Robotic colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis is feasible with no operative conversions during the learning curve for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon developing a robotics program

Robotic Proctectomy: Beyond the Initial Learning Curve

BACKGROUND

Multiple authors have described an initial learning curve (LC) for robotic proctectomy (RP), but there is scant literature regarding continued technical progression beyond this stage. Total operating time is the most commonly used metric to measure proficiency. Our goal was to examine RP experience after the initial LC looking for evidence of further technical progression.

METHODS

We reviewed our robotic surgery database for a single surgeon during operations 100 through 550 to identify 83 RPs for tumor. These were divided into quartiles by series order, indicating surgeon experience level over time. Demographics and outcomes were compared among the groups. We defined percent console time (PCT) as a new metric. PCT was defined as console time divided by total operative time (TOT).

RESULTS

From March 2014 through March 2019, 450 robotic colorectal operations were performed, including 83 RPs for polyp or cancer. No significant differences were found among the quartiles in regard to demographics, tumor features, hospital stay, conversions, or readmissions. As experience was gained, there were significant increases in intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA), TOT, and PCT. Complications decreased with experience. Number of lymph nodes in the specimen increased. On multivariate analysis, later experience group, body mass index ≥30, and ICA were associated with increased PCT.

DISCUSSION

ICA became a routine part of RP after the initial LC, with increases in TOT and PCT. Number of lymph nodes increased and number and severity of complications decreased with experience. Increased PCT may indicate increased expertise during RP.

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.

Robotic-assisted colectomy for right-sided colon cancer: Short-term surgical outcomes of a multi-institutional prospective cohort study in Japan

Background

In Japan, there are no substantial reports on robotic-assisted colectomy because few institutions performed the procedure, as it was not covered by national insurance until March 2022.

Aim

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted colectomy for patients with curatively resectable colon cancer in Japan.

Methods

This multi-institutional, prospective, single-arm, observational study enrolled patients diagnosed with curatively resectable clinical stage I-IIIC colon adenocarcinoma with D2 or D3 lymph node dissection and treated with robotic-assisted colectomy. The primary endpoint was the conversion rate to laparotomy. The non-inferiority of outcomes for robotic-assisted colectomy versus laparoscopic colectomy, which was determined from historical data, was verified.

Results

One hundred patients were registered between July 2019 and March 2022 and underwent robotic-assisted colectomy performed by seven expert surgeons at six institutions. Thirteen patients were excluded because their surgeons had insufficient experience performing robotic-assisted colectomy; therefore, 87 patients were eligible for the primary endpoint analysis. There was no conversion in these 87 patients, and robotic-assisted colectomy was non-inferior to laparoscopic colectomy in terms of conversion rate (90% confidence interval 0-3.38, p = 0.0006). No intraoperative adverse events occurred, and no mortality was observed in a total of 100 patients. The rate of patients with Clavien-Dindo complications grade III or higher was 4%.

Conclusion

This study showed the non-inferiority of the conversion rates between robotic-assisted colectomy and laparoscopic colectomy. Favorable perioperative outcomes also suggest the safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted colectomy.

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.

Right Colectomy with Intracorporeal Anastomosis: A European Multicenter Propensity Score Matching Retrospective Study of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Procedures

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic (RRC-IA) versus laparoscopic (LRC-IA) right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis using a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis based on a large European multicentric cohort of patients with nonmetastatic right colon cancer.

METHODS

Elective curative-intent RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed between 2014 and 2020 were selected from the MERCY Study Group database. The two PSM-groups were compared for operative and postoperative outcomes, and survival rates.

RESULTS

Initially, 596 patients were selected, including 194 RRC-IA and 402 LRC-IA patients. After PSM, 298 patients (149 per group) were compared. There was no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA in terms of operative time, intraoperative complication rate, conversion to open surgery, postoperative morbidity (19.5% in RRC-IA vs. 26.8% in LRC-IA; p = 0.17), or 5-yr survival (80.5% for RRC-IA and 74.7% for LRC-IA; p = 0.94). R0 resection was obtained in all patients, and > 12 lymph nodes were harvested in 92.3% of patients, without group-related differences. RRC-IA procedures were associated with a significantly higher use of indocyanine green fluorescence than LRC-IA (36.9% vs. 14.1%; OR: 3.56; 95%CI 2.02-6.29; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitation of the present analyses, there is no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed for right colon cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

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.

Current Status of Robotic Gastrointestinal Surgery

Development of surgical support robots began in the 1980s as a navigation and auxiliary device for endoscopic surgery. For remote surgery on the battlefield, a master-slave-type surgical support robot was developed, in which a console surgeon operates the robot at will. The da Vinci surgical system, which currently dominates the global robotic surgery market, received United States Food and Drug Administration and regulatory approval in Japan in 2000 and 2009 respectively. The latest, fourth generation, da Vinci Xi has a good field of view via a three-dimensional monitor, highly operable forceps, a motion scale function, and a tremor-filtered articulated function. Gastroenterological tract robotic surgery is safe and minimally invasive when accessing and operating on the esophagus, stomach, colon, and rectum. The learning curve is said to be short, and robotic surgery will likely be standardized soon. Therefore, robotic surgery training should be systematized for young surgeons so that it can be further standardized and later adapted to a wider range of surgeries. This article reviews current trends and potential developments in robotic surgery.

Safe implementation of robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis

The robotic platform can overcome technical difficulties associated with laparoscopic colon surgery. Transitioning from laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) to robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) is associated with a learning phase. This study aimed at determining the length of this learning phase and its associated morbidity. We retrospectively analyzed all laparoscopic right colectomies with ECA (n = 38) and robotic right colectomies with ICA (n = 67) for (pre)malignant lesions performed by a single surgeon between January 2014 and December 2020. CUSUM-plot analysis of total procedure time was used for learning curve determination of robotic colectomies. Non-parametric tests were used for statistical analysis. Compared to laparoscopy, the learning phase robotic right colectomies (n = 35) had longer procedure times (p < 0.001) but no differences in anastomotic leakage rate, length of stay or 30-day morbidity. Conversion rate was reduced from 16 to 3 percent in the robotic group. This study provides evidence that robotic right colectomy with ICA can be safely implemented without increasing morbidity.

Robotic right colectomy with robotic-sewn anastomosis: a pilot case series

The background of this study is to assess the feasibility, clinical utility and safety of intra-corporeal robotic-sewn anastomosis (ICrA) in completely robotic right hemicolectomy (CRH) for adenocarcinoma. A protocol for completely robotic right hemicolectomy (CRH) and intra-corporeal robotic-sewn anastomosis (ICrA), was established at the authors' institution from January 2012 through December 2017. Univariate and multivariable models were constructed to explore the prognostic significance of clinical and surgical findings. Survival and recurrence analysis were performed using standard univariable and multivariable methods. The study population consisted of 123 patients. The median number of examined lymph nodes (ELN) was 25 (range 1-59), the median number of positive lymph nodes (PLN) was 1 (range 0-21). Mean operative time was 240 min (SD 43.56, range 180-360 min), and conversion to open rate was 0%. Anastomotic leaks rate was 1.6%. The median overall survival was 69 months. This pilot series, in which an intra-corporeal robotic-sewn anastomosis (ICrA) was performed during CRH, demonstrated the safety and feasibility of this approach. Compared to the current standard of care at a high-volume center, ICrA was associated with post-operative surgical outcomes similar to those reported in the literature. These results call for further validation in a prospective and controlled setting to be fully incorporated into clinical practice.

Robotic-assisted Surgery: Expanding Indication to Colon Cancer in Japan

In recent years, robotic-assisted surgery has demonstrated remarkable progress as a minimally invasive procedure for colorectal cancer. While there have been fewer studies investigating robotic-assisted surgery for the treatment of colon cancer than rectal cancer, evidence regarding robotic-assisted colectomy has been accumulating due to increasing use of the procedure. Robotic-assisted colectomy generally requires a long operative time and involves high costs. However, as evidence is increasingly supportive of its higher accuracy and less invasive nature compared to laparoscopic colectomy, the procedure is anticipated to improve the ratio of conversion to laparotomy and accelerate postoperative recovery. Robotic-assisted surgery has also been suggested for a specific level of effectiveness in manipulative procedures, such as intracorporeal anastomosis, and is increasingly indicated as a less problematic procedure compared to conventional laparoscopy and open surgery in terms of long-term oncological outcomes. Although robotic-assisted colectomy has been widely adopted abroad, only a limited number of institutions have been using this procedure in Japan. Further accumulation of experience and studies investigating surgical outcomes using this approach are required in Japan.

Hernia and Abdominal Wall Reconstruction for the Colorectal Surgeon

Hernia remains a challenge for the colorectal surgeon both in regard to prevention of hernia, that is a common entity following colorectal surgery and in managing hernia which is often made more challenging by the co-existence of a significant colorectal-specific problem. This review outlines the extent of hernia as a problem for the colorectal surgeon and highlights contemporary approaches to dealing with patients who require both colorectal and complex hernia surgery.

Right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis for cancer: a prospective comparison between robotics and laparoscopy

Robotics in right colectomy are still under debate. Available studies compare different techniques of ileocolic anastomosis but results are non-conclusive. Our study aimed to compare intraoperative outcomes, and short-term postoperative results between robotic and standard laparoscopic right colectomies for cancer with intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) fashioned with the same technique. All consecutive patients scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic right hemicolectomies with ICA for cancer in two hospitals, one of which is a tertiary care centre, were prospectively enrolled in our prospective observational study, from April 2018 to December 2019. ICA was fashioned with the same stapled hand-sewn technique. Continuous and categorical variables were analysed using t test and chi-squared test as required. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Forty patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 48 underwent robotic right colectomy and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Operative time was not statistically different between the two groups (robotic group 265.9 min vs laparoscopic group 254.2 min, p = 0.29). The robotic group had a significantly shorter time for stump oversewing (ileum reinforcement: robotic group 9.3 min vs laparoscopic group 14.2 min, p < 0.001; colon reinforcement: robotic 7.7. min, laparoscopy 13.9 min, p < 0.001) and for ICA (robotic 31.6 min vs laparoscopy 43.0, p < 0.001). One patient underwent extracorporeal anastomosis in the robotic group. The short-term outcomes were comparable between standard laparoscopic and robotic right colectomies with ICA. The limitation of the study is its small sample size and the fact that it was done in two institutions under the supervision of one person. Our data demonstrate that intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis is safe, and faster and easier with robotic systems. Robotics can facilitate more challenging ICA in minimally invasive surgery.

Morbidly Obese Patients with Ileocolic Crohn's Disease May Benefit from Robotic Surgery

Background and Objectives:

Obesity is increasing as a comorbid condition for patients requiring surgery for Crohn’s disease. Minimally invasive colectomy is ideal for a patient with combined obesity and Crohn’s disease. However laparoscopic colon resection is associated with high operative conversion rates in these cases. Data examining the use of robotic surgery in the obese patient with Crohn’s disease is sparse.

Methods:

We examined the feasibility and outcomes of performing a minimally invasive colectomy using the Da Vinci robot in a prospective case series of morbidly obese patients with ileal Crohn’s disease.

Results:

A robotic ileocolectomy was performed in four morbidly obese patients with Crohn’s disease. There were no operative conversions or complications with a median length of stay of 3 days.

Conclusion:

A robotic approach is a promising minimally invasive surgical alternative to laparoscopic surgery for these complex patients.

Is newer always better?: comparing cost and short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomy

BACKGROUND

Enthusiasm is high for expansion of robotic assisted surgery into right hemicolectomy. But data on outcomes and cost is lacking. Our objective was to determine the association between surgical approach and cost for minimally invasive right hemicolectomy. We hypothesized that a robot approach would have increased costs (both economic and opportunity) while achieving similar short-term outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis with a simulation of operating room utilization at a quaternary care, academic institution. We enrolled patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemicolectomy from November 2017 to August 2019. Patients were categorized by the intended approach- laparoscopic or robotic. The primary outcome was the technical variable direct cost. Secondary outcomes included total cost, supply cost, operating room utilization, operative time, conversion, length of stay and 30-day post-operative outcomes.

RESULTS

79 patients were included in the study. A robotic approach was used in 22% of the cohort. The groups differed significantly only in etiology of surgery. Robotic surgery was associated with a 1.5 times increase in the technical variable direct cost (p < 0.001), increased supply cost (2.6 times; p < 0.001) and increased total cost (1.3 times; p < 0.001). Significant differences were observed in median room time (Robotic: 285 min vs. Laparoscopic: 170 min; p < 0.001) and procedure time (Robotic: 203 min vs. Laparoscopic: 118 min; p < 0.001). There were no differences observed in post-operative outcomes including length of stay or readmission. In a simulation of OR utilization, 45 laparoscopic right hemicolectomies could be performed in an OR in a month compared to 31 robotic cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic right hemicolectomy was associated with increased costs with no improvement in post-operative outcomes. In a simulation of operating room efficiency, a robotic approach was associated with 14 fewer cases per month. Practitioners and administrators should be aware of the increased cost of a robotic approach.

Feasibility of robotic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision and intracorporeal anastomosis: short-term outcomes of 161 consecutive patients

Technical and oncological aspects are still debated when dealing with minimally-invasive right colectomy. Main controversial issues still remain about whether the anastomosis should be performed intra- or extracorporeally and if a complete mesocolic excision (CME) should be carried out. We report the feasibility of robotic right colectomy with CME and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) for right sided colon cancer. Data from patients who underwent robotic right colectomy with IA and CME from January 2015 to April 2020 were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Intraoperative outcomes and complications (minor I-II and major III-IV according to Clavien-Dindo classification), conversion rate, 30-day postoperative outcomes and pathological outcomes were the variables assessed. A total of 161 patients undergoing robotic right colectomy for cancer met the inclusion criteria. Mean operative time was 185 min, no intraoperative complications were observed, and the conversion rate was 3.7% (6 patients requiring elective conversions). Overall, mean postoperative stay was 4.9 days and the overall 30-day complication rate was 16.1%. 20 patients (12.4%) had minor complications, while major postoperative complications occurred in six patients (3.7%). Anastomotic leak was recorded in one patient (0.6%) and the 30-day re-admission rate was 0.6%. Mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 21.9. Patients requiring conversion experienced two minor complications, with a mean length of stay of 7 days. Robotic right colectomy with CME and IA is feasible and it is associated with good intraoperative and short-term postoperative clinical outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

In recent years, minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer has seen remarkable improvement. For the laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer, earlier postoperative recovery and reduced hospital stays can be expected compared to those for open surgery. Also, no increase in perioperative morbidity and mortality has been shown. Furthermore, long-term oncological outcomes comparable to open surgery have been obtained. Although laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has shown good short-term postoperative outcomes, recent randomized controlled trials could not demonstrate non-inferiority to open surgery with respect to oncological safety. Further studies are required to confirm the impact of robotic surgery on colon and rectal cancer and the appropriate indications for transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Ileo-colic intra-corporeal anastomosis during robotic right colectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of different techniques

PURPOSE

Robotic assistance could increase the rate of ileo-colic intra-corporeal anastomosis (ICA) during robotic right colectomy (RRC). However, although robotic ICA can be accomplished with several different technical variants, it is not clear whether some of these technical details should be preferred. An evaluation of the possible advantage of one respect to another would be useful.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of literature on technical details of robotic ileo-colic ICA, from which we performed a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. The extracted data allowed a comparative analysis regarding the outcome of overall complication (OC), bleeding rate (BR) and leakage rate (LR), between (1) mechanical anastomosis with robotic stapler, versus laparoscopic stapler, versus totally hand-sewn anastomosis and (2) closure of enterocolotomy with manual double layer, versus single layer, versus stapled.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies including 2066 patients were selected. Globally, the side-to-side, isoperistaltic anastomosis, realized with laparoscopic staplers, and double-layer closure for enterocolotomy, is the most common technique used. According to the meta-analysis, the use of robotic stapler was significantly associated with a reduction of the BR with respect to mechanical anastomosis with laparoscopic stapler or totally hand-sewn anastomosis. None of the other technical aspects significantly influenced the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

ICA fashioning during RRC can be accomplished with several technical variants without evidence of a clear superiority of anyone of these techniques. Although the use of robotic staplers could be associated with some benefits, further studies are necessary to draw conclusions.

Robotic Complete Mesocolic Excision with Central Vascular Ligation for Right Colon Cancer: Surgical Technique and Short-term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive colorectal surgery has demonstrated to have the same oncological results as open surgery, with better clinical outcomes. Robotic assistance is an evolution of minimally invasive technique.

PURPOSE

The study aims to present technical details and short-term oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) for right colon cancer.

METHODOLOGY

Fifty-two consecutive patients affected by right colon cancer were operated between May 2016 and February 2020 with da Vinci Xi platform. Data regarding surgical and short-term oncological outcomes were systematically collected in a colorectal specific database for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven (71.15%) and 15 (28.85%) patients underwent right and extended right hemicoletomy with an extracorporeal anastomosis. Median age was 55 years. Mean operative time was 182 ± 36 min. Mean blood loss was 110 ± 90 ml. Conversion rate was 3.84% (two cases). 78.84% (41 cases) were pT3 and mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 28 ± 4. 1/52 (1.92%) had a documented anastomotic leak requiring exploratory laparotomy and diversion proximal ileostomy. Surgery-related grade IIIa-IIIb Calvien Dindo morbidity were noted in 9.61% and 1.92%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Robotic assistance allows performance of oncological adequate dissection of the right colon with radical lymphadenectomy as in open surgery, confirming the safety and oncological adequacy of this technique, with acceptable results and short-term outcomes.

Complete mesocolic excision in minimally invasive surgery of colonic cancer: do we need the robot?

Background

Robotic surgery offers favorable prerequisites for complex minimally invasive surgeries which are delivered by higher degrees of freedom, improved instrument stability, and a perfect visualization in 3D which is fully surgeon controlled. In this article we aim to assess its impact on complete mesocolic excision (CME) in colon cancer and to answer the question of whether the current evidence expresses a need for robotic surgery for this indication.

Methods

Retrospective analysis and review of the current literature on complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer comparing the outcome after open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.

Results

Complete mesocolic excision results in improved disease-free survival and reduced local recurrence, but turns out to be complex and prone to complications. Introduced in open surgery, the transfer to minimally invasive surgery resulted in comparable results, however, with high conversion rates. In comparison, robotic surgery shows a reduced conversion rate and a tendency toward higher lymph node yield. Data, however, are insufficient and no high-quality studies have been published to date. Almost no oncologic follow-up data are available in the literature.

Conclusion

The current data do not allow for a reliable conclusion on the need of robotic surgery for CME, but show results which hypothesize an equivalence if not superiority to laparoscopy. Due to recently published technical improvements for robotic CME and supplementary features of this method, we suppose that this approach will gain in importance in the future.

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-assisted right colectomy versus laparoscopic approach: case-matched study and cost-effectiveness analysis

AIM

The aim of this study is to compare clinical and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted right colectomy with those of conventional laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy, reporting for the first time in literature, a cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS

This is a case-matched prospective non-randomized study conducted from October 2013 to October 2017 at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Patients with right-sided colonic adenocarcinoma or adenoma, not suitable endoscopic resection were treated with robot-assisted right colectomy and a propensity score-matched (1:1) was used to balance preoperative characteristics of a laparoscopic control group. Perioperative, postoperative, long-term oncological results and costs were analysed, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and the cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. The primary end point was to compare the cost-effectiveness differences between both groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000 and 30,000 per QALY was used as a threshold to recognize which treatment was most cost effective.

RESULTS

Thirty-five robot-assisted right colectomies were included and a group of 35 laparoscopy-assisted right colectomy was selected. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group was associated with longer operation times (243 min vs. 179 min, p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in terms of total costs between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (9455.14 vs 8227.50 respectively, p = 0.21). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 and 30,000, there was a 78.78-95.04% probability that the robotic group was cost effective relative to laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted right colectomy is a safe and feasible technique and is a cost-effective procedure.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy within a systematic ERAS protocol: a propensity-weighted analysis

The purpose of this study is to compare the early postoperative and pathological outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to those of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) with intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) within the systematic application of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. A single-institution prospective database of patients who underwent elective RRC or LRC with IA for neoplastic lesions between April 2010 and June 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. The patients' demographic characteristics, and perioperative and pathological outcomes were analyzed. Propensity-weighted analysis was employed to address potential selection biases of treatment allocation. A total of 216 patients (46 RRC, 170 LRC) were included. RRC demonstrated a significantly longer operative time (mean 242.43 min, SD 47.51) compared to LRC (mean 187.60 min, SD 56.60) (p = 0.001), confirmed by the propensity-weighted analysis (Coefficient 50.65; p < 0.001). Conversion rate between the two groups was comparable (p = 0.99). Median length of hospital stay (LOS) was the same in the RRC and the LRC group (4 days, p = 0.35). Readmission rate within 30 days in the RRC and LRC group was 2.2% and 2.4%, respectively (p = 0.99). Overall 30-day morbidity and 30-day mortality was 32.6% versus 27.1% (p = 0.46), and 0% versus 1.2% (p = 0.99) in the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. No difference was found in the number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.75). In an ERAS environment, without the bias of mixed techniques of anastomosis, RRC had similar postoperative and pathological outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach, but was associated with a longer operative time.

A standardized suprapubic bottom-to-up approach in robotic right colectomy: technical and oncological advances for complete mesocolic excision (CME)

Backround

Several studies have demonstrated a direct correlation between lymph node yield and survival after colectomy for cancer. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) in right colectomy (RC) reduces local recurrence but is technically demanding. Here we report our early single center experience with robotic right colectomy comparing our standardized bottom-to-up (BTU) approach of robotic RC with CME and central vessel ligation (CVL) facilitated by a suprapubic access with the “classical” medial-to-lateral (MTL) strategy.

Methods

A 4-step BTU approach of robotic RC guided by embryonal planes in the process of retrocolic mobilization with suprapubic port placement was performed in the BTU-group (n = 24; all with intention to treat cancer). In step 1 CME was initiated with caudolateral mobilization of the right colon guided by the fascia of Toldt across the duodenum and up to the Trunk of Henle. Subsequently, dissection was performed BTU right of the middle supramesenteric vessels with central ileocolic vessel ligation in step 2. Subsequent to separation of the transverse retromesenteric space and completion of mobilization the hepatic flexure in step 3, the transverse mesocolon was then transected right of the middle colic vessels in step 4. An extracorporeal side to side anastomosis was performed. We compared the outcome of the BTU-group with a MTL-group (n = 7).

Results

Patient characteristics like age, gender, BMI, comorbidity (ASA) and M-status were comparable among groups. There was no conversion. Overall complication rate was 35.5%. We experienced no anastomoses insufficiency, grade Dindo/Clavien III/IV complication or mortality in this study. Type I and II complications and surgical characteristics incl. OR-time, ICU- and hospital-stay were comparable between the two groups. However, the lymph node yield was superior in the BTU-group (mean 40.2 ± 17.1) when compared with the MTL-group (16,3 nodes ±8.5; p <  0,001).

Conclusions

Compared to the classical MTL approach, robotic suprapubic BTU RC changes from a search of the layers bordering the oncological dissection to a consequent utilization of the planes as a retro-mesocolic guide during CME. The BTU strategy could bear the potential to increase the lymph node yield. Robotic systems may provide the technical requirements to combine advantages of both open and minimally invasive RC.