Operative time and length of stay is similar between robotic assisted and laparoscopic colon and rectal resections

Comparison of outcomes after unplanned conversion for patients undergoing robotic when compared with laparoscopic colectomy

The robotic approach improves the feasibility of minimally invasive colectomy even where there may be an anatomic challenge with laparoscopy. Whether a failure in completing colectomy with this newer technology is associated with worse consequences needs to be considered when evaluating the relative benefit of robotic colectomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate rates of conversion to open surgery after robotic and laparoscopic colectomy and whether outcomes after conversion vary after the two techniques since this has not been well studied. From the American College of Surgeons (ACS) - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) (2015-2016), patients who underwent elective minimally invasive colectomy were identified. Converted robotic were compared to laparoscopic procedures for patient demographics, co-morbidities; primary procedure and diagnosis, prolonged operation and postoperative complications. Of 36,046 colectomy procedures, 30,808 (85.5%) were laparoscopic, while 5238 (14.5%) were robotic-assisted. There were 3271 (9.1%) conversions to open surgery (laparoscopic: 2959 [9.6%]; robotic: 312 [6%]). Thirty-day postoperative surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, ileus, sepsis, bleeding requiring transfusion, urinary tract infection, reoperation; pulmonary, renal, cardiac/cerebrovascular complications; readmission, hospital stay, and mortality, were similar between the two groups. However, deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism was higher after robotic conversion (4.5% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.01). Conversion was lower after robotic when compared to laparoscopic colectomy. Converted patients had similar outcomes except for vein thromboembolism which was higher after robotic surgery. Robotic technology seems to improve the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery without negatively affecting safety and efficacy even when conversion is required.

Elective robotic partial colon and rectal resections: series of 170 consecutive robot procedures involving the Da Vinci Xi robot by a community general surgeon

Robotic colorectal procedures may overcome the disadvantages of laparoscopic surgery. While the literature has multiple studies from specialized centers, experience from general surgeons is minimal. The purpose of this case series is to review elective partial colon and rectal resections by a general surgeon. 170 consecutive elective partial colon and rectal resections were reviewed. The cases were analyzed by type of procedure and total cases. The outcomes analyzed were procedure time, conversion rate, length of stay, complications, anastomotic leak, and node retrieval in the cancer cases. There were 71 right colon resections, 13 left colon resections, 44 sigmoid colon resection sand 42 low anterior resections performed. The mean length of procedure was 149 min. The conversion rate was 2.4%. The mean length of stay was 3.5 days. The percentage of cases one or more complications was 8.2%. There were 3 anastomotic leaks out of 159 anastomoses (1.9%). The mean lymph node retrieval was 28.4 for the 96 cancer cases. Robot partial colon and rectal resections on the Da Vinci Xi robot can be completed safely and efficiently by a community general surgeon. Prospective studies are needed to demonstrate reproducibility by community surgeons performing robot colon resections.

Comparison of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For right colon surgery, there is an increasing body of literature comparing the safety of robotic right colectomy (RRC) with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the safety and efficacy of RRC versus LRC, including homogeneous subgroup analyses for extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and January 2022. Length of hospital stay, operation time, rate of conversion to laparotomy, time to first flatus, number of harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, rate of overall complication, ileus, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, and total costs were measured.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies (RRC: 2772 patients; LRC: 12,469 patients) were evaluated. Regardless of the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter length of hospital stay, lower rate of conversion to laparotomy, shorter time to first flatus, lower rate of overall complications, and a higher number of harvested lymph nodes compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the IA subgroup, RRC had a shorter length of hospital stay, longer operative time, and lower rate of conversion to laparotomy compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes. In the EA subgroup, RRC had a longer operative time, lower estimated blood loss, lower rate of overall complications, and higher total costs compared with LRC, with the other outcomes being similar.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of RRC is superior to LRC, especially when an intracorporeal anastomosis is performed. Most included articles were retrospective, offering low-quality evidence and limited conclusions.

Ambulatory colectomy: a pathway for advancing the enhanced recovery protocol

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols employ multiple factors to decrease surgical stress and improve recovery (Lyon et al., World J Gastroenterol 18(40):5661-5663, 2012). These protocols use multimodal approaches to improve outcomes, including length of stay and morbidities (Lyon et al., World J Gastroenterol 18(40):5661-5663, 2012; Carmichael et al., Dis Colon Rectum 60:761-784, 2017). The ERAS guidelines have evolved since development; however, the question is posed of how to improve next (Lyon et al., World J Gastroenterol 18(40):5661-5663, 2012). With the success of ERAS, in combination with milestones made by minimally invasive surgery (MIS), it is our aim to describe the next step of same day discharge colectomy. Retrospective review was performed on all colectomies from February 2019 to January 2022. Same day discharge (SDD) was defined as admission less than 23 h and no overnight stay. Procedures were nonemergent and MIS. Patients were candidates SDD based on comorbidities, communication means, and social support. SDD candidacy continued if surgery was uncomplicated. Next, patients were required to achieve strict Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) criteria for discharge. SDD patients were monitored via calls or messages until their first appointment. After analysis, 326 total colectomies were identified; based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 115 patients underwent SDD, 35.3%. Of the 115 SDD, 5 patients returned to the emergency department, only 1 required readmission (0.9%). The most performed procedures were low anterior resection, 61 (53.0%), and right hemicolectomy, 25 (21.7%). Using ERAS protocols as a groundwork to improve upon, we identified several ways to advance select patients into SDD. Using strict patient selection, intraoperative regulations, and rigorous postoperative criteria, we found that SDD as an advancement of ERAS is a relatively safe procedure with minimal complications.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to review the new evidence to understand whether the robotic approach could find some clear indication also in left colectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies published from 2004 to 2022 in the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases and comparing laparoscopic (LLC) and robotic left colectomy (RLC) was performed. All comparative studies evaluating robotic left colectomy (RLC) versus laparoscopic (LLC) left colectomy with at least 20 patients in the robotic arm were included. Abstract, editorials, and reviews were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies was used to assess the methodological quality. The random-effect model was used to calculate pooled effect estimates.

RESULTS

Among the 139 articles identified, 11 were eligible, with a total of 52,589 patients (RLC, n = 13,506 versus LLC, n = 39,083). The rate of conversion to open surgery was lower for robotic procedures (RR 0.5, 0.5-0.6; p < 0.001). Operative time was longer for the robotic procedures in the pooled analysis (WMD 39.1, 17.3-60.9, p = 0.002). Overall complications (RR 0.9, 0.8-0.9, p < 0.001), anastomotic leaks (RR 0.7, 0.7-0.8; p < 0.001), and superficial wound infection (RR 3.1, 2.8-3.4; p < 0.001) were less common after RLC. There were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.1; 0.8-1.6, p = 0.124). There were no differences between RLC and LLC with regards to postoperative variables in the subgroup analysis on malignancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic left colectomy requires less conversion to open surgery than the standard laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity rates seemed to be lower during RLC, but this was not confirmed in the procedures performed for malignancies.

Minimally invasive robotic-assisted combined colorectal and liver excision surgery: feasibility, safety and surgical technique in a pilot series

Different strategies may be adopted in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (LM). The role of laparoscopy has been investigated to define the benefits of minimally invasive surgery in a single-stage operation. In our study, we report our experience of 28 Minimally Invasive Robotic-Assisted combined Colorectal and Liver Excision Surgery (MIRACLES). From October 2012 to December 2019, 135 Robotic liver resections and 218 Robotic Colorectal resections were performed in our center. Twenty-eight patients underwent MIRACLES resection with 37 nodules removed. Fifty-two lesions in 28 patients were resected in minimally invasive robot-assisted surgery. Eighteen lesions were located in postero-superior liver segments (eight in segment VII, two in segment VIII, eight in segment IVa). Nine right colectomies, seven left colectomies, ten anterior rectal resections, one Hartmann and one MILES procedures were performed. The median surgical time of MIRACLES procedures was 332 min. Two conversions to open approach were necessary. Four major complications (> III) were observed. No postoperative mortality was recorded. The median hospital stay was 8 days. The median overall survival was 27.5 months. The MIRACLES approach is feasible and safe for colorectal resection and hepatic nodules located in all segments, with a low rate of postoperative complications. Surgical technique is demanding and should be reserved, presently, to tertiary centers.

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.

Robot-assisted neurosurgery versus conventional treatment for intracerebral hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this review is to determine the efficacy and safety of robotic surgery for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). PICO question was formulated as: whether robot-assisted neurosurgery is more effective and safer than conventional treatment for ICH with respect to drainage time, complications, operation time, extent of evacuation and neurological function improvement. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Wiley Online, OVID, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trails, Current Controlled Trials, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), OpenGrey and references of related papers. Key words included robot, robotic, hematoma, hemorrhage and neurosurgery. Then we used Microsoft Excel to collect data. Except from qualitative analysis, we did meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3. 9 papers were included in qualitative synthesis, 6 in meta-analysis for rebleeding rate and 4 in analysis for operative and drainage time. Qualitative synthesis showed shorter operative time and drainage time, a larger extent of evacuation, better neurological function improvement and less complications in robotic group, while meta-analysis suggested that robot-assisted surgery reduced rebleeding rate compared to other surgical procedures, but whether it is superior to conservative treatment in preventing rebleeding still needs more proof. Meta-analysis for operative and drainage time should be explained cautiously because a significant heterogeneity existed and we supposed that differences in baseline characteristics might influence the results. Finally, we drew a conclusion that robotic neurosurgery is a safe and effective approach which is better than conventional surgery or conservative treatment with respect to rebleeding rate, intracranial infection rate and neurological function improvement.

Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) versus robotic right colectomy (RRC) using homogeneous subgroup analyses for extra-corporeal anastomosis (EA) and intra-corporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2020 for prospective or retrospective studies comparing LRC versus RRC on at least one short- or long-term outcome. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes included operative and pathological results, survival, and total costs. LRC and RRC were compared using three homogeneous subgroups: without distinction by the type of anastomosis, EA only, and IA only. Pooled data analyses were performed using mean difference (MD) and random effects model.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 448 studies were selected. The included patients were 21,397 for the LRC group and 2796 for the RRC group. Regardless for the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter LOS, lower blood loss, lower conversion rate, shorter time to flatus, and lower overall complication rate compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the EA subgroup, RRC showed similar LOS, longer operative time, and higher costs compared with LRC, the other outcomes being similar. In the IA subgroup, RRC showed shorter LOS and longer operative time compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most included articles are retrospective, providing low-quality evidence and limiting conclusions. The more frequent use of the IA seems to explain the advantages of RRC over LRC.

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.

Safe surgery in the elderly: A review of outcomes following robotic proctectomy from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample in a cross-sectional study

Background

As our nation's population ages, operating on older and sicker patients occurs more frequently. Robotic operations have been thought to bridge the gap between a laparoscopic and an open approach, especially in more complex cases like proctectomy.

Methods

Our objective was to evaluate the use and outcomes of robotic proctectomy compared to open and laparoscopic approaches for rectal cancer in the elderly. A retrospective cross-sectional cohort study utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS; 2006-2013) was performed. All cases were restricted to age 70 years old or greater.

Results

We identified 6740 admissions for rectal cancer including: 5879 open, 666 laparoscopic, and 195 robotic procedures. The median age was 77 years old. The incidence of a robotic proctectomy increased by 39%, while the open approach declined by 6% over the time period studied. Median (interquartile range) length of stay was shorter for robotic procedures at 4.3 (3-7) days, compared to laparoscopic 5.8 (4-8) and open at 6.7 (5-10) days (p < 0.01), while median total hospital charges were greater in the robotic group compared to laparoscopic and open cases ($64,743 vs. $55,813 vs. $50,355, respectively, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the risk of total complications between the different approaches following multivariate analysis.

Conclusion

Robotic proctectomy was associated with a shorter LOS, and this may act as a surrogate marker for an overall improvement in adverse events. These results demonstrate that a robotic approach is a safe and feasible option, and should not be discounted solely based on age or comorbidities.

Efficacy of robotic versus open transversus abdominis release in a porcine model

PURPOSE

Transversus abdominis muscle release (TAR) combines retromuscular mesh placement with posterior component separation and muscle release. TAR is usually an open technique for abdominal wall reconstruction; however, several centers have performed this operation robotically and claim better clinical outcomes when compared to open surgery. We sought to compare robotic versus open TAR utilizing a porcine model.

METHODS

Animals were randomized to open versus robotic TAR with mesh placement, survived for 4 weeks, then underwent diagnostic laparoscopy to assess adhesive burden and adhesion tenacity. T-peel testing was utilized to assess mesh ingrowth. The primary outcome was adhesive burden; secondary outcomes included mesh incorporation, contraction, and operative time.

RESULTS

Nine robotic and eight open TARs were performed. Mean operative time was significantly shorter for the open cases compared to robotic cases (88.6 ± 12.9 min versus 228.3 ± 46.2, p < 0.01). Operative time in the robotic arm of the study decreased over time, from 300 to 165 min. No difference was seen in the mean adhesion area between the two groups. Adhesion tenacity and mesh flatness were similar. The work required to peel the mesh off surrounding tissue was significantly higher in the open TAR than in the robotic TAR group: 52.6 ± 15.5 and 32.9 ± 10.6 mJ/cm2, respectively (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in adhesions between the robotic and open approaches, but greater mesh contraction and ingrowth was observed in the open TAR group. Though operative time was longer in the robotic group, time dropped by about 40% from the first case to the last.