of this study was to review the current status of clinical robotic applications in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature using the PubMed search engine was undertaken to identify relevant articles. The keywords used in all possible combinations were: surgical robotics, robotic surgery, computer-assisted surgery, colectomy, sigmoid resection, sigmoidectomy, and rectal resection.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine case series or comparative nonrandomized studies were identified. A specific interest for robot-assisted rectal surgery during the past few years was recorded in the literature. The retrieved articles included 13 ileocecal resections, 220 right colectomies, 190 left colectomies/sigmoid resections, 440 anterior resections, 149 abdominoperineal/intersphincteric resections, and 11 total/subtotal colectomies. The clinical application of the da Vinci robotic system in right and left/sigmoid colectomies yielded satisfactory results in terms of open conversion (1.1 and 3.8%, respectively) and operative morbidity (13.4 and 15.1%, respectively). Robot-assisted anterior resection was accompanied by a considerably low conversion rate (0.4%), morbidity (9.7%), and adequate number of harvested lymph nodes (14.3, mean).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic applications in colorectal surgery are feasible with low conversion rates and favorable morbidity. Further studies are required to evaluate its oncologic and patient-oriented outcomes.

One hundred and two consecutive robotic-assisted minimally invasive colectomies--an outcome and technical update

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to review 102 consecutive robotic colectomies at our institution. We evaluated the 8-year experience of one surgeon (DLC) in Peoria, IL using the da Vinci system.

METHODS

An IRB-approved retrospective review was performed. Results were compared with the literature. Changes in technique over the years were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred and two robotic colectomies, right (59) and sigmoid (43), were performed. Mean age is 63.5 years and mean BMI 27.4 kg/m². Preoperative indications are polyps (53), diverticular disease (27), cancer (19), and carcinoid (3). Mean total case time (TCT) for all cases is 219.6 ± 45.1 (50-380) min, and mean robot operating time (ROT) is 126.6 ± 41.6 (12-306) min. Operative times for Right: Port setup time (PST) 32.4 ± 10.5 (20-64) min, ROT 145.2 ± 39.6 (53-306) min, TCT 212.3 ± 46.4 (50-380) min; times for sigmoid: PST 31.2 ± 9.6 (10-57) min, ROT 101.2 ± 29.2 (12-165) min, TCT 229.7 ± 41.6 (147-323) min. Median length of stay for all patients is 3 (2-27) days. The overall complication rate is 18.6%, the overall conversion rate 8.8%, and the anastomotic leak rate is 0.98%. Residents PGY 1-5 participated in 61 cases (59.8%).

CONCLUSION

We report our updated procedural sequence and technical alterations. Experience has allowed residents to evolve to be primary surgeons. We add our results to the current robotic literature.

Robotic vs laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer: short-term outcomes of a case-control study

PURPOSE

Few data are available to compare robotic and laparoscopic techniques for rectal cancer resection. This study aimed to compare short-term outcomes with these procedures performed by a single surgeon.

METHODS

Using data from a prospective database of all operations performed in our department, we retrospectively analyzed data from 117 robotic and 102 laparoscopic rectal cancer resections performed by one surgeon between July 2007 and October 2009. Robotic resection was offered as a treatment option to all patients, and laparoscopic resection was performed for those who refused. This analysis was a case-control study in which patients in the 2 groups were matched according to tumor location, staging, age, and gender.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients (59 matched pairs) were included in the study. No differences were found between robotic and laparoscopic resection regarding number of lymph nodes harvested (median, 20; interquartile range, 12-27 vs 21; 14-28; P = .702) or distal resection margin (median, 2.2 cm; interquartile range, 1.5-3.0 cm vs 2.0; 1.2-3.5 cm; P = .865). The circumferential margin was positive (≤ 2 mm) in 1 patient in the robotic group but in none of the laparoscopic group (P > .999). Operating time was longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (P < .0001). No conversions were necessary in the robotic group, but 2 cases (3.4%) were converted to open surgery in the laparoscopic group (P = .496). No differences were observed between groups regarding postoperative complications. Operative mortality was zero in both groups. During a median follow-up of 15.0 months, 2 cases of distant metastases and 1 case of local recurrence were observed in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic rectal cancer resection can be safely performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons, with acceptable short-term outcomes comparable to those for laparoscopic resection.

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

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery is an emerging modality in the field of minimally invasive colorectal surgery. However, there is a dearth of data comparing outcomes with other minimally invasive techniques. We present a 3-arm (conventional, hand-assisted, and robotic) matched-case analysis of intraoperative and short-term outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal procedures.

METHODS

Between August 2008 and October 2009, 70 robotic cases of the rectum and rectosigmoid were performed. Thirty of these were organized into triplets with conventional and hand-assisted cases based on the following 6 matching criteria: 1) surgeon; 2) sex; 3) body mass index; 4) operative procedure; 5) pathology; and 6) history of neoadjuvant therapy in malignant cases. Demographics, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were assessed. Pathological outcomes were analyzed in malignant cases. Data were stratified by postoperative diagnosis and operative procedure.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in intraoperative complications, estimated blood loss (126.1 ± 98.5 mL overall), or postoperative morbidity and mortality among the groups. Robotic technique required longer operative time compared with conventional laparoscopic (P < .01) and hand-assisted (P < .001) techniques; however, this difference was not maintained in cases with low pelvic anastomoses. The overall mean length of stay was 3.3 ± 1.8 days with no significant difference between the groups. Pathological analysis of malignant cases revealed a median lymph node extraction of 17 with no significant difference among the 3 modalities.

CONCLUSION

In this 3-arm case-matched series, the robotic approach results in short-term outcomes comparable to conventional and hand-assisted laparoscopic approaches for benign and malignant diseases of the rectum and rectosigmoid. With 3-dimensional visualization, additional freedom of motion, and improved ergonomics, this enabling technology may play an important role when performing colorectal procedures involving the pelvic anatomy.

Robotic colorectal surgery: hype or new hope? A systematic review of robotics in colorectal surgery

AIM

Robotic colorectal surgery is an emerging field and may offer a solution to some of the difficulties inherent to conventional laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive and critical analysis of the available literature on the use of robotic technology in colorectal surgery.

METHOD

Studies reporting outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery were identified by systematic searches of electronic databases. Outcomes examined included operating time, length of stay, blood loss, complications, cost, oncological outcome, and conversion rates.

RESULTS

Seventeen Studies (nine case series, seven comparative studies, one randomized controlled trial) describing 288 procedures were identified and reviewed. Study heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis of the data. Robotic procedures tend to take longer and cost more, but may reduce the length of stay, blood loss, and conversion rates. Complication profiles and short-term oncological outcomes are similar to laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colorectal surgery is a promising field and may provide a powerful additional tool for optimal management of more challenging pathology, including rectal cancer. Further studies are required to better define its role.

Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The main aim of this review was to compare the safety and efficacy of the Da Vinci Surgical System (DVSS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in different types of abdominal intervention.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

DVSS is an emerging laparoscopic technology. The surgeon directs the robotic arms of the system through a console by means of hand controls and pedals, making use of a stereoscopic viewing system. DVSS is currently being used in general, urological, gynecologic, and cardiothoracic surgery.

METHODS

This systematic review analyses the best scientific evidence available regarding the safety and efficacy of DVSS in abdominal surgery. The results found were subjected to meta-analysis whenever possible.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies, 6 of them randomized control trials, involving 2166 patients that compared DVSS and CLS were examined. The procedures undertaken were fundoplication (9 studies, one also examining cholecystectomy), Heller myotomy (3 studies), gastric bypass (4), gastrectomy (2), bariatric surgery (1), cholecystectomy (4), splenectomy (1), colorectal resection (7), and rectopexy (1). DVSS was found to be associated with fewer Heller myotomy-related perforations, a more rapid intestinal recovery time after gastrectomy-and therefore a shorter hospital stay, a shorter hospital stay following cholecystectomy (although the duration of surgery was longer), longer colorectal resection surgery times, and a larger number of conversions to open surgery during gastric bypass.

CONCLUSIONS

The publications reviewed revealed DVSS to offer certain advantages with respect to Heller myotomy, gastrectomy, and cholecystectomy. However, these results should be interpreted with caution until randomized clinical trials are performed and, with respect to oncologic indications, studies include variables such as survival.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for recurrent diverticulitis: experience in consecutive cases and a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery has recently gained enthusiasm for application in colorectal surgery. We present the safety and feasibility of using the da Vinci® robotic system for the surgical treatment of sigmoid diverticulitis.

METHODS

Between August 2008 and November 2009, robotic-assisted laparoscopic anterior rectosigmoid resection (RALS-AR) for diverticulitis was performed in 24 consecutive patients. Demographic data, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

RALS-AR was performed in 14 male (58.3%) and 10 female (41.7%) patients with a diagnosis of recurrent diverticulitis. The mean patient age and BMI were 49.8 ± 9.3 years (range = 30-62 years) and 29.9 ± 6.3 kg/m(2) (range = 15.9-46.9 kg/m(2)), respectively. Disease stratification identified 15 cases of uncomplicated (62.5%) and 9 cases of complicated (37.5%) disease. The procedures required 14.1 ± 6.7 min (range = 6-30 min) for robotic docking, 100.5 ± 31.0 min (range = 50-180 min) for surgeon console time, and 224.2 ± 47.1 min (range = 150-330 min) for the total operative time. Robotic docking and surgeon console time represented 51.9% of the total operative time. A primary colorectal anastomosis was fashioned with avoidance of colostomy in all patients. There were no significant intraoperative complications, and none of the procedures required conversion to open, hand-assisted, or conventional laparoscopic technique. The length of hospital stay was 3.4 ± 2.6 days (range = 2-14 days), and the postoperative complication rate was 12.5% (n = 3). There were no anastomotic leaks, secondary surgical interventions, or hospital readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic technique is a safe and feasible option for the surgical treatment of diverticulitis. The approach may be offered to patients with uncomplicated or complicated disease, and it results in a short hospital stay and low complication rate.

Full robotic left colon and rectal cancer resection: technique and early outcome

OBJECTIVE

The technique for robotic resection of the left colon and anterior resection of the rectum with total mesorectal excision is not well defined. In this study we describe a method that standardizes robot and trocar position, and allows for a complete mobilization of the left colon and the rectum, without repositioning of the surgical cart. Outcome and pathology findings are also reported.

METHODS

From January 2007 to May 2008 a total of 55 consecutive patients affected by rectal and left colon cancer were operated on, with full robotic technique, using the Da Vinci robot. Data regarding outcome and pathology reports were prospectively collected in a dedicated database.

RESULTS

The following procedures were performed 27 left colectomies, 17 anterior resections, 4 intersphincteric resections, 7 abdominoperineal resections. There were 21 female and 34 male patients with a mean age of 63 +/- 9.9 years. Mean operative time was 290 +/- 69 minutes, ranging from 164 to 487 min., none were converted to open surgery. The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 18.5 +/- 8.3 (range 5-45), and circumferential margin was negative in all cases. Distal margin was 25.15 +/- 12.9 mm (range 6-55) for patients with rectal cancer, and 31.6 +/- 20 mm for all the patients in this series. Anastomotic leak rate was 12.7% (7/55); in all cases conservative treatment was successful.

CONCLUSIONS

Full robotic colorectal surgery is a safe and effective technique that exploits the advantages of the Da Vinci robot during the whole intervention, without the need to make use of hybrid operations. Outcome and pathology findings are comparable with those observed in open and laparoscopy procedures.

Robotic colorectal surgery: first 50 cases experience

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery is believed to be technically and oncologically feasible. However, some limitation of traditional laparoscopic surgery may cause difficulties. Robotic-assisted surgery may overcome these pitfalls.

METHODS

From December 2005 to July 2007, 50 patients were selected for robotic-assisted colorectal resection mainly for cancer.

RESULTS

Of the 50 patients enrolled, 32 (64 percent) were men and 18 (36 percent) were women. Their mean age was 66.7 (range, 37-92) years. The American Society of Anesthesiologists' (ASA) class distribution was 13 (26 percent) ASA I, 24 (48 percent) ASA II, 12 (24 percent) ASA III, and 1 (2 percent) ASA IV. Forty-four patients suffered from cancer and six patients from benign disease. Amongst the cancer patients, 3 percent were at UICC (International Union Against Cancer) Stage 0, 36 percent at UICC Stage I, 24 percent at Stage II, 28 percent at Stage III, and 9 percent at Stage IV. The global conversion rate was 4 percent. The mean operative time was 338.8 minutes. It decreased as the experience increased (419 minutes in the first 20 cases vs. 346 minutes in the last 30 cases; P = 0.036). As a gross comparison, the results of a coeval standard laparoscopy group of patients were shown.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic laparoscopic colon surgery is feasible and safe. A longer operating time is needed.

Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colorectal resection has become popular. The recently developed da Vinci Surgical System promises to facilitate endoscopic surgery and overcome its disadvantages. This study therefore aimed to compare the short-term results between robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision (R-TSME) using the da Vinci Surgical System and conventional laparoscopic tumor-specific mesorectal excision (L-TSME) in rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Between April 2006 and February 2007, 36 patients were randomly assigned to receive R-TSME or L-TSME. During the study, 18 patients underwent robotic low anterior resection using the da Vinci Surgical System, and 18 patients had conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection. Patient characteristics, perioperative clinical results, complications, and pathologic details were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The patient characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. The mean operating time, hemoglobin change, and conversion rate were not significantly different between the groups. Complications were treated conservatively and did not require surgical intervention in the R-TSME group. The average length of stay was 6.9 +/- 1.3 days in the R-TSME group and 8.7 +/- 1.3 days in the L-TSME group (p < 0.001). The specimen quality of the R-TSME group was acceptable.

CONCLUSION

Tumor-specific mesorectal excision was performed safely and effectively using the da Vinci Surgical System and the perioperative outcomes were acceptable.

Laparoscopic robotic-assisted gastrointestinal surgery: the Geneva experience

The continuing development of robotic surgery supports its use in laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery. Our study retrospectively reviewed the surgical outcome and patient's satisfaction of gastrointestinal laparoscopic robotic procedures. From January 2003 to September 2007, 94 patients (27 women, 67 men) with a mean age of 53 years (range 19-84 years) underwent laparoscopic surgery with a da Vinci robotic system. There were 40 colorectal cases (43%), 31 anti-reflux surgery cases (33%) and 14 obesity surgery cases (15%); the remaining cases consisted of gastric and gallbladder surgery, intra-abdominal tumour excisions, and hepatic cyst resections. The majority of the cases (88, 94%) were performed for benign disease. The mean operative time was 153 min (range 60-330 min). One patient needed a blood transfusion. The mean body mass index was 25 (range 16-47). No death occurred. Five cases (5.3%) were converted to conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 3) or to laparotomy (n = 2). Morbidity consisted of one Nissen redo surgery to loosen a tight anti-reflux valve 6 days after robotic surgery, a robotic left ureter repair and pelvic haemorrhage following proctectomy requiring re-operation to control haemostasis and to remove pelvic haematoma. Mean follow-up time was 11 months (range 15 days to 34 months). One case of incisional trocar hernia needed re-operation. Overall patient's satisfaction was high: few scars were cheloïd, while functional surgical outcome was rated high by most of the patients. Our preliminary experience was encouraging, with minimal morbidity and very high acceptance by patients.

Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer: Report of the first case in Hong Kong and China with an updated literature review

Telerobotic surgery is the most advanced development in the field of minimally invasive surgery. The da Vinci surgical system, which is currently the most widely used telerobotic device, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America for clinical use in all abdominal operations in July 2000. The first da Vinci surgical system in China was installed in November 2005 at our institution. We herein report the first telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection using the 3-arm da Vinci surgical system for low rectal cancer in Hong Kong and China, which was performed in August 2006. The operative time and blood loss were 240 min and 200 mL, respectively. There was no complication, and the patient was discharged on postoperative day five. An updated review of published literature on telerobotic-assisted colorectal surgery is included in this report, with special emphasis on its advantages and limitations.

Robotic total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer

Robotic techniques have been developed to facilitate endoscopic surgery and to overcome its disadvantages. Thus, we performed robotic total mesorectal excison (TME) in a patient with rectal cancer, using the da Vinci^® Surgical System. To our knowledge, this is the first robotic low anterior resection, based on standard TME principles, with pelvic autonomic nerve preservation. In conclusion, this robotic system is an excellent instrument for performing the standard TME procedure in rectal cancer patients.

What is a meant when a laparoscopic surgical procedure is described as “safe”?

BACKGROUND

The literature on laparoscopic surgery contains many studies concluding that a procedure is "safe." This study aimed to review systematically articles from the past 10 years that judged a laparoscopic technique for colon resection and anastomosis to be "safe."

METHODS

The authors searched the Medline database from January 1995 to August 2005 using the search terms "laparoscopic," "colon," and "safe," selecting studies of laparoscopic colon resection or laparoscopic techniques of colonic anastomosis. They calculated exact 95% confidence intervals around estimates of the risk for death reported in the studies to determine the upper limit of the possible risk for death in a study reporting no deaths.

RESULTS

Of 135 studies matching the search criteria, 41 (30%) described operations involving laparoscopic colonic resection or anastomosis. These studies enrolled a mean number of 233 subjects. There were 26 retrospective studies, 12 prospective studies, 2 randomized control trials, and 1 case report. The estimated upper 95% confidence limits for studies reporting mortality ranged from 1.66% to 97.5%. Of the studies that reported mortality and concluded that laparoscopic colon surgery is "safe," 77.8% could not exclude a mortality rate higher than 5%.

CONCLUSION

Many studies concluding that laparoscopic colon surgery is "safe" could not exclude a high risk of operative mortality. The term "safe" is not a useful descriptor of the relative safety of laparoscopic surgical procedures, and statements about the safety of a surgical procedure should be justified with precise estimates and confidence intervals of the risk for adverse events.

Telerobotic gastrointestinal surgery: phase 2--safety and efficacy

BACKGROUND

The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved the da Vinci surgical system for all abdominal operations in July 2000. In the past 6 years, virtually all gastrointestinal operations have been accomplished using telerobotic techniques. The purpose of this review is to summarize the short-term outcomes achieved with telerobotic gastrointestinal operations.

METHODS

All case series of telerobotic gastrointestinal operations identified by PubMed searches are included in this review.

RESULTS

Case series document the safety and efficacy of telerobotic cholecystectomy, fundoplication, Heller myotomy, gastric bypass, colectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy. The procedures were accomplished with low rates of conversion to laparoscopic operations, mortality, and morbidity. When comparison groups were available, the analysis shows that telerobotic operations required more time than the laparoscopic operations, although for telerobotic cholecystectomy and telerobotic fundoplication, this difference disappeared in 10 to 20 operations. Specific patient advantages were not identified for telerobotic operations compared with laparoscopic operations, except for a decreased esophageal perforation rate during telerobotic Heller myotomy. Surgeons benefited from the three-dimensional imaging, the handlike motions of the robotic instruments, and an ergonomically comfortable position.

CONCLUSION

All telerobotic gastrointestinal operations are feasible and can be performed with safety and efficacy. It is difficult to demonstrate patient-specific advantages of telerobotic surgery over laparoscopic operations. Nonetheless, telerobotic surgical systems offer distinct advantages to surgeons and may facilitate an increase in the number of surgeons performing advanced laparoscopic gastrointestinal operations. In addition, telerobotics offer a digital information platform that enables surgical simulation and augmented-reality surgery.