1
|
Meyer J, Meyer E, Meurette G, Liot E, Toso C, Ris F. Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review of the evidence. J Robot Surg 2024; 18:116. [PMID: 38466445 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01862-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2023] [Accepted: 02/01/2024] [Indexed: 03/13/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy Meyer
- Division of Digestive Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil,14, 41211, Geneva, Switzerland.
- Medical School, University of Geneva, Rue Michel-Servet, 11206, Geneva, Switzerland.
| | - Elin Meyer
- Karolinska Institutet, Solnavägen 1, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Guillaume Meurette
- Division of Digestive Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil,14, 41211, Geneva, Switzerland
- Medical School, University of Geneva, Rue Michel-Servet, 11206, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Emilie Liot
- Division of Digestive Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil,14, 41211, Geneva, Switzerland
- Medical School, University of Geneva, Rue Michel-Servet, 11206, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Christian Toso
- Division of Digestive Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil,14, 41211, Geneva, Switzerland
- Medical School, University of Geneva, Rue Michel-Servet, 11206, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Frédéric Ris
- Division of Digestive Surgery, University Hospitals of Geneva, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil,14, 41211, Geneva, Switzerland
- Medical School, University of Geneva, Rue Michel-Servet, 11206, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
de'Angelis N, Piccoli M, Casoni Pattacini G, Winter DC, Carcoforo P, Celentano V, Coccolini F, Di Saverio S, Frontali A, Fuks D, Genova P, Guerrieri M, Kraft M, Lakkis Z, Le Roy B, Micelli Lupinacci R, Milone M, Petri R, Scabini S, Tonini V, Valverde A, Zorcolo L, Bianchi G, Ris F, Espin E. Right Colectomy with Intracorporeal Anastomosis: A European Multicenter Propensity Score Matching Retrospective Study of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Procedures. World J Surg 2023:10.1007/s00268-023-07031-3. [PMID: 37188971 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-023-07031-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/08/2023] [Indexed: 05/17/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola de'Angelis
- Unit of Colorectal and Digestive Surgery, DIGEST Department, Beaujon University Hospital, Clichy, France.
- University of Paris Est, UPEC, Créteil, France.
- Department of Digestive, Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Henri-Mondor Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris Est - UPEC, 51, Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010, Créteil, France.
| | - Micaela Piccoli
- Unit of General, Emergency Surgery and New Technologies, OCB (Ospedale Civile Baggiovara), AOU (Azienda Ospedaliero, Universitaria Di Modena), Modena, Italy
| | - Gianmaria Casoni Pattacini
- Unit of General, Emergency Surgery and New Technologies, OCB (Ospedale Civile Baggiovara), AOU (Azienda Ospedaliero, Universitaria Di Modena), Modena, Italy
| | - Des C Winter
- Department of Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Paolo Carcoforo
- Department of Surgery, Unit of General Surgery, University Hospital of Ferrara, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
| | - Valerio Celentano
- University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - Federico Coccolini
- General, Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | - Salomone Di Saverio
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alice Frontali
- Department of General Surgery, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences 'L. Sacco', University of Milan, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Milan, Italy
| | - David Fuks
- Department of Digestive Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - Pietro Genova
- Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), Paolo Giaccone University Hospital, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy
| | - Mario Guerrieri
- Department of General Surgery, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Piazza Roma 22, 60121, Ancona, Italy
| | - Miquel Kraft
- Unit of Colorectal Surgery, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron-Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Zaher Lakkis
- Department of Digestive Surgical Oncology - Liver Transplantation Unit, University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France
| | - Bertrand Le Roy
- Department of Digestive and Oncologic Surgery, CHU Saint-Etienne, Hospital Nord, Saint-Etienne, France
| | - Renato Micelli Lupinacci
- Department of Digestive, Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, Ambroise Paré Hospital, AP-HP. Paris Saclay University, Boulogne-Billancourt, France
| | - Marco Milone
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, "Federico II" University of Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Roberto Petri
- General Surgery Department, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale (ASU FC), Udine, Italy
| | - Stefano Scabini
- General and Oncologic Surgical Unit, Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | - Valeria Tonini
- Emergency Surgery Department, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Alain Valverde
- Groupe Hospitalier Diaconesses, Croix Saint-Simon, 75020, Paris, France
| | - Luigi Zorcolo
- Colon and Rectal Surgery Unit, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
| | - Giorgio Bianchi
- Department of Digestive, Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Henri-Mondor Hospital, AP-HP, Université Paris Est - UPEC, 51, Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010, Créteil, France
| | - Frederic Ris
- Division of Abdominal and Transplantation Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, 4 Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Eloy Espin
- Unit of Colorectal Surgery, Department of General and Digestive Surgery, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron-Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zheng J, Zhao S, Chen W, Zhang M, Wu J. Comparison of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 2023:10.1007/s10151-023-02821-2. [PMID: 37184773 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02821-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2022] [Accepted: 05/04/2023] [Indexed: 05/16/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jianchun Zheng
- Department of Emergency, The Second Hospital of Jiaxing: The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, China
| | - Shuai Zhao
- Department of General Surgery, Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital Affiliated to Medical School of Nanjing University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Wei Chen
- Department of Emergency, The Second Hospital of Jiaxing: The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, China
| | - Ming Zhang
- Department of Emergency, The Second Hospital of Jiaxing: The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, China
| | - Jianxiang Wu
- Department of Emergency, The Second Hospital of Jiaxing: The Second Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, China.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
de’Angelis N, Micelli Lupinacci R, Abdalla S, Genova P, Beliard A, Cotte E, Denost Q, Goasguen N, Lakkis Z, Lelong B, Manceau G, Meurette G, Perrenot C, Pezet D, Rouanet P, Valverde A, Pessaux P, Azagra S, Mege D, Di Saverio S, de Chaisemartin C, Espin-Basany E, Gaujoux S, Gómez-Ruiz M, Gronnier C, Karoui M, Spinoglio G. Robotic-assisted right colectomy. Official expert recommendations delivered under the aegis of the French Association of Surgery (AFC). J Visc Surg 2022; 159:212-221. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2022.04.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
|
5
|
Tschann P, Szeverinski P, Weigl MP, Rauch S, Lechner D, Adler S, Girotti PNC, Clemens P, Tschann V, Presl J, Schredl P, Mittermair C, Jäger T, Emmanuel K, Königsrainer I. Short- and Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic- versus Robotic-Assisted Right Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med 2022; 11:jcm11092387. [PMID: 35566512 PMCID: PMC9103048 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092387] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2022] [Revised: 04/15/2022] [Accepted: 04/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Tschann
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +43-(0)-5522-303-2400; Fax: +43-(0)-5522-303-7505
| | - Philipp Szeverinski
- Institute of Medical Physics, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria;
- Private University in the Principality of Liechtenstein, 9495 Triesen, Liechtenstein
| | - Markus P. Weigl
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
| | - Stephanie Rauch
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
| | - Daniel Lechner
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
| | - Stephanie Adler
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
| | - Paolo N. C. Girotti
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
| | - Patrick Clemens
- Department of Radio-Oncology, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria;
| | - Veronika Tschann
- Department of Internal Medicine II, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria;
| | - Jaroslav Presl
- Department of Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; (J.P.); (P.S.); (T.J.); (K.E.)
| | - Philipp Schredl
- Department of Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; (J.P.); (P.S.); (T.J.); (K.E.)
| | - Christof Mittermair
- Department of Surgery, St. John of God Hospital, Teaching Hospital of Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria;
| | - Tarkan Jäger
- Department of Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; (J.P.); (P.S.); (T.J.); (K.E.)
| | - Klaus Emmanuel
- Department of Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; (J.P.); (P.S.); (T.J.); (K.E.)
| | - Ingmar Königsrainer
- Department of General and Thoracic Surgery, Academic Teaching Hospital Feldkirch, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria; (M.P.W.); (S.R.); (D.L.); (S.A.); (P.N.C.G.); (I.K.)
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Liang Y, Li L, Su Q, Liu Y, Yin H, Wu D. Short-term outcomes of intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis in robotic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 2022; 26:529-535. [PMID: 35347491 DOI: 10.1007/s10151-022-02599-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2021] [Accepted: 02/10/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
Ileocolic anastomosis is performed via extracorporeal or intracorporeal techniques in robotic right hemicolectomy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term outcomes of intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) and extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) for robotic right colectomy. The EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically (from inception until March 1, 2020) for randomized and non-randomized control trials reporting the short-term outcomes of IA and EA for robotic right colectomy. Five observational cohort studies involving 585 participants were included in our meta-analysis. Compared to the EA group, the IA group showed significantly longer operation time [weighted mean difference (WMD): 28.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.88-43.89, p = 0.0002], lower rate of anastomotic leak (odds ratio: 0.26, 95% CI 0.08-0.85, p = 0.03), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD: - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.95 to 0.19, p = 0.003). However, pooled results revealed no difference in blood loss, complications, wound infection, incisional hernia, length of incision, and hospital stay between the IA and EA groups (p < 0.05). This meta-analysis indicated that IA was superior to EA in terms of anastomotic leak and time to first flatus, but inferior in terms of operation time. Large-scale, multicenter, randomized studies are needed to confirm our findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Y Liang
- Department of General Surgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China
| | - L Li
- Department of Anorectal Surgery, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou, China
| | - Q Su
- Department of General Surgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China
| | - Y Liu
- Department of General Surgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China
| | - H Yin
- Department of General Surgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China
| | - D Wu
- Department of General Surgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Cuk P, Kjær MD, Mogensen CB, Nielsen MF, Pedersen AK, Ellebæk MB. Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2021; 36:32-46. [PMID: 34724576 PMCID: PMC8741661 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08782-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2021] [Accepted: 10/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Background Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS). Methods Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2, and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE. Results Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD = − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE. Conclusion RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08782-7.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pedja Cuk
- Surgical Department, University Hospital of Southern Jutland, Kresten Philipsens Vej 15, 6200, Aabenraa, Denmark. .,Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
| | - Mie Dilling Kjær
- Research Unit for Surgery, Odense University Hospital and University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | | | - Michael Festersen Nielsen
- Surgical Department, University Hospital of Southern Jutland, Kresten Philipsens Vej 15, 6200, Aabenraa, Denmark.,Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | | | - Mark Bremholm Ellebæk
- Research Unit for Surgery, Odense University Hospital and University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Guadagni S, Palmeri M, Bianchini M, Gianardi D, Furbetta N, Minichilli F, Di Franco G, Comandatore A, Di Candio G, Morelli L. Ileo-colic intra-corporeal anastomosis during robotic right colectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of different techniques. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021; 36:1097-1110. [PMID: 33486533 PMCID: PMC8119253 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-03850-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/15/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simone Guadagni
- General Surgery Unit, Department of Translational Research and new Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Matteo Palmeri
- General Surgery Unit, Department of Translational Research and new Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Matteo Bianchini
- General Surgery Unit, Department of Translational Research and new Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Desirée Gianardi
- General Surgery Unit, Department of Translational Research and new Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Niccolò Furbetta
- General Surgery Unit, Department of Translational Research and new Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Fabrizio Minichilli
- Unit of Environmental Epidemiology and Disease Registries, Institute of Clinical Physiology, National Council of Research, Pisa, Italy
| | - Gregorio Di Franco
- General Surgery Unit, Department of Translational Research and new Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Annalisa Comandatore
- General Surgery Unit, Department of Translational Research and new Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Giulio Di Candio
- General Surgery Unit, Department of Translational Research and new Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
| | - Luca Morelli
- General Surgery Unit, Department of Translational Research and new Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy ,Endo-CAS (Center for Computer Assisted Surgery), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lin CC, Huang SC, Lin HH, Chang SC, Chen WS, Jiang JK. An early experience with the Senhance surgical robotic system in colorectal surgery: a single-institute study. Int J Med Robot 2020; 17:e2206. [PMID: 33289238 DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2206] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2020] [Revised: 11/13/2020] [Accepted: 11/16/2020] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We present our initial single-centre experience with Senhance surgical robot-assisted colorectal surgery and examine its safety and feasibility. METHODS From June 2019 to December 2019, patients who underwent Senhance surgical robot-assisted colorectal surgery in our hospital were retrospectively analysed. We focused on the short-term outcomes. RESULTS In total, 46 patients were enrolled in the study. Colorectal cancer was the most common indication for surgery (39 patients). The median total operation time was 283 min, and the median blood loss was 50 cc. Meanwhile, the median number of harvested lymph nodes was 20. Elderly age, advanced American Society of Anaesthesiologists stage, and right-sided colon surgery were associated with the occurrence of complications greater than grade III. CONCLUSION Our findings demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the Senhance surgical robotic system in colorectal surgery. Care should be taken regarding the indications and patient selection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chun-Chi Lin
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC.,Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Sheng-Chieh Huang
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC.,Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Hung-Hsin Lin
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC.,Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Shih-Ching Chang
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC.,Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Wei-Shone Chen
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC.,Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| | - Jeng-Kai Jiang
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC.,Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Genova P, Pantuso G, Cipolla C, Latteri MA, Abdalla S, Paquet JC, Brunetti F, de'Angelis N, Di Saverio S. Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2020; 406:1317-1339. [PMID: 32902707 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-020-01985-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/23/2020] [Accepted: 09/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pietro Genova
- Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), Paolo Giaccone University Hospital, University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 129, 90127, Palermo, Italy.
| | - Gianni Pantuso
- Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), Unit of General and Oncological Surgery, Paolo Giaccone University Hospital, University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 129, 90127, Palermo, Italy
| | - Calogero Cipolla
- Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), Unit of General and Oncological Surgery, Paolo Giaccone University Hospital, University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 129, 90127, Palermo, Italy
| | - Mario Adelfio Latteri
- Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), Unit of General and Oncological Surgery, Paolo Giaccone University Hospital, University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 129, 90127, Palermo, Italy
| | - Solafah Abdalla
- Department of Digestive Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Bicêtre University Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Université Paris-Sud, 78 Rue du Général Leclerc, 94275, Le Kremlin Bicetre, France
| | - Jean-Christophe Paquet
- Unit of Digestive and Urologic Surgery, Groupe Hospitalier Nord-Essonne, Site de Longjumeau, 159 Rue du Président François Mitterrand, 91160, Longjumeau, France
| | - Francesco Brunetti
- Department of Digestive and Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Henri Mondor University Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC), 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010, Creteil, France
| | - Nicola de'Angelis
- Department of Digestive and Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Henri Mondor University Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Université Paris-Est Créteil (UPEC), 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010, Creteil, France
| | - Salomone Di Saverio
- Cambridge Colorectal Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Box 201, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Lee JL, Alsaleem HA, Kim JC. Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives. Ann Surg Treat Res 2019; 98:31-43. [PMID: 31909048 PMCID: PMC6940430 DOI: 10.4174/astr.2020.98.1.31] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/13/2019] [Revised: 10/28/2019] [Accepted: 11/05/2019] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jong Lyul Lee
- Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hassan A Alsaleem
- Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jin Cheon Kim
- Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|