Is robot-assisted laparoscopic right colectomy more effective than the conventional laparoscopic procedure? A meta-analysis of short-term outcomes

Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Transverse colon cancer, which accounts for approximately 10% of all colon cancers, has a significant gap in the available scientific literature regarding the optimal minimally invasive surgical approach. This meta-analysis aims to compare the robotic and laparoscopic approaches for the surgical management of transverse colon cancer.

METHODS

Our systematic review made use of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, in addition to Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Articles of interest turned out from a search with PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL), Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index), and Embase databases. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for comparative population studies concerning patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer). The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (Version 2) (RoB 2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (Version 2) ROBINS-I. We evaluated two groups of outcomes: intraoperative and postoperative. RevMan (Computer program) Version 5.4.1 was used to perform the meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of the included studies in the meta-analysis was assessed by using the I2 statist.

RESULTS

The 4 included comparative studies (373 patients: 116 robotic colectomy versus 257 laparoscopic colectomy) had a time frame of approximately 26 years (2005-2021) and an observational nature. Meta-analysis showed a longer operative time (MD: 62.47, 95% CI: 18.17, 106.76, I2 = 92%, P = 0.006) and a shorter hospital stay (MD:-1.11, 95% CI: -2.05, -0.18, I2 = 63%, P = 0.002) for the robotic group. No differences in terms of conversion to laparotomy, estimated blood loss, time to flatus, time to solid diet, overall postoperative complications rate, minor (Clavien-Dindo or CD I-II) and major (Clavien-Dindo or CD ≥ III) postoperative complications rate, anastomotic leakage, surgical site infections, bleeding, lymph nodes harvested, were shown between robotic and laparoscopic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis revealed that the robotic approach to transverse colon cancer appears to be a safe and feasible option, with results comparable to those of laparoscopic surgery, with longer operating times but a shorter hospital stay. Further high-quality methodological studies are needed to evaluate and compare the short- and long-term outcomes, healthcare costs, and the learning curve between the robotic and laparoscopic surgical approaches.

Comparison of different surgical techniques and anastomosis methods in short-term outcomes of right colon cancer: a network meta-analysis of open surgery, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis

With the rapid development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, there remains considerable controversy regarding the choice of surgical approach and anastomosis method for patients with right-sded colon cancer (RSCC). This meta-analysis compared the short-term outcomes of open right colectomies (ORC), laparoscopic right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (LRC-IA and LRC-EA), as well as robot right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (RRC-IA and RRC-EA). A systematic search was conducted across PubMed (n = 549), Web of Science (n = 821), Embase (n = 591), and the Cochrane Central Register (n = 86) from January 2000 to August 2024. Studies comparing at least two of the surgical techniques for RSCC were included. The primary outcomes evaluated were overall complications, wound infection, ileus, and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, time to resume diet, and conversion rates. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. A total of 39 studies comprising 6098 patients were included. The results indicated that LRC-IA had the lowest overall complication rate (OR 0.65; 95% CI [0.41, 1.07]), while ORC had the highest. RRC-IA was most effective in reducing wound infection (OR 0.77; 95% CI [0.39, 1.35]), blood loss (MD 18.01; 95% CI [4.62, 40.87]), and hospital stay (MD 0.93; 95% CI [0.67, 1.31]), while also demonstrating advantages in preventing postoperative ileus (OR 0.47; 95% CI [0.05, 1.31]) and ensuring faster bowel function recovery (OR 0.80; 95% CI [0.44, 1.53]). The analysis demonstrates that for patients with RSCC, RRC shows better short-term outcomes compared to LRC and ORC, while IA also surpasses EA.

Robotic high anterior resection for rectal cancer with hand-sewn Gambee anastomosis after metal stent placement in a colorectal malignant stricture: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly deployed in colorectal surgery, and decompression surgery using a stent is considered a standard treatment for malignant stenosis of the large intestine. Surgery after stent placement is also frequently performed. However, the anastomosis method remains controversial.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 75-year-old woman visited our hospital's internal medicine department with chief complaints of bloody stool and constipation for the past year and colonoscopy was scheduled. After taking laxatives to prepare for treatment, abdominal pain was noticed and an emergency request was made. A diagnosis of colorectal malignant stricture and rectosigmoid junction cancer was made and a stent was placed during emergency colonoscopy. After intestinal decompression, a diagnosis of rectosigmoid junction cancer (UICC 8th; T3N0M0 Stage IIa) was rendered and robotic-assisted high anterior resection of the rectum and lymph node D3 dissection were performed. Reconstruction was performed using Gambee anastomosis outside the body cavity. The postoperative course was uneventful.

DISCUSSION

The double stapling technique is simple, but in this case, the obstructed intestinal tract was swollen. Meanwhile, Gambee anastomosis, which allows adjustment of tightness, was considered effective.

CONCLUSION

Gambee anastomosis is a valid option when robot-assisted rectal resection is performed after intestinal decompression with stent placement for malignant stricture of the rectosigmoid junction. It is important to select a hand-sewn or mechanical anastomosis by considering the condition of the organ to be anastomosed and the site of the anastomosis.

Precision Versus Practicality: A Comprehensive Analysis of Robotic Right Colectomy Versus Laparoscopic Right Colectomy, Future Directions, Biases, Research Gaps, and Their Implications

Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world and second in cancer-related mortality. It is most prevalent in the developed world and is often associated with lifestyle factors along with age and genetics. The inclusion criteria comprised high-level evidence, such as randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews, conducted between 2012 and 2023, that directly compared the two approaches. The review reveals mixed outcomes between robotic right colectomy (RRC) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The robotic approach was associated with longer operative duration and higher costs but with decreased blood loss and quicker recovery compared to laparoscopy. On the other hand, no major differences were observed regarding lymph node retrieval, duration of hospitalization, and surgical complications. Regarding future directions, it is evident that the focus needs to shift beyond the operative parameters and to patient-centered outcomes, which are underreported. Also, more randomized clinical trials are required, focusing on safety, efficacy, and long-term quality of life. Costs-benefit analyses are required to weigh the benefits of robotic surgery against the implementation and practice costs. Additionally, improvements in surgeons' training may be necessary to reduce the operative duration and potentially decrease operational costs. Finally, standardization of research protocols may be necessary to reduce biases.

Short-term and long-term efficacy in robot-assisted treatment for mid and low rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the short-term and long-term therapeutic effects of robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment in patients with mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was employed to retrieve relevant literature from PubMed, NCBI, Medline, and Springer databases, spanning the database inception until August 2023. The focus of this systematic review was on controlled studies that compared the treatment outcomes of robot-assisted (Rob) and conventional laparoscopy (Lap) in the context of mid and low rectal cancer. Data extraction and literature review were meticulously conducted by two independent researchers (HMW and RKG). The synthesized data underwent rigorous analysis utilizing RevMan 5.4 software, adhering to established methodological standards in systematic reviews. The primary outcomes encompass perioperative outcomes and oncological outcomes. Secondary outcomes include long-term outcomes.

RESULT

A total of 11 studies involving 2239 patients with mid and low rectal cancer were included (3 RCTs and 8 NRCTs); the Rob group consisted of 1111 cases, while the Lap group included 1128 cases. The Rob group exhibited less intraoperative bleeding (MD =  -40.01, 95% CI: -57.61 to -22.42, P < 0.00001), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.82, P = 0.02), a higher number of harvested lymph nodes (MD = 1.97, 95% CI: 0.77 to 3.18, P = 0.001), and a lower CRM positive rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.95, P = 0.04). Additionally, the Rob group had lower postoperative morbidity rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.82, P < 0.0001) and a lower occurrence rate of complications with Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.90, P = 0.02). Further subgroup analysis revealed a lower anastomotic leakage rate (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.97, P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the analysis of operation time (P = 0.42), occurrence rates of protective stoma (P = 0.81), PRM (P = 0.92), and DRM (P = 0.23), time to flatus (P = 0.18), time to liquid diet (P = 0.65), total hospital stay (P = 0.35), 3-year overall survival rate (P = 0.67), and 3-year disease-free survival rate (P = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic treatment for mid and low rectal cancer yields favorable outcomes, demonstrating both efficacy and safety. In comparison to conventional laparoscopy, patients experience reduced intraoperative bleeding and a lower incidence of complications. Notably, the method achieves comparable short-term and long-term treatment results to those of conventional laparoscopic surgery, thus justifying its consideration for widespread clinical application.

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.

Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy node retrieval in the obese population

Data are scarce comparing robotic and laparoscopic colectomy node retrieval based on body mass index or age. With differences in anastomosis, mobilization, and ligation between these approaches, obese and/or elderly patients undergoing robotic surgery may have differences in node yield compared to laparoscopy. A retrospective review was conducted between four institutions from February 1, 2019 through August 1, 2021, during which 144 right colectomies were performed. Benign pathology, open colectomies, and conversions to open were excluded. All included surgeons had at least five patients to ensure experience. The population was categorized by a robotic or laparoscopic approach. Records were reviewed focusing on age, body mass index, surgical approach, anastomosis, pathology, and node count. The node count was then compared by body mass index and age between the robotic or laparoscopic approach to identify differences. After applied exclusions and outlier analysis, our final sample consisted of 80 patients. Both body mass index and age were significant, (p = 0.002 and p = 0.005, respectively). Body mass index ≤ 25.0 and age < 60 years old had higher average node counts. These variables interacted, (p = 0.003); those with both < 60 years old and body mass index ≤ 25 showed the greatest number of nodes (36.9). Laparoscopy yielded more nodes in ≥ 60 years old than robotics (27.4 verses 20.9), though this was not significant (p = 0.68). Node retrieval in overweight and obese patients did not differ between approaches (p = 0.48). Both body mass index and age influence the number of nodes that can be extracted in right hemicolectomies by experienced surgeons.

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.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a retrospective cohort study of the Binational Colorectal Cancer Database

Robotic right hemicolectomy (RRC) may have technical advantages over the conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) due to higher degrees of rotation, articulation, and tri-dimensional imaging. There is growing literature describing advantages of RRC compared to LRC; however, there is a lack of evidence about safety, oncologic quality of surgery and cost. This study aimed to analyse complication rates, length of stay and nodal harvest in patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer from a prospective Australasian colorectal cancer database. This was a retrospective cohort study using nearest neighbour matching. The Binational Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) provided the data for analysis. The primary outcome was length of stay. Secondary outcomes were harvested lymph node count, anastomotic leak, postoperative haemorrhage, abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, wound infections and non-surgical complications. 4977 patients who underwent robotic (n = 146) or laparoscopic (n = 4831) right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer were included. For RRC, LOS was shorter (5 vs 6.9 days, p = 0.01) and nodal harvest was higher (22 vs 19, p = 0.04). For RRC, surgical complications (5.9% vs 14.2%, p < 0.004) and non-surgical complications (4.6% vs 11.7%, p = 0.007) were lower though there was no difference in return to theatre or inpatient death. Robotic right hemicolectomy is associated shorter LOS and marginally higher lymph node count, though this may reflect anastomotic technique rather than surgical platform. Longer term studies are required to establish differences in overall survival, incisional hernia rates and cost effectiveness.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: a nationwide cohort study

PURPOSE

On a national level, the minimally invasive approach is widely adopted in Denmark. The adoption of robotic colorectal surgery is increasing; however, the advantage of a robotic approach in right colectomy is still uncertain. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic right colectomy with laparoscopic right colectomy on a national level.

METHODS

This was a nationwide database study based on data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients from all colorectal centers in Denmark in the period 2014-2018 treated with curative intend in an elective setting with either robotic or laparoscopic right colectomy were identified. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounding, and the groups were compared on demographics, disease characteristics, operative data, and postoperative and pathology outcomes. Reporting was done in accordance with the STROBE statement.

RESULTS

In total, 4002 patients were available for analysis. Propensity score matching in ratio 2:1 identified 718 laparoscopic and 359 robotic cases. After matching, we found a higher lymph node yield in the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic group, (32.5 vs. 28.4, P < 0.001), while radicality, plane of dissection, and pathological disease stages showed no differences. There were no statistical differences in morbidity and mortality. Intracorporeal anastomosis (23.7% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.001) was more commonly performed with a robotic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic approach was associated with a significant higher lymph node yield and with similar postoperative morbidity compared to a laparoscopic approach for right colectomy.

Outsourcing robotic-assisted operations to private hospitals: Cost analysis of a retrospective cohort

BACKGROUND

The Lyell McEwin Hospital entered into a public-private collaborative agreement in 2019 in order to access Da Vinci® Xi Surgical Systems (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) in private hospitals. This study aimed to examine the costs associated with usage of robot surgical systems under the agreement, and the potential for acquisition in the public hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective data on robotic-assisted and equivalent operations performed between 1 May 2019 and 30 April 2020 were collected and formed subsequent model inputs. Cost data were from hospital records and the local Da Vinci® Xi distributor. Clinical workflow of operations was simulated with a decision-analytic model, with output being costs incurred. The model's base case scenario assumed 5% of cases were robotically assisted.

RESULTS

A total of 35 robotic-assisted, 101 laparoscopic and 34 open operations were performed. Patients were predominantly male and overweight with multiple comorbidities. Length of stay and duration of operation were associated with increased costs (p < 0.001, r² 0.72). In the base case scenario, there was a cost of AU$26 424 per patient, with an open conversion rate of 11%. Increasing robotic-assisted case percentage resulted in reduced cost, open conversion rates and length of stay. Extrapolation of cost model data indicated if 50% were robotic-assisted cases, then the initial capital investment (assumed at AU$4 000 000) could be recovered in 10 years.

CONCLUSION

Our model highlights potential advantages of performing greater numbers of robotic-assisted operations in a collaborative environment. Cost-effective analysis with prospective data could evaluate if these results are translatable and potentially support acquisition of robotic systems in the public sector.

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.

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.

Current status and trend of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) is utilized worldwide as one of the standard surgical treatments for right-sided colon cancer. However, there have been issues concerning its applicability, techniques, and trend. The present study aimed to elucidate the current status and trend of LRH by reviewing literature focusing on important issues associated with this surgery. Based on previous studies, LRH most likely provides better short-term outcomes and similar oncological outcomes compared to open surgery. Despite the increasing use of robotic approach in this surgery, it seems to have always been associated with longer operative times and greater hospital cost with limited advantage. Intracorporeal anastomosis seems to improve short-term outcomes, such as quicker recovery of bowel function, compared to extracorporeal anastomosis. However, it does not contribute to shorter hospital stay. With regard to dissection technique, various approaches, and landmarks have been advocated to overcome the technical difficulty in LRH. This difficulty is likely to be caused by anatomical variation, especially in venous structures. The superiority of one approach or landmark over another is still argued about due to the lack of large-scale prospective studies. However, deep understanding both of anatomical variation and characteristics of each approach would be of extreme importance to minimize adverse effects and maximize patient benefit after LRH.

Robotic vs laparoscopic right colectomy - the burden of age and comorbidity in perioperative outcomes: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have shown the safety, feasibility and oncologic adequacy of robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH). Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) is considered technically challenging. Robotic surgery has been introduced to overcome this technical limitation, but it is related to high costs. To maximize the benefits of such surgery, only selected patients are candidates for this technique. In addition, due to progressive aging of the population, an increasing number of minimally invasive procedures are performed on elderly patients with severe comorbidities, who are usually more prone to post-operative complications.

AIM

To investigate the outcomes of RRH vs LRH with regard to age and comorbidities.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 123 minimally invasive procedures (68 LRHs vs 55 RRHs) for right colon cancer or endoscopically unresectable adenoma performed in our Center from January 2014 until September 2019. The surgical procedures were performed according to standardized techniques. The primary clinical outcome of the study was the length of hospital stay (LOS) measured in days. Secondary outcomes were time to first flatus (TFF) and time to first stool evacuation. The robotic technique was considered the exposure and the laparoscopic technique was considered the control. Routine demographic variables were obtained, including age at time of surgery and gender. Body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status were registered. The age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) was calculated; the tumor-node-metastasis system, intra-operative variables and post-operative complications were recorded. Post-operative follow-up was 180 d.

RESULTS

LOS, TFF, and time to first stool were significantly shorter in the robotic group: Median 6 [interquartile range (IQR) 5-8] vs 7 (IQR 6-10.5) d, P = 0.028; median 2 (IQR 1-3) vs 3 (IQR 2-4) d, P < 0.001; median 4 (IQR 3-5) vs 5 (IQR 4-6.5) d, P = 0.005, respectively. Following multivariable analysis, the robotic technique was confirmed to be predictive of significantly shorter hospitalization and faster restoration of bowel function; in addition the dichotomous variables of age over 75 years and ACCI more than 7 were significant predictors of hospital stay. No outcomes were significantly associated with Clavien-Dindo grading. Sub-group analysis demonstrated that patients aged over 75 years had a longer LOS (median 6 -IQR 5-8- vs 7 -IQR 6-12- d, P = 0.013) and later TFF (median 2 -IQR 1-3- vs 3 -IQR 2-4- d, P = 0.008), while patients with ACCI more than 7 were only associated with a prolonged hospital stay (median 7 -IQR 5-8- vs 7 -IQR 6-14.5- d, P = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

RRH is related to shorter LOS when compared with the laparoscopic approach, but older age and several comorbidities tend to reduce its benefits.

Robotic or three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy for right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and intracorporeal anastomosis? A propensity score-matching study comparison

BACKGROUND

We describe our preliminary experience in complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) and intracorporeal anastomosis for right colon cancer, comparing the robotic and the three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational clinical cohort study on patients who underwent radical curative surgical resection of right colon cancer with CME from January 2014 to June 2019. Propensity scores were calculated by bivariate logistic regression, including the following variables: age, BMI, and size of tumor.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients underwent CME with CVL: 26 by means of robot-assisted surgery and 29 by means of 3D laparoscopic procedure. There were not statistically significant differences about all the intra- and postoperative outcomes (operative time, length of the specimen, time to bowel canalization, time to soft oral intake, length of hospital stay, postoperative complication, number of retrieved lymph nodes, number of positive lymph nodes and lymph node ratio) between the robotic and the 3D laparoscopic approach. After the matching procedure, 20 patients of the robotic group and 20 patients of the 3D laparoscopic group were selected for the analysis. There were no differences in any of the analyzed variables between the two groups except for longer operative time in the robotic group (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The 3D vision revealed an important advantage in order to achieve the correct identification of surgical anatomy allowing a safe and effective right colectomy with CME, CVL, and intracorporeal anastomosis, either using laparoscopic or with robotic approach, providing similar short-term outcomes. Taking into account the high costs and the longer operative time of robotic procedure, the 3D laparoscopy could be considered in performing right colectomy with CME, while the robotic approach should be considered as a first choice approach for challenging situations (obese patient, complex associated procedures).

The "Micro Hand S" Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Right Colectomy: Short-Term Outcomes at a Single Center

Objective: To evaluate the safety and feasibility of using the Micro Hand S surgical robot for right colectomy by comparing the short-term efficacy of robot-assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). Methods: Data from a total of 22 patients who underwent right colectomy from January 2018 to February 2019 in the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, in the Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, were collected retrospectively. This included 10 patients who underwent robot-assisted right colectomy with the Micro Hand S surgical robot (RRC group [Shangdong Wego Surgical Robot Co., LTD, Weihai, China]) and 12 patients who underwent LRC group. The operation time, blood loss, number of lymph nodes dissected, time to first flatus, comprehensive complication index (CCI), and postoperative hospital stay were compared. Results: Compared with the LRC group, the RRC group had a lower CCI (11.7 ± 8.3 versus 19.9 ± 6.4, P < .05), shorter hospital stay (11.4 ± 3.3 versus 15.2 ± 4.7 days, P < .05). The differences were statistically significant. Conclusion: The Micro Hand S robot-assisted right colectomy is safe and feasible.

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.

Initial clinical experience of single-incision robotic colorectal surgery with da Vinci SP platform

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) was introduced to overcome the limitations of single-incision laparoscopic surgery, which is challenging due to its restrictions regarding triangulation and retraction. The purpose of this article is to describe the initial experience with single-incision surgery using the da Vinvci Single-Port Platform (dVSP).

METHODS

The medical records of patients with colorectal disease, who underwent single-incision robotic surgery using the dVSP, were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Five patients with appendiceal and colorectal cancer, and two with diverticulitis were enrolled. All procedures were completed using a pure single-incision approach, with an exception for low anterior resection. There were two minor complications. For patients with colorectal cancer, the number of retrieved lymph nodes and status of the resection margin were acceptable, and cosmetic results were satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

The dVSP is a novel surgical platform that can be used as an alternative surgical modality for colorectal surgery.

Robotic right colonic resection. Is the robotic third arm a game-changer?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches have produces relevant advancements in the pre/intra/postoperative outcomes. The conventional laparoscopic approach presents similar oncological results in comparison to laparotomic approaches. Despite these evidences, a considerable part of the colorectal operations are still being performed in an open way. This is in part because traditional laparoscopy may have some hurdles and a long learning curve to reach mastery. The robotic technology may help in increasing the MIS penetrance in colorectal surgery. The use of the R3 can potentially increase the number of surgical options available.

METHODS

In this retrospective case series, after a long robotic colorectal experience connected to a robotic program started by Giulianotti et al. in October 2000, we present our results regarding a subset of colorectal patients who underwent robotic right colonic resections performed, all by a single surgeon (P.C.G.), using the R3 according to our standardized technique.

RESULTS

Out of all the robotic colorectal operations performed, this sub-sample sample included 33 patients: 21 males and 12 females. The age range was between 51 and 95 years old. The Body Mass Index (BMI) was between 21.6 to 43.1. The conversion rate to laparoscopy or to open surgery has been 0%. No intraoperative complications have been registered. The postoperative complications rates are reported in this manuscript. The perfusion check of the anastomosis by Near-infrared ICG (Indocyanine Green) enhanced fluorescence has been used. In 11.2% of the sample, the site of the anastomosis has been changed after ICG-Test. Moreover, when the ICG perfusion test has been performed no leakage occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This subset of patients suggests the potential role of R3 and the benefits correlated to robotic surgery. In fact, the laparoscopic approach uses mostly a medial to lateral mobilization. Indeed, during laparoscopic surgery an early right colon mobilization may create problems in the surgical field visualization. In robotic surgery, R3 can lift upwards the cecum/ascending colon/hepatic flexure exposing, in doing so, the anatomical structures. Hence, we can use also the same approach of the open surgery (where the first step is usually the mobilization of the ascending colon mesentery). In other words, the R3 offers more operative options in terms of surgical pathways maintaining at the same time good perioperative outcomes. However, more studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Initial Clinical Experience of Pure Single-Incision Robotic Right Hemicolectomy with da Vinci SP Platform

The da Vinci SP Surgical System (dVSP; Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) was introduced to perform pure single-incision surgery in 2018. This new surgical platform demonstrated favorable performance compared with the positive aspect of single-incision laparoscopic surgery and robot surgery. To date, its use has mainly been in urological and gynecological procedures. We report a case of successful robotic single-incision right hemicolectomy for cecal cancer with the dVSP.

The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the growth in laparoscopic surgery, comparable oncological outcomes, and reduced complication rates, the majority of colorectal surgery is still performed via an open approach. Reasons for this may include technical difficulties associated with operating in narrow spaces such as in the pelvis and inadequate experience. Robotic surgery provides potential solutions to some of these challenges. This review will summarize the state of the literature regarding robotic colorectal surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The most consistent benefit of robotic surgery is decreasing operative conversions, specifically in rectal cancer. In partial colectomies, there is evidence to support quicker return to bowel function. Oncologic outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach are equivalent. Robotic surgery provides solutions to the challenges posed by laparoscopy, including wristed instruments, ease of intracorporeal suturing, and ergonomic advantages. Randomized trials to evaluate peri-operative outcomes will be important. If robotics is able to facilitate conversion of open colectomies to their minimally invasive equivalent, robotics may end up proving to be advantageous in the peri-operative and post-operative period. Continued studies are warranted.

Right colectomy: consecutive 100 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique for malignancy. Cumulative experience in a single centre

Robotic-assisted resections prove beneficial in overcoming potential limitation of laparoscopy, but clear evidences on patient's benefits are still lacking. We report our experience on 100 consecutive patients who underwent right colectomy with either robotic or laparoscopic approaches. Data were prospectively collected on a dedicated database (ASA score, age, operative time, conversion rate, re-operation rate, early complications, length of stay, and pathological results). Median total operative time was 160 min in LS group (IQR = 140-180) and 204 min for RS group (IQR = 180-230). Median time to first flatus was 2.5 days for LS group (IQR = 2 - 3) and 2 days for RS group (IQR = 1-2). Length of stay (median) was 8 days in LS group (IQR = 6-10) and 5 days in RS group (IQR = 5-7). No statistically significant difference was found between the 2 groups when the number of harvested nodes, the anastomotic leakage and the postoperative bleeding were analyzed. The 30-day mortality was 0% in LS and RS groups. Conversion rate for LS group was 14% (7/50 pts) and for RS group was 0% (0/50). Minimally invasive surgery is a feasible and safe technique. The RS may overcome some technical limitations of laparoscopic surgery and it achieves the same oncological results compared to LS but with higher costs. The lower conversion rate allows to expect better clinical outcomes and lower complication rate.

Short-Term Outcomes with Robotic Right Colectomy

Few series have reported on the impact of robotic right colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy. Even fewer have reported on the outcomes of intracorporeal anastomoses. The aim of our study was to determine the impact of robotic surgery on short-term operative outcomes in patients undergoing right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. One hundred and fourteen consecutive patients who underwent a right colectomy by two colorectal surgeons between 2012 and 2017 were included. Patients were separated into two groups: laparoscopic technique with extracorporeal anastomosis (n = 87) and robotic technique with intracorporeal anastomosis (n = 27). Univariate analysis was performed to determine differences in outcomes. Differences between cohorts were only identified with regard to gender (62 vs 37%, P = 0.022) and year of surgery. In comparison with laparoscopy, robotic colectomy resulted in a shorter time of GI recovery (1.3 ± 0.6 vs 3 ± 1.1, P < 0.0001), lower rates of postoperative ileus (4 vs 28%, P = 0.007), lower overall morbidity (26 vs 52%, P = 0.019), less blood loss ( P = 0.001), 50 per cent lower narcotic use, and longer operative time (255 ± 66 vs 139 ± 49, P < 0.001). Despite longer operative time, robotic surgery improved GI recovery, significantly lowered oral morphine equivalent usage, and decreased short-term complications.

Appraisal and Current Considerations of Robotics in Colon and Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology aims to obviate some of the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, yet the role of robotics in colorectal surgery is still largely undefined and varies with respect to its application in abdominal versus pelvic surgery.

METHODS

With this review, we aimed to highlight current developments in colorectal robotic surgery. We systematically searched the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. We critically reviewed the available literature on the use of robotic technology in colon and rectal surgery.

RESULTS

Robotic colorectal surgery is oncologically safe and has short-term outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopy, with potential benefits in rectal surgery. It has a shorter learning curve but increased operative times and costs. It offers potential advantages in the resection of rectal cancer, due to lower conversion rates. There is also a trend toward better outcomes in anastomotic leak rates, circumferential margin positivity, and perseveration of autonomic function.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy remains technically challenging and conversion rates are still high. Therefore, most cases of colorectal surgery are still performed open. Robotic surgery aims to overcome the limits of the laparoscopic technique. This new technology has many advantages in terms of articulating instruments, advanced three-dimensional optics, surgeon ergonomics, and improved accessibility to narrow spaces, such as the pelvis. However, further studies are needed to assess long-term results and benefits.

The role of robotics in colorectal surgery

Robotic surgery is safe and feasible offering many potential advantages to the colorectal surgeon.

From Laparoscopic Right Colectomy with Extracorporeal Anastomosis to Robot-Assisted Intracorporeal Anastomosis to Totally Robotic Right Colectomy for Cancer: The Evolution of Robotic Multiquadrant Abdominal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) in right colectomies shows many advantages over extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). Many difficulties encountered in laparoscopic IA can be overcome with hybrid robot-assisted IA or recently with totally robotic procedures. In the literature, few works have been published comparing laparoscopic, hybrid, and totally robotic right colectomies. The aim of this study is to retrospectively analyze the improvements brought on by the evolution of robotic surgery at our specialized center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred six (hybrid and totally) robotic right colectomies (RRCs) with IA were compared with 160 laparoscopic right colectomies (LRCs) with EA. A separate analysis carried out by the robotic group compared 30 totally robotic right colectomies (TRRCs) with 176 hybrid robot-assisted right colectomies (HRRCs). Demographics, pathological features, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

The groups were comparable with respect to demographics and tumor staging. When compared with LRC, RRC showed shorter time to first flatus (P < .001), stools (P < .001), solid diet (P < .001), and discharge (P < .001). The number of lymph nodes harvested was 23.13 ± 11.2 in RRC versus 20.5 ± 11.2 in LRC (P = .031). Operative time was longer in RRC (253.0 ± 47 minutes versus 209.9 ± 64 minutes; P < .001), but conversion to open (2.4% versus 18.1%; P < .001), anastomotic leaks (0.5% versus 5%; P = .012), and bleeding (0.3% versus 4.4%; P = .024) were significantly less frequent. Subsequent analysis shows no significant increase in operative time in TRRC versus HRRC (261.0 ± 41 minutes versus 251.6 ± 47.6 minutes; P = .310). Even if not statistically significant, TRRC showed faster bowel function recovery and tolerance to solid diet.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed the clinical advantages of RRC with IA over LRC with EA in postoperative recovery outcomes and complication rate. Furthermore, our preliminary analysis in a cohort of 30 TRRC shows promising results.

A single surgeon's experience transitioning to robotic-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis

BACKGROUND

Despite substantial evidence demonstrating benefits of minimally invasive surgery, a large percentage of right colectomies are still performed via an open technique. Most laparoscopic right colectomies are completed as a hybrid procedure with extracorporeal anastomosis. As part of a pure minimally invasive procedure, intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) may confer additional benefits for patients. The robotic platform may shorten the learning curve for minimally invasive right colectomy with ICA.

METHODS

From January 2014 to May 2016, 49 patients underwent robotic-assisted right colectomy by a board-certified colorectal surgeon (S.R). Extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) was used in the first 20 procedures, whereas ICA was used in all subsequent procedures. Outcomes recorded in a database for retrospective review included operating time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), conversion rate, complications, readmissions, and mortality rate.

RESULTS

Comparison of average OT, EBL, and LOS between extracorporeal and intracorporeal groups demonstrated no significant differences. For all patients, average OT was 141.6 ± 25.8 (range 86-192) min, average EBL was 59.5 ± 83.3 (range 0-500) mL, and average LOS was 3.4 ± 1.19 (range 1.5-8) days. Four patients required conversion, all of which occurred in the extracorporeal group. There were no conversions after the 18th procedure. The 60-day mortality rate was 0%. There were no anastomotic leaks, ostomies created, or readmissions. As the surgeon gained experience, a statistically significant increase in lymph node sampling was observed in oncologic cases (p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic platform may help more surgeons safely and efficiently transition to a purely minimally invasive procedure, enabling more patients to reap the benefits of less invasive surgery. Transitioning from ECA to ICA during robotic right colectomy resulted in no significant change in OT or LOS. A lower rate of conversion to open surgery was noted with increased experience.

Do patients benefit more from robot assisted approach than conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy? A meta-analysis of perioperative and economic outcomes

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Robotic approach has improved the ergonomics of conventional laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), but whether patients benefit more from robot assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) is still controversial. This meta-analysis aims to compare the perioperative and economic outcomes of RADP with LDP.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library between January 1990 and March 2017. All eligible studies comparing RADP versus LDP were included. Perioperative and economic outcomes constituted the end points.

RESULTS

13 English studies with 1396 patients were included. Regarding to intraoperative outcomes, RADP was associated with a significant decrease in conversion rate (OR = 0.52; 95%CI: 0.34, 0.78; P = 0.002). Although the spleen-preserving rates were comparable between RADP and LDP, a significant higher splenic vessels conservation rate was observed in the RADP group (OR = 4.71; 95%CI: 1.77, 12.56; P = 0.002). No statistically significant differences were found at operation time, estimated blood loss and blood transfusion rate. Concerning postoperative outcomes, pooled data indicated the overall morbidity, pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the RADP and LDP groups. And concerning pathological outcomes, positive margin rate and the number of lymph nodules harvested were comparable between the two groups. The operative cost of RADP was almost double that of LDP (WMD = 2350.2 US dollars; 95%CI: 1165.62, 3534.78; P = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

RADP showed a slight technical advantage. But whether this benefit is worth twofold cost should be considered by patient's individuation.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In the right colon surgery, there is a growing literature comparing the safety of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). With this paper we aim to systematically revise and meta-analyze the latest comparative studies on these two minimally invasive procedures.

METHODS

A systematic review of studies published from 2000 to 2017 in the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases was performed. Primary endpoints were postoperative morbidity and mortality. Secondary endpoints were blood loss, conversion to open surgery, harvested lymph node anastomotic leak, postoperative hemorrhage, abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, time to first flatus, non-surgical complications, wound infections, hospital stay, and incisional hernia and costs. A subgroup analysis was performed on those series presenting only extracorporeal anastomosis in both arms.

RESULTS

After screening 355 articles, 11 articles with a total of 8257 patients were eligible for inclusion. Operative time was found to be significantly shorter for the laparoscopic procedures in the pooled analysis (SMD - 0.99 95% CI - 1.4 to - 0.6, p < 0.001). Conversion to open surgery was more common during laparoscopic procedures than during the robotic ones (RR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.6, p = 0.02). No significant differences in mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.18-1.23, p = 0.124) and postoperative complications (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.9-1.2, p = 0.5) were found between LRC versus RRC. The pooled mean time to first flatus was higher in the laparoscopic group (SMD 0.85 days; 95% CI 0.16-1.54, p = 0.016). Hospital costs were significantly higher in RRCs (SMD - 0.52; 95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.04, p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

RRC can be regarded as a feasible and safe technique. Its superiority in terms of postoperative recovery must be confirmed by further large prospective series comparing RRC and LRC performed with the same anastomotic technique. RRC seemed to be associated with higher costs than LRC.

Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis for malignancy

Techniques for robotic resection of the right colon have not been extensively published or adopted. We report our initial experience of robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis and specimen extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision retrospectively. Twenty-one consecutive patients with a right colon cancer (n = 18) or polyp too large to remove endoscopically (n = 3) were treated at Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota. Main outcomes measured were estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, return of gastrointestinal function, length of stay, overall and severe complications, discharge status, and pathology. All 21 procedures were technically successful without the need for conversion. The mean total operative time was 250 ± 56 min, estimated blood loss was less than 100 mL in 19 (90%), only 1 (5%) ileus occurred, mean length of stay and return of gastrointestinal function was 4 ± 1.3 and 1 ± 0.6 days, respectively, only 1 (5%) patient experienced a Dindo grade ≥ 3 complication, and 20 (95%) were discharged to home. Mean number of nodes resected was 26 ± 12. Tumors were diagnosed as stage 0 in 3 (14%), stage I in 7 (33%), stage II in 4 (19%), stage III in 6 (28%), and stage IV in 1 (5%). Main limitations were nonrandomized nature, single institution experience, small patient sample size, and procedures only being performed by two surgeons. Finally, we conclude that robotic right colectomy with central mesocolic excision, intracorporeal anastomosis, and extraction through a Pfannenstiel incision is technically feasible, efficacious, oncologically acceptable, and safe to perform.

Open Colectomies of Shorter Operative Time Do Not Result in Improved Outcomes Compared With Prolonged Laparoscopic Operations

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic colectomies are associated with reduced perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with open surgery. Nevertheless, many surgeons continue to utilize an open surgical approach due to the perceived benefits of shorter operative times. This study aims to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open colectomies of equal or shorter operative duration.

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open colectomy in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) were identified from the years 2005 through 2012. Patients were stratified first by operative procedure including partial colectomy, total colectomy, or low anterior resection. Each surgical group was then divided into 4 groups according to operative time: <90 minutes, ≥90 minutes and <3 hours, ≥3 hours and <6 hours, and ≥6 hours. In total, 30-day outcomes were compared between laparoscopic operations and open procedures of shorter or equivalent durations within each surgical group. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to account for differences in patient demographics and comorbidities between the surgical groups.

RESULTS

In total, 156,503 patients met inclusion criteria; 112,053 (71.6%) patients underwent a partial colectomy, 13,838 (8.8%) patients underwent a total colectomy, and 30,612 (19.6%) patients underwent a low anterior resection. A laparoscopic approach was used in 34% (37,789 patients) of the partial colectomies performed, 31% (4285 patients) of the total colectomies performed, and 45% (13,850 patients) of the low anterior resections performed. For all procedures, laparoscopic operations <6 hours were associated with superior outcomes compared with shorter open procedures. The benefit of laparoscopic operations was lost when operative time exceeded 6 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colectomies are associated with improved outcomes compared with open operations that do not exceed an operative time of 6 hours. Given the potential to improve patient outcomes, consideration should be given to the laparoscopic approach for all colon surgeries expected to be completed in <6 hours.

Financial Impact of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery: A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes and Costs Between the Robotic and Open Technique in a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

One of the perceived major drawbacks of minimally invasive techniques has always been its cost. This is especially true for the robotic approach and is one of the main reasons that has prevented its wider acceptance among hospitals and surgeons. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and economic impact of robotic and open liver surgery in a single institution.

METHODS

Sixty-eight robotic and 55 open hepatectomies were performed at our institution between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013. Demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and compared between the two groups. An independent company performed the financial analysis. The economic parameters comprised direct variable costs, direct fixed costs, and indirect costs.

RESULTS

Mean estimated blood loss was significantly less in the robotic group (438 versus 727.8 mL; P = .038). Overall morbidity was significantly lower in the robotic group (22% versus 40%; P = .047). Clavien III/IV complications were also lower, with 4.4% in the robotic versus 16.3% in the open group (P = .043). The length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) was shorter for patients who underwent a robotic procedure (2.1 versus 3.3 days; P = .004). The average total cost, including readmissions, was $37,518 for robotic surgery and $41,948 for open technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resections had less overall morbidity, ICU, and hospital stay. This translates into decreased average costs for robotic surgery. These procedures are financially comparable to open resections and do not represent a financial burden to the hospital.

Insight into the da Vinci® Xi - technical notes for single-docking left-sided colorectal procedures

BACKGROUND

The adoption of robot-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery has been hampered by issues with docking, operative duration, technical difficulties in multi-quadrant access, and cost. The da Vinci® Xi has been designed to overcome some of these limitations. We describe our experience with the system and offer technical insights to its application in left-sided colorectal procedures.

METHODS

Our initial series of left-sided robotic colorectal procedures was evaluated. Patient demographics and operative outcomes were recorded prospectively using a predefined database.

RESULTS

Between March 2015 and April 2016, 54 cases of robot-assisted laparoscopic left-sided colorectal procedures were successfully completed with no cases of conversion. The majority were low anterior resections for colorectal malignancies. Using the da Vinci® Xi Surgical System, multi-quadrant surgery involving dissection from the splenic flexure to the pelvis was possible without redocking.

CONCLUSIONS

The da Vinci® Xi simplifies the docking procedure and makes single-docking feasible for multi-quadrant left-sided colorectal procedures.

Robotic Right Colectomy with Modified Complete Mesocolic Excision: Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

A modified complete mesocolic excision (mCME) technique for the treatment of right-sided colon cancer recently was shown by Hohenberger and colleagues to provide impressive long-term oncologic outcomes. This report aims to describe the authors' experience with robotic right colectomy using mCME. The safety, feasibility, and efficacy of this procedure are measured by complications, conversion rates, and 4-year oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective study analyzed 100 consecutive patients who underwent robotic right colectomy with mCME and intracorporeal anastomosis at the authors' institution between November 2005 and November 2013. Intra- and postoperative clinical outcomes, pathologic data, and survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

Robotic right colectomy with mCME was successfully performed for all the patients. No conversions or intraoperative complications occurred. The major complication rate (Dindo 3 or 4) was 4 %. During a median follow-up period of 48.5 months (range 24-114 months), the survival rates were 94.5 % for disease-specific survival, 91.4 % for disease-free survival, and 90.3 % for overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' experience confirms the feasibility and safety of mCME for the treatment of right-sided colon cancer. This technique provided satisfying short-term outcomes with promising 4-year oncologic results. However, the real benefits of the CME technique should be evaluated further by well-conducted randomized studies before its adoption in routine practice is recommended.

Future of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery is slowly taking over as the preferred operative approach for colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain technically difficult. This article will give an overview of the state of minimally invasive surgery and the many advances that have been made over the last two decades. Specifically, we discuss the introduction of the robotic platform and some of its benefits and limitations. We also describe some newer techniques related to robotics.

Dynamic Article: Full-Thickness Excision for Benign Colon Polyps Using Combined Endoscopic Laparoscopic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Benign colon polyps are commonly encountered but may not always be amenable to endoscopic excision because of their size, shape, location, or scarring from previous attempts. The addition of laparoscopy allows a greater degree of bowel manipulation, but the current technique is still limited when encountering a polyp with inadequate lifting attributed to polyp morphology or scarring. We describe an extension to the existing combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery technique using a full-thickness approach to increase polyp maneuverability and local excision of difficult but benign polyps.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to report the technical details and preliminary results of a new approach for full-thickness excision of difficult colon polyps, combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery full-thickness excision.

DESIGN

This study is a retrospective review of our experience from December 2013 to May 2015.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a single academic institution.

PATIENTS

All of the patients had previous incomplete colonoscopic polypectomy performed at other institutions. Patients were selected for our technique if the polyp had a benign appearance but was unable to be resected by traditional endoscopic or combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery methods because of polyp morphology or scarring from previous biopsies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The safety and feasibility of this procedure were measured.

RESULTS

Three patients underwent combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery-full-thickness excision for difficult colon polyps. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. The length of stay was 1 day for all of the patients. All 3 of the patients had benign final pathology.

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited by the small number of patients in a single institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Full-thickness excision for benign colon polyps using combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery is safe and feasible. Using this technique, difficult polyps not amenable to traditional endoscopic approaches can be removed and colectomy may be avoided.