Robotic colorectal surgery in Australia: a cohort study examining clinical outcomes and cost

Robotic colorectal surgery in Latin America: a systematic review on surgical outcomes

Background and objectives

Robotic approach in colorectal surgery is rapidly gaining interest, particularly in the context of rectal cancer resection. Despite economic barriers, substantial proliferation of robotic colorectal procedures has been observed throughout Latin America. However, there is a lack of data regarding intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes, as well as oncological and long-term results. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of the surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal approaches across Latin America.

Material and methods

A systematic literature search of electronic databases, including PubMed, LILACS, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Scielo, was performed and reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The main target of the literature search was studies that reported outcomes of colorectal robotic surgery in Latin America.

Results

A total of 9,694 published articles were identified from the initial search. Nine thousand six hundred thirty-six publications were excluded after title and abstract review and removal of duplicates. Fifty-eight articles were thoroughly reviewed, and 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. The critical appraisal of study quality (biases risk assessment) was performed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis. In general, the overall study quality was poor. Of the 11 studies included in the analysis, ten addressed intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes, seven addressed oncological/pathological outcomes, and just one addressed long-term outcomes. Ten studies evaluated intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes, encompassing a total of 425 patients, the majority of whom were diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Morbidity rates exhibited a range between 0% and 45.9%, while mortality ranged from 0% to 2.5%.

Conclusion

Few studies have been published addressing intraoperative, postoperative, pathological, and oncological outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery in this region. Undoubtedly, there are unique challenges not encountered by developed countries, including economic obstacles in establishing structured training programmes and high-quality centres for the development of robotic surgery. Further studies are needed to assess the real extent of robotic surgery in the region and its results.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42023494112).

Outcome of Colorectal Robotic Surgery in Newly Established Robotic Surgery Center: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

The robotic platform compared to laparoscopy has proven to have similar postoperative outcomes, however its adoption in the Middle East has been slow and there is limited data regarding outcomes with its use in small newly established robotic colorectal programs. Our aim was to report our experience and outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare them to larger, more experienced centers.

METHODS

This is retrospective review of data collected between November 2021 and March 2023 from a tertiary health care referral center. The series included 51 patients who had elective or urgent robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who had emergency surgery were excluded. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and quality of oncological specimen.

RESULTS

The overall morbidity was 31.4% (n = 16 patients). Only 9.8% (n = 5) had serious morbidity of which three required interventions under general anesthesia. The median length of hospital stay was 6 days (IQR = 4), and there was no mortality. Of 17 rectal cancer resections, 88% had complete mesorectal excision, 15 of them were R0 resections, median lymph node harvested was 14 (IQR = 7) and two cases were converted to open. All the colon cancer resections had R0 resection, median lymph nodes harvested was 21 (IQR = 4) and none were converted to open.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery at a newly established center in a small country, when led by fellowship trained robotic colorectal surgeons, is safe and effective in terms of morbidity, mortality, conversion to open and specimen pathological quality.

Robotic colon surgery in obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer resection can be technically difficult in the obese (OB) population. Robotic surgery is a promising technique but its benefits remain uncertain in OB patients. The aim of this study is to compare OB versus non-obese (NOB) patients undergoing robotic colon surgery, as well as OB patients undergoing robotic versus open or laparoscopic colonic surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Primary outcome measures included length of stay (LOS), surgical site infection (SSI) rate, complications, anastomotic leak and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were included, with five comparing OB and NOB patients undergoing robotic colon surgery included in meta-analysis. A total of 263 OB patients and 400 NOB patients formed the sample for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups in operative time, conversion to open, LOS, lymph node yield, anastomotic leak and postoperative ileus. There was a trend towards a significant increase in overall complications and SSI in the OB group (32.3% OB versus 26.8% NOB for complications, 14.2% OB versus 9.9% NOB for SSI). The three included studies comparing surgical techniques were too heterogeneous to undergo meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colon surgery is safe in obese patients, but high-quality prospective evidence is lacking. Future studies should report on oncological safety and the cost-effectiveness of adopting the robotic technique in these challenging patients.

Index cost comparison of laparoscopic vs robotic surgery in colon and rectal cancer resection: a retrospective financial investigation of surgical methodology innovation at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic assisted colorectal cancer resection (R-CR) has become increasingly commonplace in contrast to traditional laparoscopic cancer resection (L-CR). The aim of this study was to compare the total direct costs of R-CR to that of L-CR and to compare the groups with respect to costs related to LOS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colon and/or rectal cancer resection via R-CR or L-CR instrumentation between January 1, 2015 and December 31 2018, at our institution, were evaluated and compared. Primary outcomes were overall cost, supply cost, operating time and cost, postoperative length of stay (LOS), and postoperative LOS cost. Secondary outcomes were readmission within 30 days and mortality during the surgery.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty R-CR (mean age 64.9 ± 12.4 years) and 258 L-CR (mean age 66.4 ± 15.5 years) patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall mean direct cost between R-CR and L-CR was significantly higher ($8756 vs $7776 respectively, p=0.001) as well as the supply cost per case ($3789 vs $2122, p < 0.001). Operating time was also higher for R-CR than L-CR (224 min vs 187 min, p = 0.066) but LOS was slightly lower (5.08 days vs 5.55 days, p = 0.113).

CONCLUSIONS

Cost is the main obstacle to easy and widespread use of the platform at this junction, though new developments and competition could very well reduce costs. Supply cost was the main reason for increased costs with robotic resection.

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.

Real-world comparison of curative open, laparoscopic and robotic resections for sigmoid and rectal cancer-single center experience

There has been an increase in the utilization of robotic surgery in addition to traditional open or laparoscopic approaches. Aim of this study is to compare the short-term outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery for rectal and sigmoid cancer. One hundred and forty-seven patients (open n = 48, laparoscopic n = 49, robotic n = 50) undergoing curative resections by two surgeons between 2013 and 2020 were included. Data analyzed included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, length of stay, post-operative outcomes, and pathologic surrogates of oncologic results, including total mesorectal excision (TME) quality, circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and lymph node (LN) yield. Median age of population was 68 years (IQR 59-73), majority (68%) were males. Median distance from anal verge in the robotic surgery group was 8 cm, compared to 15 and 14.5 cm in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively, p = 0.029, (laparoscopic vs robotic, p = 0.005 and open vs robotic, p = 0.027). Proportion of patients who received neoadjuvant radiotherapy in robotic surgery group was higher, p = 0.04. In sub-group of tumors between 3 and 7 cm from anal verge more patients in the robotic surgery group had sphincter preservation, p = 0.006. Length of stay, maximum C-reactive protein, and white blood cell rise favored minimally invasive approaches compared to open surgery. There were no differences in post-operative complications, lymph node yield or CRM positivity rate between the three groups. Robotic surgery approach is safe and allows sphincter preservation without compromising TME quality in rectal cancer surgery.

Detailed cost of robotic-assisted surgery in the Australian public health sector: from implementation to a multi-specialty caseload

Background

A barrier to the uptake of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) continues to be the perceived high costs. A lack of detailed costing information has made it difficult for public hospitals in particular to determine whether use of the technology is justified. This study aims to provide a detailed description of the patient episode costs and the contribution of RAS specific costs for multiple specialties in the public sector.

Methods

A retrospective descriptive costing review of all RAS cases undertaken at a large public tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia from August 2016 to December 2018 was completed. This included RAS cases within benign gynaecology, cardiothoracic, colorectal and urology, with the total costs described utilizing various inpatient costing data, and RAS specific implementation, maintenance and consumable costs.

Results

Of 211 RAS patients, substantial variation was found between specialties with the overall median cost per patient being $19,269 (Interquartile range (IQR): $15,445 to $32,199). The RAS specific costs were $8828 (46%) made up of fixed costs including $4691 (24%) implementation and $2290 (12%) maintenance, both of which are volume dependent; and $1848 (10%) RAS consumable costs. This was in the context of 37% robotic theatre utilisation.

Conclusions

There is considerable variation across surgical specialties for the cost of RAS. It is important to highlight the different cost components and drivers associated with a RAS program including its dependence on volume and how it fits within funding systems in the public sector.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06105-z.