Hand-assisted hybrid laparoscopic-robotic total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch--anal anastomosis

Robotic proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: a hybrid approach

PURPOSE

Proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the definitive surgical treatment for patients with ulcerative colitis or familial adenomatous polyposis. While laparoscopic surgery has been widely adopted, robotic surgery has emerged as a promising alternative, particularly for complex pelvic dissection. However, the robotic learning curve presents significant challenges. This study introduces a hybrid approach combining robotic and laparoscopic techniques to leverage the strengths of both, with a focus on the impact of the robotic learning curve and surgical training.

METHODS

All patients undergoing hybrid or laparoscopic proctocolectomy with IPAA for ulcerative colitis between 2022 and 2024 were included. Data on patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes were collected prospectively. Primary outcomes were operating time and 30-day morbidity. All robotic procedures were performed by a consultant surgeon within their first 100 robotic cases.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients were included: 14 in the hybrid group and 11 in the laparoscopic group. The median operating time was 300 min for the hybrid approach versus 325 min for the laparoscopic approach. In the hybrid surgery group, between 72 and 90% of the laparoscopic part of the procedure was performed by a supervised surgical trainee.

CONCLUSIONS

The hybrid robotic-laparoscopic approach offers potential benefits over pure laparoscopy by reducing operative time and postoperative complications. Additionally, it provides a structured modular training opportunity, allowing surgeons to develop both laparoscopic and robotic skills, particularly during the early stages of their robotic learning curve.

Robotic Surgery for the Ileal Pouch

BACKGROUND

A robotic approach to total colectomy/proctectomy and ileal pouch reconstruction would seem to be a sensible use of the platform's enhanced reach, visualization, and dexterity.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to discuss current published data for robotic ileal pouch surgery.

STUDY SELECTION

The study selection included a paucity of published data to date, representing early learning curves and case series with small numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

Current robotic platforms may offer advantages, particularly in the low pelvis beyond what is found with a laparoscopic approach.

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 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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) is a curative and cancer preventative procedure in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). It can be technically difficult laparoscopically, and hence the robotic platform has been suggested as a way to enable minimally invasive surgery in more patients. This systematic review examines robotic proctectomy or proctocolectomy with IPAA. A limited meta-analysis was performed on data comparing the robotic approach to laparoscopy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane database for case series of robotic IPAA procedures and studies comparing the robotic to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data examined includes operating time, conversion to open, length of stay, complications, blood loss, return of bowel function, reoperation rate and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Five non-randomised studies compared robotic to laparoscopic techniques; one compared robotic to open surgery and three case series are included. Operating time was significantly longer in robotic cases. Estimated blood loss was significantly less in three of four studies which reported this; hospital stay was significantly less in two. There were nonsignificant reductions in complications and readmission rates. Pooled analysis of four papers with adequate data showed a nonstatistically significant trend to less complications in robotic procedures. Three studies assessed functional and quality of life outcomes, with little difference between the platforms.

CONCLUSIONS

Available data suggests that the robotic platform is safe to use for IPAA procedures. There is minimal evidence for clinical advantages, but with little data to base decisions and significant potential for improvements in technique and cost-effectiveness, further use of the platform for this operation is warranted. It is vital that this occurs within an evaluation framework.

[Robotic Assisted Proctocolectomy with Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis in a Case of Suspected Hereditary Polyposis]

BACKGROUND

Various forms of hereditary polyposis have been described in the literature. Classical familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a rare, autosomal dominantly inherited disease which is caused by a germline mutation in the adenomatous polyposis coli gene (APC). Patients with this diagnosis successively develop multiple polyps of the colon. Left untreated, FAP almost inevitably leads to malignant transformation.

INDICATION

We present the case of a 37-year-old patient with histologically confirmed, stenotic adenocarcinoma of the descending colon and an initially suspected hereditary polyposis due to multiple polyps in the descending and sigmoid colon.

METHODS

The video describes the preoperative imaging as well as endoscopic findings and demonstrates the technique of a two-stage, robotically assisted proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and the creation of a temporary loop ileostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to the surgical treatment of classic FAP, restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) with ileal J-pouch construction can be regarded as an established standard procedure, despite controversy regarding various technical aspects. Minimally invasive strategies should be considered as an equivalent option compared to conventional techniques.

Case-Matched Comparison of Long-Term Functional and Quality of Life Outcomes Following Laparoscopic Versus Open Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is associated with recovery benefits when compared with open IPAA. There is limited data on long-term quality of life and functional outcomes, which this study aimed to assess.

METHODS

An IRB-approved, prospectively maintained database was queried to identify patients undergoing laparoscopic IPAA (L), case-matched with open IPAA (O) based on age ± 5 years, gender, body mass index (BMI) ± 5 kg/m2, diagnosis, date of surgery ± 3 years, stapled/handsewn anastomosis, omission of diverting loop ileostomy and length of follow-up ± 3 years. We assessed functional results, dietary, social, work, sexual restrictions and the Cleveland Clinic global quality of life score (CGQoL) at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 years postoperatively. Functional outcomes were assessed based on number of stools (day/night) and seepage protection use (day/night). Variables were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves, uni- and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Out of 4595 IPAAs, 529 patients underwent L, of whom 404 patients were well matched 1:1 to an equivalent number of O based on all criteria. Median follow-ups were 2 (0.5-17.8) versus 2.4 (0.5-22.2) years in L versus O, respectively (p = 0.18). L was associated with significantly decreased number of stools at night and less frequent pad usage at 1 year, both during the day and at night. Functional outcomes became similar during further follow-up. L was also associated with improved overall CGQoL, and energy scores at 1 year postoperatively, and decreased social restrictions for 1-2 years. There were no significant differences in quality of health, dietary, work or sexual restrictions. Laparoscopy was not associated with increased risk of pouch failure (p = 0.07) or significantly different causes of pouch failure when compared to O.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and open IPAA are associated with equivalent long-term functional outcomes, quality of life and pouch survival rates. Laparoscopic technique is associated with temporary benefits lasting 1 or 2 years.

Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of robotic colorectal resections for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic literature review

The purpose of this study was to assess outcome measures and cost-effectiveness of robotic colorectal resections in adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The Cochrane Library, PubMed/Medline and Embase databases were reviewed, using the text "robotic(s)" AND ("inflammatory bowel disease" OR "Crohn's" OR "Ulcerative Colitis"). Two investigators screened abstracts for eligibility. All English language full-text articles were reviewed for specified outcomes. Data were presented in a summarised and aggregate form, since the lack of higher-level evidence studies precluded meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included mortality and postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included readmission rate, length of stay, conversion rate, procedure time, estimated blood loss and functional outcome. The tertiary outcome was cost-effectiveness. Eight studies (3 case-matched observational studies, 4 case series and 1 case report) met the inclusion criteria. There was no reported mortality. Overall, complications occurred in 81 patients (54%) including 30 (20%) Clavien-Dindo III-IV complications. Mean length of stay was 8.6 days. Eleven cases (7.3%) were converted to open. The mean robotic operating time was 99 min out of a mean total operating time of 298.6 min. Thirty-two patients (24.7%) were readmitted. Functional outcomes were comparable among robotic, laparoscopic and open approaches. Case-matched observational studies comparing robotic to laparoscopic surgery revealed a significantly longer procedure time; however, conversion, complication, length of stay and readmission rates were similar. The case-matched observational study comparing robotic to open surgery also revealed a longer procedure time and a higher readmission rate; postoperative complication rates and length of stay were similar. No studies compared cost-effectiveness between robotic and traditional approaches. Although robotic resections for inflammatory bowel disease are technically feasible, outcomes must be interpreted with caution due to low-quality studies.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of various parameters related to the patient, the disease, and the needed surgical maneuvers to develop guidance for preoperative selection of the appropriate and the best approach for a given patient. Rapid advances in minimally invasive surgical technology are fascinating and challenging alike. It can be difficult for surgeons to keep up with new modalities that come on to the market place and to assess their true value, i.e., distinguish between fashionable trends versus scientific evidence. Laparoscopy established minimally invasive surgery and has revolutionized surgical concepts and approaches to diseases since its advent in the early 1990s. Now, with robotic surgery rapidly gaining traction in this high-tech surgical landscape, it remains to be seen how the long-term surgical landscape will be affected.

METHODS

Review of the surgical evolution, published data and cost factors to reflect on advantages and disadvantages in order to develop a broader perspective on the role of various technology platforms.

RESULTS

Advocates for robotic technology tout its advantages of 3D views, articulating wrists, lack of hand tremor, and surgeon comfort, which may extend the scope of minimally invasive surgery by allowing for operations in places that are more difficult to access for laparoscopic surgery (e.g., the deep pelvis), for complex tasks (e.g., intracorporeal suturing), and by decreasing the learning curve. But conventional laparoscopy has also evolved and offers high-definition 3D vision to all team members. It remains to be seen whether all together the robot features outweigh the downsides of higher cost, operative times, lack of tactile feedback, possibly unusual complications, inability to move the operative table with ease, and the difficulty to work in different quadrants.

CONCLUSIONS

While technical and design developments will likely address some shortcomings, the value-based impact of the various approaches will have to be examined in general and on a case-by-case basis. Value as the ratio of quality over cost depends on numerous parameters (disease, complications, patient, efficiency, finances).

Initial experience of restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis by transanal total mesorectal rectal excision and single-incision abdominal laparoscopic surgery

AIM

Laparoscopic surgery is well established for colon cancer, with defined benefits. Use of laparoscopy for the performance of restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) with ileoanal anastomosis is more controversial. Technical aspects include difficult dissection of the distal rectum and a potentially increased risk of anastomotic leakage through multiple firings of the stapler. In an attempt to overcome these difficulties we have used the technique of transanal rectal excision to perform the proctectomy. This paper describes the technique, which is combined with an abdominal approach using a single-incision platform (SIP).

METHOD

Data were collected prospectively for consecutive operations between May 2013 and October 2015, including all cases of restorative proctocolectomy with ileoanal pouch anastomosis performed laparoscopically. Only patients having a transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) assisted by SIP were included. The indication for RPC was ulcerative colitis (UC) refractory to medical treatment.

RESULTS

The procedure was performed on 16 patients with a median age of 46 (26-70) years. The male:female ratio was 5:3 and the median hospital stay was 6 (3-20) days. The median operation time was 247 (185-470) min and the overall conversion rate to open surgery was 18.7%. The 30-day surgical complication rate was 37.5% (Clavien-Dindo 1 in four patients, 2 in one patient and 3 in one patient). One patient developed anastomotic leakage 2 weeks postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

This initial study has demonstrated the feasibility and safety of TaTME combined with SIP when performing RPC with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for UC.