Intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy: short-term outcomes of a multi-center prospective trial

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review of the evidence

Robotics may facilitate the realization of fully minimally invasive right hemicolectomy, including intra-corporeal anastomosis and off-midline extraction, when compared to laparoscopy. Our aim was to compare laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with robotic right hemicolectomy in terms of peri-operative outcomes. MEDLINE was searched for original studies comparing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with robotic right hemicolectomy in terms of peri-operative outcomes. The systematic review complied with the PRISMA 2020 recommendations. Variables related to patients' demographics, surgical procedures, post-operative recovery and pathological outcomes were collected and qualitatively assessed. Two-hundred and ninety-three publications were screened, 277 were excluded and 16 were retained for qualitative analysis. The majority of included studies were observational and of limited sample size. When the type of anastomosis was left at surgeon's discretion, intra-corporeal anastomosis was favoured in robotic right hemicolectomy (4/4 studies). When compared to laparoscopy, robotics allowed harvesting more lymph nodes (4/15 studies), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (5/14 studies), a shorter time to faeces (2/3 studies) and a shorter length of stay (5/14 studies), at the cost of a longer operative time (13/14 studies). Systematic review of existing studies, which are mostly non-randomized, suggests that robotic surgery may facilitate fully minimally invasive right hemicolectomy, including intra-corporeal anastomosis, and offer improved post-operative recovery.

The Effect of Bidirectional Barbed Sutures on the Duration of Common Enterotomy Closure in Intracorporeal Anastomosis

BACKGROUND/AIM

The adoption of intracorporeal anastomosis in minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer has gradually expanded owing to its many advantages. However, intracorporeal anastomosis has the disadvantage of a longer operative time than extracorporeal anastomosis. One reason that intracorporeal anastomosis takes longer to perform is the closure of the common enterotomy. The present study evaluated the effect of bidirectional barbed sutures on the duration of common enterotomy closure in intracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive colectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The time required for common enterotomy closure was measured with a simulator using an intestinal model. A two-layer suture with continuous full-thickness suture followed by a continuous serosal-muscular suture was adopted. The time required to close the common enterotomy using two unidirectional barbed sutures and one bidirectional barbed suture was measured five times each.

RESULTS

The duration of common enterotomy closure using bidirectional barbed suture was significantly shorter than that using two conventional barbed sutures.

CONCLUSION

Bidirectional barbed sutures are useful for closing the common enterotomy in intracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive colectomy.

Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Is Intracorporeal Anastomosis Feasible? A Retrospective Cohort Comparison Study

Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) affects all ages and backgrounds, and many individuals require surgical intervention during their disease course. The adoption of laparoscopic techniques in this patient population has been slow, including intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA). The aim of our study was to determine if ICA was feasible and safe in patients with IBD undergoing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRHC). Methods: This is a retrospective, single institution cohort study of elective and emergent cases of LRHC at a single academic center. Patients included underwent LRHC or ileocolic resection for IBD. Exclusion criteria: conversion to laparotomy, resection without anastomosis, or unconfirmed diagnosis of IBD. Main outcomes studied were anastomotic leak rate, surgical site infection (SSI), postoperative length of stay, 30-day readmission/reoperation, and operative time. Secondary outcomes were incisional hernia rates and rates of disease recurrence. Results: A total of 70 patients were included, 12 underwent ICA and 58 extracorporeal anastomosis. Anastomotic leak rate (intracorporeal 8.3% [n = 1], extracorporeal 8.6% [n = 5], P = .97), and SSI rates (intracorporeal 0%, extracorporeal 6.9% [n = 4], P = .36) were similar. Mean postoperative length of stay, rates of 30-day readmission/reoperation and diagnosis of hernia at 1 year were not significantly different. Rates of IBD recurrence and location of recurrence at 1 year were similar. However, operative time was significantly longer in those undergoing ICA (intracorporeal 187 minutes versus extracorporeal 139 minutes, P = < .05). Conclusions: ICA is a safe option in patients with IBD undergoing LRHC.

Having Outpatient Major Elective (HOME) Robotic Colon Resection Protocol: A Safe Approach to Ambulatory Colon Resection

BACKGROUND

Within the past decade, colorectal surgery length of stay (LOS) has decreased from an average of 5-6 days to 2-3 days. However, elective colon resections have yet to become a common procedure with the potential for same-day discharge. During the COVID pandemic, hospital capacity was exceptionally strained and colon resections were delayed due to the lack of inpatient beds available.

PURPOSE

We sought to create a protocolized ERAS (enhanced recovery after surgery) pathway that would allow for safe and feasible ambulatory colon resections as well as decreasing overall hospital inpatient burden.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Between November 2020 and March 2022, 15 patients were offered same-day discharges under the HOME protocol. Of the 15 patients, 11 patients agreed to be discharged home the day of surgery and followed prospectively for 30 days. All procedures were performed robotically.

STUDY SAMPLE

Patients were selected based on level of preoperative health (ASA class 1 and 2), low-risk for loss to follow-up, ability for close family supervision for 3 days postoperatively, and type of procedure (partial colectomy). Close follow-up was achieved with daily telephonic or televideo visits for 3 days post-operatively, as well as a 2-week outpatient clinic follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION

A total of 11 patient underwent same-day surgery utilizing the protocol, 5 females and 6 males, between the ages of 34 and 62. All patients were ASA class 2. Indications for colon resection were cecal volvulus (1), recurrent sigmmoid diverticulitis (9), and Crohn's disease (1). Primary outcome was readmission rates within the 30-days.

RESULTS

There were no readmissions or complications during the perioperative 30-day period. There was one emergency department return for pain who was not admitted. Average operative time was 132.1 minutes.

CONCLUSION

Using a novel enhanced recovery protocol, we demonstrated the feasibility and safety of ambulatory partial colectomy in a highly select small subset of patients.

Intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis after minimally invasive right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

As part of the wide adoption of minimally invasive surgery, intracorporeal anastomosis is becoming increasingly common. The benefits of minimally invasive versus open right colectomy are well known although the additional benefits of an intracorporeal anastomosis, performed laparoscopically or robotically, are unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the current literature comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in the setting of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA and AMSTAR methods. Studies included were randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies, between January 1 2010 and July 1 2021, comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis with laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Four groups were identified: laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (L-ECA), laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (L-ICA), robotic extracorporeal anastomosis (R-ECA), and robotic intracorporeal anastomosis (R-ICA). Operative time, rate of conversion to an open procedure, surgical site infection, reoperation within 30 days, postoperative complications within 30 days, and length of hospital stay were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one retrospective cohort studies were included in the final analysis. R-ICA and R-ECA had comparable operative times, but a robotic approach required more time than laparoscopic (68 min longer, p < 0.00001). Conversion to open surgery was 55% less likely in the R-ICA group vs. L-ICA, and up to 94% less likely in the R-ICA group in comparison to the R-ECA group. Length of hospital stay was shorter for R-ICA by a half day vs. R-ECA, and up to 1 day less vs. L-ECA. There were no differences in postoperative complications, reoperations, or surgical site infections, regardless of approach. However, the included studies all had high risks of bias due to confounding variables and patient selection.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis was associated with shorter length of hospitalization and decreased rate of conversion to open surgery, compared to either laparoscopic or extracorporeal robotic approaches. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the true impact of robotic approach and intracorporeal anastomosis in right colectomy.

Extent of Lymph Node Harvest: A Retrospective Cohort Comparison of Intracorporeal Versus Extracorporeal Anastomosis in Right Hemicolectomy

Background: Minimally invasive surgery has been demonstrated to have clear advantages in colon cancer management, with a decrease in the morbidity and mortality associated with surgery. With the introduction of intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA), the entire mesenteric dissection and division is performed under vision laparoscopically and may lead to superior lymph node harvest. The aim of our study is to evaluate lymph node harvest in patients undergoing totally laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with ICA compared to laparoscopic-assisted right hemicolectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA). Methods: This is a single institution retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy at our institution between 2012 and 2022. Patients were identified using a hospital database, and surgeon office databases. Patients included underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for neoplastic lesions (colon cancer/unresectable polyps), or benign etiologies. We excluded patients who underwent laparotomy (intra-operative conversion), resection without anastomosis, resection for IBD, or lack of documented lymph node number. Data were compared using two-sided t-test evaluation with a 95% confidence interval. Results: A total of 679 patients were included, 493 ECA (72.6%) and 186 ICA (27.4%). Patient demographics (age, biologic sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists and body mass index) were not significantly different. Lymph node harvest was significantly higher in those with ICA (24 ± 14 versus 21 ± 1, P < .05). In subgroup analysis, this difference was maintained in patients with malignant processes (27 ± 14 versus 23 ± 10, P < .05). Conclusions: In our experience, ICA has higher lymph node harvest in comparison to ECA. This may improve outcomes and options for adjuvant therapies in malignant indications.

Early outcomes from the Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy Anastomosis study (MIRCAST)

BACKGROUND

The impact of method of anastomosis and minimally invasive surgical technique on surgical and clinical outcomes after right hemicolectomy is uncertain. The aim of the MIRCAST study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (ICA and ECA respectively), each using either a laparoscopic approach or robot-assisted surgery during right hemicolectomies for benign or malignant tumours.

METHODS

This was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational, monitored, non-randomized, parallel, four-cohort study (laparoscopic ECA; laparoscopic ICA; robot-assisted ECA; robot-assisted ICA). High-volume surgeons (at least 30 minimally invasive right colectomy procedures/year) from 59 hospitals across 12 European countries treated patients over a 3-year interval The primary composite endpoint was 30-day success, defined by two measures of efficacy-absence of surgical wound infection and of any major complication within the first 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were: overall complications, conversion rate, duration of operation, and number of lymph nodes harvested. Propensity score analysis was used for comparison of ICA with ECA, and robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Some 1320 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (laparoscopic ECA, 555; laparoscopic ICA, 356; robot-assisted ECA, 88; robot-assisted ICA, 321). No differences in the co-primary endpoint at 30 days after surgery were observed between cohorts (7.2 and 7.6 per cent in ECA and ICA groups respectively; 7.8 and 6.6 per cent in laparoscopic and robot-assisted groups). Lower overall complication rates were observed after ICA, specifically less ileus, and nausea and vomiting after robot-assisted procedures.

CONCLUSION

No difference in the composite outcome of surgical wound infections and severe postoperative complications was found between intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis or laparoscopy versus robot-assisted surgery.

Robotic Anastomotic Technique

The first robotic colectomy was performed 20 years ago. Since that time, the robotic surgery platform has made significant advancements and become increasingly prevalent in colorectal surgery. The da Vinci Xi system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) and technology such as integrated table motion has facilitated multiquadrant procedures. Intracorporeal anastomoses (ICAs) have proven benefit in the literature, including decreased length of stay, decreased narcotic requirements, and lower rate of postoperative wound infections and hernias. Additional studies have shown a lower conversion to open rate in robotic surgery compared with laparoscopy. In this article, we will describe techniques for creation of robotic ICAs.

Extracorporeal versus intracorporeal anastomosis for right colon cancer surgery

Laparoscopic right colectomy is currently considered the standard treatment for right colon cancer. After excision of the right colon, minimally invasive options for ileocolonic anastomosis include extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA). However, the choice of anastomotic technique remains debated. As the entire IA is performed in the abdominal cavity, it is known for its advantages of a faster intestinal recovery and small incision. However, IA is time-consuming and technically difficult, limiting its widespread use. Recently, the robotic approach has increased the adoption of intracorporeal anastomotic techniques owing to the benefits of endowrist-articulated instruments and staplers. Except for a small incision and faster bowel recovery, the outcomes of the two anastomoses methods are inconsistent. To date, there has been no clear conclusion regarding whether IA or EA should be used to treat right colon cancer. This review aimed to investigate the current evidence relating to intraoperative outcomes and short-term postoperative results between both anastomotic approaches.

Extracorporeal Hand-Sewn vs. Intracorporeal Mechanic Anastomosis During Laparoscopic Right Colectomy

Background and Objectives

To compare the outcomes of extracorporeal hand-sewn side-to-side isoperistaltic ileocolic anastomosis (EHSIA) versus intracorporeal mechanic side-to-side isoperistaltic ileocolic anastomosis (IMSIA) during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for adenocarcinoma.

Methods

This is a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis of prospectively collected data. Fifty-four patients who underwent surgery with EHSIA (intervention group) were paired with 54 patients who underwent surgery with IMSIA (control group) based on patients' demographics and type of surgery (standard right hemicolectomy or extended right hemicolectomy).

Results

Fifty-four patients were included for each group. Statistically significant differences between groups were not observed in patients' demographics and type of surgery. Conversion occurred in three patients of the intervention group due to intra-abdominal adhesions for previous surgery (5.6%) (p = 0.079). Median operative time was statistically significant shorter in the control group in comparison to the intervention group (85 and 117.5 minutes, respectively, p ≤ 0.0001). In both groups one anastomotic leakage was observed (1.9%) (Clavien-Dindo grade III-a). In the control group one patient (1.9%) underwent reintervention for acute postoperative anemia (Clavien-Dindo grade III-b). Median number of harvested lymph-nodes was 17 and 12 (p ≤ 0.0001), in the intervention and the control group, respectively. Median hospital stay was statistically significant lower in the control group in comparison to the intervention group (5 and 6.5 days, respectively, p ≤ 0.013).

Conclusion

IMSIA showed lower operative time and hospital stay in comparison to EHSIA. Further randomized studies are required to draw definitive conclusions about the best anastomotic technique during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy.

Right colectomy from open to robotic - a single-center experience with functional outcomes in a learning-curve setting

Purpose

Right colectomy (RC) is a frequently performed procedure. Beneath standard conventional open surgery (COS), various minimally invasive techniques had been introduced. Several advantages had recently been described for robotic approaches over COS or conventional laparoscopy. Nevertheless, novel minimally invasive techniques require continuous benchmarking against standard COS to gain maximum patient safety. Bowel dysfunction is a frequent problem after RC. Together with general complication rates postoperative bowel recovery are used as surrogate parameters for postoperative patient outcome in this study.

Methods

Retrospective, 10-year single-center analysis of consecutive patients who underwent sequentially either COS (n = 22), robotic-assisted (ECA: n = 39), or total robotic surgery (ICA: n = 56) for oncologic RC was performed.

Results

The conversion from robotic to open surgery rate was low (overall: 3.2%). Slightly longer duration of surgery had been observed during the early phase after introduction of the robotic program to RC (ECA versus COS, p = 0.044), but not anymore thereafter (versus ICA). No differences were observed in oncologic parameters including rates of tumor-negative margins, lymph node-positive patients, and lymph node yield during mesocolic excision. Both robotic approaches are beneficial regarding postoperative complication rates, especially wound infections, and shorter length of in-hospital stay compared with COS. The duration until first postoperative stool is the shortest after ICA (COS: 4 [2–8] days, ECA: 3 [1–6] days, ICA: 3 [1–5] days, p = 0.0004). Regression analyses reveal neither a longer duration of surgery nor the extent of mesocolic excision, but the degree of minimally invasiveness and postoperative systemic inflammation contribute to postoperative bowel dysfunction, which prolongs postoperative in-hospital stay significantly.

Conclusion

The current study reflects the institutional learning curve of oncologic RC during implementation of robotic surgery from robotic-assisted to total robotic approach without compromises in oncologic results and patient safety. However, the total robotic approach is beneficial regarding postoperative bowel recovery and general patient outcome.

Comparison of health-care utilization and expenditures for minimally invasive vs. open colectomy for benign disease

BACKGROUND

Adoption of minimally invasive approaches continues to increase, and there is a need to reassess outcomes and cost. We aimed to compare open versus minimally invasive colectomy short- and long-term health-care utilization and payer/patient expenditures for benign disease.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of IBM^® MarketScan^® Database patients who underwent left or right colectomy for benign disease between 2013 and 2018. Outcomes included total health-care expenditures, resource utilization, and direct workdays lost up to 365 days following colectomy. The open surgical approach (OS) was compared to minimally invasive colectomy (MIS) with subgroup analysis of laparoscopic (LS) and robotic (RS) approaches using inverse probability of treatment weighting.

RESULTS

Of 10,439 patients, 2531 (24.3%) had open, 6826 (65.4%) had laparoscopic, and 1082 (10.3%) had robotic colectomy. MIS patients had shorter length of stay (LOS; mean difference, - 1.71, p < 0.001) and lower average total expenditures (mean difference, - $2378, p < 0.001) compared with open patients during the index hospitalization. At 1 year, MIS patients had lower readmission rates, and fewer mean emergency and outpatient department visits than open patients, translating into additional savings of $5759 and 2.22 fewer days missed from work for health-care visits over the 365-day post-discharge period. Within MIS, RS patients had shorter LOS (mean difference, - 0.60, p < 0.001) and lower conversion-to-open rates (odds ratio, 0.31 p < 0.001) during the index hospitalization, and lower hospital outpatient visits (mean difference, - 0.31, p = 0.001) at 365 days than LS.

CONCLUSION

MIS colectomy is associated with lower mean health-care expenditures and less resource utilization compared to the open approach for benign disease at index operation and 365-days post-discharge. Health-care expenditures for LS and RS are similar but shorter mean LOS and lower conversion-to-open surgery rates were observed at index operation for the RS approach.