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

Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Transverse colon cancer, which accounts for approximately 10% of all colon cancers, has a significant gap in the available scientific literature regarding the optimal minimally invasive surgical approach. This meta-analysis aims to compare the robotic and laparoscopic approaches for the surgical management of transverse colon cancer.

METHODS

Our systematic review made use of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, in addition to Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Articles of interest turned out from a search with PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL), Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index), and Embase databases. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for comparative population studies concerning patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer). The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (Version 2) (RoB 2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (Version 2) ROBINS-I. We evaluated two groups of outcomes: intraoperative and postoperative. RevMan (Computer program) Version 5.4.1 was used to perform the meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of the included studies in the meta-analysis was assessed by using the I2 statist.

RESULTS

The 4 included comparative studies (373 patients: 116 robotic colectomy versus 257 laparoscopic colectomy) had a time frame of approximately 26 years (2005-2021) and an observational nature. Meta-analysis showed a longer operative time (MD: 62.47, 95% CI: 18.17, 106.76, I2 = 92%, P = 0.006) and a shorter hospital stay (MD:-1.11, 95% CI: -2.05, -0.18, I2 = 63%, P = 0.002) for the robotic group. No differences in terms of conversion to laparotomy, estimated blood loss, time to flatus, time to solid diet, overall postoperative complications rate, minor (Clavien-Dindo or CD I-II) and major (Clavien-Dindo or CD ≥ III) postoperative complications rate, anastomotic leakage, surgical site infections, bleeding, lymph nodes harvested, were shown between robotic and laparoscopic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis revealed that the robotic approach to transverse colon cancer appears to be a safe and feasible option, with results comparable to those of laparoscopic surgery, with longer operating times but a shorter hospital stay. Further high-quality methodological studies are needed to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term outcomes, healthcare costs, and the learning curve between the robotic and laparoscopic surgical approaches.

Beyond the Operating Room: A Narrative Review of Enhanced Recovery Strategies in Colorectal Surgery

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have significantly transformed the management of patients undergoing colorectal surgery. This comprehensive review explores the key components and benefits of ERAS in colorectal procedures, focusing on preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative strategies aimed at improving patient outcomes. These strategies include preoperative patient education, multimodal analgesia, minimally invasive surgical techniques, and early mobilization. ERAS protocols reduce postoperative complications, shorten hospital stays, and enhance overall recovery, leading to better patient satisfaction and decreased healthcare costs. However, challenges such as patient adherence and managing high-risk patients remain critical areas for further research. Additionally, future research should focus on refining ERAS protocols, integrating novel technologies such as minimally invasive techniques, and evaluating long-term outcomes to further enhance the recovery process.

Association of robotic surgery with early discharge, readmission, and complications in elective colectomy: an analysis of NSQIP data from 2012 to 2021

Background Early discharge (ED) after colectomy has become a target outcome for multiple reasons, but the factors associated with ED are not well characterized. This study investigated the factors associated with ED and evaluated the impact of ED on overall outcome. Methods Data from ACS-NSQIP were used to identify patients who underwent non-emergent colectomy from 2012 to 2021. ED was defined as length of stay ≤ 2 days. Unpaired t-tests, chi-square tests and adjusted multivariate logistic regression modeling were used to estimate associated factors for ED. Bounceback readmission was defined as readmission within 7 days of discharge. Results In this cohort of 282,490 patients, 43,137 (15.3%) met the criteria for ED. Robotic colectomy (OR 14.35; 95% CI [13.63-15.12]) was more strongly associated with ED than any other patient characteristic, including laparoscopic colectomy (6.82 [6.51-7.14], ref open colectomy). ED vs. non-ED patients had lower rates of 30-day (5.84 vs. 10.37%, p < 0.01) and bounceback (3.56 vs. 5.75%, p < 0.01) readmissions, overall complications (5.65 vs. 18.63%, p < 0.01) and post-discharge complications (4.21 vs. 7.49%, p < 0.01). Conclusions Robotic surgery was the variable most strongly associated with ED, with greater odds of ED compared to both laparoscopic and open colectomy. Patients who had ED after robotic surgery had lower rates of complications and readmission compared to non-ED patients.

Ultrasound assessment of the distal resection margin during robotic rectal surgery

AIM

Ensuring an adequate distal resection margin (DRM) is a key factor in achieving the gold standard in surgical treatment for rectal surgery. The aim of this article is to describe our surgical technique and the usefulness of intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS) for evaluating the DRM during robotic rectal surgery (RRS).

METHOD

Prospective data on five consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RRS between January 2023 and December 2023 were collected. IOUS was utilized to evaluate the DRM in all patients.

RESULTS

The mean time for the IOUS examination ranged from 5 to 10 min. There were no intraoperative complications or conversions to open surgery. The median length of hospital stay was 6.4 days (±1.67 days). During hospitalization, one patient experienced a Grade II complication according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, specifically postoperative ileus. Furthermore, one patient experienced a delayed anastomotic fistula, which was conservatively treated without readmission. At definitive pathology, the median distance of the tumour from the DRM was 29 mm (±1.41 mm) and all patients had an R0 resection.

CONCLUSION

IOUS is a reproducible and helpful modality for identifying the distal margin of the cutting line during robotic resection of rectal cancers. It does not affect the operating time compared with other methods and could be an alternative method for assessment of the DRM during RRS.

Laparoscopic vs. robotic colectomy for left-sided diverticulitis

Diverticulitis is a prevalent gastrointestinal disease that often warrants surgical intervention. However, the optimal approach between traditional laparoscopy (LC) and robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAC) for diverticulitis remains unclear. Our research compares these techniques in patients diagnosed with left-sided diverticulitis treated at a single, tertiary referral center from 2019 to 2022. Among the 134 patients, 86 underwent laparoscopic and 48 robotic-assisted surgeries. The surgeries included in this analysis are left colectomy, sigmoid colectomy, low anterior resection, and Hartmann's procedure. Primary outcomes were major morbidity and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were operative time, conversion to open, length of stay, unplanned return to the operating room, 30-day readmission rate, and overall morbidity. While demographics and comorbidities were similar for both groups, the robotic-assisted group displayed a statistically significant longer operative time (198.0 ± 84.4 LC vs. 264.8 ± 78.5 min RAC, p < 0.001). When investigated further, there was a significant difference in operative time for uncomplicated diverticulitis cases favoring the LC approach (169.17 ± 58.1 LC vs. 244.82 ± 58.79 min RAC, p < 0.001). This significant difference, however, was not present in complicated diverticulitis cases. Other factors, such as overall and major morbidity, rate of conversion to open approach, ostomy creation, estimated blood loss, time to return of bowel function, length of stay, and 30-day readmission rate, did not significantly differ between the groups. There was no 30-day mortality in either group. Favorable patient outcomes, lack of significant difference in operative time compared with traditional laparoscopy, and absence of differences in morbidities or efficacy, raises an interesting question in the world of minimally invasive surgery: is the robotic-assisted approach emerging as the advantageous approach for complicated diverticulitis cases? We encourage additional, multi-center analysis of specifically complicated diverticulitis managed with both surgical approaches to investigate if these findings are replicated outside of our institution.

Should we encourage the use of robotic technologies in complicated diverticulitis? Results of systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Complicated diverticulitis is a common abdominal emergency that often requires a surgical intervention. The systematic review and meta-analysis below compare the benefits and harms of robotic vs. laparoscopic surgery in patients with complicated colonic diverticular disease. Methods: The following databases were searched before 1 March 2023: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The internal validity of the selected non-randomized studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. The meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed using RevMan 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom) and Copenhagen Trial Unit Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) software (Copenhagen Trial Unit, Center for Clinical Intervention Research, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark), respectively. Results: We found no relevant randomized controlled trials in the searched databases. Therefore, we analyzed 5 non-randomized studies with satisfactory internal validity and similar designs comprising a total of 442 patients (184 (41.6%) robotic and 258 (58.4%) laparoscopic interventions). The analysis revealed that robotic surgery for complicated diverticulitis (CD) took longer than laparoscopy (MD = 42 min; 95% CI: [-16, 101]). No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups regarding intraoperative blood loss (MD = -9 mL; 95% CI: [-26, 8]) and the rate of conversion to open surgery (2.17% or 4/184 for robotic surgery vs. 6.59% or 17/258 for laparoscopy; RR = 0.63; 95% CI: [0.10, 4.00]). The type of surgery did not affect the length of in-hospital stay (MD = 0.18; 95% CI: [-0.60, 0.97]) or the rate of postoperative complications (14.1% or 26/184 for robotic surgery vs. 19.8% or 51/258 for laparoscopy; RR = 0.81; 95% CI: [0.52, 1.26]). No deaths were reported in either group. Discussion: The meta-analysis suggests that robotic surgery is an appropriate option for managing complicated diverticulitis. It is associated with a trend toward a lower rate of conversion to open surgery and fewer postoperative complications; however, this trend does not reach the level of statistical significance. Since no high quality RCTs were available, this meta-analysis isnot able to provide reliable conclusion, but only a remarkable lack of proper evidence supporting robotic technology. The need for further evidence-based trials is important.

Feasibility and safety of a robotic approach to diverticular disease: a retrospective series of short-term outcomes

BACKGROUNDS

Robotic colorectal surgery is a method of performing complex surgery in a minimally invasive manner. In diverticular disease, chronic inflammation obscures tissues planes and increases difficulty of resection. This study aims to assess feasibility and safety of application of a robotic approach to diverticular disease, by reviewing short-term outcomes from a series of diverticular resections.

METHODS

Forty-one patients underwent robotic colorectal surgery for diverticular disease across three centres within Melbourne from June 2016 to June 2022. Demographic, operative, and clinicopathological data were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate primary and secondary outcomes. Comparative analysis between simple and complex diverticular disease was performed to identify differences in groups regarding short term outcomes. The primary outcome in this study is to determine conversion rate from minimally invasive to open surgery. Secondary outcomes include major complication rates and length of stay.

RESULTS

Of the 41 patients, 24 (58.5%) had simple disease, and 17 (41.5%) had complex disease. One patient (2.4%) required conversion to open resection. The median length of stay for complex disease was 7 days, for simple disease 5 days (P = 0.05). Four surgical Clavien-Dindo III or above complications occurred (9.8%), one patient required return to theatre. There were no anastomotic leaks or collections requiring radiological drainage. Thirteen patients (31.7%) underwent ureteric stenting and intraoperative indocyanine green dye ureteric identification.

CONCLUSION

Robotic diverticular resections in this series are safe and associated with a low conversion rate of 2.4%. Robotic resection of complex disease was feasible with an acceptable safety profile.

Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.

Safety of robotic surgical management of non-elective colectomies for diverticulitis compared to laparoscopic surgery

Non-elective minimally invasive surgery (MIS) remains controversial, with minimal focus on robotics. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes for non-elective robotic colectomies for diverticulitis. All colectomies for diverticulitis in ACS-NSQIP between 2012 and 2019 were identified by CPT and diagnosis codes. Open and elective cases were excluded. Patients with disseminated cancer, ascites, and ventilator-dependence were excluded. Procedures were grouped by approach (laparoscopic and robotic). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Covariates with p < .1 were entered into multivariable logistic regression models for 30 day mortality, postoperative septic shock and reoperation. 6880 colectomies were evaluated (Laparoscopic = 6583, Robotic = 297). The laparoscopic group included more preoperative sepsis (31.6% vs. 10.8%), emergency cases (32.3% vs. 6.7%), and grade 3/4 wound classifications (53.3% vs. 42.8%). There was no difference in mortality, anastomotic leak, SSI, reoperation, readmission, or length of stay. The laparoscopic group had more postoperative sepsis (p = 0.001) and the robotic group showed increased bleeding (p = 0.011). In a multivariate regression model, increased age (OR = 1.083, p < 0.001), COPD (OR = 2.667, p = 0.007), dependent functional status (OR = 2.657, p = 0.021), dialysis (OR = 4.074, p = 0.016), preoperative transfusions (OR = 3.182, p = 0.019), emergency status (OR = 2.241, p = 0.010), higher ASA classification (OR = 3.170, p = 0.035), abnormal WBC (OR = 1.883, p = 0.046) were independent predictors for mortality. When controlling for confounders, robotic approach was not statistically significantly associated with septic shock or reoperation. When controlling for confounders, robotic approach was not a predictor for mortality, reoperation or septic shock. Robotic surgery is a feasible option for the acute management of diverticulitis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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