Robotic left colon cancer resection: a dual docking technique that maximizes splenic flexure mobilization

A multi-docking strategy for robotic LAR and deep pelvic surgery with the Hugo RAS system: experience from a tertiary referral center

INTRODUCTION

In June 2023, our institution adopted the Medtronic Hugo RAS system for colorectal procedures. This system's independent robotic arms enable personalized docking configurations. This study presents our refined multi-docking strategy for robotic low anterior resection (LAR) and deep pelvic procedures, designed to maximize the Hugo RAS system's potential in rectal surgery, and evaluates the associated learning curve.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 31 robotic LAR procedures performed with the Hugo RAS system using our novel multi-docking strategy. Docking times were the primary outcome. The Mann-Kendall test, Spearman's correlation, and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis were used to assess the learning curve and efficiency gains associated with the strategy.

RESULTS

Docking times showed a significant negative trend (p < 0.01), indicating improved efficiency with experience. CUSUM analysis confirmed a distinct learning curve, with proficiency achieved around the 15th procedure. The median docking time was 6 min, comparable to other robotic platforms after proficiency.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the feasibility and effectiveness of a multi-docking strategy in robotic LAR using the Hugo RAS system. Our personalized approach, capitalizing on the system's unique features, resulted in efficient docking times and streamlined surgical workflow. This approach may be particularly beneficial for surgeons transitioning from laparoscopic to robotic surgery, facilitating a smoother adoption of the new technology. Further research is needed to validate the generalizability of these findings across different surgical settings and experience levels.

A comprehensive evaluation of 80 consecutive robotic low anterior resections: impact of not mobilizing the splenic flexure alongside low-tie vascular ligation as a standardized technique

Rectal cancer surgery represents challenges due to its location. To overcome them and minimize the risk of anastomosis-related complications, some technical maneuvers or even a diverting ileostomy may be required. One of these technical steps is the mobilization of the splenic flexure (SFM), especially in medium/low rectal cancer. High-tie vascular ligation may be another one. However, the need of these maneuvers may be controversial, as especially SFM may be time-consuming and increase the risk of iatrogenic. The objective is to present the short- and long-term outcomes of a low-tie ligation combined with no SFM in robotic low anterior resection (LAR) for mid- and low rectal cancer as a standardized technique. A retrospective observational single-cohort study was carried out at Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba, Spain. 221 robotic rectal resections between Jul-18th-2018 and Jan-12th-2023 were initially considered. After case selection, 80 consecutive robotic LAR performed by a single surgeon were included. STROBE checklist assessed the methodological quality. Histopathological, morbidity and oncological outcomes were assessed. Anastomotic stricture occurrence and distance to anal verge were evaluated after LAR by rectosigmoidoscopy. Variables related to the ileostomy closure such as time to closure, post-operative complications or hospital stay were also considered. The majority of patients (81.2%) presented a mid-rectal cancer and the rest, lower location (18.8%). All patients had adequate perfusion of the anastomotic stump assessed by indocyanine green. Complete total mesorectal excision was performed in 98.8% of the patients with a lymph node ratio < 0.2 in 91.3%. The anastomotic leakage rate was 5%. One patient (1.5%) presented local recurrence. Anastomosis stricture occurred in 7.5% of the patients. The limitations were small cohort and retrospective design. The non-mobilization of the splenic flexure with a low-tie ligation in robotic LAR is a feasible and safe procedure that does not affect oncological outcomes.

The deconstructed procedural description in robotic colorectal surgery

Increasing robotic surgical utilisation in colorectal surgery internationally has strengthened the need for standardised training. Deconstructed procedural descriptions identify components of an operation that can be integrated into proficiency-based progression training. This approach allows both access to skill level appropriate training opportunities and objective and comparable assessment. Robotic colorectal surgery has graded difficulty of operative procedures lending itself ideally to component training. Developing deconstructed procedural descriptions may assist in the structure and progression components in robotic colorectal surgical training. There is no currently published guide to procedural descriptions in robotic colorectal surgical or assessment of their training utility. This scoping review was conducted in June 2022 following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines to identify which robotic colorectal surgical procedures have available component-based procedural descriptions. Secondary aims were identifying the method of development of these descriptions and how they have been adapted in a training context. 20 published procedural descriptions were identified covering 8 robotic colorectal surgical procedures with anterior resection the most frequently described procedure. Five publications included descriptions of how the procedural description has been utilised for education and training. From these publications terminology relating to using deconstructed procedural descriptions in robotic colorectal surgical training is proposed. Development of deconstructed robotic colorectal procedural descriptions (DPDs) in an international context may assist in the development of a global curriculum of component operating competencies supported by objective metrics. This will allow for standardisation of robotic colorectal surgical training and supports a proficiency-based training approach.

Safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for colon cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery: a propensity score-matching analysis

Robotic surgery is widely used in gastrointestinal surgery. While the application of robotic surgery for colon cancer patients with previous abdominal surgery (PAS) remains controversial for the fear of intra-abdominal adhesions. This study was aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic colectomy for patients with PAS. The medical records of colon cancer patients who underwent robotic surgery at our hospital from June 2015 to August 2020 were extracted and analyzed. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was implemented to minimize selection bias. We compared perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications between the patients with PAS or with no PAS (NPAS). A total of 79 patients (PAS group) and 348 patients (NPAS group) were included in our study. After PSM, 79 patients of PAS group and 79 patients of NPAS group were selected for further analysis. We did not find statistical difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph nodes retrieved, length of hospital stay and hospital costs between the two groups. No difference was noted in the incidence of postoperative complications, conversion to open surgery and mortality between the two groups. According to the results of multivariate analysis, PAS was not identified as risk factor for postoperative complications. Left hemicolectomy and perioperative transfusion were associated with postoperative complications. PAS did not negatively affect the outcomes of robotic colectomy. After individually preoperative assessment, robotic surgery could be performed feasibly and safely for colon cancer patients with PAS.

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.

Technical essential aspects in robotic colorectal surgery: mastering the Da Vinci Si and Xi platforms

BACKGROUND

laparoscopy surgery has many proven clinical advantages over conventional surgery and more recently, robotic surgery has been the emerging platform in the minimally invasive era. In the colorectal field, although overcoming limitations of standard laparoscopy, robotic surgery still faces challenging situations even by the most experienced colorectal surgeons. This study reports essentials technical aspects and comparison between Da Vincis Si and Xi platforms aiming to master and maximize efficiency whenever performing robotic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

this study overviews the most structured concepts and practical applications in robotic colorectal surgery in both Si and Xi Da Vinci platforms. Possible pitfalls are emphasized and step-wise approach is described from port placement and docking process to surgical technique. We also present data collected from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

our early experience includes forty-four patients following a standardized total robotic left-colon and rectal resection. Guided information and practical applications for a safe and efficient robotic colorectal surgery are described. We also present illustrations and describe technical aspects of a standardized procedure.

CONCLUSION

performing robotic colorectal surgery is feasible and safe in experienced surgeons hands. Although the Da Vinci Xi platform demonstrates greater versatility in a more user-friendly design with technological advances, the correct mastery of technology by the surgical team is an essential condition for its fully robotic execution in a single docking approach.

Single-docking robotic-assisted artery-guided segmental splenic flexure colectomy for splenic flexure cancer-a propensity score-matching analysis

Background

Splenic flexure cancer (SFC) is a rare condition in colorectal cancer (CRC). The appropriate surgical treatment for SFC remains controversial. In recent years, we have used artery-guided segmental splenic flexure colectomy (ASFC) to treat SFC in which robotic access is gradually applied. The study sought to assess the clinical and oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted ASFC compared to laparoscopic-assisted ASFC for SFC by undertaking a propensity score-matching analysis.

Methods

Seventy patients underwent a robotic-assisted ASFC (n=19) or laparoscopic-assisted ASFC (n=51) to treat SFC from Dec 2015 to Dec 2019. Their data were prospectively collected. The patients were matched at a ratio of 1:1 according to sex, age, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (≤2 or >2), previous abdominal surgeries, and pathologic stage.

Results

No statistically significant differences were found between the robotic- and laparoscopic-assisted ASFC groups in relation to operation time, estimated blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay, time to liquid diet, postoperative complications, tumor size, distal resection margins, histology, lymph node harvest, metastatic lymph nodes, and neuro-vascular invasion. Additionally, no case was converted to a laparotomy. There were no cases readmission or mortality within 30 days of surgery. The distal resection margins were longer in the robotic-assisted ASFC group than the laparoscopic-assisted ASFC group. The robotic-assisted ASFC group had significantly higher operation expenses than the laparoscopic-assisted ASFC group. However, there was no significant difference in the surgical material expenses between the two groups. There were 2 cases of complications in each group; both cases were classified as grade I or II under Dindo's classification of surgical complications.

Conclusions

With the exception of operation expenses, robotic-assisted ASFC rivals laparoscopic-assisted ASFC in many respects. ASFC meets the recommended oncological criteria in terms of resection margins and lymph node harvest. We await the results for the long-term oncologic outcomes.

Surgical technique for mesorectal division during robot-assisted laparoscopic tumor-specific mesorectal excision (TSME) for rectal cancer using da Vinci Si surgical system: the simple switching technique (SST)

In a narrow pelvic cavity, performing sufficient tumor-specific mesorectal excision (TSME) is difficult. Even in robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS), mesorectal division is difficult in a narrow pelvic cavity. To overcome this difficulty, we invented a novel method of mesorectal division. In this new approach, we switched the fenestrated bipolar forceps and the double-fenestrated forceps with each other so that both instruments were placed on the same (right) side of the patient. After the mesorectal fat and vessels were coagulated using the fenestrated bipolar forceps, coagulated tissues were divided using the monopolar scissors in the same direction. We named this technique the "simple switching technique (SST)". We retrospectively collected data and evaluated the usefulness of SST in 24 consecutive patients who underwent RALS TSME between July 2018 and January 2020. Twelve patients underwent SST, and 12 patients underwent other conventional surgical methods (non-SST). The median operation time for mesorectal division was 809.5 s (range 395-1491 s) in the SST group and 985.5 s (range 493-2353 s) in the non-SST group. The coefficient of variation for non-SST was 0.545, which was > 1.5 times the coefficient of 0.360 for SST. Although no significant differences were found for operation time for mesorectal division, the operation time for mesorectal division by SST tended to be shorter than by non-SST (P = 0.157). No significant differences were found regarding short-term outcomes between the groups. SST is feasible and can be an optional method of mesorectal division in RALS TSME.

A roadmap for robotic-assisted sigmoid resection in diverticular disease using a Senhance™ Surgical Robotic System: results and technical aspects

Since the turn of the century, robotic-assisted colorectal surgery has been synonymous with the da Vinci® robotic surgical system. We report in this study our first results in robotic-assisted sigmoid resection for diverticular disease using the Senhance™ Surgical Robotic System, while introducing a standardized roadmap for engaging the robotic arms. 12 patients underwent a sigmoid resection using the Senhance™ Surgical Robotic System. All four arms of the robotic system were engaged during all procedures according to a previously devised roadmap. A 4-trocar technique was used in all patients. Perioperative data, including those regarding technical difficulties, were collected and analyzed. Two procedures were converted into standard laparoscopy. There were no conversions to open surgery. The mean age of the patients was 62.5 years (47-79). One third of the patients were males. The mean BMI was 27 kg/m2 (19-38). The mean operative time, the mean console time and the mean docking time were 219 min (204-305), 149 min (124-205) and 10 min (6-15), respectively. The mean length of stay was 9 days (6-15). There was one major complication (8.3%, Clavien-Dindo IIIb). There were no mortalities. No other complications were observed. No patients were readmitted after discharge. The Senhance™ Surgical Robotic System can be used safely in sigmoid resection for diverticular disease after adequate training and systematic planning of the different steps of the procedure. Further experience is needed to judge the benefit for patient and surgeon, as well as the cost and time effectiveness.

Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives

Purpose

As robotic surgery is increasingly performed in patients with colorectal diseases, understanding proper port placement for robotic colorectal surgery is necessary. This review summarizes current port placement during robotic surgery for colorectal diseases and provides future perspective on port placements.

Methods

PubMed were searched from January 2009 to December 2018 using a combination of the search terms “robotic” [MeSH], “colon” [MeSH], “rectum” [MeSH], “colorectal” [MeSH], and “colorectal surgery” [MeSH]. Studies related to port placement were identified and included in the current study if they used the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi robotic system and if they described port placement.

Results

This review included 77 studies including a total of 3,145 operations. Fifty studies described port placement for left-sided and mesorectal excision; 17, 3, and 7 studies assessed port placement for right-sided colectomy, rectopexy, transanal surgery, respectively; and one study assessed surgery with reduced port placement. Recent literatures show that the single-docking technique included mobilization of the second and third robotic arms for the different parts without movement of patient cart and similar to previous dual or triple-docking technique. Besides, use of the da Vinci Xi system allowed a more simplified port configuration.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted colorectal surgery can be efficiently achieved with successful port placement without movement of patient cart dependent on the type of surgery and the robotic system.

Robotic simultaneous resection for colorectal liver metastasis: feasibility for all types of liver resection

BACKGROUND

A laparoscopic approach is increasingly being utilized in simultaneous colorectal and liver resection (SCLR) for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis. However, this approach is technically challenging and hence has not been widely adopted. Robotic surgical systems could potentially overcome this problem. We aim to describe the feasibility and outcomes of robotic SCLR for colorectal carcinoma with liver metastasis.

METHODS

The medical records of 12 patients who underwent robotic SCLR for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis between January 2008 and September 2018 were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The mean age was 59 years (range, 37-77 years). The liver resections were comprised of two right hepatectomies, one left hepatectomy, one left lateral sectionectomy, one segmentectomy of S3 and wedge resection (segment 7), one caudate lobectomy, one associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and five wedge resections involving segments 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8. The colorectal procedures involved seven low-anterior resections, two anterior resections, two right hemicolectomies, and one left hemicolectomy. The mean operative time was 449 min (range, 135-682 min) with a mean estimated blood loss of 274.3 mL (range, 40-780 mL). The mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (range, 5-28 days). No patients required conversion to laparotomy. Liver resection-related complications were two liver abscesses (Clavien-Dindo classification, one grade II and one grade III) and one case of ascites (grade I), whereas colorectal resection-related complications included one anastomosis leak (grade III) and one superficial wound infection (grade II). There were no deaths reported within 30 days of the procedure. With a mean follow-up duration of 31.5 ± 26.1 months, the overall survival and disease-free survival values were 75.2 and 47.1 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Robotic SCLR for colorectal neoplasm with liver metastasis can be performed safely even in cases requiring major liver resections, especially in a specialized center with a well-trained team.

Standardize the Surgical Technique and Clarify the Relevant Anatomic Concept for Complete Mobilization of Colonic Splenic Flexure Using da Vinci Xi® Robotic System

BACKGROUND

The present study is to set up a standardized approach for complete mobilization of colonic splenic flexure using da Vinci Xi^® robotic system, based on clarification of the mesenteric structures of distal transverse colon.

METHODS

The surgical outcomes and relevant anatomic structures of 104 consecutive patients undergoing robotic resection of primary colorectal cancer with the intent of complete mobilization of colonic splenic flexure using da Vinci Xi^® robotic system were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Complete mobilization of colonic splenic flexure can be efficiently performed by the Xi^® robotic system, as demonstrated by short operation time, minimal intra-operative blood loss, and few surgical complications. Xi^® robotic system has overcome the drawbacks of Si^® robotic system for the mobilization of colonic splenic flexure. The present study defined the following anatomic hallmarks for the colonic splenic flexure: (1) The transverse mesocolon distal to the inferior mesenteric vein adheres to the low border of pancreas by the avascular fibrous connective tissues, which have been inappropriately named as "mesenteric root"; (2) The colonic splenic flexure abuts closely to spleen with an acute angle in 78.85% (n = 82/104); (3) Only a minority of patients presented with the Riolan branch (15.38%, n = 16/104) or the Moskowitz artery (8.65%, n = 9/104).

CONCLUSION

With increased maneuverability of Xi^® robotic arms and the clarification of relevant anatomic concept, the surgical technique for the complete mobilization of colonic splenic flexure can be standardized; and the standardization of surgical technique is the first step toward the enhanced automation in the rapidly evolving robotic systems.

[Standardized access options for colorectal surgery with the da Vinci Xi system]

BACKGROUND

Performing colorectal surgery with previous da Vinci system generations presented some limitations that caused uncertainty for surgeons as they began to apply robotic technologies. The da Vinci Xi system is designed to overcome these limitations and to enable multiquadrant colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The design concept of the da Vinci Xi system and the standardized access for colorectal surgery are explained.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The da Vinci Xi system applies an overhead boom that maximizes the arm workspace, minimizes interference and makes the port placement universal for standardized access. Colorectal approaches have been validated in numerous cadaver models confirming the reproducibility of the standardized access.

RESULTS

Standardized access with a straight-line port placement is possible in all colorectal applications. For right-sided hemicolectomy, a transverse abdominal approach as well as a suprapubic port placement are possible. Utilizing the same principles, left-sided colectomy, sigmoid colectomy and low anterior resections can be performed. Proctocolectomy is enabled through boom rotation and a second docking. Only minor arm-to-arm interferences occurred and were easily manageable by the bedside assistant. None of the approaches required rearrangement of the patient cart or swapping arms to different port locations.

CONCLUSION

The da Vinci Xi system enables a standardized access for colorectal surgery through a universal straight-line port placement. Learning this standard principle once enables the surgeon to apply it to all colorectal surgeries and shorten the learning curve as well as minimizing stress for both novices and experienced robotic surgeons learning a new surgical robotic platform.

A prospective, single-arm study on the use of the da Vinci® Table Motion with the Trumpf TS7000dV operating table

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci® Table Motion (dVTM) comprises a combination of a unique operating table (Trumpf Medical™ TruSystem® 7000dV) capable of isocenter motion connected wirelessly with the da Vinci Xi® robotic platform, thereby enabling patients to be repositioned without removal of instruments and or undocking the robot.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between May 2015 to October 2015, the first human use of dVTM was carried out in this prospective, single-arm, post-market study in the EU, for which 40 patients from general surgery (GS), urology (U), or gynecology (G) were enrolled prospectively. Primary endpoints of the study were dVTM feasibility, efficacy, and safety.

RESULTS

Surgeons from the three specialties obtained targeting success and the required table positioning in all cases. Table movement/repositioning was necessary to gain exposure of the operating field in 106/116 table moves (91.3%), change target in 2/116 table moves (1.7%), achieve hemodynamic relief in 4/116 table moves (3.5%), and improve external access for tumor removal in 4/116 table moves (3.5%). There was a significantly higher use of tilt and tilt plus Trendelenburg in GS group (GS vs. U p = 0.055 and GS vs. G p = 0.054). There were no dVTM safety-related or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The dVTM with TruSystem 7000dV operating table in wireless communication with the da Vinci Xi is a perfectly safe and effective synergistic combination, which allows repositioning of the patient whenever needed without imposing any delay in the execution of the operation. Moreover, it is helpful in avoiding extreme positions and enables the anesthesiologist to provide immediate and effective hemodynamic relief to the patient when needed.

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.

Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy

PROPOSE

The use of robotic surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer is increasing steadily worldwide. However, there are insufficient data on long-term outcomes of robotic surgery in this clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year oncological outcomes of laparoscopic vs. robotic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred thirty-eight patients who underwent robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64) resections between January 2006 and December 2010 for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT were identified from a prospective database. The long-term oncological outcomes of these patients were analyzed using prospective follow-up data.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 56.1 ± 16.6 months (range 11-101). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of the laparoscopic and robotic groups was 93.3 and 90.0 %, respectively, (p = 0424). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 76.0 % (laparoscopic) vs. 76.8 % (robotic) (p = 0.834). In a subgroup analysis according to the yp-stage (complete pathologic response, yp-stage I, yp-stage II, or yp-stage III), the between-group oncological outcomes were not significantly different. The local recurrence rate was 6.3 % (laparoscopic, n = 4) vs. 2.7 % (robotic, n = 2) (p = 0.308). The systemic recurrence rate was 15.6 % (laparoscopic, n = 10) vs. 18.9 % (robotic, n = 14) (p = 0.644). All recurrences occurred within less than 36 months in both groups. The median period of recurrence was 14.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT can be performed safely, with long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those obtained with laparoscopic surgery. More large-scale studies and long-term follow-up data are needed.

Multiquadrant robotic colorectal surgery: the da Vinci Xi vs Si comparison

The newly introduced da Vinci Xi Surgical System hopes to address the shortcomings of its predecessor, specifically robotic arm restrictions and difficulty working in multiple quadrants. We compare the two robot platforms in multiquadrant surgery at a major colorectal referral center. Forty-four patients in the da Vinci Si group and 26 patients in the Xi group underwent sigmoidectomy or low anterior resection between 2014 and 2016. Patient demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared using descriptive statistics. Both groups were similar in age, sex, BMI, pelvic surgeries, and ASA class. Splenic flexure was mobilized in more (p = 0.045) da Vinci Xi cases compared to da Vinci Si both for sigmoidectomy (50 vs 15.4%) and low anterior resection (60 vs 29%). There was no significant difference in operative time (219.9 vs 224.7 min; p = 0.640), blood loss (170.0 vs 188.1 mL; p = 0.289), length of stay (5.7 vs 6 days; p = 0.851), or overall complications (26.9 vs 22.7%; p = 0.692) between the da Vinci Xi and Si groups, respectively. Single-dock multiquadrant robotic surgery, measured by splenic flexure mobilization with concomitant pelvic dissection, was more frequently performed using the da Vinci Xi platform with no increase in operative time, bleeding, or postoperative complications. The new platform provides surgeons an easier alternative to the da Vinci Si dual docking or combined robotic/laparoscopic multiquadrant surgery.

Current status of robotic single-port colonic surgery

INTRODUCTION

The present paper reviews evidence and examines updates in single-port robotic surgery for colonic diseases reported in contemporary studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive online systematic search of PubMed databases was carried out in June 2015, identifying studies conducted on robotic single-port colectomy from 2008 to 2015.

RESULTS

The advantages and disadvantages of several available port-access systems, techniques for configuring robotic arms, and robotic surgical platforms, were presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Current studies show that single-port robotic colectomy is a safe and feasible procedure despite the lack of supporting evidence. Although significant advancements in the development and modification of single-access ports, configuration of robotic arms, and robotic surgical platforms have been achieved in the field of single-port robotic surgery for colonic disease, significant improvements to surgical platforms for single-port robotic surgery are needed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Use of the new da Vinci Xi® during robotic rectal resection for cancer: a pilot matched-case comparison with the da Vinci Si®

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic rectal resection with total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, with the use of the new da Vinci Xi® (Xi-RobTME group) and the da Vinci Si® (Si-RobTME group).

METHODS

Ten patients with histologically confirmed rectal cancer underwent robot-assisted TME with the use of the new da Vinci Xi. The outcomes of Xi-RobTME group were compared with a Si-RobTME group selected using a case-matched methodology.

RESULTS

Overall operative times and mean hospital stays were shorter in the Xi-RobTME group. Surgeries were fully robotic with a complete take-down of the splenic flexure in all Xi-RobTME cases, while only four cases of the Si-RobTME group were fully robotic, with two cases of complete take-down of the splenic flexure.

CONCLUSIONS

The new da Vinci Xi could offer some advantages with respect to the da Vinci Si in rectal resection for cancer. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A novel approach for robotic mobilization of the splenic flexure

BACKGROUND

The techniques of robotic splenic flexure mobilization in the colorectal surgery setting are not well defined and have been challenging due to limited range of motion of the second-generation robotic platform in multiple quadrants.

METHODS

This report describes a novel technique for robotic splenic flexure mobilization with medial-to-lateral approach without a need for robotic cart repositioning during left-sided colon and rectal surgery. The dissection is started with ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery and vein. Unique in this approach, entering the lesser sac is accomplished by extension of the dissection cranially by lifting up the mesocolon from the anterior surface of the pancreatic body toward the stomach.

RESULTS

This technique presented in the video allows the mobilization of the splenic flexure without excessive tractions and avoidance of potential splenic injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

The described novel approach demonstrates total robotic splenic flexure takedown without excessive traction, with improved visualization, and reduction of potential risk of splenic injury. This approach provides totally robotic mobilization of the splenic flexure at single docking without changing the patient's position.

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.

Long-term oncological outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision of mid-low rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy

PROPOSE

The use of robotic surgery and neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for rectal cancer is increasing steadily worldwide. However, there are insufficient data on long-term outcomes of robotic surgery in this clinical setting. The aim of this study was to compare the 5-year oncological outcomes of laparoscopic vs. robotic total mesorectal excision for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred thirty-eight patients who underwent robotic (n = 74) or laparoscopic (n = 64) resections between January 2006 and December 2010 for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT were identified from a prospective database. The long-term oncological outcomes of these patients were analyzed using prospective follow-up data.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period was 56.1 ± 16.6 months (range 11-101). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of the laparoscopic and robotic groups was 93.3 and 90.0 %, respectively, (p = 0424). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 76.0 % (laparoscopic) vs. 76.8 % (robotic) (p = 0.834). In a subgroup analysis according to the yp-stage (complete pathologic response, yp-stage I, yp-stage II, or yp-stage III), the between-group oncological outcomes were not significantly different. The local recurrence rate was 6.3 % (laparoscopic, n = 4) vs. 2.7 % (robotic, n = 2) (p = 0.308). The systemic recurrence rate was 15.6 % (laparoscopic, n = 10) vs. 18.9 % (robotic, n = 14) (p = 0.644). All recurrences occurred within less than 36 months in both groups. The median period of recurrence was 14.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer after neoadjuvant CRT can be performed safely, with long-term oncological outcomes comparable to those obtained with laparoscopic surgery. More large-scale studies and long-term follow-up data are needed.

Reduced-port robotic anterior resection for left-sided colon cancer using the Da Vinci single-site(®) platform

BACKGROUND

Single-Site(®) port plus one conventional robotic port, a reduced-port robotic surgery (RPRS) for left-sided colorectal cancer, can enable lymphovascular dissection using the Endowrist(®) function; this allows safe rectal transection through an additional port and maintains the cosmetic advantage of single-incision laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Between August 2014 and December 2014, the study group included 11 patients who underwent a RPRS for left-sided colon cancer.

RESULTS

There was one (9.1%) case of descending colon cancer, six (54.5%) cases of sigmoid colon cancer, and four (36.4%) cases of rectosigmoid colon cancer. The mean total operation time and docking time were 289±77 and 17±7 min. The mean times to soft diet and possible length of stay were 5.6±0.8 and 7.4±0.7 days. The mean total number of lymph nodes harvested was 18.7±7.9. The mean proximal and distal resection margins were 7.8±4.7 and 4.7±2.4 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced-port robotic surgery for left-sided colon cancer using the Single-Site(®) system appears to be feasible and safe using the new robotic single-access platform. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes between robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colonic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Reports from several case series have described the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery (RS) for colonic cancer. Experience is still limited in robotic colonic surgery, and a few meta-analysis has been conducted to integrate the results for colon cancer specifically. We conducted a systematic review of the available evidence comparing the surgical safety and efficacy of RS with that of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for colonic cancer.

Methods

We searched English databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library), and Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi). Dichotomous variables were pooled using the risk ratio, and continuous variables were pooled using the mean difference (MD).

Results

The present study found that the RS group had a shorter time to resumption of a regular diet (MD, –0.62 days; 95% CI, –0.97 to –0.28), first passage of flatus (MD, –0.44 days; 95% CI, –0.66 to –0.23) and defecation (MD, –0.62 days; 95% CI, –0.77 to –0.47). Also, RS was associated with a shorter hospital stay (MD, –0.69 days; 95% CI, –1.12 to –0.26), a lower estimated blood loss (MD, –19.49 mL; 95% CI, –27.10 to –11.89) and a longer proximal margin (MD, 2.29 cm; 95% CI, 1.11-3.47). However, RS was associated with a longer surgery time (MD, 51.00 minutes; 95% CI, 39.38–62.62).

Conclusion

We found that the potential benefits of perioperative and short-term outcomes for RS than for CLS. For a more accurate understanding of RS for colonic cancer patients, robust comparative studies and randomized clinical trials are required.

Initial experience of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer: a matched case-control study

Background

Robotic surgery for transverse colon cancer has rarely been described. This study reports our initial experience in robotic resection for transverse colon cancer, by comparing robotic transverse colectomy (RC) to laparoscopic transverse colectomy (LC) in terms of safety, feasibility, short-term outcomes, and the surgeon’s psychological stress and physical pain.

Methods

The study population included the first 22 consecutive patients who underwent RC between March 2013 and December 2014 for histologically confirmed transverse colon adenocarcinoma. These patients were compared with 22 matched patients undergoing LC between December 2010 and February 2013. Patients were matched based on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor stage, and tumor location (ratio 1:1). Mortality, morbidity, operative, and short-term oncologic outcomes were compared between groups. The operating surgeon’s stress and pain were assessed before and after surgery on a 0–100-mm visual analog scale.

Results

The demographic and preoperative characteristics were comparable between RC and LC patients. No group difference was observed for intraoperative complications, blood loss, postoperative pain, time to flatus, time to regular diet, and hospital stay. RC was associated with longer operative time than LC (260 min vs. 225 min; p = 0.014), but the overall operative and robotic time in the RC group decreased over time reflecting the increasing experience in performing this procedure. No conversion to laparotomy was observed in the RC group, while two LC patients were converted due to uncontrolled bleeding and technically difficult middle colic pedicle dissection. Postoperative complications (Dindo-Clavien grade I or II) occurred in 11.3 % of patients with no group difference. Mortality was nil. All resections were R0, with >12 lymph nodes harvested in 90.9 % of RC and 95.5 % of LC patients. The surgeon’s stress was not different between RC and LC, whereas the surgeon’s hand and neck/shoulder pain were significantly lower after RC.

Conclusions

RC for transverse colon cancer appears to be safe and feasible with short-term outcomes comparable to LC.