Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study

The outcomes of robotic ileocolic resection in Crohn's disease compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

This is the first review providing insights into the outcomes of robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease, potentially guiding improved surgical decisions and patient outcomes and comparing outcomes with laparoscopic and open approaches.

METHODS

The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42024504839). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central databases for studies on robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease from inception to February 2024 was conducted. Eligible studies included participants over 18 years of age with Crohn's disease undergoing robotic ileocolic resection. Data were extracted according to PRISMA guidelines. For single-arm analyses, the random-effects model was used, while two-arm analyses employed the inverse variance and Mantel-Haenszel methods.

RESULTS

The analysis included eight studies with 5760 patients, among whom 369 underwent robotic ileocolic resection. The mean operative time for robotic procedures was 226 min. Postoperative complications included ileus in 12.50% and wound complications in 7.00%, while reoperations and readmissions occurred in 3.60% and 13.20% of patients, respectively. When compared with laparoscopic procedures, robotic procedures showed shorter length of hospital stay and longer operative times but similar total complication, reoperation, and conversion rates. In contrast, robotic procedures had fewer total postoperative complications compared with open surgeries, despite longer operative times.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease, while having a longer operative time, results in fewer postoperative complications compared with open surgery and shows comparable outcomes to laparoscopic procedures with shorter hospital stays.

[Robotic vs. laparoscopic right hemicolectomy-An analysis of costs]

The use of robotic surgical methods for performing right-sided hemicolectomy has been somewhat controversial, primarily due to concerns related to costs. The purpose of this study is to document the initial robotic right hemicolectomies conducted at our institution and to compare them with a laparoscopic reference group. A significant focus of this study is the detailed analysis of the costs associated with both techniques within the German healthcare system.Surgical and cost-related data for 34 cases each for robotic and laparoscopic right-sided hemicolectomy performed at Nürnberg Hospital were compared. This comparison was conducted through a retrospective single-center case-matched analysis. Cost analysis was carried out following the current guidelines provided by the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK) of Germany.The average age of the patient cohort was 70 years, with a male patient proportion of 57.4%. Analysis of perioperative parameters indicated similar outcomes for both surgical techniques. Regarding the incidence of complications of Clavien-Dindo stages III-V (8.8% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.48), a positive trend towards robotic surgery was observed. The cost analysis showed nearly identical total costs for the selected cases in both groups (mean €13,423 vs. €13,424; p = 1.00), with the most significant cost difference noted in surgical (operative) costs (€5,779 vs. €3,521; p < 0.01). The lower costs for laparoscopic cases were primarily due to the reduced material costs (mean €2,657 vs. €702; p < 0.05).In conclusion, both surgical approaches are clinically equivalent, with only minor differences in the total case costs.

New era of robotic surgery: first case in Spain of right hemicolectomy on Hugo RAS surgical platform

We describe the first robot-assisted right hemicolectomy performed in Spain using the new Hugo RAS (robotic-assisted surgery) (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA). No conversion was registered, and no intraoperative complications or technical failures of the system were recorded. The operative time was 200 min, the docking time was 5 min and the length of the hospital stay was 8 days. We conclude that a right hemicolectomy using the Hugo RAS system is safe and feasible. Our earlier experience provides important skills for those who are starting to use this new robotic system.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision: a retrospective multicenter study with propensity score matching

OBJECTIVE

During the past decade, the concept of complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been developed in an attempt to minimize recurrence for right-sided colon cancer. This study aims to compare outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME for right-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective multicenter propensity score matching study. From July 2016 to July 2021, 382 consecutive patients from different Chinese surgical departments were available for inclusion out of an initial cohort of 412, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME. Data of all patients were retrospectively collected and reviewed. Of these, 149 cases were performed by a robotic approach, while the other 233 cases were done by laparoscopy. Propensity score matching was applied at a ratio of 1:1 to compare perioperative, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes between the robotic and the laparoscopic groups (n = 142).

RESULTS

Before propensity score matching, there were no statistical differences regarding the sex, history of abdominal surgery, body mass index (BMI), American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system, tumor location, and center between groups (p > 0.05), while a significant difference was observed regarding age (p = 0.029). After matching, two comparable groups of 142 cases were obtained with equivalent patient characteristics (p > 0.05). Blood loss, time to oral intake, return of bowel function, length of stay, and complications were not different between groups (p > 0.05). The robotic group showed a significantly lower conversion rate (0% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.03), but a longer operative time (200.9 min vs. 182.3 min, p < 0.001) and a higher total hospital cost (85,016 RMB vs. 58,266 RMB, p < 0.001) compared with the laparoscopic group. The number of harvested lymph nodes was comparable (20.4 vs. 20.5, p = 0.861). Incidence of complications, mortality, and pathologic outcomes were similar between groups (p > 0.05). The 2-year disease-free survival rates were 84.9% and 87.1% (p = 0.679), and the overall survival rates between groups were 83.8% and 80.7% (p = 0.943).

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations of a retrospective analysis, the outcomes of robotic right hemicolectomy with CME were comparable to the laparoscopic procedures with fewer conversions to open surgery. More clinical advantages of the robotic surgery system need to be further confirmed by well-conducted randomized clinical trials with large cohorts of patients.

Short- and Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic- versus Robotic-Assisted Right Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to revise current comparative literature systematically. Methods: A systematic review of comparative studies published between 2000 to 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term oncological results. Secondary endpoints consist of blood loss, conversion rates, complications, time to first flatus, hospital stay and incisional hernia rate. Results: 25 of 322 studies were considered for data extraction. A total of 16,099 individual patients who underwent RRC (n = 1842) or LRC (n = 14,257) between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRC group (LRC 165.31 min ± 43.08 vs. RRC 207.38 min ± 189.13, MD: −42.01 (95% CI: −51.06−32.96), p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the RRC group (LRC 63.57 ± 35.21 vs. RRC 53.62 ± 34.02, MD: 10.03 (95% CI: 1.61−18.45), p = 0.02) as well as conversion rate (LRC 1155/11,629 vs. RRC 94/1534, OR: 1.65 (1.28−2.13), p < 0.001) and hospital stay (LRC 6.15 ± 31.77 vs. RRC 5.31 ± 1.65, MD: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.29−1.38), p = 0.003). Oncological long-term results did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: The advantages of robotic colorectal procedures were clearly demonstrated. RRC can be regarded as safe and feasible. Most of the included studies were retrospective with a limited level of evidence. Further randomized trials would be suitable.