Is Robotic Complete Mesocolic Excision Feasible for Transverse Colon Cancer?

Oncological outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic colectomy in patients with transverse colon cancer

BACKGROUND

Literature concerning surgical management of transverse colon cancer is scarce, since many key trials excluded transverse colon cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and oncological outcomes comparing open, laparoscopic and robotic transverse colon cancer resection.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent elective surgery for transverse colon cancer between December 2005 and July 2021 were included. Data were kept in a prospective database approved by the institutional ethics committee. Primary outcome was overall and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included complications, operative time, length of stay and lymph node harvest. Statistical analysis was corrected for age and tumour localisation.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-six (38 robotic, 71 open and 137 laparoscopic resections) were recruited in this study. There were five conversions during laparoscopic procedures. Operative time was significantly shorter in robotic vs laparoscopic procedures (195 vs 238 min, p = 0.005) and length of stay was shorter in robotic vs laparoscopic and open group (7 vs 9 vs 15 days, p < 0.001). There was no difference in overall complications. R0 resections were similar. Lymph node harvest was highest in the robotic group vs. laparoscopic or open (32 vs. 29 vs. 21, p < 0.001). Overall survival was 97%, 85% and 60% (p < 0.001) and disease-free survival was 91%, 78% and 56% (p < 0.001) for the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive surgery for transverse colon cancer is safe and offers good clinical and oncological outcomes. Robotic resection is associated with significantly shorter operating times, higher lymph node harvest, lower conversion rate and does not increase morbidity. Differences in disease-free and overall survival should be further explored in randomised controlled trials.

Computer-based multimodal training module facilitates standardization of complete mesocolic excision technique for right-sided colon cancer: Long-term oncological outcomes

AIM

The aim of this study is to demonstrate our video training tool developed to teach and standardize complete mesocolic excision (CME) for right-sided colon cancer and also to present our long-term oncological outcomes.

METHOD

Educational narrative videos were produced to demonstrate the technical steps of CME. First, a three-dimensional animation video was prepared. Then cadaveric dissections were recorded in a step-by-step fashion, following the sequences of open and minimally invasive surgery. These were followed by videos of real-life demonstrations of surgical procedures, enhanced by superimposed animations of key anatomical structures. In order to demonstrate the impact of this training module on outcomes of patients undergoing CME, we retrospectively queried data from before (2005-2010) and after (2011-2019) implementation of standardized CME in our practice.

RESULTS

A total of 180 consecutive patients underwent right hemicolectomy between 2005 and 2019. Fifty-four patients underwent surgery before and 126 patients after CME principles were elaborated and standardized. Of those patients who had surgery after the training module, 58 (46%) underwent open surgery and 68 (54%) underwent laparoscopic colectomy. Demographics, perioperative parameters and morbidity were comparable between the groups. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were significantly improved after implementation of CME training (p = 0.059 and p = 0.041, respectively). Also, 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates for all patients were considerably better than our reported national outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our comprehensive step-by-step training video module for the CME technique demonstrates surgical anatomical planes and important vascular structures and variations. The video also helps standardization of the CME technique and should contribute to improved histopathological and oncological outcomes.

Segmental transverse colectomy. Minimally invasive versus open approach: results from a multicenter collaborative study

The role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of transverse colon cancer is still controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the advantages of a totally laparoscopic technique comparing open versus laparoscopic/robotic approach. Three hundred and eighty-eight patients with transverse colon cancer, treated with a segmental colon resection, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, tumor stage, operative time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and recovery outcomes were recorded. Recurrences and death were also evaluated during the follow-up. No differences were found between conventional and minimally invasive surgery, both for oncological long-term outcomes (recurrence rate p = 0.28; mortality p = 0.62) and postoperative complications (overall rate p = 0.43; anemia p = 0.78; nausea p = 0.68; infections p = 0.91; bleeding p = 0.62; anastomotic leak p = 0.55; ileus p = 0.75). Nevertheless, recovery outcomes showed statistically significant differences in favor of minimally invasive surgery in terms of time to first flatus (p = 0.001), tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.017), time to first mobilization (p = 0.001) and hospital stay (p = 0.004). Compared with laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.005) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001). Finally, anastomosis evaluation confirmed the superiority of intracorporeal approach which showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.003) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001); moreover, we recorded a statistical difference in favor of intracorporeal approach for infection rate (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.001) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03). Minimally invasive approach is safe and effective as the conventional open surgery, with comparable oncological results but not negligible advantages in terms of recovery outcomes. Moreover, we demonstrated that robotic approach may be considered a valid option and an intracorporeal anastomosis should always be preferred.

What is the best surgical procedure of transverse colon cancer? An evidence map and minireview

Colorectal cancers comprise a large percentage of tumors worldwide, and transverse colon cancer (TCC) is defined as tumors located between hepatic and splenic flexures. Due to the anatomy and embryology complexity, and lack of large randomized controlled trials, it is a challenge to standardize TCC surgery. In this study, the current situation of transverse/extended colectomy, robotic/ laparoscopic/open surgery and complete mesocolic excision (CME) concept in TCC operations is discussed and a heatmap is conducted to show the evidence level and gap. In summary, transverse colectomy challenges the dogma of traditional extended colectomy, with similar oncological and prognostic outcomes. Compared with conventional open resection, laparoscopic and robotic surgery plays a more important role in both transverse colectomy and extended colectomy. The CME concept may contribute to the radical resection of TCC and adequate harvested lymph nodes. According to published studies, laparoscopic or robotic transverse colectomy based on the CME concept was the appropriate surgical procedure for TCC patients.

Surgical management of adenocarcinoma of the transverse colon: What should be the extent of resection?

Transverse colon, owing its origin to midgut and hindgut and harbouring a flexure at both ends, continues to pose a surgical challenge. When compared to the rest of the colon, transverse colon adenocarcinoma is relatively uncommon. These cancers usually present late and lie in close proximity to the stomach, omentum, and pancreas. Adequate lymphadenectomy entails dissection around and ligation of the middle colic vessels. Hence, resectional surgery for transverse colon carcinoma is considered difficult. This is more so because of the variation of arterial and venous anatomy. From this perspective, the surgeon is tempted to perform a more radical operation like extended right or left hemicolectomy to secure an adequate lymphadenectomy. Such a cancer has also been dealt with a more limited transverse colectomy with colo-colic anastomosis. For all these reasons, patients with transverse colon adenocarcinoma were excluded from randomised trials which compared laparoscopic resection with traditional open operation. Surgical literature is yet to establish a definite operation for transverse colon cancer and the exact procedure is often dictated by surgeon's preference. This is primarily because this is an uncommon cancer. The rapid adoption of laparoscopic operation favoured extended colectomy as transverse colectomy can be difficult by minimally invasive technique. However, in the recent past, cohort studies and meta-analyses have shown equivalent oncological outcome between transverse colectomy and extended colectomy. It is time to resurrect transverse colectomy and consider it equivalent to its radical counterpart for cancers around the mid-transverse colon.

Ileo-colic intra-corporeal anastomosis during robotic right colectomy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of different techniques

PURPOSE

Robotic assistance could increase the rate of ileo-colic intra-corporeal anastomosis (ICA) during robotic right colectomy (RRC). However, although robotic ICA can be accomplished with several different technical variants, it is not clear whether some of these technical details should be preferred. An evaluation of the possible advantage of one respect to another would be useful.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of literature on technical details of robotic ileo-colic ICA, from which we performed a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. The extracted data allowed a comparative analysis regarding the outcome of overall complication (OC), bleeding rate (BR) and leakage rate (LR), between (1) mechanical anastomosis with robotic stapler, versus laparoscopic stapler, versus totally hand-sewn anastomosis and (2) closure of enterocolotomy with manual double layer, versus single layer, versus stapled.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies including 2066 patients were selected. Globally, the side-to-side, isoperistaltic anastomosis, realized with laparoscopic staplers, and double-layer closure for enterocolotomy, is the most common technique used. According to the meta-analysis, the use of robotic stapler was significantly associated with a reduction of the BR with respect to mechanical anastomosis with laparoscopic stapler or totally hand-sewn anastomosis. None of the other technical aspects significantly influenced the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

ICA fashioning during RRC can be accomplished with several technical variants without evidence of a clear superiority of anyone of these techniques. Although the use of robotic staplers could be associated with some benefits, further studies are necessary to draw conclusions.

A global systematic review and meta-analysis on laparoscopic vs open right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of right hemicolectomy with CME performed with laparoscopic and open surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, Google Scholar and the ClinicalTrials.gov register were searched. Primary outcome was the overall number of harvested lymph nodes. Secondary outcomes were short and long-term course variables. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratios.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were identified with 5038 patients enrolled. The difference in number of harvested lymph nodes was not statistically significant (MD 0.68, - 0.41-1.76, P = 0.22). The only RCT shows a significant advantage in favour of laparoscopy (MD 3.30, 95% CI - 0.20-6.40, P = 0.04). The analysis of CCTs showed an advantage in favour of the laparoscopic group, but the result was not statically significantly (MD - 0.55, 95% CI - 0.57-1.67, P = 0.33). The overall incidence of local recurrence was not different between the groups, while systemic recurrence at 5 years was lower in laparoscopic group. Laparoscopy showed better short-term outcomes including overall complications, lower estimated blood loss, lower wound infections and shorter hospital stay, despite a longer operative time. The rate of anastomotic and chyle leak was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the several limitations of this study, we found that the median number of lymph node harvested in the laparoscopic group is not different compared to open surgery. Laparoscopy was associated with a lower incidence of systemic recurrence.

Complete mesocolic excision in minimally invasive surgery of colonic cancer: do we need the robot?

Background

Robotic surgery offers favorable prerequisites for complex minimally invasive surgeries which are delivered by higher degrees of freedom, improved instrument stability, and a perfect visualization in 3D which is fully surgeon controlled. In this article we aim to assess its impact on complete mesocolic excision (CME) in colon cancer and to answer the question of whether the current evidence expresses a need for robotic surgery for this indication.

Methods

Retrospective analysis and review of the current literature on complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer comparing the outcome after open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.

Results

Complete mesocolic excision results in improved disease-free survival and reduced local recurrence, but turns out to be complex and prone to complications. Introduced in open surgery, the transfer to minimally invasive surgery resulted in comparable results, however, with high conversion rates. In comparison, robotic surgery shows a reduced conversion rate and a tendency toward higher lymph node yield. Data, however, are insufficient and no high-quality studies have been published to date. Almost no oncologic follow-up data are available in the literature.

Conclusion

The current data do not allow for a reliable conclusion on the need of robotic surgery for CME, but show results which hypothesize an equivalence if not superiority to laparoscopy. Due to recently published technical improvements for robotic CME and supplementary features of this method, we suppose that this approach will gain in importance in the future.

Totally laparoscopic and totally robotic surgery in patients with left-sided colonic diverticulitis

BACKGROUND

Introduction of the da Vinci Xi system has facilitated the use of robotics in colorectal surgery. Nevertheless, data on the outcomes of robotic surgery for the treatment of colonic diverticulitis have remained scarce.

METHODS

Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and perioperative outcomes of the patients undergoing totally robotic with the da Vinci Xi system or laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colonic diverticulitis (LCD) were compared.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic and robotic groups included 22 and 20 patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of patient demographics, clinical characteristics, operative time, and postoperative complications. There were three conversions in the laparoscopy group and no conversion in the robotic group (P = 0.23). Conversion to open surgery was associated with postoperative morbidity (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is an applicable alternative for the treatment of LCD. Robotic approach may potentially lower the risk of operative morbidity by reducing the requirement of conversion.