Robotic transverse colectomy for mid-transverse colon cancer: surgical techniques and oncologic outcomes

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.

Oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic colectomy in patients with transverse colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Literature concerning surgical management of transverse colon cancer is scarce, since many key trials excluded transverse colon cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and oncological outcomes comparing open, laparoscopic and robotic transverse colon cancer resection.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent elective surgery for transverse colon cancer between December 2005 and July 2021 were included. Data were kept in a prospective database approved by the institutional ethics committee. Primary outcome was overall and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included complications, operative time, length of stay and lymph node harvest. Statistical analysis was corrected for age and tumour localisation.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-six (38 robotic, 71 open and 137 laparoscopic resections) were recruited in this study. There were five conversions during laparoscopic procedures. Operative time was significantly shorter in robotic vs laparoscopic procedures (195 vs 238 min, p = 0.005) and length of stay was shorter in robotic vs laparoscopic and open group (7 vs 9 vs 15 days, p < 0.001). There was no difference in overall complications. R0 resections were similar. Lymph node harvest was highest in the robotic group vs. laparoscopic or open (32 vs. 29 vs. 21, p < 0.001). Overall survival was 97%, 85% and 60% (p < 0.001) and disease-free survival was 91%, 78% and 56% (p < 0.001) for the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery for transverse colon cancer is safe and offers good clinical and oncological outcomes. Robotic resection is associated with significantly shorter operating times, higher lymph node harvest, lower conversion rate and does not increase morbidity. Differences in disease-free and overall survival should be further explored in randomised controlled trials.

Segmental transverse colectomy. Minimally invasive versus open approach: results from a multicenter collaborative study

The role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of transverse colon cancer is still controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the advantages of a totally laparoscopic technique comparing open versus laparoscopic/robotic approach. Three hundred and eighty-eight patients with transverse colon cancer, treated with a segmental colon resection, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, tumor stage, operative time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and recovery outcomes were recorded. Recurrences and death were also evaluated during the follow-up. No differences were found between conventional and minimally invasive surgery, both for oncological long-term outcomes (recurrence rate p = 0.28; mortality p = 0.62) and postoperative complications (overall rate p = 0.43; anemia p = 0.78; nausea p = 0.68; infections p = 0.91; bleeding p = 0.62; anastomotic leak p = 0.55; ileus p = 0.75). Nevertheless, recovery outcomes showed statistically significant differences in favor of minimally invasive surgery in terms of time to first flatus (p = 0.001), tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.017), time to first mobilization (p = 0.001) and hospital stay (p = 0.004). Compared with laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.005) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001). Finally, anastomosis evaluation confirmed the superiority of intracorporeal approach which showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.003) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001); moreover, we recorded a statistical difference in favor of intracorporeal approach for infection rate (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.001) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03). Minimally invasive approach is safe and effective as the conventional open surgery, with comparable oncological results but not negligible advantages in terms of recovery outcomes. Moreover, we demonstrated that robotic approach may be considered a valid option and an intracorporeal anastomosis should always be preferred.

What is the best surgical procedure of transverse colon cancer? An evidence map and minireview

Colorectal cancers comprise a large percentage of tumors worldwide, and transverse colon cancer (TCC) is defined as tumors located between hepatic and splenic flexures. Due to the anatomy and embryology complexity, and lack of large randomized controlled trials, it is a challenge to standardize TCC surgery. In this study, the current situation of transverse/extended colectomy, robotic/ laparoscopic/open surgery and complete mesocolic excision (CME) concept in TCC operations is discussed and a heatmap is conducted to show the evidence level and gap. In summary, transverse colectomy challenges the dogma of traditional extended colectomy, with similar oncological and prognostic outcomes. Compared with conventional open resection, laparoscopic and robotic surgery plays a more important role in both transverse colectomy and extended colectomy. The CME concept may contribute to the radical resection of TCC and adequate harvested lymph nodes. According to published studies, laparoscopic or robotic transverse colectomy based on the CME concept was the appropriate surgical procedure for TCC patients.

The art of robotic colonic resection: a review of progress in the past 5 years

Surgery is developing in the direction of minimal invasiveness, and robotic surgery is becoming increasingly adopted in colonic resection procedures. The ergonomic improvements of robot promote surgical performance, reduce workload for surgeons and benefit patients. Compared with laparoscopy-assisted colon surgery, the robotic approach has the advantages of shorter length of hospital stay, lower rate of conversion to open surgery, and lower rate of intraoperative complications for short-term outcomes. Synchronous robotic liver resection with colon cancer is feasible. The introduction of the da Vinci Xi System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has introduced more flexibility to colonic operations. Optimization of the suprapubic surgical approach may shorten the length of hospital stay for patients who undergo robotic colonic resection. Single-port robotic colectomy reduces the number of robotic ports for better looking and faster recovery. Intestinal anastomosis methods using totally robotic surgery result in shorter time to bowel function recovery and tolerance to a solid diet, although the operative time is longer. Indocyanine green is used as a tracer to assess blood supplementation in the anastomosis and marks lymph nodes during operation. The introduction of new surgical robots from multiple manufacturers is bound to change the landscape of robotic surgery and yield high-quality surgical outcomes. The present article reviews recent advances in robotic colonic resection over the past five years.

Surgical management of adenocarcinoma of the transverse colon: What should be the extent of resection?

Transverse colon, owing its origin to midgut and hindgut and harbouring a flexure at both ends, continues to pose a surgical challenge. When compared to the rest of the colon, transverse colon adenocarcinoma is relatively uncommon. These cancers usually present late and lie in close proximity to the stomach, omentum, and pancreas. Adequate lymphadenectomy entails dissection around and ligation of the middle colic vessels. Hence, resectional surgery for transverse colon carcinoma is considered difficult. This is more so because of the variation of arterial and venous anatomy. From this perspective, the surgeon is tempted to perform a more radical operation like extended right or left hemicolectomy to secure an adequate lymphadenectomy. Such a cancer has also been dealt with a more limited transverse colectomy with colo-colic anastomosis. For all these reasons, patients with transverse colon adenocarcinoma were excluded from randomised trials which compared laparoscopic resection with traditional open operation. Surgical literature is yet to establish a definite operation for transverse colon cancer and the exact procedure is often dictated by surgeon's preference. This is primarily because this is an uncommon cancer. The rapid adoption of laparoscopic operation favoured extended colectomy as transverse colectomy can be difficult by minimally invasive technique. However, in the recent past, cohort studies and meta-analyses have shown equivalent oncological outcome between transverse colectomy and extended colectomy. It is time to resurrect transverse colectomy and consider it equivalent to its radical counterpart for cancers around the mid-transverse colon.

Is Robotic Complete Mesocolic Excision Feasible for Transverse Colon Cancer?

Introduction: Laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) for transverse colon cancer is technically challenging. Robotic technology has been developed to reduce technical limitations of laparoscopy. Yet, no data are available on the role of robotic approach for CME of transverse colon cancer. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and short-term outcomes of robotic CME in this subset of colon cancer. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of 29 consecutive patients undergoing robotic CME for transverse colon adenocarcinoma between December 2014 and December 2017 was performed. Data on demographics, tumor characteristics, postoperative 30-day complications, and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Results: There were 21 (72%) men and 8 women with a mean age of 62.9 ± 15.6 years and a body mass index of 26.4 ± 4.8 kg/m². Of the 29 robotic CME procedures, 12 patients underwent extended right colectomy, 10 extended left colectomy, 6 subtotal colectomy, and 1 total colectomy. The mean operative time was 321.7 ± 111.3 minutes and estimated blood loss was 106.9 ± 110.9 mL (median, 50; range, 10-400 mL). The intra- and postoperative complication rates were 7% and 24%, respectively. There were no conversions. The mean time to first bowel movement was 3.5 ± 1.3 and length of hospital stay was 7.1 ± 3.0 days. All the resections were R0. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes in extended and subtotal/total colectomy procedures was 36.6 ± 13.1 and 71.0 ± 30.3, respectively. The rate of mesocolic plane surgery was 79%. There were no statistically significant differences between the mesocolic and the intramesocolic/muscularis propria plane resections with respect to clinical characteristics, operative outcomes, and pathology results (P > .05). Conclusions: Robotic CME for transverse colon cancer is feasible and can be a procedure of choice to achieve a good surgical quality.