Participation of Colon and Rectal Fellows in Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery: Effect on Surgical Outcomes

A systematic review of robotic colorectal surgery programs worldwide and a comprehensive description of local robotic training programme

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is gaining widespread adoption, with a growing number of procedures performed globally. These have been performed mostly by consultants, many of whom have gained sufficient proficiency to begin to educate their trainees. RACS offers a range of benefits to the surgeon and patient, yet safe and effective utilisation hinges on well-structured training programs for colorectal trainees within their general surgery residency. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the structure currently employed worldwide in RACS training programs for colorectal surgery trainees. In addition it delineates the conceptualization and implementation of a locally developed RACS program tailored to senior colorectal trainees and fellows at our Trust.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of Ovid Medline and Embase databases (January 2010- March 2024) following PRISMA guidelines identified six studies reporting on RACS training curricula. Critical analysis of programme structure and curricula tools utilised was performed. Articles involving training of consultants were excluded. The quality and bias score of each study were assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Score for observational studies.

RESULTS

Six out of 77 studies were selected as suitable for analysis describing RACS training using Da Vinci platform. All apart from one programme described a phased or parallel robotic curriculum with four studies incorporating theoretical knowledge and laboratory or cadaveric training. Six programmes incorporated simulation, bedside assisting and console training. The use of validated objective or subjective metrics at each phase varied. Formal feedback is provided in only two of the programmes. Reflecting on above results we present our Trust training program which run over the last two years. Our program ensures clear learning goals for trainees and trainers, maintains patient safety, and is easily replicated across other UK RACS units.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of a standardised curriculum for colorectal surgery training worldwide, including in the UK, is vital. Currently, there is a scarcity of validated, objective assessment methods, which must be adequately standardised to create consistent progression criteria and competency-based metrics. Standardising these methods will enable reliable and robust assessment of trainee progression and competence to create a generation of robotically competent colorectal surgeons within their standard training program timeframe.

PROSPERO DATABASE REGISTRATION

No.-CRD42024530340.

Robotic colorectal surgery training: Portsmouth perspective

This study aims to discuss the principles and pillars of robotic colorectal surgery training and share the training pathway at Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust. A narrative review is presented to discuss all the relevant and critical steps in robotic surgical training. Robotic training requires a stepwise approach, including theoretical knowledge, case observation, simulation, dry lab, wet lab, tutored programs, proctoring (in person or telementoring), procedure-specific training, and follow-up. Portsmouth Colorectal has an established robotic training model with a safe stepwise approach that has been demonstrated through perioperative and oncological results. Robotic surgery training should enable a trainee to use the robotic platform safely and effectively, minimize errors, and enhance performance with improved outcomes. Portsmouth Colorectal has provided such a stepwise training program since 2015 and continues to promote and augment safe robotic training in its field. Safe and efficient training programs are essential to upholding the optimal standard of care.

Implementation of a robotic surgical practice in inflammatory bowel disease

Robotics adoption has increased in colorectal surgery. While there are well-established advantages and standardised techniques for cancer patients, the use of robotic surgery in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has not been studied yet. To evaluate the feasibility and safety of robotic surgery for IBD patients. Prospectively data in IBD patients having robotic resection at Guy's and St Thomas' hospital. All resections performed by a single colorectal surgeon specialised in IBD, utilising DaVinci platform. July 2021 to January 2023, 59 robotic IBD cases performed, 14 ulcerative colitis (UC) and 45 Crohn's disease (CD). Average age; CD patients 35, UC 33 years. Average Body mass index (BMI); 23 for CD and 26.9 for UC patients. In total, we performed 31 ileo-caecal resections (ICR) with primary anastomosis (18 Kono-S anastomosis, 6 mechanical anastomosis and 7 ileo-colostomy), of those 4 had multivisceral resections (large bowel, bladder, ovary). Furthermore, 14 subtotal colectomy (1 emergency), 8 proctectomy, 3 panproctocolectomy and 3 ileoanal J pouch. 18 of the 45 patients (45.0%) with Crohn's disease had ongoing fistulating disease to other parts of the GI tract (small or large bowel). ICR were performed using different three ports position, depending on the anatomy established prior to surgery with magnetic resonance images (MRI). One patient had conversion to open due to anaesthetic problems and one patient required re-operation to refashion stoma. 98.0% cases completed robotically. Median Length of hospital stay (LOS) was 7 days for CD and 7 for UC cases, including LOS in patients on pre-operative parenteral nutrition. Robotic colorectal techniques can be safely used for patients with IBD, even with fistulating disease. Future research and collaborations are necessary to standardize technique within institutions.

The current status of robotic colorectal surgery training programmes

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is steadily increasing in popularity with an annual growth in the number of colorectal procedures undertaken robotically. Further upscaling of RACS requires structured and standardised robotic training to safeguard high-quality clinical outcomes. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the structure and assessment metrics of currently established RACS training programmes. A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines was performed. Searches were performed of the Ovid Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases between 2000 and 27th November 2021 to identify studies reporting on training curricula in RACS. Core components of training programmes and their relevant outcome assessment metrics were extracted. Thirteen studies were identified, with all training programmes designed for the da Vinci platform (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Common elements of multimodal programmes included theoretical knowledge (76.9%), case observation (53.8%), simulation (100%) and proctored training (76.9%). Robotic skills acquisition was assessed primarily during the simulation phase (n = 4, 30.1%) and proctoring phase (n = 10, 76.9%). Performance metrics, consisting of time or assessment scores for VR simulation were only mandated in four (30.1%) studies. Objective assessment following proctored training was variably reported and employed a range of assessment metrics, including direct feedback (n = 3, 23.1%) or video feedback (n = 8, 61.5%). Five (38.4%) training programmes used the Global Assessment Score (GAS) forms. There is a broad consensus on the core multimodal components across current RACS training programmes; however, validated objective assessment is limited and needs to be appropriately standardised to ensure reproducible progression criteria and competency-based metrics are produced to robustly assess progression and competence.

Comparison of robotic vs laparoscopic left-sided colorectal cancer resections

Robotic assisted surgery (RAS) has become increasingly adopted in colorectal cancer surgery. This study aims to compare robotic and laparoscopic approaches to left sided colorectal resections in terms of surgical outcomeswith no formal enhanced recovery programme. All patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic left sided or rectal (high and low anterior resection) cancer surgery at a single tertiary referral centre over 3 years were included.A total of 184 consecutive patients from July 2017 to December 2020 were included in this study, with 40.2% (n=74/184) undergoing RAS. The median age at time of surgery was 68 years (IQR 60-73 years). RAS had a significantly shorter length of median stay of 3 days, compared to 5 days in the conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) group (p<0.001). RAS had a significantly lower rate of conversion to open surgery (0% vs 16.4%, p<0.001). The median operative time was also shorter in RAS (308 minutes), compared to CLS (326 minutes, p=0.019). The overall rate of any complication was 16.8%, with the RAS experiencing a lower complication rate (12.2% vs 20.0%, p=0.041). There was no significant difference in anastomotic leak rates between the two groups (4.0% vs 5.5%, p=0.673), or in terms of complete resection (R0) (robotic 98.6%, laparoscopic 100%, p=0.095). Robotic left sided colorectal surgery delivers equivalent oncological resection compared to laparoscopic approaches, with the added benefits of reduced length of stay and lower rates of conversion to open surgery. This has both clinical and healthcare economic benefits.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a case-matched study

The current gold standard surgical treatment for right colonic malignancy is the laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH). However, laparoscopic surgery has limitations which can be overcome by robotic surgery. The benefits of robotics for rectal cancer are widely accepted but its use for right hemicolectomy remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) and LRH in a university teaching hospital. Demographic, perioperative and postoperative data along with early oncological outcomes of patients who underwent RRH and LRH with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) were identified from a prospectively maintained database. A total of 70 patients (35 RRH, 35 LRH) were identified over a 4-year period. No statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, anastomotic leak, 30-day reoperation, 30-day mortality, surgical site infection or lengths of stay were demonstrated. Surgical specimen quality in both groups was favourable. The mean duration of surgery was longer in RRH (p <  < 0.00001). A statistically significant proportion of RRH patients had a higher BMI and ASA grade. The results demonstrate that RRH is safe and feasible when compared to LRH, with no statistical difference in postoperative morbidity, mortality and early oncological outcomes. A difference was noted in operating time, however was influenced by training residents in docking the robot and a technically challenging cohort of patients. Operative time has shortened with further experience. Incorporating an intracorporeal anastomosis technique in RRH offers the potential to improve outcomes compared to LRH.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

Simultaneous robotic-assisted resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: a systematic review

Simultaneous resections of primary colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) have emerged as safe and efficient procedures for selected patients. Besides the traditional open approach for simultaneous resections, similar outcomes have been reported for minimally invasive approaches. Over the past years, a number of studies have sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of simultaneous robotic-assisted resections (SRAR) for patients with synchronous CRC and CRLM. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the safety, technical feasibility and outcomes of SRAR of the primary CRC and CRLM. A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken. Nine studies comprising a total of 29 patients (16 males) who underwent SRAR were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary tumor site was the rectum in 22 (76%) patients and the colon in 7 (24%) patients. A minor liver resection was performed in the majority of the cases (n = 24; 82%). The median operative time and estimated blood loss were 399.5 min (range 300-682) and 274 ml (range 10-780 ml), respectively. No cases of conversion to open were reported. The median LOS was 7 days (range 2-28 days). All patients reportedly underwent R0 resection. Overall and major morbidity rates were 38% and 7%, respectively, while no perioperative deaths were reported. Despite the limited number of studies, SRAR seems to be a safe and efficient minimally invasive approach for highly selected patients always implemented in the context of multidisciplinary patient management.

A fellow-run clinic achieves similar patient outcomes as faculty clinics: A safe and feasible model for gynecologic oncology fellow education

OBJECTIVES

Fellow involvement in patient care is important for education, but effect on patient care is unclear. Our aim was to compare patient outcomes in gynecologic oncology attending clinics versus a fellow training clinic at a large academic medical center.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive gynecologic oncology patients from six attending clinics and one faculty-supervised fellow clinic was used to analyze differences based on patient demographics, cancer characteristics, and practice patterns. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS); secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS), postoperative complications and chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests.

RESULTS

Of 159 patients, 76 received care in the attending clinic and 83 in the fellow clinic. Patients in the fellow clinic were younger, less likely to be Caucasian, and more overweight, but cancer site and proportion of advanced stage disease were similar. Both clinics had similar rates of moderate to severe adverse events related to surgery (15% vs. 8%, p = .76), chemotherapy (21% vs. 23%, p = .40), and radiation (14% vs. 17%, p = .73). There was no difference in median RFS in the fellow compared to attending clinic (38 vs. 47 months, p = .78). OS on both univariate (49 months-fellow clinic, 60 months-attending clinic vs. p = .40) and multivariate analysis [hazard ratio 1.3 (0.57, 2.75), P = .58] was not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A fellow-run gynecologic oncology clinic designed to provide learning opportunities does not compromise patient outcomes and is a safe and feasible option for fellow education.

Teaching robotic rectal cancer surgery at your workplace: does the presence of visiting surgeons in the operating room have a detrimental effect on outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Surgery demonstration (SD) is considered to be a mainstay of surgical education, but controversy exists concerning the patient's safety. Indeed, the presence of visiting surgeons is a source of distraction and may have an impact on surgeon's performance. This study's objective was to evaluate possible differences in outcomes between robotic sphincter-saving rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) performed during routine surgical practice versus in the presence of visiting surgeons in the operating room (OR) with direct access to the surgeon.

METHODS

Retrospective case-matched studies were conducted from a prospectively collected database. 114 patients (38 with the presence of visiting surgeons) who underwent RRCS between January 2013 and September 2018 were included. Patients were matched in a 1:2 basis after propensity score analysis using five criteria: gender, body mass index, preoperative chemoradiation, type of mesorectum excision, and synchronous liver metastasis.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the two groups with regard to mean operating time, estimated blood loss, conversion, and hospital stay. Also, overall (44% vs. 40%; P = 0.6), major morbidity (26% vs. 19%; P = 0.5), and unplanned reoperation (17% vs. 15%; P = 1.0) rates were not statistically different. No difference was noted with regard to the quality of mesorectum excision, or positive rate of circumferential and distal longitudinal resection margins. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes (17 vs. 14.5; P = 0.04) was lower in the SD group and the number of patients with < 12 harvested lymph nodes (31% vs. 16%; P = 0.09) was greater after SD although it did not reach statistical significance. No differences were observed in disease-free or overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of visiting surgeons in the OR seems not to interfere in the quality of rectal resection and does not compromise patient's short-term outcome and survival. However, mild differences in the extent of lymphadenectomy were observed and the surgeons performing SD may be aware of this.

Utilization of Laparoscopic Colon Surgery in the Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (PUDF)

Background:

Laparoscopic surgery has become the standard of care for the most common surgical procedures performed. However, laparoscopic techniques have not reached this same penetrance in colorectal surgery. We wanted to determine the percentage of colon operations performed in Texas that were done via laparoscopic, robotic and open techniques.

Methods:

The Texas Inpatient Public Use Data File (PUDF) was queried using ICD-9-CM diagnostic and procedure codes to determine overall utilization of laparoscopic colectomies (LC) in Texas between 2013-14 for reporting facilities. We specifically looked at cost and the length of stay for LC, open colectomy (OC) and robotic assisted colectomy (RAC).

Results:

In the state of Texas between 2013-14 there were 20,454 colectomies performed. Of these 12,328 (60.3%) were OC, 7,536 (36.8%) were LC, and 590 (3.9%) were RAC. Average total cost was $117,113 for OC, $75,741.9 for LC, and $81,996.2 for RAC. Average length of stay for each technique was 10.6 days for OC, 6.1 days for LC, and 5.1 days for RAC. The risk of a postoperative complication occurring was higher in the open procedure than a laparoscopic procedure.

Conclusions:

LC accounted for only 36.8% of all colectomies performed in Texas between 2013-14. OC costs twice as much as LC and increased the length of stay by nearly 4 d. LC and RAC are both associated with significantly less cost and length of stay for patients undergoing surgery, while lowering perioperative complications.

Disclosures:

None of the authors have any relevant disclosures.

Feasibility and safety of robotic resection of complicated diverticular disease

This study aimed to assess intra- and postoperative outcomes of robotic resection of left-sided complicated diverticular disease. Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained institutional database on consecutive patients undergoing elective robotic resection for diverticular disease (2014-2018). All procedures were performed within an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP). Demographic, surgical and ERP-related items were compared between patients with simple and complicated diverticular disease according to intra-operative presentation. Postoperative complications and length of stay were compared between the two groups. Out of 150 patients, 78 (52%) presented with complicated and the remaining 72 (48%) with uncomplicated disease. Both groups were comparable regarding demographic baseline characteristics and overall ERP compliance. Surgery for complicated disease was longer (288 ± 96 vs. 258 ± 72 min, p = 0.04) and more contaminated (≥ class 3: 57.7 vs. 23.6%, p < 0.001) with a trend to higher conversion rates (10.3 vs. 2.8%, p = 0.1). While postoperative overall complications tended to occur more often after resections for complicated disease (28.2 vs. 15.3%, p = 0.075), major, surgical and medical complications did not differ between the two groups, and median length of stay was 3 days in both settings (p = 0.19). Robotic resection of diverticular disease was feasible and safe regardless of disease presentation by the time of surgery.