Assessing appropriateness for elective colorectal cancer surgery: clinical, oncological, and quality-of-life short-term outcomes employing different treatment approaches

Prospective analysis of 246 fires of da Vinci SureForm SmartFire stapler in colorectal cancer: First Indian study

INTRODUCTION

One of the critical steps involved is the distal transection of the rectum in rectal cancer surgeries. Multiple staple firings have been proven to increase the rate of anastomotic leakage. In this study, we intended to learn the effectiveness of the robotic SureForm SmartFire (SS) stapling system and its application in robotic sigmoid colon and rectal procedures performed at our institution.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective study of patients who underwent surgeries for sigmoid/rectal cancer at our centre was considered. During the surgery, SS staplers were used, and its internal data log with regard to reload selection by the colour, reloads, clamp attempts and staple fires was considered along with intra- and post-operative outcomes.

RESULTS

246 firings were done in 147 cases with mean body mass index of 26.3 ± 4.3 kg/m2; mean blood loss was 53.6 ± 21.8 ml. None of our patients had stapler-related complications, and the mean length of stay was 7.18 ± 1.5 days. Average reloads used in robotic-low anterior resection (LAR) were 1.73 with the fire attempts beyond lap angle occurring only in robotic-assisted LAR (RA-LAR)/abdominoperineal resection in 87 fires (41%) with 120 instances of controlled and sequential pauses occurred in 246 fires once fire pedal was activated.

CONCLUSION

Apart from oncological nodal and margin clearance in the carcinoma rectum surgery, obtaining adequate distal margin, sphincter preserving approach and distal transection of the rectum forms one of the key steps in the low anterior resection. Robotic SS staplers have 120° angulation in both axes with EndoWrist technology that has better manoeuvrability within the confines of the pelvis.

A Narrative Review on the Role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Colorectal Cancer Management

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and deep learning in medical practice in the management of colorectal cancer has gathered significant attention in recent years. Colorectal cancer, being the third most common type of malignancy, requires an innovative approach to augment early detection and advanced surgical techniques to reduce morbidity and mortality. With its emerging potential, AI improves colorectal cancer management by assisting with accuracy in screening, pathology evaluation, precision, and postoperative care. Evidence suggests that AI minimizes missed cases during colorectal cancer screening, plays a promising role in pathology and imaging diagnoses, and facilitates accurate staging. In surgical management, AI demonstrates comparable or superior outcomes to laparoscopic approaches, with reduced hospital stays and conversion rates. However, these outcomes are influenced by clinical expertise and other dependable factors, including expertise in implementing AI-based software and detecting possible errors. Despite these advancements, limited multicenter studies and randomized trials restrict the comprehensive evaluation of AI's true potential and integration into standard practice. We used Pubmed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for this review. The final number of articles selected, depending on inclusion and exclusion criteria, is 122. We included papers published in the English language, literature published in the last 10 years, and adult patient populations above 35 years with colorectal cancer. We thoroughly included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and case-control studies. The use of AI paves the way for the adoption of more personalized medicine. This review highlights the advantages of AI at various disease stages for colorectal cancer patients and evaluates its potential for cost-effective implementation in clinical practice.

Obesity: A risk factor for postoperative complications in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of obesity in the Eastern Mediterranean is increasing significantly up to 20.8% in 2016. Therefore, a higher percentage of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are expected to be obese. Laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery (LCRCS) is regarded as a safe and feasible procedure as laparoscopic approach is becoming the gold standard in CRC surgery, especially in the early stages of disease. However, LCRCS is correlated with a higher risk of short-term post-operative complications in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 Kg/m 2 ) than in patients with BMI <30 Kg/m 2 . This study aims to evaluate the impact of obesity on short-term post-operative complications in patients undergoing LCRCS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted. Clinical data of case and control patients were extracted from medical records. These patients underwent LCRCS between January 2018 and June 2021 at Hôtel-Dieu de France Hospital, Beirut-Lebanon. Patients were divided into two groups: obese and non-obese. BMI ≥30 Kg/m 2 was used to define obese patients. Post-operative complications in the 30 days following surgery were the primary outcome. The severity of post-operative complications was evaluated using the Clavien-Dindo score. Chi-square test was used to evaluate the statistical correlation between collected variables.

RESULTS

We identified 107 patients who underwent LCRCS during this study period at our institution. Among the patients, 23 were obese (21.49%). At 30 days post-operative, 26 patients were reported to having at least one complication. Non-significant differences were found between the two groups regarding the early post-operative complications rate (obese 26.1% and non-obese 23.8% with P = 0.821). Obesity was not demonstrated as a stratification risk by severity of the early post-operative complications ( P = 0.92).

CONCLUSION

Obesity, which was defined as BMI ≥30 Kg/m 2 , was not a risk factor for early post-operative complications as well as a stratification risk by severity of post-operative complications in LCRCS.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Rectal Cancer Compared with Open and Laparoscopic Surgery

With increasing trends for the adoption of robotic surgery, many centers are considering changing their practices from open or laparoscopic to robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer. We compared the outcomes of robot-assisted rectal resection with those of open and laparoscopic surgery. We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases until October 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing robotic surgery with open or laparoscopic rectal resection were included. Fifteen RCTs and 11 prospective studies involving 6922 patients were included. The meta-analysis revealed that robotic surgery has lower blood loss, less surgical site infection, shorter hospital stays, and higher negative resection margins than open resection. Robotic surgery also has lower conversion rates, lower blood loss, lower rates of reoperation, and higher negative circumferential margins than laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery had longer operation times and higher costs than open and laparoscopic surgery. There were no differences in other complications, mortality, and survival between robotic surgery and the open or laparoscopic approach. However, heterogeneity between studies was moderate to high in some analyses. The robotic approach can be the method of choice for centers planning to change from open to minimally invasive rectal surgery. The higher costs of robotic surgery should be considered as a substitute for laparoscopic surgery (PROSPERO: CRD42022381468).

Rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms: what the radiologists should know

Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the rectum (R-NENs) are rare; however, their incidence has increased almost threefold in the last few decades. Imaging of R-NENs includes two primary categories: anatomic/morphologic imaging comprised of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and functional/molecular imaging comprising of planar scintigraphy, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and positron emission tomography (PET). The management depends on stage, dimension, atypical features, histological grade, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI). Low-risk local R-NENs can be resected endoscopically, and high-risk or locally advanced neoplasms can be treated with radical surgery and lymphadenectomy and/or chemoradiation. The review article focuses on imaging illustrations and discusses applications of different imaging modalities in diagnosing and managing R-NENs.

Robotic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision Compared to Laparoscopic Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision: Oncologic Results of the Past 5 Years

Colorectal cancer is one of the deadliest diseases on the planet. Rectal cancer (RC) is the 8 th most common type of cancer disease worldwide, accounting for over 300,000 fatalities in 2018. Total mesorectal excision (TME) is considered as the gold standard approach for surgical RC management. To alleviate technical problems associated with dissection of distal rectal, transanal procedure to mesorectum was developed. The robotic operating platforms’ development has brought about the most significant change. The robotic method, which was described first in the year 2001, is gaining popularity in colorectal surgery. A stable camera platform with three-dimensional imaging and tremor filtering, motion scaling, instruments with numerous degrees of freedom, 3 rd arm for fixed retraction, ambidextrous capability, superior ergonomics, and less fatigue, all these advantages have all influenced robotics implementation. However, there are certain disadvantages to robotic surgery, such as high expenses, lengthy time of operation, a bulky cart, and absence of haptic sense. Robotic transanal TME (R-TA TME) is unique method that integrates potential advantages of perineal dissection with precise control of distal margins, along with all robotic technology advantages with respect to dexterity and greater precision. This review goal is to evaluate the available literature critically regarding R-TA TME in comparison to laparoscopic TA TME (L-TA TME) using the most prevalent histopathological metrics, which are the circumferential resection margin, the distal rectal margin, recurrence rate, specimen quality, advantages, and disadvantages. Oncological results for the past 5 years were used. The resources were obtained from electronic sources such as Google Scholar and PubMed. The conclusion of this review revealed that R-TA TME is as safe as well as feasible as L-TA TME, is technically possible, and has comparable oncological results and short-term post-operative outcomes. However, further investigation is required to evaluate long-term oncological or functional results.

Cost-Effectiveness of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Surgery for Different Surgical Procedures: Protocol for a Prospective, Multicentric Study (ROBOCOSTES)

BACKGROUND

The studies which address the impact of costs of robotic vs. laparoscopic approach on quality of life (cost-effectiveness studies) are scares in general surgery.

METHODS

The Spanish national study on cost-effectiveness differences among robotic and laparoscopic surgery (ROBOCOSTES) is designed as a prospective, multicentre, national, observational study. The aim is to determine in which procedures robotic surgery is more cost-effective than laparoscopic surgery. Several surgical operations and patient populations will be evaluated (distal pancreatectomy, gastrectomy, sleeve gastrectomy, inguinal hernioplasty, rectal resection for cancer, Heller cardiomiotomy and Nissen procedure).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will demonstrate which treatment (laparoscopic or robotic) and in which population is more cost-effective. This study will also assess the impact of previous surgical experience on main outcomes.

Evaluation of radical surgical treatment in the management of 58 locally advanced rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms, one multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are rare, and the therapeutic effects of surgery in improving the prognosis have been questioned in previous reports.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The research included 58 consecutive patients with locally advanced rectal NENs from three Chinese medical centers between 2000 and 2020. All have received radical surgical treatment. The clinicopathological and survival data were collected. Kaplan-Meier methods and a Cox proportional hazards regression model were used to evaluate the prognosis and identify independent prognostic factors.

RESULTS

All patients were followed up for a median period of 36 (2-125) months. Of the 58 patients, 13 (22.4%) had G1 neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), 15 (25.9%) had G2 NETs, 6 (10.3%) had G3 NETs, and the remaining 24 (41.4%) patients had G3 neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs). The 1-year and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 64.5% and 48.8%, respectively. The 1-year and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 90.5% and 75.4%, respectively. Univariate analysis demonstrated that tumor differentiation (p = 0.002), gross morphology (p = 0.009), T stage (p = 0.024), and extramural vascular invasion (p = 0.009) were associated with the OS. The subsequent multivariate analysis confirmed that tumor differentiation [hazard ratio (HR) = 6.002, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.210-29.767, p = 0.028] and gross morphology (HR = 3.438, 95% CI: 1.038-11.382, p = 0.043) were independent prognostic factors affecting the clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal NENs are a heterogeneous group of diseases. The survival benefits obtained from surgery vary widely based on the tumor clinicopathological features. Patients with G3 NECs and ulcerative mass are at high risks of poor prognosis.

Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS).

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I², and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

Results

Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD =  − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE.

Conclusion

RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08782-7.

Cost-conscious robotic restorative proctectomy has similar economic and oncologic outcomes to open restorative proctectomy: Results of a long-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND

In this study, we hypothesised that the direct hospital costs of robotic restorative proctectomy (RP) would be similar to those of open RP when a cost-conscious approach was employed in rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RP between 12/2011 and 10/2014. A cost-conscious approach was employed in robotic surgery. We compared demographics, long-term oncologic outcomes, and direct hospital costs between the open and robotic groups.

RESULTS

There were 32 robotic and 68 open RP procedures performed. Compared to open RP, the robotic RP group had a longer operative time but less estimated blood loss, intraoperative transfusions, overall short-term morbidity, decreased length of stay. After the initial five robotic cases, overall hospital costs were comparable between the groups (1 ± 0.5 vs. 1 ± 0.4, open and robotic RP, respectively, p = 0.90).

CONCLUSION

Increasing surgeon experience and a cost-conscious approach may improve the value of care of robotic RP in patients with rectal cancer.

Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision: Is the future now?

Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard surgical treatment for the curative radical resection of rectal cancers. Minimally invasive TME has been gaining ground favored by the continuous technological advancements. New procedures, such as transanal TME (TaTME), have been introduced to overcome some technical limitations, especially in low rectal tumors, obese patients, and/or narrow pelvis. The earliest TaTME reports showed promising results when compared with the conventional laparoscopic TME. However, recent publications raised concerns regarding the high rates of anastomotic leaks or local recurrences observed in national series. Robotic TaTME (R-TaTME) has been proposed as a novel technique incorporating the potential benefits of a perineal dissection together with precise control of the distal margins, and also offers all those advantages provided by the robotic technology in terms of improved precision and dexterity. Encouraging short-term results have been reported for R-TaTME, but further studies are needed to assess the real role of the new technique in the long-term oncological or functional outcomes. The present review aims to provide a general overview of R-TaTME by analyzing the body of the available literature, with a special focus on the potential benefits, harms, and future perspectives for this novel approach.

Comparison of pathologic outcomes of robotic and open resections for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The application of robotic surgery for rectal cancer is increasing steadily. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare pathologic outcomes among patients with rectal cancer who underwent open rectal surgery (ORS) versus robotic rectal surgery (RRS).

Methods

We systematically searched the literature of EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized controlled trials (nRCTs) comparing ORS with RRS.

Results

Fourteen nRCTs, including 2711 patients met the predetermined inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Circumferential resection margin (CRM) positivity (OR: 0.58, 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.16, P = 0.13), number of harvested lymph nodes (WMD: −0.31, 95% CI, −2.16 to 1.53, P = 0.74), complete total mesorectal excision (TME) rates (OR: 0.93, 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.78, P = 0.83) and the length of distal resection margins (DRM) (WMD: −0.01, 95% CI, −0.26 to 0.25, P = 0.96) did not differ significantly between the RRS and ORS groups.

Conclusion

Based on the current evidence, robotic resection for rectal cancer provided equivalent pathological outcomes to ORS in terms of CRM positivity, number of harvested lymph nodes and complete TME rates and DRM.

Do specific operative approaches and insurance status impact timely access to colorectal cancer care?

INTRODUCTION

The increased use of minimally invasive surgery in the management of colorectal cancer has led to a renewed focus on how certain factors, such as insurance status, impact the equitable distribution of both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Our goal was to analyze surgical wait times between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches, and to determine whether insurance status impacts timely access to treatment.

METHODS

After IRB approval, adult patients from the National Cancer Database with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer were identified (2010-2016). Patients who underwent radiation therapy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, had wait times of 0 days from diagnosis to surgery, or had metastatic disease were excluded. Primary outcomes were days from cancer diagnosis to surgery and days from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy. Multivariable Poisson regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Among 324,784 patients, 5.9% underwent robotic, 47.5% laparoscopic, and 46.7% open surgery. Patients undergoing robotic surgery incurred the longest wait times from diagnosis to surgery (29.5 days [robotic] vs. 21.7 [laparoscopic] vs. 17.2 [open], p < 0.001), but the shortest wait times from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy (48.9 days [robotic] vs. 49.9 [laparoscopic] vs. 54.8 [open], p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, robotic surgery was associated with a 1.46 × longer wait time to surgery (IRR 1.462, 95% CI 1.458-1.467, p < 0.001), but decreased wait time to adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.909, 95% CI 0.905-0.913, p < 0.001) compared to an open approach. Private insurance was associated with decreased wait times to surgery (IRR 0.966, 95% CI 0.962-0.969, p < 0.001) and adjuvant chemotherapy (IRR 0.862, 95% CI 0.858-0.865, p < 0.001) compared to Medicaid.

CONCLUSION

Though patients undergoing robotic surgery experienced delays from diagnosis to surgery, they tended to initiate adjuvant chemotherapy sooner compared to those undergoing open or laparoscopic approaches. Private insurance was independently associated not only with access to robotic surgery, but also shorter wait times during all stages of treatment.

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.

Global hospital and operative costs associated with various ventral cavity procedures: a comprehensive literature review and analysis across regions

Objectives: The aim of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive report on hospital costs, and cost components, for a range of ventral cavity surgical procedures across three regions of focus: (1) Americas, (2) Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and (3) Asia-Pacific. Methods: A structured search was performed and utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., "Hepatectomy", "Colectomy", "Costs and Cost Analysis") and keywords (e.g. "liver resection", "bowel removal", "economics"). Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported hospital-related costs associated with the procedures of interest. Cost outcomes included operating room (OR) time costs, total OR costs, ward stay costs, total admission costs, OR cost per minute and ward cost per day. All costs were converted to 2018 USD. Results: Total admission costs were observed to be highest in the Americas, with an average cost of $15,791. The average OR time cost per minute was found to vary by region: $24.83 (Americas), $14.29 (Asia-Pacific), and $13.90 (EMEA). A cost-breakdown demonstrated that OR costs typically comprised close to 50%, or more, of hospital admission costs. This review also demonstrates that decreasing OR time by 30 min provides cost savings approximately equivalent to a 1-day reduction in ward time. Conclusion: This literature review provided a comprehensive assessment of hospital costs across various surgical procedures, approaches, and geographical regions. Our findings indicate that novel processes and healthcare technologies that aim to reduce resources such as operating time and hospital stay, can potentially provide resource savings for hospital payers.

Cost-effectiveness of current approaches in rectal surgery

Colorectal cancer is ranked as the fourth malignant cause of mortality. With the tremendous revolution in the modern medical techniques, minimally invasive approaches have been incorporated into rectal surgery. The effectiveness of surgical procedures is usually measured by a combination of qualitative (quality of life) and quantitative (years of life) measures, while the costs should reflect the use of different resources that were involved in delivering the medical care and they are affected by several factors, including length of hospital stay. In this review, we provide an insight into the cost-effectiveness of the different types of rectal surgeries in order to present a systematic approach for future preferences. A comprehensive literature review using Medline (via PUBMED), Embase and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (via clinical trial.org) was performed. Minimally invasive rectal surgeries have considerable cost-effective properties that outweigh those of the open techniques in terms of earlier return to bowel function, lower morbidity rates, reduced pain, shorter length of hospital stay and the overall patients’ quality of life although there was no difference in long-term oncological and survival outcomes. The paucity of currently available long-term oncologic, quality of life, and economic outcomes may limit an adequate comparison of robotic surgeries to other surgical techniques. It is therefore recommended to conduct focused studies to help balance the cost/benefit factors along with other technical considerations aimed at reducing the cost of robotic systems with subsequent improvement of their cost-effectiveness.

•

Colorectal cancer is the fourth cause of mortality. Minimally invasive surgery is now considered the standard of care.

•

Cost of minimally invasive surgery is offset by the better outcomes due to less complications and shorter hospital stay.

•

TaTME requires two working teams and two sets of instruments which increases the total cost.

•

Robotic surgery in obese patients demonstrated superior results when it comes to hospital stay and overall complications.

•

Well conducted clinical trials looking at cost effectiveness of new technologies in colorectal surgery are needed.

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.

Quality of Life in Oncology

Continuous improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer lead to improved cure rates and longer survival. However, in many patients, the disease becomes chronic. In this context, the patients' quality of life (QOL) becomes a crucial issue. After an introduction about QOL, results from different areas of cancer treatment are presented considering their impact on QOL. Finally, implications are discussed for researchers, clinicians, and patients.

Short-term postoperative outcomes following robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis are equivalent

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches have become the standard of care for ileal pouch-anal anastomoses (IPAA). There are few reports comparing outcomes following a laparoscopic versus robotic approach. Our aim was to determine if there were any differences in the 30-day postoperative outcomes following IPAA performed laparoscopically versus robotically.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic and robotic IPAA performed between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018 was carried out. Patients included were adult patients who underwent a proctectomy and IPAA utilizing either a laparoscopic or robotic approach. Data collected included patient demographics, operative variables, and 30-day postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients had a minimally invasive IPAA; 58 were performed laparoscopically and 74 robotically. Less than half the patients were female (n = 55; 41.7%) with a median age of 37 years (range 18-68 years). The majority of patients had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (n = 103; 78.0%) with medically refractory disease (n = 87; 65.9%). A greater proportion of patients in the laparoscopic cohort had a prolonged length of stay (n = 27; 46.6% versus n = 18; 24.3%; p < 0.001) and a two-stage approach (n = 56; 96.6% versus n = 37; 50%; p < 0.001), but there were no differences in the rates between the laparoscopic versus robotic cohorts of superficial surgical site infection (6.9% versus 6.8%; p = 0.99), peripouch abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), anastomotic leak (6.9% versus 2.7%; p = 0.21), pelvic abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), and pelvic sepsis (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), readmission (24.1% versus 17.6%; p = 0.35) or reoperation (6.9% versus 5.4%; p = 0.72). On multivariable analysis, only male sex remained predictive of prolonged length of stay, and a robotic approach trended toward a decreased rate of prolonged length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and robotic IPAA have equivalent postoperative morbidity underscoring the safety of the continued expansion of the robotic platform for pouch surgery.

Open versus minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center cohort study on 237 consecutive patients

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is gaining popularity in rectal tumor treatment. However, contrasting data are available regarding its safety and efficacy. Our aim is to compare the open and MIS approaches for rectal cancer treatment. Two-hundred-thirty-seven patients were included: 113 open and 124 MIS rectal resections. After the propensity score matching analysis (PS), the cases were matched into 42 open and 42 MIS. Short- and long-term outcomes, and pathological findings were analyzed before and after PS. A further comparison of the same outcomes and costs was conducted between the laparoscopic and the robotic approaches. As a whole, a sphincter-preserving procedure was more frequently performed in the MIS group (110 vs 75 cases; p < 0.0001). The estimated blood loss during MIS was significantly lower than during open surgery [127 (± 92) vs 242 (± 122) mL; p < 0.0001], with clear advantages for the robotic approach over laparoscopy [113 (± 87) vs 147 (± 93) mL; p 0.01]. Complication rate was comparable between the two groups. A higher rate of CRM positivity was evidenced after open surgery (12.4% vs 1.7%; p 0.004). A higher number of lymph nodes was harvested in the MIS group [12.5 (± 6.4) vs 11 (± 5.6); p 0.04]. After PS, no difference in terms of perioperative outcomes was noted, with the only exception of a higher blood loss in the open approach [242 (± 122) vs 127 (± 92) mL; p < 0.0001]. For the matched cases, no difference in 5-year overall and disease-free survival was evidenced (p 0.50 and 0.88, respectively). Mean costs were higher for robotics as compared to laparoscopy [9812 (±1974)€ vs 9045 (± 1893)€; p 0.02]. MIS could be considered as a treatment option for rectal cancer. The PS study evidenced clear advantages in terms of estimated blood loss over the open surgery. Costs still remain the main limit for robotics.

Robotic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision and indocyanine green guidance

BACKGROUND

Robotic complete mesocolic excision (CME) has recently emerged as promising technique to enhance oncologic results in hemicolectomy for cancer. The potential near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence with indocyanine-green (ICG) dye for lymphatic mapping is under investigation and few small case-series are reported.

METHODS

ICG solution was endoscopically injected the day before surgery in patients undergoing robotic right colectomy with CME using the Da Vinci Xi® system and the bottom to up technique. During surgery the ICG was excited by light in the near-infrared (NIR) spectrum of the Firefly™ system, of the Da Vinci Xi® system for image comparison in standard white light and NIR, and real-time visualization of the lymphatic drainage.

RESULTS

Twenty patients affected by right colon cancer underwent robotic right colectomy with the bottom to up technique. No cases converted to open surgery were observed. During surgery, a fluorescent mapping of draining lymph nodes, was visualized in all the 20 patients. In seven patients (35%), lymph nodes outside the standard lymphatic basin were identified and removed.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of robotic right colectomy with the bottom to up technique and ICG-guided lymphadenectomy is a feasible and safe procedure. ICG lymphatic mapping may help to perform a correct CME, although the independent impact of these procedures on oncologic outcome deserves further investigations.

Robotic Platform for an IPAA

INTRODUCTION

An IPAA is the preferred operative approach for restoration of intestinal continuity in patients with ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. As minimally invasive approaches have become more widely adopted, their use in IPAA has also become increasingly commonplace. Laparoscopy has the same limitations during the proctectomy portion as seen in operations for rectal cancer, including dissection in the mid-to-lower rectum attributed to angles created by bony confines of the deep pelvis and lack of visibility when constructing the anastomosis. Robotic surgery provides improved 3-dimensional and high-definition visualization of the pelvis and multiple degrees of freedom, which greatly enhance performance during the proctectomy and construction of the anastomosis.

TECHNIQUE

In the setting of a previous subtotal colectomy, the ileostomy site is taken down and stapled across. A 15-mm balloon trocar is placed in the site to achieve insufflation, and the robotic ports are placed horizontally just above the umbilicus. The lateral mesenteric attachments are mobilized laparoscopically, then the J-pouch is constructed through the ostomy site. The J-pouch is placed back into the abdomen with the anvil in place, and the proctectomy is performed after docking the robot. The rectum is stapled with the robotic stapler and exteriorized from the ileostomy site, and the anastomosis is constructed under direct robotic visualization.

RESULTS

In addition to the potential ergonomic advantages, the maneuverability and visualization in the pelvis during the proctectomy and construction of the anastomosis are reported by many surgeons to be improved as compared with laparoscopy, especially in male or obese patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A robotic approach during the proctectomy and IPAA offers significant advantages to a laparoscopic approach, expanding our armamentarium of minimally invasive surgical techniques to IPAA.

Neuroendocrine neoplasms of rectum: A management update

The estimated annual incidence of R-NENs is 1.04 per 100,000 persons although the real incidence may be underestimated, as not all R-NEN are systematically reported in registers. Also the prevalence has increased substantially, reflecting the rising incidence and indolent nature of R-NENs, showing the highest prevalence increase among all site of origin of NENs. The size of the tumor reveals the behavior of R-NENs where the risk for metastatic spread increases for lesions > 10 mm. Applying the WHO 2010 grading system to whole NENs originating in the gastroenteropancreatic system, R-NENs are classified as Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumors (WD-NET), which contain NET G1 and NET G2, and Poorly-Differentiated Carcinomas (PD-NEC) enclosing only G3 neoplasms for which the term carcinoma is applied. The treatment is endoscopic resection in most cases: conventional polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for smaller lesions or endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L), cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However it is important to know when the endoscopic treatment is not enough, and surgical treatment is indicated, or when the latter could be unnecessary. For PD-NECs, it has recently been demonstrated that chemoradiotherapy is associated with a similar long-term survival to that obtained with surgery. As well, new targeted-agents chemotherapy may be indicated for metastatic WD-NETs.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs

PURPOSE

The costs involved in performing robotic surgery present a critical issue which has not been well addressed yet. The aims of this study are to compare the clinical outcomes and cost differences of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer and to conduct a literature review of the cost analysis.

METHODS

This is an observational, comparative study whereby data were abstracted from a retrospective database of patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection from October 2010 to March 2017, at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. An independent company performed the financial analysis, and fixed costs were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 86 robotic and 112 laparoscopic rectal resections were included. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the laparoscopic approach (336 versus 283 min; p = 0.001). The main pre-operative data, overall morbidity, hospital stay and oncological outcomes were similar in both groups, except for the readmission rate (robotic: 5.8%, laparoscopic: 11.6%; p = 0.001). The mean operative costs were higher for robotic surgery (4285.16 versus 3506.11€; p = 0.04); however, the mean overall costs were similar (7279.31€ for robotic and 6879.8€ for the laparoscopic approach; p = 0.44). We found four studies reporting costs, three comparing robotic versus laparoscopy costs, with all of them reporting a higher overall cost for the robotic rectal resection.

CONCLUSION

Robotic rectal resection has similar clinical outcomes to that of the conventional laparoscopic approach. Despite the higher operative costs of robotic rectal resection, overall mean costs were similar in our series.

Robotics in general surgery: A systematic cost assessment

The utilisation of robotic-assisted techniques is a novelty in the field of general surgery. Our intention was to examine the up to date available literature on the cost assessment of robotic surgery of diverse operations in general surgery. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched in a systematic way to retrieve the included studies in our review. Thirty-one studies were retrieved, referring on a vast range of surgical operations. The mean cost for robotic, open and laparoscopic ranged from 2539 to 57,002, 7888 to 16,851 and 1799 to 50,408 Euros, respectively. The mean operative charges ranged from 273.74 to 13,670 Euros. More specifically, for the robotic and laparoscopic gastric fundoplication, the cost ranged from 1534 to 2257 and 657 to 763 Euros, respectively. For the robotic and laparoscopic colectomy, it ranged from 3739 to 17,080 and 3109 to 33,865 Euros, respectively. For the robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, ranged from 1163.75 to 1291 and from 273.74 to 1223 Euros, respectively. The mean non-operative costs ranged from 900 to 48,796 from 8347 to 8800 and from 870 to 42,055 Euros, for robotic, open and laparoscopic technique, respectively. Conversions to laparotomy were present in 34/18,620 (0.18%) cases of laparoscopic and in 22/1488 (1.5%) cases of robotic technique. Duration of surgery robotic, open and laparoscopic ranged from 54.6 to 328.7, 129 to 234, and from 50.2 to 260 min, respectively. The present evidence reveals that robotic surgery, under specific conditions, has the potential to become cost-effective. Large number of cases, presence of industry competition and multidisciplinary team utilisation are some of the factors that could make more reasonable and cost-effective the robotic-assisted technique.

Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over the laparoscopic one. For this reason a review of all the literature examining robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed. Two reviewers independently conducted a search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) using the key words “rectum”, “rectal”, “cancer”, “laparoscopy”, “robot”. After the initial screen of 266 articles, 43 papers were selected for review. A total of 3013 patients were included in the review. The most commonly performed intervention was low anterior resection (1450 patients, 48.1%), followed by anterior resections (997 patients, 33%), ultra-low anterior resections (393 patients, 13%) and abdominoperineal resections (173 patients, 5.7%). Robotic rectal surgery seems to offer potential advantages especially in low anterior resections with lower conversions rates and better preservation of the autonomic function. Quality of mesorectum and status of and circumferential resection margins are similar to those obtained with conventional laparoscopy even if robotic rectal surgery is undoubtedly associated with longer operative times. This review demonstrated that robotic rectal surgery is both safe and feasible but there is no evidence of its superiority over laparoscopy in terms of postoperative, clinical outcomes and incidence of complications. In conclusion robotic rectal surgery seems to overcome some of technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery especially for tumors requiring low and ultra-low anterior resections but this technical improvement seems not to provide, until now, any significant clinical advantages to the patients.

Robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy: a case-matched comparison from the ACS-NSQIP

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open colectomy using a procedure-targeted database.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients undergoing elective colectomy in 2013 was conducted using the procedure-targeted database of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). Robotic, laparoscopic, and open groups were matched (1:1:1) based on age, gender, body mass index, surgical procedure, diagnosis and ASA classification. Demographics, comorbidities, and short-term (30 day) outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Out of 12 790 patients, 387 fulfilled criteria per group after matching. Univariate comparison showed operating time was longer (P < 0.001) and hospital stay was shorter (P < 0.001) in the robotic group. Morbidity (P < 0.001), superficial SSI (P < 0.001), bleeding requiring transfusion (P < 0.001), ventilator dependency (P = 0.003), and ileus (P < 0.001) rates were lower in the robotic group. After adjusting for confounders, outcomes were comparable between the groups except hospital stay which was shorter in the robotic group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ACS-NSQIP data demonstrated several short-term advantages of robotic surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery.

Case-matched Comparison of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: Initial Institutional Experience

Robotic colorectal surgery is an emerging technique. In this study, we aimed to compare outcomes of robotic colorectal operations to laparoscopy. Patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery between November 2010 and July 2013 were case matched to laparoscopic counterparts based on diagnosis and operation type. Perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes were compared. There were 57 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery. American Society of Anaesthesiologists score was higher in patients who underwent robotic surgery (2 vs. 3, P=0.01). Blood loss (200 vs. 300 mL, P=0.27) and conversion rate to open surgery (6 vs. 5, P=0.75) were similar between the groups. Operating time was longer in robotic surgery (172 vs. 267 min, P<0.0001). Time to first bowel movement (3 vs. 3 d, P=0.38), hospital stay (5 vs. 6 d, P=0.22), and postoperative complications were comparable between the groups. In the early learning curve period, robotic colorectal surgery shows similar short-term outcomes with longer operating time compared with conventional laparoscopy.

Understanding the Value of Both Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches Compared to the Open Approach in Colorectal Surgery

INTRO

Although the use of laparoscopy has significantly increased in colorectal procedures, robotic surgery may enable additional cases to be performed using a minimally invasive approach. We separately evaluated the value of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures compared to the open approach.

METHODS

Patients undergoing nonemergent colorectal operations from 2010 to 2013 with National Surgical Quality Improvement Project data were identified. Robotic and laparoscopic procedures were separately matched (1:1) to open cases. Outcomes included 30-day composite morbidity, length of stay, operative time, and inpatient costs. Frequently used intraoperative disposable items were categorized, and significant cost contributors were identified by surgical approach. Statistical differences were determined with Chi-square and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

RESULTS

Both laparoscopic (n = 67) and robotic (n = 45) approaches were associated with decreased composite morbidity compared to matched open cases (lap vs. open: 22.4% vs. 49.2%, P < .01; robotic vs. open: 6.7% vs. 33.3%, P < .01). Median length of stay was significantly shorter for both laparoscopic and robotic compared to open surgery (lap vs. open: 5 vs. 7 days, P < .01; robotic vs. open: 5 vs. 7 days, P < .01). Median hospital costs were similar between laparoscopic and open surgery ($13,319 vs. $14,039; P = .80) and robotic and open surgery ($13,778 vs. $13,629; P = .48).

CONCLUSION

These findings illustrate the value for both laparoscopic and robotic approaches to colorectal surgery compared to the open approach in terms of short-term outcomes and inpatient costs. Advanced intraoperative disposable items such as cutting staplers and energy devices are important targets for additional cost containment.

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.

Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal cancer were identified for this meta-analysis. Compared with ORCS, RRCS is associated with a lower estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −139.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −159.11 to −120.86; P < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay length (MD: −2.10, 95% CI: −3.47 to −0.73; P = 0.003), lower intraoperative transfusion requirements (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.05), shorter time to flatus passage (MD: −0.97, 95% CI = −1.06 to −0.88, P < 0.00001), and shorter time to resume a normal diet (MD: −1.71.95% CI = −3.31 to −0.12, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications, oncologic clearance, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the two groups. However, RRCS was associated with a longer operative time. RRCS is safe and effective.

Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic approaches have become increasingly used for colorectal surgery. The aim of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of robotic colorectal procedures in an adult population.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of articles in both PubMed and Embase comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures was performed. Clinical trials and observational studies in an adult population were included. Approaches were evaluated in terms of operative time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, number of lymph nodes harvested, and perioperative complications. Mean net differences and odds ratios were calculated to examine treatment effect of each group.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighteen articles were identified, and 17 met the inclusion criteria, representing 4,342 patients: 920 robotic and 3,422 in the laparoscopic group. Operative time for the robotic approach was 38.849 minutes longer (95% confidence interval: 17.944 to 59.755). The robotic group had lower estimated blood loss (14.17 mL; 95% confidence interval: -27.63 to -1.60), and patients were 1.78 times more likely to be converted to an open procedure (95% confidence interval: 1.24 to 2.55). There was no difference between groups with respect to number of lymph nodes harvested, length of stay, readmission rate, or perioperative complication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach to colorectal surgery is as safe and efficacious as conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, it is associated with longer operative time and an increased rate of conversion to laparotomy. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted to examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic colorectal surgery before it can be adopted as the new standard of care.

Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years

Background

Robotic surgery has been in existence for 30 years. This study aimed to evaluate the overall perioperative outcomes of robotic surgery compared with open surgery (OS) and conventional minimally invasive surgery (MIS) across various surgical procedures.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from 1990 up to October 2013 with no language restriction. Relevant review articles were hand-searched for remaining studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies (PROs) on perioperative outcomes, regardless of patient age and sex, were included. Primary outcomes were blood loss, blood transfusion rate, operative time, length of hospital stay, and 30-day overall complication rate.

Results

We identified 99 relevant articles (108 studies, 14,448 patients). For robotic versus OS, 50 studies (11 RCTs, 39 PROs) demonstrated reduction in blood loss [ratio of means (RoM) 0.505, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.408–0.602], transfusion rate [risk ratio (RR) 0.272, 95 % CI 0.165–0.449], length of hospital stay (RoM 0.695, 0.615–0.774), and 30-day overall complication rate (RR 0.637, 0.483–0.838) in favour of robotic surgery. For robotic versus MIS, 58 studies (21 RCTs, 37 PROs) demonstrated reduced blood loss (RoM 0.853, 0.736–0.969) and transfusion rate (RR 0.621, 0.390–0.988) in favour of robotic surgery but similar length of hospital stay (RoM 0.982, 0.936–1.027) and 30-day overall complication rate (RR 0.988, 0.822–1.188). In both comparisons, robotic surgery prolonged operative time (OS: RoM 1.073, 1.022–1.124; MIS: RoM 1.135, 1.096–1.173). The benefits of robotic surgery lacked robustness on RCT-sensitivity analyses. However, many studies, including the relatively few available RCTs, suffered from high risk of bias and inadequate statistical power.

Conclusions

Our results showed that robotic surgery contributed positively to some perioperative outcomes but longer operative times remained a shortcoming. Better quality evidence is needed to guide surgical decision making regarding the precise clinical targets of this innovation in the next generation of its use.

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.

Dealing with robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current status and perspectives

The laparoscopic approach for treatment of rectal cancer has been proven feasible and oncologically safe, and is able to offer better short-term outcomes than traditional open procedures, mainly in terms of reduced length of hospital stay and time to return to working activity. In spite of this, the laparoscopic technique is usually practised only in high-volume experienced centres, mainly because it requires a prolonged and demanding learning curve. It has been estimated that over 50 operations are required for an experienced colorectal surgeon to achieve proficiency with this technique. Robotic surgery enables the surgeon to perform minimally invasive operations with better vision and more intuitive and precise control of the operating instruments, thus promising to overcome some of the technical difficulties associated with standard laparoscopy. It has high-definition three-dimensional vision, it translates the surgeon’s hand movements into precise movements of the instruments inside the patient, the camera is held and moved by the first surgeon, and a fourth robotic arm is available as a fixed retractor. The aim of this review is to summarise the current data on clinical and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted surgery in rectal cancer, focusing on short- and long-term results, and providing original data from the authors’ centre.

Laparoscopy Versus Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Initial Experience

Background Minimally invasive approach has gained interest in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study is to analyze the differences between laparoscopy and robotics for colorectal cancer in terms of oncologic and clinical outcomes in an initial experience of a single center. Materials and Methods Clinico-pathological data of 100 patients surgically treated for colorectal cancer from March 2008 to April 2014 with laparoscopy and robotics were analyzed. The procedures were right colonic, left colonic, and rectal resections. A comparison between the laparoscopic and robotic resections was made and an analysis of the first and the last procedures in the 2 groups was performed. Results Forty-two patients underwent robotic resection and 58 underwent laparoscopic resection. The postoperative mortality was 1%. The number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in robotics. The conversion rate was 7.1% for robotics and 3.4% for laparoscopy. The operative time was lower in laparoscopy for all the procedures. No differences were found between the first and the last procedures in the 2 groups. Conclusions This initial experience has shown that robotic surgery for the treatment of colorectal adenocarcinoma is a feasible and safe procedure in terms of oncologic and clinical outcomes, although an appropriate learning curve is necessary. Further investigation is needed to demonstrate real advantages of robotics over laparoscopy.

How Has the Robot Contributed to Colon Cancer Surgery?

Robotic surgery is an emerging field in colorectal surgery and may overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, such as rigid instrumentation, poor ergonomics, and assistant-dependent camera movements and retraction. In addition, robotic-assisted colectomy appears to offer comparable outcomes to laparoscopic colectomy with limited long-term outcomes data. Prolonged operating time, increased costs and learning curve are the major drawbacks of robotic colectomy for colon cancer. Although new robotic platforms promise improved ingenuity through developing technology, the role of the robot in colon cancer surgery is still unclear.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Surgical practice has been changed since the introduction of robotic techniques and robotic colorectal surgery is an emerging field. Innovative robotic technologies have helped surgeons overcome many technical difficulties of conventional laparoscopic surgery. Herein, we review the clinical studies regarding the application of surgical robots in resections for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted for articles published up to September 9, 2012, using the MEDLINE database. The keywords that were used in various combinations were: "surgical robotics," "robotic surgery," "computer-assisted surgery," "colectomy," "sigmoid resection," "sigmoidectomy," and "rectal resection."

RESULTS

Fifty-nine articles reporting on robot-assisted resections of colon and/or rectum were identified and 41 studies were finally included in the analysis. A total of 1635 colorectal procedures were performed: 254 right colectomies, 185 left colectomies/sigmoid resections, 969 anterior resections, 182 abdominoperineal or intersphincteric resections, 34 colectomies (without being specified as right or left), and 11 total/subtotal colectomies. In general, blood loss, conversion rates, and complications were low but the operative time was longer than the open procedures, whereas the duration of hospitalization was shorter. The number of harvested lymph nodes was also quite satisfactory.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic colorectal operations provide favorable results, with acceptable operative times and low conversion rates and morbidity. Surgical robots may provide additional benefits treating challenging pathologies, such as rectal cancer. Further clinical studies and long-term follow-up are required to better evaluate the outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Approach in Colonic Resections for Cancer and Benign Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic colectomy (RC) with laparoscopic colectomy (LC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

Materials and Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to retrieve comparative studies of robotic and laparoscopic colectomy. The databases searched were PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2000 to October 2014. The Odds ratio, Risk difference and Mean difference were used as the summary statistics.

Results

A total of 12 studies, which included a total of 4,148 patients who had undergone robotic or laparoscopic colectomy, were included and analyzed. RC demonstrated a longer operative time (MD 41.52, P<0.00001) and higher cost (MD 2.42, P<0.00001) than did LC. The time to first flatus passage (MD -0.51, P = 0.003) and the length of hospital stay (MD -0.68, P = 0.01) were significantly shorter after RC. Additionally, the intraoperative blood loss (MD -16.82, P<0.00001) was significantly less in RC. There was also a significantly lower incidence of overall postoperative complications (OR 0.74, P = 0.02) and wound infections (RD -0.02, P = 0.03) after RC. No differences in the postoperative ileus, in the anastomotic leak, or in the conversion to open surgery rate and in the number of harvested lymph nodes outcomes were found between the approaches.

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis, mainly based on observational studies, suggests that RC is more time-consuming and expensive than laparoscopy but that it results in faster recovery of bowel function, a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower rates of both overall postoperative complications and wound infections.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery for rectal cancer focusing on short-term outcomes: a propensity score-matching analysis

Although the total cost of robotic surgery (RS) is known to be higher than that of laparoscopic surgery (LS), the cost-effectiveness of RS has not yet been verified. The aim of the study is to clarify the cost-effectiveness of RS compared with LS for rectal cancer.From January 2007 through December 2011, 311 and 560 patients underwent totally RS and conventional LS for rectal cancer, respectively. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed with a ratio of 1:1 to reduce the possibility of selection bias. Costs and perioperative short-term outcomes in both the groups were compared. Additional costs due to readmission were also analyzed.The characteristics of the patients were not different between the 2 groups. Most perioperative outcomes were not different between the groups except for the operation time. Complications within 30 days of surgery were not significantly different. Total hospital charges and patients' bill were higher in RS than in LS. The total hospital charges for patients who recovered with or without complications were higher in RS than in LS, although their short-term outcomes were similar. In patients with complications, the postoperative course after RS appeared to be milder than that of LS. Total hospital charges for patients who were readmitted due to complications were similar between the groups.RS showed similar short-term outcomes with higher costs than LS. Therefore, cost-effectiveness focusing on short-term perioperative outcomes of RS was not demonstrated.

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.

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.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

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.

What have we gained by performing robotic rectal resection? Evaluation of 64 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic low anterior resection for rectal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery is thought to be a solution to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy in sphincter-saving resections. In this study, we present our results on patients undergoing robotic and laparoscopic low anterior resection (LAR) consecutively for rectal adenocarcinoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between February 2008 and June 2011, consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic LAR by a single surgical team for rectal cancer were evaluated. The patients' demographic, operative, postoperative short-term follow-up, and histopathologic data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients underwent robotic LAR, whereas 37 patients underwent laparoscopic LAR. The operation time of the laparoscopy group was significantly shorter than that of the robotic group (P=0.02). The complete total mesorectal excision rate was significantly higher in the robotic group (P=0.02). The overall complication rates were 11.11% and 21.62% in the robotic and laparoscopy groups, respectively (P=0.45).

CONCLUSIONS

Good quality of resected specimens could be achieved with robotic LAR. Further prospective studies including long-term oncologic outcomes and costs with higher patient number are definitely needed to assess the benefits of robotic resection in rectal cancer treatment.