Robotic colorectal surgery in the emergent diverticulitis setting: is it safe? A review of large national database

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for colonic diverticular disease: a nationwide analysis of German hospital data

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate the current rates and outcomes of minimally invasive versus open surgery for colonic diverticular disease in Germany, using a nationwide dataset.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 36 hospitals, encompassing approximately 1.25 million hospitalizations from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023. Patients aged 18 years and older with colonic diverticular disease (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10): K57.2 and K57.3) who underwent surgical treatment were included. Surgeries were classified as open or minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic). Outcomes such as in-hospital mortality, complications, and length of stay were assessed using multivariable logistic and linear regression models.

RESULTS

Out of 1670 patients who underwent surgery for colonic diverticular disease, 63.2% had perforation and abscess. The rate of minimally invasive surgery increased from 34.6% in 2019 to 52.9% in 2023 for complicated cases and from 67.8% to 86.2% for uncomplicated cases. Open surgery was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR): 7.41; 95% CI: 2.86-19.21) and complications compared with minimally invasive surgery. The length of hospital stay was significantly longer for open surgery patients, with an increase of 4.6 days for those with perforation and abscess and 5.0 days for those without.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery for colonic diverticular disease is increasingly preferred in Germany, especially for uncomplicated cases. However, open surgery remains common for complicated cases, but is associated with higher mortality, more complications, and longer hospital stays.

Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review

Robot-assisted general surgery, an advanced technology in minimally invasive procedures, is increasingly employed in elective general surgery, showing benefits over laparoscopy in specific cases. Although laparoscopy remains a standard approach for common acute abdominal conditions, the role of robotic surgery in emergency general surgery remains uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare outcomes in acute general surgery settings for robotic versus laparoscopic surgeries. A PRISMA-compliant systematic search across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. The literature review focused on articles comparing perioperative outcomes of emergency general surgery managed laparoscopically versus robot-assisted. A descriptive analysis was performed, and outcome measures were recorded. Six articles, involving 1,063 patients, compared outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Two articles covered cholecystectomies, while the others addressed ileocaecal resection, subtotal colectomy, hiatal hernia and repair of perforated gastrojejunal ulcers. The level of evidence was low. Laparoscopic bowel resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) had higher complications; no significant differences were found in complications for other operations. Operative time showed no differences for cholecystectomies, but robotic approaches took longer for other procedures. Robotic cases had shorter hospital length of stay, although the associated costs were significantly higher. Perioperative outcomes for emergency robotic surgery in selected general surgery conditions are comparable to laparoscopic surgery. However, recommending robotic surgery in the acute setting necessitates a well-powered large population study for stronger evidence.

Robotic approach to colonic resection: For some or for all patients?

The robotic approach is rapidly gaining momentum in colorectal surgery. Its benefits in pelvic surgery have been extensively discussed and are well established amongst those who perform minimally invasive surgery. However, the same cannot be said for the robotic approach for colonic resection, where its role is still debated. Here we aim to provide an extensive debate between selective and absolute use of the robotic approach for colonic resection by combining the thoughts of experts in the field of robotic and minimally invasive colorectal surgery, dissecting all key aspects for a critical view on this exciting new paradigm in colorectal surgery.

Robotic Evaluation and Repair of Penetrating Injury of the Abdominal Wall

This case demonstrated the feasibility of robotic-assisted exploratory laparoscopy in a hemodynamically stable trauma patient and abdominal wall repair with a favorable outcome. The patient presented with a stab wound at the left middle posterior flank. A computer tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis demonstrated penetrating soft tissue injury to the left lateral abdominal wall with herniation of the omentum. A robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach was implemented to evaluate for visceral injury and to repair the abdominal wall. Diagnostic laparoscopy ruled out visceral and diaphragmatic injuries, and robotic primary tissue repair of the abdominal wall was performed. The patient was discharged home the following day. Laparoscopy for hemodynamically stable trauma patients has shown the benefit of decreased morbidity and decreased hospital stay compared to laparotomy. In turn, the robotic surgical approach has all the benefits of laparoscopy while bringing additional benefits of improved surgical dexterity, visualization, range of motion, and ergonomics.

The role of RObotic surgery in EMergency setting (ROEM): protocol for a multicentre, observational, prospective international study on the use of robotic platform in emergency surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained widespread acceptance in elective interventions, yet its role in emergency procedures remains underexplored. While the 2021 WSES position paper discussed limited studies on the application of robotics in emergency general surgery, it recommended strict patient selection, adequate training, and improved platform accessibility. This prospective study aims to define the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings, evaluating intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and assessing its feasibility and safety.

METHODS

The ROEM study is an observational, prospective, multicentre, international analysis of clinically stable adult patients undergoing robotic surgery for emergency treatment of acute pathologies including diverticulitis, cholecystitis, and obstructed hernias. Data collection includes patient demographics and intervention details. Furthermore, data relating to the operating theatre team and the surgical instruments used will be collected in order to conduct a cost analysis. The study plans to enrol at least 500 patients from 50 participating centres, with each centre having a local lead and collaborators. All data will be collected and stored online through a secure server running the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) web application. Ethical considerations and data governance will be paramount, requiring local ethical committee approvals from participating centres.

DISCUSSION

Current literature and expert consensus suggest the feasibility of robotic surgery in emergencies with proper support. However, challenges include staff training, scheduling conflicts with elective surgeries, and increased costs. The ROEM study seeks to contribute valuable data on the safety, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery in emergency settings, focusing on specific pathologies. Previous studies on cholecystitis, abdominal hernias, and diverticulitis provide insights into the benefits and challenges of robotic approaches. It is necessary to identify patient populations that benefit most from robotic emergency surgery to optimize outcomes and justify costs.

ROBOtic Care Outcomes Project for acute gallbladder pathology

BACKGROUND

Robotic cholecystectomy is being increasingly used for patients with acute gallbladder disease who present to the emergency department, but clinical evidence is limited. We aimed to compare the outcomes of emergent laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomies in a large real-world database.

METHODS

Patients who received emergent laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomies from 2020 to 2022 were identified from the Intuitive Custom Hospital Analytics database, based on deidentified extraction of electronic health record data from US hospitals. Conversion to open or subtotal cholecystectomy and complications were defined using ICD10 and/or CPT codes. Multivariate logistic regression with inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to compare clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic approach after balancing covariates. Cost analysis was performed with activity-based costing and adjustment for inflation.

RESULTS

Of 26,786 laparoscopic and 3,151 robotic emergent cholecystectomy patients being included, 64% were female, 60% were ≥45 years, and 24% were obese. Approximately 5.5% patients presented with pancreatitis, and 4% each presenting with sepsis and biliary obstruction. After IPTW, distributions of all baseline covariates were balanced. Robotic cholecystectomy decreased odds of conversion to open (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.93; p = 0.035), but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.60; p = 0.037). Surgical site infection, readmission, length of stay, hospital acquired conditions, bile duct injury or leak, and hospital mortality were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in hospital cost.

CONCLUSION

Robotic cholecystectomy has reduced odds of conversion to open and comparable complications, but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute gallbladder diseases. Further work is required to assess the long-term implications of these differences.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

The increasing use of minimally invasive surgery in acute general surgical conditions: A decade of results from a national data set

BACKGROUND

To assess the rate of uptake of acute laparoscopic surgery for common general surgical conditions using national-level data.

METHODS

The use of laparoscopic surgery in the acute management of appendicitis, cholecystitis, adhesive small bowel obstruction, and inguinal hernias was assessed between 2013 and 2022 at a national level in New Zealand.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic appendicectomy increased from 83% to 95% (P = .0002). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy increased from 94% to 96% (P = .001). Laparoscopic adhesiolysis increased from 42% to 60% (P = .001). Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair increased from 3% to 18% (P = .004). The rate of laparoscopic conversion demonstrated a decrease for appendicectomy (1.9% to 0.24%), cholecystectomy (0.77% to 0.39%), and adhesiolysis (9% to 2.4%) across this time. The laparoscopic cohorts were all associated with a shorter and less expensive length of stay compared to the open cohort. Māori and Pacific Island patients had largely equitable or superior rates of laparoscopic use compared to the rest of the population. No changes in laparoscopic use were detected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rates of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and appendicectomy are similar throughout the regions. The largest difference in rates detected was for adhesiolysis, which was more common in the northern region.

CONCLUSION

There has been a statistically significant rise in the use of acute laparoscopic surgery for acute general surgical procedures. This rise is likely clinically and economically significant, particularly in appendicectomy and adhesiolysis, with rises of 12% and 17% across the 10 years, with the known associated patient and health care system benefits.

Racial disparities in complications following elective colon cancer resection: Impact of laparoscopic versus robotic approaches

BACKGROUND

We sought to examine differences in outcomes for Black and White patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic colectomy to assess the potential impact of technological advancement.

METHODS

We queried the ACS-NSQIP database for elective robotic (RC) and laparoscopic (LC) colectomy for cancer from 2012 to 2020. Outcomes included 30-day mortality and complications. We analyzed the association between outcomes, operative approach, and race using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 64,460 patients, 80.9% laparoscopic and 19.1% robotic. RC patients were most frequently younger, male, and White, with fewer comorbidities (P ​< ​0.001). After adjustment, there was no difference in mortality by approach or race. Black patients who underwent LC had higher complications (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.08, P ​= ​0.005) than their White LC counterparts and RC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic colectomy was associated with lower rates of complications in minority patients. Further investigation is required to identify the causal pathway that leads to our finding.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.