Robotic colorectal surgery: summary of the current evidence

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for left-sided colon cancer: a multicentre study with propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for right-sided colon and rectal cancer has rapidly increased; however, there is limited evidence in the literature of advantages of robotic left colectomy (RLC) for left-sided colon cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLC versus laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) with complete mesocolic excision (CME) for left-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients who had RLC or LLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer at 5 hospitals in China between January 2014 and April 2022 were included. A one-to-one propensity score matched analysis was performed to decrease confounding. The primary outcome was postoperative complications occurring within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, overall survival and the number of harvested lymph nodes.

RESULTS

A total of 292 patients (187 males; median age 61.0 [20.0-85.0] years) were eligible for this study, and propensity score matching yielded 102 patients in each group. The clinical-pathological characteristics were well-matched between groups. The two groups did not differ in estimated blood loss, conversion to open rate, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, or postoperative length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). RLC was associated with a longer operation time (192.9 ± 53.2 vs. 168.9 ± 52.8 minutes, p=0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between the RLC and LLC groups (18.6% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.856). The total number of lymph nodes harvested in the RLC group was higher than that in the LLC group (15.7 ± 8.3 vs. 12.1 ± 5.9, p< 0.001). There were no significant differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival or 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to laparoscopic surgery, RLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer was found to be associated with higher numbers of lymph nodes harvested and similar postoperative complications and long-term survival outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for left-sided colon cancer: a multicentre study with propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery for right-sided colon and rectal cancer has rapidly increased; however, there is limited evidence in the literature of advantages of robotic left colectomy (RLC) for left-sided colon cancer. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of RLC versus laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) with complete mesocolic excision (CME) for left-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

Patients who had RLC or LLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer at five hospitals in China between January 2014 and April 2022 were included. A one-to-one propensity score matched analysis was performed to decrease confounding. The primary outcome was postoperative complications occurring within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, overall survival and the number of harvested lymph nodes.

RESULTS

A total of 292 patients (187 male; median age 61.0 [20.0-85.0] years) were eligible for this study, and propensity score matching yielded 102 patients in each group. The clinicopathological characteristics were well-matched between groups. The two groups did not differ in estimated blood loss, conversion to open rate, time to first flatus, reoperation rate, or postoperative length of hospital stay (p > 0.05). RLC was associated with a longer operation time (192.9 ± 53.2 vs. 168.9 ± 52.8 min, p = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between the RLC and LLC groups (18.6% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.856). The total number of lymph nodes harvested in the RLC group was higher than that in the LLC group (15.7 ± 8.3 vs. 12.1 ± 5.9, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in 3-year and 5-year overall survival or 3-year and 5-year disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Compared to laparoscopic surgery, RLC with CME for left-sided colon cancer was found to be associated with higher numbers of lymph nodes harvested and similar postoperative complications and long-term survival outcomes.

A Review of Robotic Surgery in Colorectal Surgery

Colorectal surgery is a treatment for colorectal lesions. Technological advancements have given the rise to robotic colorectal surgery, a procedure that limits excessive blood loss via 3D pin-point precision capabilities during surgeries. The aim of this study is to review robotic surgery in colorectal treatment procedures in order to dictate its ultimate merits. This is a literature review utilising PubMed and Google Scholar; it only includes case studies and case reviews related to robotic colorectal surgeries. Literature reviews are excluded. We incorporated abstracts from all articles and full publications were examined to compare the benefits of robotic surgery in colorectal treatments. The number of articles reviewed was 41 literature spanning from 2003 to 2022. We found that robotic surgeries yielded finer marginal resections, greater amounts of lymph node resections and earlier recovery of bowel functions. The patients also spent less time in hospital after surgery. The obstacles on the other hand are it costs longer operative hours and further training, which is expensive. Studies show robotic approach is a choice for treating rectal cancer. However further studies would be needed to conclude the best approach. This is especially true with patients treated for anterior colorectal resections. Based on the evidence it's safe to say that the upsides outweigh the downsides, but advancements and further research in robotic colorectal surgeries are still necessary to reduce operative hours and cost. Surgical societies should also take the initiative and set up effective training programmes for colorectal robotic surgeries, as trained physicians result in better treatment outcomes.

Predictive Factors for Anastomotic Leakage Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?

Anastomotic leakage (AL) remains one of the most severe complications following colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. Indeed, leaks that may occur after any type of intestinal anastomosis are commonly associated with a higher reoperation rate and an increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. At first, our review aims to identify specific preoperative, intraoperative and perioperative factors that eventually lead to the development of anastomotic dehiscence based on the current literature. We will also investigate the role of several biomarkers in predicting the presence of ALs following colorectal surgery. Despite significant improvements in perioperative care, advances in surgical techniques, and a high index of suspicion of this complication, the incidence of AL remained stable during the last decades. Thus, gaining a better knowledge of the risk factors that influence the AL rates may help identify high-risk surgical patients requiring more intensive perioperative surveillance. Furthermore, prompt diagnosis of this severe complication may help improve patient survival. To date, several studies have identified predictive biomarkers of ALs, which are most commonly associated with the inflammatory response to colorectal surgery. Interestingly, early diagnosis and evaluation of the severity of this complication may offer a significant opportunity to guide clinical judgement and decision-making.

Evaluation of the advantages of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colorectal cancer increases with aging. Curative-intent surgery based on a minimally invasive concept is expected to bring survival benefits to elderly patients (aged over 80 years) with colorectal cancer who are frequently with fragile health status and advanced tumors. The study explored survival outcomes in this patient population who received robotic or laparoscopic surgery and aimed to identify an optimal surgical option for those patients.

METHODS

We retrieved the clinical materials and follow-up data on elderly patients with colorectal carcinoma who received robotic or laparoscopic surgery in our institution. The pathological and surgical outcomes were compared to examine the efficacy and safety of the two approaches. The DFS (disease-free survival) and OS (overall survival) results at 3 years after surgery were assessed to explore the survival benefits.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients were screened for the study, including 55 in the robotic group and 56 in the laparoscopic group. The demographic details were generally similar between the two groups. No statistically significant difference in the number of removed lymph nodes was observed between the two approaches, with a median of 15 versus 14 (P = 0.053). The intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced by robotic technique when compared to the laparoscopic approach, with a mean of 76.9 ml versus 161.6 ml (P = 0.025). There were no significant differences in operation time, conversion, postoperative complications and recovery, and long-term outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery was prized for elderly patients with colorectal cancer who developed anemia and/or hematological conditions.

The Senhance Surgical System in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review

The Senhance Surgical System allows for infrared eye tracking, haptic feedback, and an adjustable upright seat allowing for improved ergonomics. This systematic review was designed with the aim of reviewing the current literature pertaining to the use of the Senhance Surgical System in colorectal surgery. Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated adults undergoing colorectal surgery with the Senhance Surgical System. The primary outcome was intraoperative efficacy; as defined by operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and conversion. A DerSimonian and Laird inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate overall effect size estimates and narrative review was provided for each outcome. Six observational studies with 223 patients (mean age: 63.7, 41.2% female, mean BMI: 24.4 kg/m²) were included. The most common indication for surgery was colorectal cancer (n = 180, 80.7%) and the most common operation was anterior resection (n = 72, 32.3%). Meta-analyses demonstrated a pooled total operative time of 229.8 min (95% CI 189.3-270.4, I² = 0%), console time of 141.3 min (95% CI 106.5-176.1, I² = 0%), and docking time of 10.8 min (95% CI 6.4-15.2, I² = 0%). The pooled EBL was 37.0 mL (95% CI 24.7-49.2, I² = 20%). Overall, there were nine (4.0%) conversions to laparoscopy/laparotomy. The Senhance Surgical System has an acceptable safety profile, reasonable docking and console times, low conversion rates, and an affordable case cost across a variety of colorectal surgeries. Further prospective, comparative trials with other robotic surgical platforms are warranted.

Robotic multiquadrant colorectal procedures: A single-center experience and a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery has been progressively implemented for colorectal procedures but is still limited for multiquadrant abdominal resections. The present study aims to describe our experience in robotic multiquadrant colorectal surgeries and provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature investigating the outcomes of robotic total proctocolectomy (TPC), total colectomy (TC), subtotal colectomy (STC), or completion proctectomy (CP) compared to laparoscopy.

METHODS

At our institution 16 consecutive patients underwent a 2- or 3-stage totally robotic total proctocolectomy (TPC) with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. A systematic review of the literature was performed to select studies on robotic and laparoscopic multiquadrant colorectal procedures. Meta-analyses were used to compare the two approaches.

RESULTS

In our case series, 14/16 patients underwent a 2-stage robotic TPC for ulcerative colitis with a mean operative time of 271.42 (SD:37.95) minutes. No conversion occurred. Two patients developed postoperative complications. The mean hospital stay was 8.28 (SD:1.47) days with no readmissions. Mortality was nil. All patients underwent loop-ileostomy closure, and functional outcomes were satisfactory. The literature appraisal was based on 23 retrospective studies, including 736 robotic and 9,904 laparoscopic multiquadrant surgeries. In the robotic group, 36 patients underwent STC, 371 TC, 166 TPC, and 163 CP. Pooled data analysis showed that robotic TC and STC had a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.17;95% CI, 0.04-0.82; p = 0.03) than laparoscopic TC and STC. The robotic approach was associated with longer operative time for TC and STC (MD = 104.64;95% CI, 18.42-190.87; p = 0.02) and TPC and CP (MD = 38.8;95% CI, 18.7-59.06; p = 0.0002), with no differences for postoperative complications and hospital stay. Reports on urological outcomes, sexual dysfunction, and quality of life were missing.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience and the literature suggest that robotic multiquadrant colorectal surgery is safe and effective, with low morbidity and mortality rates. Nevertheless, the overall level of evidence is low, and functional outcomes of robotic approach remain largely unknown.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022303016.

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery - initial results

INTRODUCTION

The mini invasive procedure in colorectal surgery is gaining ground as an alternative to conventional surgery. Colorectal surgery has significantly evolved since the advent of the automatic stapler devices and subsequently with the minimally invasive approach. The next logical step - the robotic assisted surgery was developed to satisfy surgeons' needs to the area of colorectal surgery and to offer a new and safer method to patients. The evidence for benefits of its use in this area appears to be promising.

Operative and Survival Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Elderly and Very Elderly Patients: A Study in a Tertiary Hospital in South Korea

Materials and Methods

Data of all patients ≥75 years who underwent a robotic-assisted curative resection in Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, South Korea, between January 2007 and January 2021 were extracted from a prospectively maintained colorectal cancer database. Patients were subdivided into the three groups according to the age: youngest-old (YO: 75–80 years), middle-old (MO: 81–85), and oldest-old (OO: ≥86 years). Intraoperative findings, postoperative, and oncological outcomes were compared between the groups.

Results

Seventy-six consecutive patients (female 52.6%) were included; mean age was 80 years (SD 0.33); mean body mass index (BMI), 23.8 20.9 kg/m² (SD 3.58); mean total operative time, 279 min (SD 80.93); mean blood loss, 186 ml (SD 204.03); mean postoperative length of stay, 14 days (SD 12.03). Major complications were seen in 2.1% of patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 0%. Average number of lymph node harvested was 20.9 (SD 12.33). Postoperative complications were not statistically different between the groups. Mean follow-up time for cancer-specific survival (CSS) was 99.28 months for the YO, 72.11 months for MO, and 31.25 months for OO groups (p = 0.045). The CSS rates at 5 years were 27.0%, 21.0%, and 0%, respectively. Recurrence risk was 10.50 times higher in the OO group than the others (adjusted HR, 95% CI 1.868–59.047, p = 0.008). In the multivariable analysis, TNM stage was not a risk factor for CSS in all groups. The number of the harvested nodes was a protective factor for recurrence (HR of 0.932, 95% CI 0.875–0.992, p = 0.027) and CSS (HR of 0.928, 95% CI 0.861–0.999, p = 0.047) in elderly patients.

Conclusion

Robotic surgery is highly feasible in elderly and very elderly colorectal cancer patients, providing a favorable operative safety profile and an acceptable cancer-specific survival outcome.

Robotic Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis

Subtotal colectomy (STC) or total proctocolectomy (TPC) and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed in two or three stages remain the procedure of choice for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Minimally invasive laparoscopic approaches for STC and IPAA have been established for over a decade, having been shown to reduce postoperative pain, length of stay, and improve fertility. However "straight-stick" laparoscopy has ergonomic and visual disadvantages in the pelvis, which may contribute to IPAA failure. The robotic platform was developed to overcome these limitations. Robotic STC is associated with lower conversion rates and earlier return of bowel function with acceptably longer operative time (mean, 28 minutes) than laparoscopic STC. The robotic approach has also been shown in case series to be safe in urgent settings. Robotic IPAA is associated with lower blood loss and length of stay than laparoscopic IPAA. Robotic TPC/IPAA has been shown in small case series to be safe and feasible despite longer operating times.

Updates of Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leakage after Colorectal Surgery

Anastomotic leakage is a potentially severe complication occurring after colorectal surgery and can lead to increased morbidity and mortality, permanent stoma formation, and cancer recurrence. Multiple risk factors for anastomotic leak have been identified, and these can allow for better prevention and an earlier diagnosis of this significant complication. There are nonmodifiable factors such as male gender, comorbidities and distance of tumor from anal verge, and modifiable risk factors, including smoking and alcohol consumption, obesity, preoperative radiotherapy and preoperative use of steroids or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Perioperative blood transfusion was shown to be an important risk factor for anastomotic failure. Recent studies on the laparoscopic approach in colorectal surgery found no statistical difference in anastomotic leakage rate compared with open surgery. A diverting stoma at the time of primary surgery does not appear to reduce the leak rate but may reduce its clinical consequences and the need for additional surgery if anastomotic leakage does occur. It is still debatable if preoperative bowel preparation should be used, especially for left colon and rectal resections, but studies have shown similar incidence of postoperative leak rate.

Safety with Innovation in Colon and Rectal Robotic Surgery

Robotic colorectal surgery has been touted as a possible way to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and has shown promise in rectal resections, thus shifting traditional open surgeons to a minimally invasive approach. The safety, efficacy, and learning curve have been established for most colorectal applications. With this and a robust sales and marketing model, utilization of the robot for colorectal surgery continues to grow steadily. However, this disruptive technology still requires standards for training, privileging and credentialing, and safe implementation into clinical practice.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer in the Octogenarians

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the short-term outcomes of robotic colorectal cancer surgery in octogenarian patients, focussing on postoperative morbidity and survival.

METHODS

All patients ≥80 years in a prospective colorectal cancer database undergoing robotic curative colorectal cancer resection were included. Patient demographics, intraoperative findings, postoperative and oncological outcomes were recorded. Patients were further subdivided into two groups named: old (OG 80-85 years) and very old (VOG ≥ 86 years).

RESULTS

Fifty-eight consecutive patients were included (median age, 83 years; male, 53.4%; median BMI, 26.5). Median total operative time was 230 min, median blood loss 20 ml, median length of stay 7 days. Major complications were seen in 12% of patients; and the 90-day mortality rate was 1.7%. Complete R0 resection achieved in 93% of cases, average lymph node harvest was 22. Overall and disease-free survival was 81% and 87.3%, respectively (median follow-up 24.5 months). We noticed a trend towards more advanced lesion staging in the VOG, but only N2 stage was significant (p = 0.03). There was a statistically significant difference in overall survival in favour of the OG (p = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery is feasible in octogenarian patients undergoing curative colorectal cancer resection and is associated with good post-operative outcomes and overall survival.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer

Minimally invasive surgery has demonstrated many benefits in general surgery, particularly in colon and rectal procedures. On the other hand, it has some limitations that must be taken into account, especially technical drawback. Robotic surgery has incorporated many improvements to overcome this disadvantage, such as 3D visualization, articulating instruments assisting complex and precise movements. As a result, robotic colorectal surgery shows less intraoperative blood loss, shorter time to oral tolerance and initial flatus (particularly associated with "Enhanced Recovery After Surgery" protocol), less conversion rate to open surgery, shortened hospital stay, and longer distal margins compared to laparoscopic and open surgery. This approach also shows a shorter learning curve. Some studies suggest that it could decrease perioperatively or 30 days after the intervention's mortality, raise overall survival, reduce wound infection, and improve functional results, while others show no significant difference. However, it lengthens surgical time. Otherwise, the studies included do not show statistically significant changes in the number of resected lymph nodes and anastomotic leaks. Economic costs remain one of the major concerns, although to date there are no large-scale studies that have evaluated this aspect from a global point of view. Robotic surgery represents a qualitative leap in surgical instruments and, although there is no strong evidence in favor of the use of robotic surgery over laparoscopic or open surgery, there is enough evidence to support its use in colorectal surgery, with potential advantages for patients.

Advanced Technology and the Rural Surgeon

Advanced technology has resulted in major changes in surgery and medicine over the past three decades. There are many barriers to the adoption of advanced technologies, which can be more prevalent in rural hospitals and surgical practices. Despite barriers to implementation of new technologies in rural communities, many rural hospitals have endorsed and invested in these technologies for the benefit of the hospital and community. The rural surgeon is often the driving force in evaluating and deciding on new technologies for their surgical program. This article discusses advantages, challenges, and limitations in the use of advanced technologies in rural locations.

Robotic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

Master-slave manipulators (otherwise known as telemanipulators) were introduced into minimally invasive surgery in the 1990s to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery. This led to the development of the first robotic surgical systems which, over the last 10 years, have rapidly gained acceptance among colorectal surgeons. Advantages of robotic surgical systems such as superior instrumentation and field of vision enable precise dissection in confined spaces such as the pelvis, which make it a particularly attractive tool for rectal surgery. The feasibility and safety of robotic rectal surgery is now well established and there is increasing evidence that it might offer superior peri- and postoperative outcomes when compared to laparoscopic rectal surgery. Robotic rectal surgery is easier to learn than laparoscopic surgery and the creation of a structured training program for robotic rectal surgery in Europe has facilitated the learning of this technique in an environment that promotes patient safety and improved patient outcomes through equipment fidelity and operator skill. It is foreseeable that in the near future robotic systems will become part of routine surgical practice in colorectal surgery.

[Robot-assisted surgery - Progress or expensive toy? : Matched-pair comparative analysis of robot-assisted cholecystectomy vs. laparoscopic cholecystectomy]

AIM AND METHODS

By means of a matched-pair analysis comparing data obtained from laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RAC), the value of both methods as well as the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches were elucidated. The consideration was carried out by evaluation of postoperative surgical results, a cost analysis and a subjective survey of the patients using a questionnaire. Thus, from the 35 consecutive RAC, 35 (parallel) retrospectively matched pairs were established.

RESULTS

Postoperative surgical results did not show any significant differences between LC and RAC. In the individual assessment by each patient, there were also no significant differences; however, there was a tendency towards the assessment of the RAC to be slightly worse. A striking difference was found with respect to the cost analysis at the time of surgery.

CONCLUSION

The RAC operation alone is significantly more expensive compared to LC with respect to maintenance and acquisition costs. In addition, RAC can at present not be completely reimbursed under the current German diagnosis-related system. The postulated advantages of RAC comprise mainly the precise preparation within narrow confinements and the favorable ergonomic handling for the surgeon. The basic prerequisites are control of the costs and a reasonable reflection in the current reimbursement system.

Risk of bias judgements and strength of conclusions in meta-evidence from the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group

BACKGROUND

The Cochrane Collaboration records risk of bias (ROB) judgements on the original studies it analyses. The aim of this review is to perform an audit of all literature produced by the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group (CCCG), focusing on whether intervention type has any relationship with ROB and the ability of a review to inform clinical practice.

METHODS

The most recent version of every CCCG review from January 2000 to the end of July 2018 was included. Conclusions were categorized as informing clinical practice (I) or not (N). Both I and N categories were divided into firm (F) or tempered (T) based on the definitiveness of their language. ROB judgements were aggregated. Reviews were classed as Medical (M), Surgical (S), Medical & Surgical (MS) or Other (O) based on their intervention, with O reviews then excluded. Data were analyzed in SPSS.

RESULTS

Ninety-five reviews were included, covering 1892 studies. Sixty-two percent (n = 59/95) informed clinical practice (I). Thirty-eight percent (n = 36/95) did not inform clinical practice (N). Of the N group, 53% (n = 19/36) were completely equivocal (firm) while 47% (n = 17/36) were moderately so (tempered). In the I group, 46% (n = 27/59) gave a conclusion that was firm and 54% (n = 32/59) were tempered. Seven thousand five hundred sixty-four cases of bias were assessed. Risk of bias was low in 43%, high in 20% and unclear in 37%. A review that regarded a medical intervention alone was significantly more likely to be comprised of studies with a low risk of bias than a review that included a surgical intervention (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group finds the risk of bias to be low in less than half of its judgements. A review that included a surgical intervention was less likely to display low risk of bias. Risk of bias was associated with whether a review informed clinical practice, but intervention type was not. Readers of colorectal literature should be cautious when considering original and meta-evidence in this field, particularly where a surgical intervention is assessed.

Integrative Literature Review Examining Factors Affecting Patient Safety With Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Surgeries

PURPOSE

The purpose of this integrative literature review is to examine the evidence on factors affecting patient safety during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries.

DESIGN

Systematic review of papers published between 2011 and 2016 that identified factors affecting safety during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries, in the areas of colorectal, general, urological, and gynecological surgeries.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, and Medline databases were performed. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria outlining factors affecting safety in robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries. All 12 studies selected were quality appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme.

FINDINGS

Using thematic analysis, the outcomes from the 12 studies were categorized into three thematic categories. Intraoperative communication, teamwork, and disruptions are the key factors affecting patient safety during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

This integrative literature review identifies a dearth of evidence examining factors affecting patient safety during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries. It draws attention to the complexities with teamwork, intraoperative communication and disruptions during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgeries. Although robotic-assisted surgery is generally seen as safe and effective, this review highlights the need for education and training that focuses on non-technical skills development, disruption prevention and alertness in anticipating and minimising risk.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The evidence from this review identifies the different demands and diverse challenges in maintaining safety during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery. Although specific technical knowledge and skills are essential, this review highlights the importance of developing new ways of thinking with regard to assessment and management of disruptions, developing different teamwork patterns and communication skills, and overcoming challenges introduced during technology advanced surgeries. Nurses in the perioperative setting have an increased responsibility to continue professional development and remain vigilant to factors affecting patient safety. Early identification and management of factors leading to disruptions is imperative in the provision of safe perioperative care.

Port site hernias following robotic colorectal surgery in people with obesity

Port site hernias are a rare complication following robotic surgery that can result in disastrous outcomes. We describe incarcerated port site hernias in two patients with obesity. Both patients required laparoscopic reduction. Following laparoscopic reduction, one patient's postoperative course was complicated by pneumatosis intestinalis, requiring exploratory laparotomy and subsequent small bowel resection. It is standard practice to not close the fascia of port sites less than 12 mm in robotic surgery. However, this allows for the rare possibility of small bowel herniation through the port site. We suggest that our patients' history of obesity and metabolic dysfunction contributed to difficult port retention during the case, and longer operating times which caused an increased amount of torque at the port site. Additionally, compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery is associated with increased torque at port sites. The combination of these risk factors extended the fascial defect, ultimately leading to the incarceration of small bowel in the port site.

Training robotic community surgeons: our experience implementing a robotics curriculum at a rural community general surgery training program

Robotic-assisted surgical procedures are being increasingly used in general surgery, including in the rural and community setting. Although there is no requirement, general surgery residency programs have begun to incorporate curriculums to train residents in this discipline. As a small rural community program, we recently instituted a voluntary and structured curriculum, and our initial experience is shared here. Our curriculum was voluntary for all general surgical residents for the academic years 2016-2017. The curriculum consisted of online training, bedside training, console simulation, bedside assisting, and operating at the console. During the fiscal year of 2016, 193 robot-assisted surgeries performed within the General Surgery Department. Fourteen of fifteen residents participated in the curriculum, with the exception being a resident new to our program. A survey was sent to the residents to evaluate their opinions towards robotic surgery and the curriculum, with 12/15 residents responding. Overall, residents' impressions were very favorable, with all reporting being either very or mostly satisfied with the curriculum and most, 58.4%, reporting there participating level on the robot to be appropriate. Importantly most, 91.7% did not think that the curriculum put an undue stress on their time or that it was detrimental to other aspects of their training. This study shows that a community rural general surgery program can incorporate a voluntary robotic curriculum effectively with high resident participation and satisfaction.

Robotic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients may lead to better short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopy: a comparative propensity scored match study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic rectal surgery in obese patients is technically challenging. The technological advantages of robotic instruments can help overcome some of those challenges, but whether this translates to superior short-term outcomes is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of obese (BMI ≥ 30) robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery patients.

METHODS

All consecutive obese patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer resection surgery from three centres, two from the UK and one from Portugal, between 2006 and 2017 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for ASA grade, neoadjuvant radiotherapy and pathological T stage. Their short-term outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were identified (63 robotic, 159 laparoscopic). The 63 patients who received robotic surgery were matched with 61 laparoscopic patients. Cohort characteristics were similar between the two groups. In the robotic group, operative time was longer (260 vs 215 min; p = 0.000), but length of stay was shorter (6 vs 8 days; p = 0.014), and thirty-day readmission rate was lower (6.3% vs 19.7%; p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study population, robotic rectal surgery in obese patients resulted in a shorter length of stay and lower 30-day readmission rate but longer operative time when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Robotic rectal surgery in the obese may be associated with a quicker post-operative recovery and reduced morbidity profile. Larger-scale multi-centre prospective observational studies are required to validate these results.

Implementation of robotic rectal surgery training programme: importance of standardisation and structured training

Purpose

A structured training programme is essential for the safe adoption of robotic rectal cancer surgery. The aim of this study is to describe the training pathway and short-term surgical outcomes of three surgeons in two centres (UK and Portugal) undertaking single-docking robotic rectal surgery with the da Vinci Xi and integrated table motion (ITM).

Methods

Prospectively, collected data for consecutive patients who underwent robotic rectal cancer resections with the da Vinci Xi and ITM between November 2015 and September 2017 was analysed. The short-term surgical outcomes of the first ten cases of each surgeon (supervised) were compared with the subsequent cases (independent). In addition, the Global Assessment Score (GAS) forms from the supervised cases were analysed and the GAS cumulative sum (CUSUM) charts constructed to investigate the training pathway of the participating surgeons.

Results

Data from 82 patients was analysed. There were no conversions to open, no anastomotic leaks and no 30-day mortality. Mean operation time was 288 min (SD 63), median estimated blood loss 20 (IQR 20–20) ml and median length of stay 5 (IQR 4–8) days. Thirty-day readmission and reoperation rates were 4% (n = 3) and 6% (n = 5) respectively. When comparing the supervised cases with the subsequent solo cases, there were no statistically significant changes in any of the short-term outcomes with the exception of mean operative time, which was significantly shorter in the independent cases (311 vs 275 min, p = 0.038). GAS form analysis and GAS CUSUM charting revealed that ten proctoring cases were enough for trainee surgeons to independently perform robotic rectal resections with the da Vinci Xi.

Conclusions

Our results show that by applying a structured training pathway and standardising the surgical technique, the single-docking procedure with the da Vinci Xi is a valid, reproducible technique that offers good short-term outcomes in our study population.

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

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

Single-site robotic cholecystectomy and robotics training: should we start in the junior years?

BACKGROUND

It has become increasingly important to expose surgical residents to robotic surgery as its applications continue to expand. Single-site robotic cholecystectomy (SSRC) is an excellent introductory case to robotics. Resident involvement in SSRC is known to be feasible. Here, we sought to determine whether it is safe to introduce SSRC to junior residents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 98 SSRC cases were performed by general surgery residents between August 2015 and August 2016. Cases were divided into groups based on resident level: second- and third-years (juniors) versus fourth- and fifth-years (seniors). Patient age, gender, race, body mass index, and comorbidities were recorded. The number of prior laparoscopic cholecystectomies completed by participating residents was noted. Outcomes including operative time, console time, rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy, and complication rate were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Juniors performed 54 SSRC cases, whereas seniors performed 44. There were no significant differences in patient age, gender, race, body mass index, or comorbidities between the two groups. Juniors had less experience with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There was no significant difference in mean operative time (92.7 min versus 98.0 min, P = 0.254), console time (48.7 min versus 50.8 min, P = 0.639), or complication rate (3.7% versus 2.3%, P = 0.68) between juniors and seniors.

CONCLUSIONS

SSRC is an excellent way to introduce general surgery residents to robotics. This study shows that with attending supervision, SSRC is feasible and safe for both junior and senior residents with very low complication rates and no adverse effect on operative time.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The da Vinci Xi: a review of its capabilities, versatility, and potential role in robotic colorectal surgery

The Xi is the latest da Vinci surgical system approved for use in colorectal surgery. With its novel overhead architecture, slimmer boom-mounted arms, extended instrument reach, guided targeting, and integrated auxiliary technology, the Xi manages to address several limitations of earlier models. The versatility of this new system allows it to be implemented in a wide range of colorectal procedures - from complex multiquadrant colectomies to challenging mesorectal dissections in the pelvis. While commonly criticized for its cost and prolonged operative time, robotic colorectal surgery holds the potential for enhanced ergonomics, superior precision, and a reduction in the learning curve involved in training an expert surgeon. This review appraises the existing literature on robotic colorectal surgery while elaborating how the improved capabilities of the Xi serve to usher in a new era of minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

Inventory management of reusable surgical supplies

We investigate the inventory management practices for reusable surgical instruments that must be sterilized between uses. We study a hospital that outsources their sterilization services and model the inventory process as a discrete-time Markov chain. We present two base-stock inventory models, one that considers stockout-based substitution and one that does not. We derive the optimal base-stock level for the number of reusable instruments to hold in inventory, the expected service level, and investigate the implied cost of a stockout. We apply our theoretical results to a dataset collected from a surgical unit at a large tertiary care hospital specializing in colorectal operations. We demonstrate how to implement our model when determining base-stock levels for future capacity expansion and when considering alternative stockout protocols. Our analysis suggests that the hospital can reduce the number of reusable instrument sets held in inventory if on-site sterilization techniques (e.g., flash sterilization) are employed. Our results will guide future procurement decisions for surgical units based on costs and desired service levels.

Enhanced recovery after surgery: Current research insights and future direction

Since the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) was introduced in the late 1990s the idea of implementing specific interventions throughout the peri-operative period to improve patient recovery has been proven to be beneficial. Minimally invasive surgery is an integral component to ERAS and has dramatically improved post-operative outcomes. ERAS can be applicable to all surgical specialties with the core generic principles used together with added specialty specific interventions to allow for a comprehensive protocol, leading to improved clinical outcomes. Diffusion of ERAS into mainstream practice has been hindered due to minimal evidence to support individual facets and lack of method for monitoring and encouraging compliance. No single outcome measure fully captures recovery after surgery, rather multiple measures are necessary at each stage. More recently the pre-operative period has been the target of a number of strategies to improve clinical outcomes, described as prehabilitation. Innovation of technology in the surgical setting is also providing opportunities to overcome the challenges within ERAS, e.g., the use of wearable activity monitors to record information and provide feedback and motivation to patients peri-operatively. Both modernising ERAS and providing evidence for key strategies across specialties will ultimately lead to better, more reliable patient outcomes.

Urogenital function in robotic vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a comparative study

PURPOSE

Urological and sexual dysfunction are recognised risks of rectal cancer surgery; however, there is limited evidence regarding urogenital function comparing robotic to laparoscopic techniques. The aim of this study was to assess the urogenital functional outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Urological and sexual functions were assessed using gender-specific validated standardised questionnaires. Questionnaires were sent a minimum of 6 months after surgery, and patients were asked to report their urogenital function pre- and post-operatively, allowing changes in urogenital function to be identified. Questionnaires were sent to 158 patients (89 laparoscopy, 69 robotic) of whom 126 (80 %) responded. Seventy-eight (49 male, 29 female) of the responders underwent laparoscopic and 48 (35 male, 13 female) robotic surgery.

RESULTS

Male patients in the robotic group deteriorated less across all components of sexual function and in five components of urological function. Composite male urological and sexual function score changes from baseline were better in the robotic cohort (p < 0.001). In females, there was no difference between the two groups in any of the components of urological or sexual function. However, composite female urological function score change from baseline was better in the robotic group (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Robotic rectal cancer surgery might offer better post-operative urological and sexual outcomes compared to laparoscopic surgery in male patients and better urological outcomes in females. Larger scale, prospective randomised control studies including urodynamic assessment of urogenital function are required to validate these results.

Insight into the da Vinci® Xi - technical notes for single-docking left-sided colorectal procedures

BACKGROUND

The adoption of robot-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery has been hampered by issues with docking, operative duration, technical difficulties in multi-quadrant access, and cost. The da Vinci® Xi has been designed to overcome some of these limitations. We describe our experience with the system and offer technical insights to its application in left-sided colorectal procedures.

METHODS

Our initial series of left-sided robotic colorectal procedures was evaluated. Patient demographics and operative outcomes were recorded prospectively using a predefined database.

RESULTS

Between March 2015 and April 2016, 54 cases of robot-assisted laparoscopic left-sided colorectal procedures were successfully completed with no cases of conversion. The majority were low anterior resections for colorectal malignancies. Using the da Vinci® Xi Surgical System, multi-quadrant surgery involving dissection from the splenic flexure to the pelvis was possible without redocking.

CONCLUSIONS

The da Vinci® Xi simplifies the docking procedure and makes single-docking feasible for multi-quadrant left-sided colorectal procedures.

Recent surgical advances in colorectal cancer excision: toward optimal outcomes

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer affecting both males and females in the western world. Despite all the developments in the current treatment of colorectal cancer, it is still continuing to be an important factor of patient morbidity and mortality worldwide. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for colorectal cancer. Over the last decade, there have been major changes and developments in the surgical treatment. Understanding the importance of the anatomy, technological advances in minimally invasive surgery and effects of chemoradiotherapy have changed the approaches to colorectal cancer treatment. Today, novel treatment strategies must be targeted not only minimally invasive approaches, but also aiming to increase patients’ quality of life without compromising the oncological principles.

Critical analysis of the literature investigating urogenital function preservation following robotic rectal cancer surgery

AIM

To analyses the current literature regarding the urogenital functional outcomes of patients receiving robotic rectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of electronic databases was performed in October 2015. The following search terms were applied: “rectal cancer” or “colorectal cancer” and robot* or “da Vinci” and sexual or urolog* or urinary or erect* or ejaculat* or impot* or incontinence. All original studies examining the urological and/or sexual outcomes of male and/or female patients receiving robotic rectal cancer surgery were included. Reference lists of all retrieved articles were manually searched for further relevant articles. Abstracts were independently searched by two authors.

RESULTS

Fifteen original studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 1338 patients were included; 818 received robotic, 498 laparoscopic and 22 open rectal cancer surgery. Only 726 (54%) patients had their urogenital function assessed via means of validated functional questionnaires. From the included studies, three found that robotic rectal cancer surgery leads to quicker recovery of male urological function and five of male sexual function as compared to laparoscopic surgery. It is unclear whether robotic surgery offers favourable urogenital outcomes in the long run for males. In female patients only two studies assessed urological and three sexual function independently to that of males. In these studies there was no difference identified between patients receiving robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, in females the presented evidence was very limited making it impossible to draw any substantial conclusions.

CONCLUSION

There seems to be a trend towards earlier recovery of male urogenital function following robotic surgery. To evaluate this further, larger well designed studies are required.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer in a single surgeon's experience: a cost analysis covering the initial 50 robotic cases with the da Vinci Si

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare surgical parameters and the costs of robotic surgery with those of laparoscopic approach in rectal cancer based on a single surgeon's early robotic experience.

METHODS

Data from 25 laparoscopic (LapTME) and the first 50 robotic (RobTME) rectal resections performed at our institution by an experienced laparoscopic surgeon (>100 procedures) between 2009 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed and compared. Patient demographic, procedure, and outcome data were gathered. Costs of the two procedures were collected, differentiated into fixed and variable costs, and analyzed against the robotic learning curve according to the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method.

RESULTS

Based on CUSUM analysis, RobTME group was divided into three phases (Rob1: 1-19; Rob2: 20-40; Rob3: 41-50). Overall median operative time (OT) was significantly lower in LapTME than in RobTME (270 vs 312.5 min, p = 0.006). A statistically significant change in OT by phase of robotic experience was detected in the RobTME group (p = 0.010). Overall mean costs associated with LapTME procedures were significantly lower than with RobTME (p < 0.001). Statistically significant reductions in variable and overall costs were found between robotic phases (p < 0.009 for both). With fixed costs excluded, the difference between laparoscopic and Rob3 was no longer statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest a significant optimization of robotic rectal surgery's costs with experience. Efforts to reduce the dominant fixed cost are recommended to maintain the sustainability of the system and benefit from the technical advantages offered by the robot.

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.

Totally robotic rectal resection: an experience of the first 100 consecutive cases

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery provides an alternative option for a minimal access approach. It provides a stable platform with high definition three-dimensional views and improved access, which enhances the capabilities for precise dissection in a narrow surgical field. These distinctive features have made it an attractive option for colorectal surgeons.

AIM

The aim of this study was to present a standardised technique for single-docking robotic rectal resection and to analyse clinical outcomes of the first 100 robotic rectal procedures performed in a single centre between May 2013 and April 2015.

METHOD

Prospectively collected data related to 100 consecutive patients who underwent single-docking robotic rectal surgery was analysed for surgical and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were male, the median age was 67 years (range-24-92). Eighteen patients had neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy whilst 23 patients had BMI >30. Procedures performed included anterior resection (n = 74), abdominoperineal resection (n = 10), completion proctectomy (n = 9), restorative proctectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) (n = 5) and Hartmann's procedure (n = 2). The median operating time was 240 min (range-135-456), and median blood loss was 10 ml (range 0-200). There was no conversion or intra-operative complication. Median length of stay was 7 days (range, 3-48) and readmission rate was 12 %. Thirty-day mortality was zero. Postoperatively, two patients had an anastomotic leak whilst two had small bowel obstruction. The median lymph node harvest was 18 (range, 6-43).

CONCLUSION

The single-docking robotic technique should be considered as an alternative option for rectal surgery. This approach is safe and feasible and in our study it has demonstrated favourable clinical outcomes.

A review on robotic surgery in rectal cancer

Robotic surgery has the upper hand when compared to the laparoscopic approach in terms of superior visualisation, flexibility in movement, steadiness and accessibility to confined anatomical spaces. Nevertheless, limitations still exist with regards to cost, reduced tactile sensation, time-consuming setup and a significant learning curve to achieve. Although studies have shown better or at least comparable outcomes between the robotic and laparoscopic approach, the limitations mentioned result in poor penetrance among centres and surgeons. Advancements in robotic surgery technology and attaining the acquired skillset will translate into better clinical outcomes for patients.

Effect of BMI on Short-Term Outcomes with Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery: a Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Many benefits of minimally invasive surgery are lost in the obese, but robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) may offer advantages in this population. Our goal was to compare outcomes for RALS in obese and non-obese patients.

METHODS

A prospective database was reviewed for colorectal resections using RALS. Patients were stratified into obese (BMI > 30 kg/m(2)) and non-obese cohorts (BMI < 30 kg/m(2)), then case-matched for comparability. The main outcome measures were operative time, conversion rate, length of stay and complication, readmission, and reoperation rates between groups.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were evaluated in each cohort. The BMI was significantly different (p < 0.01). All other demographics were well matched. There were no significant differences in operative time (p = 0.86), blood loss (p = 0.38), intraoperative complications (p = 0.54), or conversion rates (p = 0.91) across cohorts. Length of stay was comparable between groups (p = 0.45). Postoperatively, the complication (p = 0.87), readmission (p = 1.00), and reoperation rates (p = 0.95) were similar. There were no mortalities. For malignant cases (37.8 %), the lymph node yield (p = 0.48) and positive margins (p = 1.00) were similar and acceptable in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

In our matched RALS series, perioperative and postoperative outcomes were similar between obese and non-obese patients undergoing colorectal surgery. RALS is a feasible option in the surgical setting of the obese patient. Further controlled studies are warranted to explore the full benefits.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Current status and implementation of the latest technological innovations

The introduction of laparoscopy is an example of surgical innovation with a rapid implementation in many areas of surgery. A large number of controlled studies and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is associated with the same benefits than other minimally invasive procedures, including lesser pain, earlier recovery of bowel transit and shorter hospital stay. On the other hand, despite initial concerns about oncological safety, well-designed prospective randomized multicentre trials have demonstrated that oncological outcomes of laparoscopy and open surgery are similar. Although the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery has increased in recent years, the percentages of patients treated with surgery using minimally invasive techniques are still reduced and there are also substantial differences among centres. It has been argued that the limiting factor for the use of laparoscopic procedures is the number of surgeons with adequate skills to perform a laparoscopic colectomy rather than the tumour of patients’ characteristics. In this regard, future efforts to increase the use of laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery will necessarily require more efforts in teaching surgeons. We here present a review of recent controversies of the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery, such as in rectal cancer operations, the possibility of reproducing complete mesocolon excision, and the benefits of intra-corporeal anastomosis after right hemicolectomy. We also describe the results of latest innovations such as single incision laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for colon and rectal diseases.

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.