Outcomes and costs associated with robotic colectomy in the minimally invasive era

Central vascular ligation and complete mesocolon excision vs D3 lymphadenectomy: Standardization of surgical technique

Surgical advancements have transformed colorectal cancer treatment, with complete mesocolic excision (CME) becoming a crucial method to guarantee oncological safety and effectiveness. The article by Yadav emphasized the significance of CME in attaining optimal resection margins, thorough lymph node dissection, and enhanced long-term survival rates. The adjunctive function of D3 lymphadenectomy, emphasizing the clearance of lymphatic drainage along the supplying vessels, was also addressed. CME with central vascular ligation, based on the principles of total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, entails en bloc tumor resection and precise dissection along the embryological planes, thus diminishing recurrence and improving survival rates. The viability and safety of minimally invasive techniques, such as laparoscopic CME, have been confirmed; however, technical difficulties remain owing to the intricate vascular anatomy. Robotic-assisted surgery presents potential benefits, including accurate lymphatic dissection and intracorporeal anastomosis. However, evidence demonstrating its superiority over laparoscopic techniques is scarce owing to high costs and prolonged duration. This study promotes the global standardization of CME as an essential element of modern colorectal cancer surgery. CME epitomizes contemporary oncological practices, requiring widespread adoption to achieve superiority in colon cancer management.

Feasibility of hybrid robotic rectal surgery

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility of combined robotic rectal surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision (hybrid robotic surgery).

METHODS

Among 143 robotic rectal surgeries performed from 2017 to 2022, 85 were hybrid robotic surgeries and were analyzed in this study. The cohort comprised 59 males and 26 females with a mean age of 65.8 years old and a mean body mass index of 22.6 kg/m2. The cStage was I in 20 cases, II in 21, III in 36, IV in 4, and other in 4. The operation types were low anterior resection in 21 cases, intersphincteric resection in 27, abdominoperineal resection in 32, total pelvic exenteration in 2, and other in 3. Twelve patients (14.1%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, and 39 (45.9%) underwent lateral lymph node dissection.

RESULTS

The mean operation time for total mesorectal excision was 302.7 min, and the median blood loss was 71.5 ml. No cases required conversion to laparotomy. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 15.9 days. Complications of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 occurred in 3 cases (4.2%). Urinary dysfunction occurred in 6 cases (8.3%). Three (4.2%) patients were diagnosed with positive circumferential resection margins.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid robotic surgery is safe and oncologically feasible.

Surgical Outcomes and Utilization of Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Techniques for Elective Colectomy in Asian American and Native Hawaiian-Pacific Islanders (AAPI) Diagnosed With Colon Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Asian American and Native Hawaiian-Pacific Islanders (AAPI) are the fastest growing racial-ethnic group, with 18.9 million people in 2019, and is predicted to rise to 46 million by 2060. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer in AAPI men and the third most common in women. Treatment techniques like laparoscopic colectomy (LC) emerged as the standard of care for CRC resections; however, new robotic technologies can be advantageous. Few studies have compared clinical outcomes across minimally invasive approaches for AAPI patients with CRC. This study compares utilization and clinical outcomes of LC versus robotic colectomies (RCs) in AAPI patients.

METHODS

We queried the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database for elective RC and LC in AAPI patients from 2012 to 2020. Outcomes included unplanned conversion to open, operative time, complications, 30-d mortality, and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression analyses assessed the association between outcomes and the operative approach.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2020, 83,841 patients underwent elective LC or RC. Four thousand six hundred fifty-eight AAPI patients underwent 3817 (82%) LCs and 841 (18%) RCs. In 2012, all procedures were performed laparoscopically; by 2020, 27% were robotic. Mean operative time was shorter in LC (192 versus 249 min, P < 0.001). On multivariable logistic regression, there was no difference in infection (odds ratio [OR] 0.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.12), anastomotic leak (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.59-1.61), or death (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.31-2.61). Length of stay was shorter for RC (-0.44 d, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.18 d).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, AAPI postoperative outcomes are similar between LC and RC. Future studies that evaluate costs and resource utilization can assist hospitals in determining whether implementing robotic-assisted technologies in their hospitals and communities will be appropriate.

Modified enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in octogenarians undergoing minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health issue worldwide. As the population ages, more older patients including octogenarians will require CRC treatment. However, this vulnerable group has decreased functional reserves and increased surgical risks. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways aim to reduce surgical stress and complications, but concerns remain about applying ERAS protocols to older patients. We assessed whether a modified ERAS (mERAS) protocol combined would improve outcomes in octogenarian CRC patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we compared 360 non-octogenarians aged 50-64 years and 114 octogenarians aged 80-89 years before and after mERAS protocol implementation. Outcomes including postoperative functionary recovery, length of stay, complications, emergency department visits, and readmissions were analyzed.

RESULTS

Despite comparable tumor characteristics, octogenarians had poorer nutrition, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, and more comorbidities. After mERAS, octogenarians had reduced complications, faster return of bowel function, and shorter postoperative length of stay, similar to non-octogenarians. mERAS implementation improved recovery in both groups without increasing emergency department visits or readmissions.

CONCLUSION

Although less remarkable than in non-octogenarians, mERAS protocols mitigated higher complication rates and improved recovery in octogenarians after minimally invasive surgery for CRC, confirming protocol feasibility and safety in this vulnerable population.

[Robotic vs. laparoscopic right hemicolectomy-An analysis of costs]

The use of robotic surgical methods for performing right-sided hemicolectomy has been somewhat controversial, primarily due to concerns related to costs. The purpose of this study is to document the initial robotic right hemicolectomies conducted at our institution and to compare them with a laparoscopic reference group. A significant focus of this study is the detailed analysis of the costs associated with both techniques within the German healthcare system.Surgical and cost-related data for 34 cases each for robotic and laparoscopic right-sided hemicolectomy performed at Nürnberg Hospital were compared. This comparison was conducted through a retrospective single-center case-matched analysis. Cost analysis was carried out following the current guidelines provided by the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK) of Germany.The average age of the patient cohort was 70 years, with a male patient proportion of 57.4%. Analysis of perioperative parameters indicated similar outcomes for both surgical techniques. Regarding the incidence of complications of Clavien-Dindo stages III-V (8.8% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.48), a positive trend towards robotic surgery was observed. The cost analysis showed nearly identical total costs for the selected cases in both groups (mean €13,423 vs. €13,424; p = 1.00), with the most significant cost difference noted in surgical (operative) costs (€5,779 vs. €3,521; p < 0.01). The lower costs for laparoscopic cases were primarily due to the reduced material costs (mean €2,657 vs. €702; p < 0.05).In conclusion, both surgical approaches are clinically equivalent, with only minor differences in the total case costs.

Robotic-assisted colectomy in children: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted colectomy in children. All children who underwent a colectomy with a laparoscopic (LapC) or robotic-assisted (RobC) approach in our institution (January 2010-March 2023) were included. Demographics, surgical data, and post-operative outcomes within 30 days were collected. Additional cost related to the robotic approach was calculated. Comparisons were performed using Fisher tests for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney tests for continuous variables. A total of 55 colectomies were performed: 31 LapC and 24 RobC (median age: 14.9 years). Main indications included: inflammatory bowel disease (n = 36, 65%), familial adenomatous polyposis (n = 6, 11%), sigmoid volvulus (n = 5, 9%), chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction (n = 3, 5%). LapC included 22 right, 4 left, and 5 total colectomies. RobC included 15 right, 4 left, and 5 total colectomies. Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with increased operative time (3 h vs 2.5 h, p = 0.02), with a median increase in operative time of 36 min. There were no conversions. Post-operative complications occurred in 35% of LapC and 38% of RobC (p = 0.99). Complications requiring treatment under general anesthesia (Clavien-Dindo 3) occurred in similar rates (23% in LapC vs 13% in RobC, p = 0.49). Length of hospitalization was 10 days in LapC and 8.5 days in RobC (p = 0.39). The robotic approach was associated with a median additional cost of 2156€ per surgery. Robotic-assisted colectomy is as safe and feasible as laparoscopic colectomy in children, with similar complication rates but increased operative times and cost.

Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy outcomes in colon adenocarcinoma in the elderly population: a propensity-score matched analysis of the National Cancer Database

PURPOSE

While robotic surgery is more costly and involves longer intra-operative time, it has a technical advantage over laparoscopic surgery. With our aging population, patients are being diagnosed with colon cancer at older ages. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic versus robotic colectomy short- and long-term outcomes in elderly patients diagnosed with colon cancer at a national level.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Cancer Database. Subjects ≥ 80-years-old who were diagnosed with stage I to III colon adenocarcinoma and underwent a robotic or laparoscopic colectomy from 2010-2018 were included. The laparoscopic group was propensity-score matched in a 3:1 ratio to the robotic group with 9343 laparoscopic and 3116 robotic cases matched. The main outcomes evaluated were 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission rate, median survival, and length of stay.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the 30-day readmission rate (OR = 1.1, CI = 0.94-1.29, p = 0.23) or 30-day mortality rate (OR = 1.05, CI = 0.86-1.28, p = 0.63) between both groups. Robotic surgery was associated with higher overall survival (42 vs 44.7 months, p < 0.001) using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve. Robotic surgery had a statistically significant shorter length of stay (6.4 vs. 5.9 days, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic colectomies are associated with higher median survival rates and decrease in the length of hospital stay compared to laparoscopic colectomies in the elderly population.

Anastomotic Leak in Colorectal Surgery: Predictive Factors and Survival

<br><b>Introduction:</b> Anastomotic leak (AL) is a serious complication following colorectal surgery.</br> <br><b>Aim:</b> The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with the development of AL and to analyze its impact on survival.</br> <br><b>Materials and methods:</b> All consecutive adult colorectal cancer resections performed between 2007 and 2020 with curative intent and anastomosis formation were included from a prospectively maintained database. The primary outcome measure was the rate of AL. The secondary outcome measure was 5-year overall survival (OS).</br> <br><b>Results:</b> There were 6837 eligible patients. The rate of AL was 2.2% and 4.0% in patients with colon and rectal cancer, respectively. AL was a significant independent predictor of reduced 5-year OS in patients who underwent curative surgery for rectal cancer (odds ratio 2.293, p = 0.009). Emergency surgery (p = 0.015), surgery at a public hospital (p = 0.002), and an open surgical approach (p = 0.021) were all associated with a significantly higher risk of AL in patients with colon cancer, with higher rates of AL noted in left colectomies as compared to right hemicolectomies (4.4% <i>vs.</i> 1.3%, p < 0.001). In rectal cancer patients, AL was associated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (p = 0.038) and male gender (p = 0.002). The anastomosis formation technique (hand-sewn <i>vs.</i> stapled) did not impact the rate of AL (p = 0.116 and p = 0.198 with colon and rectal cancer, respectively).</br> <br><b>Discussion:</b> Clinicians should be cognizant of the predictive factors for AL and should consider early intervention for at-risk patients.</br>.

Safety of robotic surgical management of non-elective colectomies for diverticulitis compared to laparoscopic surgery

Non-elective minimally invasive surgery (MIS) remains controversial, with minimal focus on robotics. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes for non-elective robotic colectomies for diverticulitis. All colectomies for diverticulitis in ACS-NSQIP between 2012 and 2019 were identified by CPT and diagnosis codes. Open and elective cases were excluded. Patients with disseminated cancer, ascites, and ventilator-dependence were excluded. Procedures were grouped by approach (laparoscopic and robotic). Demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Covariates with p < .1 were entered into multivariable logistic regression models for 30 day mortality, postoperative septic shock and reoperation. 6880 colectomies were evaluated (Laparoscopic = 6583, Robotic = 297). The laparoscopic group included more preoperative sepsis (31.6% vs. 10.8%), emergency cases (32.3% vs. 6.7%), and grade 3/4 wound classifications (53.3% vs. 42.8%). There was no difference in mortality, anastomotic leak, SSI, reoperation, readmission, or length of stay. The laparoscopic group had more postoperative sepsis (p = 0.001) and the robotic group showed increased bleeding (p = 0.011). In a multivariate regression model, increased age (OR = 1.083, p < 0.001), COPD (OR = 2.667, p = 0.007), dependent functional status (OR = 2.657, p = 0.021), dialysis (OR = 4.074, p = 0.016), preoperative transfusions (OR = 3.182, p = 0.019), emergency status (OR = 2.241, p = 0.010), higher ASA classification (OR = 3.170, p = 0.035), abnormal WBC (OR = 1.883, p = 0.046) were independent predictors for mortality. When controlling for confounders, robotic approach was not statistically significantly associated with septic shock or reoperation. When controlling for confounders, robotic approach was not a predictor for mortality, reoperation or septic shock. Robotic surgery is a feasible option for the acute management of diverticulitis.

Robotic versus laparoscopic anterior resections for rectal and rectosigmoid cancer: an institutional experience

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal surgery has evolved with the advent of laparoscopic techniques and now robotic-assisted surgery. There is significant literature supporting the use of laparoscopic techniques over open surgery with evidence of enhanced post-operative recovery, reduced use of opioids, smaller incisions and equivalent oncological outcomes. Robotic minimally invasive surgery addresses some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery, providing surgical precision and improvements in perception and dexterity with a resulting decrease in tissue damage.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent robotic-assisted anterior resection for cancer of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction in our institution since our robotic programme began in 2017. Patient demographics were identified via electronic databases and patient charts. A matched cohort of laparoscopic cases was identified.

RESULTS

A total of 51 consecutive robotic-assisted anterior resections were identified and case matched with laparoscopic resections for comparison. Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with a shorter length of stay (p = 0.04), reduced initial post-operative analgesia requirements (p < 0.01) and no significant difference in time to bowel movement or stoma functioning (p = 0.84). All patients had an R0 resection, and there was no statistical difference in lymph node yield between the groups (p = 0.14). Robotic surgery was associated with a longer operative duration (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this early experience, robotic surgery has proven feasible and safe and is comparable to laparoscopic surgery in terms of completeness of resection and recovery. As costs and operating times decline and as technology progresses, robotic surgery may one day replace traditional laparoscopic techniques.

The Hidden Pandemic: the Cost of Postoperative Complications

Purpose of Review

Population-based increases in ageing and medical co-morbidities are expected to substantially increase the incidence of expensive postoperative complications. This threatens the sustainability of essential surgical care, with negative impacts on patients' health and wellbeing.

Recent Findings

Identification of key high-risk areas, and implementation of proven cost-effective strategies to manage both outcome and cost across the end-to-end journey of the surgical episode of care, is clearly feasible. However, good programme design and formal cost-effectiveness analysis is critical to identify, and implement, true high value change.

Summary

Both outcome and cost need to be a high priority for both fundholders and clinicians in perioperative care, with the focus for both groups on delivering high-quality care, which in itself, is the key to good cost management.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

Robotic resections represent a novel approach to treatment of colorectal cancer. The aim of our study was to critically assess the implementation of robotic colorectal surgical program at our institution and to compare it to the established laparoscopically assisted surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was designed to compare outcomes of consecutively operated patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic colorectal resections at a tertiary academic centre from 2019 to 2020. The associations between patient characteristics, type of operation, operation duration, conversions, duration of hospitalization, complications and number of harvested lymph nodes were assessed by using univariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 83 operations met inclusion criteria, 46 robotic and 37 laparoscopic resections, respectively. The groups were comparable regarding the patient and operative characteristics. The operative time was longer in the robotic group (p < 0.001), with fewer conversions to open surgery (p = 0.004), with less patients in need of transfusions (p = 0.004) and lower reoperation rate (p = 0.026). There was no significant difference between the length of stay (p = 0.17), the number of harvested lymph nodes (p = 0.24) and the overall complications (p = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term results of robotic colorectal resections were comparable to the laparoscopically assisted operations with fewer conversions to open surgery, fewer blood transfusions and lower reoperation rate in the robotic group.

Risk Factors for Prolonged Postoperative Ileus in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) represents a frequent complication following colorectal surgery, affecting approximately 10-15% of these patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perioperative risk factors for PPOI development in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. PubMed, EMBASE, SciELO, and LILACS databases were searched, without language or time restrictions, from inception until December 2018. The keywords used were: Ileus, colon, colorectal, sigmoid, rectal, postoperative, postoperatory, surgery, risk, factors. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Jadad scale were used for bias assessment, while the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for quality assessment of evidence on outcome levels.

RESULTS

Of the 64 studies included, 42 were evaluated in the meta-analysis, comprising 29,736 patients (51.84% males; mean age 62 years), of whom 2844 (9.56%) developed PPOI. Significant risk factors for PPOI development were: male sex (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.25-1.63), age (MD 3.17; 95% CI 1.63-4.71), cardiac comorbidities (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.19-2.00), previous abdominal surgery (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.19, 1.75), laparotomy (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.77-3.44), and ostomy creation (OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.04-1.98). Included studies evidenced a moderate heterogeneity. The quality of evidence was regarded as very low-moderate according to the GRADE approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple factors, including demographic characteristics, past medical history, and surgical approach, may increase the risk of developing PPOI in colorectal surgery patients. The awareness of these will allow a more accurate assessment of PPOI risk in order to take measures to decrease its impact on this population.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Sigmoid Colectomy: Analysis of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Database

Minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy via the laparoscopic approach (LA) has numerous benefits. We seek to compare outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic sigmoid colectomies. We analyzed the data using the National Inpatient Sample database between 2008 and 2014. Utilization and outcome measures were compared. The seven-year average number of patients who underwent elective sigmoid colectomy in the United States from 2008 to 2014 was estimated to be 197,053. Of these, 95.1 per cent were conducted using the LA. The mean age was 58.33 + 13.6 years and 58.23 + 12.8 years in laparoscopic and robotic approaches, respectively. No significant differences existed in respect to morbidities. Postoperative complications were comparable with respect to other complications. Length of hospital stay was statistically significantly shorter in the robot-assisted approach compared with the LA (mean 4.8 + 4 vs 5.7 + 5 days, respectively, P < 0.001). Patients who underwent robotic surgery had significantly higher total hospital charges than those who underwent laparoscopic surgery (median $45,057 vs $57,871 USD, P < 0.001). The advent of robot-assisted surgery has provided more options for patients and surgeons. Compared with laparoscopy, robot-assisted sigmoid colectomy has no clinical advantages in morbidity and mortality. However, the robotic approach has a significantly higher total charge to the patient.

Evolution of Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision

Minimally invasive techniques continue to transform the field of colorectal surgery. Because traditional surgical approaches for rectal cancer are associated with significant mortality and morbidity, developing less invasive approaches to this disease is paramount. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES), commonly known as "no incision surgery," represents the ultimate minimally invasive approach to disease. Although transgastric and transvaginal approaches for NOTES surgery were the initially explored, a transrectal approach for colorectal disease is intuitive given that it makes use of the resected organ for transluminal access. Furthermore, the transanal approach allows for improved, precise visualization of the presacral mesorectal plane compared with an abdominal viewpoint, particularly in the narrow, male pelvis. Finally, experience with existing transanal platforms that have been used for decades for local excision of rectal disease made the development of a transanal approach to total mesorectal excision (TME) feasible. Here, we will review the evolution of minimally invasive and transanal surgical techniques that allowed for the development of transanal TME and its introduction into clinical practice.

Use of Robotic Technology in the Management of Complex Colorectal Pathology

Use of robotic surgery is increasing in multiple surgical specialties including colorectal. We argue that the improved visualization and better instrumentation outweigh the increased cost and operating room time. However, the indications for its use are not clearly defined. This is especially true in complex pathologies such as rectal cancer and complicated diverticulitis. We explore the limited clinical data on the subject to support or dismiss the use of this currently developing technology.

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.

Comparison Between Robotic and Laparoscopic or Open Anastomoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using a robotic approach and compare them with those done using laparoscopic or open approaches through meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted for articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic and/or open operations (colectomy, low anterior resection, gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), pancreaticoduodenectomy, radical cystectomy, pyeloplasty, radical prostatectomy, renal transplant) published up to June 2019 searching Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies containing information about outcomes related to hand-sewn anastomoses were included for meta-analysis. Studies with stapled anastomoses or without relevant information about the anastomotic technique were excluded. We also excluded studies in which the anastomoses were performed extracorporeally in laparoscopic or robotic operations.

RESULTS

We included 83 studies referring to the aforementioned operations (4 randomized controlled and 79 non-randomized, 10 prospective and 69 retrospective) apart from colectomy and low anterior resection. Anastomoses done using robotic instruments provided similar results to those done using laparoscopic or open approach in regards to anastomotic leak or stricture. However, there were lower rates of stenosis in robotic than in laparoscopic RYGB (p=0.01) and in robotic than in open radical prostatectomy (p<0.00001). Moreover, all anastomoses needed more time to be performed using the robotic rather than the open approach in renal transplant (p≤0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic anastomoses provide equal outcomes with laparoscopic and open ones in most operations, with a few notable exceptions.

Case Sequence Analysis of the Robotic Colorectal Resection Learning Curve

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer offers many potential benefits, but as with any new technology, there is a learning curve.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify trends in the uptake of robotic resection and associated complication rates.

DESIGN

This was a case sequence analysis of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted using the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperation System database.

PATIENTS

Adults undergoing colorectal resection for cancer from 2008 through 2016 were identified in the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative database. Case sequence analysis was used to describe surgeon experience, with cases grouped into quartiles based on the chronological order in which each surgeon performed them.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes included in-hospital major events (myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, shock, and death) and iatrogenic complications. Generalized linear mixed models were used to estimate the relationship between case sequence and operative outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 2763 robotic procedures were included, with volume increasing from 76 cases in 2010 to 702 cases in 2015. The proportion of cases performed by surgeons earliest in their learning curve has increased to 18.2% in 2015. This quartile was composed of more black patients (11.4% earliest quartile vs 7.0% latest quartile; p < 0.001) and rectal resections (50.1% earliest quartile vs 38.9% latest quartile; p < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, major complications did not improve with increasing case sequence. However, with increasing cumulative surgeon case sequence iatrogenic complications were reduced, particularly in the highest volume quartile (OR = 0.29 (95% CI, 0.09-0.88); p = 0.03). Odds of prolonged length of stay (>75 percentile) were also decreased (OR = 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37-0.69); p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Data were derived from an administrative database.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic colorectal resection has been rapidly adopted. Surgeons earliest in their experience have increased iatrogenic complications and continue to make up a large proportion of cases performed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A974. ANÁLISIS DE SECUENCIA DE CASOS DE LA CURVA DE APRENDIZAJE DE RESECCIÓN ROBÓTICA COLORRECTAL: La cirugía robótica para el cáncer colorrectal ofrece muchos beneficios potenciales, pero como con cualquier nueva tecnología, presenta una importante curva de aprendizaje.

OBJETIVO

Se buscó identificar tendencias en la aceptación de la resección robótica y las tasas de complicaciones asociadas. DISEÑO:: Análisis de secuencia de casos de cirugía robótica para cáncer colorrectal AJUSTES:: Base de datos del Sistema de Cooperación para la Investigación y la Planificación del Estado de Nueva York.

PACIENTES

Los adultos que se sometieron a una resección colorrectal en caso de cáncer desde 2008 hasta 2016 se identificaron en la base de datos de la Cooperativa de Investigación y Planificación del Estado de Nueva York. Se utilizó un análisis de secuencia de casos para describir la experiencia del cirujano, y los casos se agruparon en cuartiles según el orden cronológico en el que cada cirujano los operó.

RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES

Los resultados incluyeron los eventos intrahospitalarios mayores (infarto de miocardio, embolia pulmonar, shock y muerte) y las complicaciones iatrogénicas. Se utilizaron modelos lineales generalizados mixtos para estimar la relación entre la secuencia de casos y los resultados operativos.

RESULTADOS

Se incluyeron un total de 2.763 procedimientos robóticos, con un aumento del volumen de 76 casos en 2010 a 702 casos en 2015. La proporción de casos realizados por cirujanos en su primera curva de aprendizaje aumentó a 18.2% en 2015. Este cuartil estaba compuesto por una mayoría de pacientes de color (11.4% en el cuartil más temprano versus 7.0% en el último cuartil, p < 0.001) y de resecciones rectales (50.1% en el primer cuartil vs 38.9% en el último cuartil, p < 0.001). En el ajuste del análisis, las complicaciones mayores no mejoraron al aumentar la secuencia de casos. Sin embargo, al aumentar la secuencia acumulada de casos de cirujanos, se redujeron las complicaciones iatrogénicas, particularmente en el cuartil de mayor volumen (OR = 0,29; IC del 95%: 0,09 a 0,88; p = 0,03). Las probabilidades de una estadía hospitalaria prolongada (> percentil 75) también disminuyeron (OR 0,50; IC del 95%: 0,37 a 0,69; p < 0,001).

LIMITACIONES

Los valores fueron derivados desde una base de datos administrativa.

CONCLUSIONES

La resección colorrectal robótica ha sido adoptada rápidamente. Los cirujanos durante su experiencia inicial han presentado un elevado número de complicaciones iatrogénicas y éstas representan todavía, una gran proporción de casos realizados. Vea el Resumen del Video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A974.

Feasibility of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) using the Medrobotics Flex® System

BACKGROUND

The use of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) for treatment of rectal cancer is growing, but anatomic constraints prevent access to the proximal rectum with rigid instruments. The articulated instrumentation of current surgical robots is promising in overcoming these limitations, but the bulky size of current platforms inhibits the proximal reach of dissection. Flexible robotic systems could overcome these constraints while maintaining a stable platform for dissection. The goal of this study was to evaluate feasibility of performing taTME using the semi-robotic Flex® System (Medrobotics Corp., Raynham, MA) in human cadavers.

METHODS

taTME was performed by two surgeons in six fresh human cadaveric specimens using the Flex® System, with or without transabdominal laparoscopic assistance. Both mid- and low-rectal lesions were simulated. Metrics including quality of visualization, maintenance of pneumorectum, maneuverability of instruments, effectiveness of pursestring suture placement, and dissection in an anatomically correct plane were evaluated.

RESULTS

The semi-robotic endoluminal platform allowed for excellent visualization, insufflation, and dissection during taTME. Adequate pursestring occlusion of the rectum was achieved in all six cases. In cadavers with simulated mid-rectal lesions (N = 4), dissection and anterior peritoneal entry was achieved in all cases, with abdominal assistance utilized in two of four cases. In cadavers with simulated low-rectal lesions (N = 2), dissection was incomplete and aborted due to difficulty maneuvering instruments in close proximity to the rigid transanal port.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the Flex® system for taTME is feasible for mid-rectal dissection. Advantages over the traditional multi-armed robot include longer reach of instruments with the ability to dissect up to 17 cm from the anal verge, as well as tactile feedback. The current design of the flexible platform does not permit safe dissection in the distal rectum, although this constraint may be resolved with future adjustments to the equipment.

Short-term postoperative outcomes following robotic versus laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis are equivalent

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches have become the standard of care for ileal pouch-anal anastomoses (IPAA). There are few reports comparing outcomes following a laparoscopic versus robotic approach. Our aim was to determine if there were any differences in the 30-day postoperative outcomes following IPAA performed laparoscopically versus robotically.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic and robotic IPAA performed between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018 was carried out. Patients included were adult patients who underwent a proctectomy and IPAA utilizing either a laparoscopic or robotic approach. Data collected included patient demographics, operative variables, and 30-day postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients had a minimally invasive IPAA; 58 were performed laparoscopically and 74 robotically. Less than half the patients were female (n = 55; 41.7%) with a median age of 37 years (range 18-68 years). The majority of patients had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (n = 103; 78.0%) with medically refractory disease (n = 87; 65.9%). A greater proportion of patients in the laparoscopic cohort had a prolonged length of stay (n = 27; 46.6% versus n = 18; 24.3%; p < 0.001) and a two-stage approach (n = 56; 96.6% versus n = 37; 50%; p < 0.001), but there were no differences in the rates between the laparoscopic versus robotic cohorts of superficial surgical site infection (6.9% versus 6.8%; p = 0.99), peripouch abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), anastomotic leak (6.9% versus 2.7%; p = 0.21), pelvic abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), and pelvic sepsis (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), readmission (24.1% versus 17.6%; p = 0.35) or reoperation (6.9% versus 5.4%; p = 0.72). On multivariable analysis, only male sex remained predictive of prolonged length of stay, and a robotic approach trended toward a decreased rate of prolonged length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and robotic IPAA have equivalent postoperative morbidity underscoring the safety of the continued expansion of the robotic platform for pouch surgery.

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.

Totally robotic modified complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation for right-sided colon cancer: technical feasibility and mid-term oncologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Recently, an operative strategy involving complete mesocolic excision (CME) and central vascular ligation (CVL) for colonic cancer has been introduced. We aimed to describe our initial experience and assess the long-term outcomes of robotic modified CME (mCME) and CVL (mCME+CVL) for right-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

Of the 677 patients with histologically confirmed, right-sided colon adenocarcinoma who underwent curative mCME+CVL between February 2008 and October 2016, 43 who were treated entirely using the robotic approach were included in this retrospective study. Survival rates were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method, and P values of < 0.05 indicated statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

The total operation and docking times were 293 (180-644) min and 5 (3-19) min, respectively, with an estimated blood loss of 50 (10-400) mL. The time to soft diet was 4 (1-16) days and the length of hospitalization was 8 (4-48) days. Based on the Clavien-Dindo classification, grade I, II, IIIa, IIIb, and IV complications were noted in 3 (7.0%), 5 (11.7%), 2 (4.7%), 1 (2.3%), and 0 (0%) patients, respectively. The proximal and distal resection margins were 14 (4-54) and 19 (4-48) cm, respectively, and 29 (6-157) lymph nodes were harvested per patient. The patients were followed-up for a median of 55 (2-109) months, during which the overall survival rate, median disease-free period, disease-free survival rate, and tumor recurrence rate were 93.6%, 38 (2-109) months, 81.1%, and 16.3% (7 patients), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic mCME and CVL for right-sided colon cancer was feasible and safe. It can be added to the surgeon's toolbox as an optional strategy for the management of colon cancer patients.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations: 2018

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS® protocol.

METHODS

A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

All recommendations on ERAS® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good-quality trials; meta-analyses of good-quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this comprehensive consensus review.

A Regional and National Database Comparison of Colorectal Outcomes

Background and Objectives:

The traditional open approach is still a common option for colectomy and the most common option chosen for rectal resections for cancer. Randomized trials and large database studies have reported the merits of the minimally invasive approach, while studies comparing laparoscopic and robotic options have reported inconsistent results.

Methods:

This study was designed to compare open, laparoscopic, and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes in protocol-driven regional and national databases. Logistic and multiple linear regression analyses were used to compare standard 30-day colorectal outcomes in the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) databases. The primary outcome was overall complications.

Results:

A total of 10,054 MSQC patients (open 37.5%, laparoscopic 48.8%, and robotic 13.6%) and 80,535 ACS-NSQIP patients (open 25.0%, laparoscopic 67.1%, and robotic 7.9%) met inclusion criteria. Overall complications and surgical site infections were significantly favorable for the laparoscopic and robotic approaches compared with the open approach. Anastomotic leaks were significantly fewer for the laparoscopic and robotic approaches compared with the open approach in ACS-NSQIP, while there was no significant difference between robotic and open approaches in MSQC. Laparoscopic complications were significantly less than robotic complications in MSQC but significantly more in ACS-NSQIP. Laparoscopic 30-day mortality was significantly less than for the robotic approach in MSQC, but there was no difference in ACS-NSQIP.

Conclusion:

Minimally invasive colorectal surgery is associated with fewer complications and has several other outcomes advantages compared with the traditional open approach. Individual complication comparisons vary between databases, and caution should be exercised when interpreting results in context.

Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of robot-assisted right colectomy (RAC) with those for conventional laparoscopy-assisted right surgery (LAC) for treating right-sided colon cancer.

BACKGROUND

The enthusiasm for the robotic techniques has gained increasing interest in colorectal malignancies. However, the role of robotic surgery in the oncologic safety has not yet been defined.

METHODS

From September 2009 to July 2011, 71 patients with right-sided colonic cancer were randomized in the study. Adjuvant therapy and postoperative follow-up were similar in both groups. The primary and secondary endpoints of the study were hospital stay and survival, respectively. Data were analyzed by intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The RAC and LAC groups did not differ significantly in terms of baseline clinical characteristics. Compared with the LAC group, RAC was associated with longer operation times (195 min vs. 129 min, P < 0.001) and higher cost ($12,235 vs. $10,319, P = 0.013). The median follow-up was 49.23 months (interquartile range 40.63-56.20). The combined 5-year disease-free rate for all tumor stages was 77.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 60.6-92.1%) in the RAC group and 83.6% (95% CI 72.1-0.97.0%) in the LAC group (P = 0.442). The combined 5-year overall survival rates for all stages were 91.1% (95% CI 78.8-100%) in the RAC group and 91.0% (95% CI 81.3-100%) in the LAC group (P = 0.678). Using multivariate analysis, RAC was not a predictor of recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

RAC appears to similar long-term survival as compared with LAC. However, we did not observe any clinical benefits of RAC which could translate to a decrease in expenditures.

TRIAL REGISTRY

http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00470951.

Comparative effectiveness of human scope assistant versus robotic scope holder in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Several types of robotic scope holders have been developed to date, but there are only some experimental reports or the results of small clinical cases. The Soloassist® system is a unique robotic scope holder with which the surgeon can control the field of view by a joystick. We evaluated the efficacy of Soloassist in laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We investigated operative time, blood loss, setup time, length of hospital stay, and the number of participating surgeons in 273 laparoscopic colorectal resections, including 130 cases with human assistant (HA group) and 143 cases with Soloassist (SA group). Additionally, we also used logistic regression of the perioperative factors for the propensity score calculation to balance the bias.

RESULTS

The number of participating surgeons was apparently less in the SA group (HA group: 3.3 vs. SA group: 2.5, p < 0.01). The average operative time was shorter in the SA group, but there was no statistical difference (HA group: 287.0 min vs. SA group: 268.5 min, p = 0.07). No significant difference was found in setup time, conversion rate, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay. There was no conversion case to human scope assistant and no system-specific adverse event. Similar results were observed between two groups after propensity score matching.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic colorectal resection with Soloassist is safe and feasible. The present study demonstrated that Soloassist system provided the possibilities of saving human resources in laparoscopic colorectal resection without prolonged operative time or system-specific morbidity. Soloassist is an effective robot-assisted surgical instrument for colorectal surgery.

Long-Term Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Patients with Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology has been proven to be a safe alternative to conventional laparoscopy with regards to the peri- and postoperative clinical outcomes. Oncological outcomes have been scarcely examined. The purpose of this study was to examine the disease-free survival in relation to the two surgical approaches: robot-assisted surgery and conventional laparoscopy. In addition, all-cause mortality and recurrence-free survival were investigated.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and December 2015, patients, undergoing either laparoscopic or robot-assisted elective, curative-intended surgery for colorectal cancer were included.

RESULTS

A total of 9184 patients underwent surgery in the study period: 5978 patients for colon cancer and 3206 patients for rectal cancer. Among patients with colon cancer, 331 patients (5.5%) underwent robot-assisted surgery, and 449 patients (14.0%) underwent robot-assisted surgery in the rectal cancer group. In the adjusted analyses, the hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival, for patients with colon cancer was 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.18]. For patients with rectal cancer, the adjusted HR was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.06). No difference in all-cause mortality and recurrence-free survival were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated comparable rates of disease-free survival, all-cause mortality, and recurrence-free survival when comparing robot-assisted surgery with conventional laparoscopy in patients with colorectal cancer.

The role of robotics in colorectal surgery

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

Robotic Platform for an IPAA

INTRODUCTION

An IPAA is the preferred operative approach for restoration of intestinal continuity in patients with ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. As minimally invasive approaches have become more widely adopted, their use in IPAA has also become increasingly commonplace. Laparoscopy has the same limitations during the proctectomy portion as seen in operations for rectal cancer, including dissection in the mid-to-lower rectum attributed to angles created by bony confines of the deep pelvis and lack of visibility when constructing the anastomosis. Robotic surgery provides improved 3-dimensional and high-definition visualization of the pelvis and multiple degrees of freedom, which greatly enhance performance during the proctectomy and construction of the anastomosis.

TECHNIQUE

In the setting of a previous subtotal colectomy, the ileostomy site is taken down and stapled across. A 15-mm balloon trocar is placed in the site to achieve insufflation, and the robotic ports are placed horizontally just above the umbilicus. The lateral mesenteric attachments are mobilized laparoscopically, then the J-pouch is constructed through the ostomy site. The J-pouch is placed back into the abdomen with the anvil in place, and the proctectomy is performed after docking the robot. The rectum is stapled with the robotic stapler and exteriorized from the ileostomy site, and the anastomosis is constructed under direct robotic visualization.

RESULTS

In addition to the potential ergonomic advantages, the maneuverability and visualization in the pelvis during the proctectomy and construction of the anastomosis are reported by many surgeons to be improved as compared with laparoscopy, especially in male or obese patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A robotic approach during the proctectomy and IPAA offers significant advantages to a laparoscopic approach, expanding our armamentarium of minimally invasive surgical techniques to IPAA.

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Clinical and Financial Outcomes After Robotic and Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection

PURPOSE

The study aims to evaluate the clinical and financial outcomes of the use of robotic when compared to laparoscopic colorectal surgery and any changes in these over time.

METHODS

From the Premier Perspective database, patients who underwent elective laparoscopic and robotic colorectal resections from 2012 to 2014 were included. Laparoscopic colorectal resections were propensity score matched to robotic cases for patient, disease, procedure, surgeon specialty, and hospital type and volume. The two groups were compared for conversion, hospital stay, 30-day post-discharge readmission, mortality, and complications. Direct, cumulative, and total (including 30-day post-discharge) costs were evaluated. Clinical and financial outcomes were also separately assessed for each of the included years.

RESULTS

Of 36,701 patients, 32,783 (89.3%) had laparoscopic colorectal resection and 3918 (10.7%) had robotic colorectal resection; 4438 procedures (2219 in each group) were propensity score matched. For the entire period, conversion to open approach (4.7 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.1) and hospital stay (mean days [SD] 6 [5.3] vs. 5 [4.6], p = 0.2) were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Surgical and medical complications were also the same for the two groups. However, the robotic approach was associated with lower readmission (6.3 vs. 4.8%, p = 0.04). Wound or abdominal infection (4.7 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.01) and respiratory complications (7.4 vs. 4.7%, p = 0.02) were significantly lower for the robotic group in the final year of inclusion, 2014. Direct, cumulative, and total (including 30-day post-discharge) costs were significantly higher for robotic surgery. The difference in costs between the two approaches reduced over time (direct cost difference: 2012, $2698 vs. 2013, $2235 vs. 2014, $1402).

CONCLUSION

Robotic colorectal surgery can be performed with comparable clinical outcomes to laparoscopy. With greater use of the technology, some further recovery benefits may be evident. The robotic approach is more expensive but cost differences have been diminishing over time.

Feasibility and Usefulness of a Joystick-Guided Robotic Scope Holder (Soloassist) in Laparoscopic Surgery

Introduction

The Soloassist® system is a joystick-guided robotic scope holder. We evaluated the efficacy of Soloassist in laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

We investigated operative time, blood loss, set-up time, length of hospital stay, and the number of participating surgeons in laparoscopic cholecystectomy cases before and after the introduction of Soloassist. Furthermore, we evaluated these factors in each group of 20 elective and emergency cholecystectomy cases by single surgeon after matching their background. To evaluate the performance level of operating Soloassist, we divided the operative field into three areas. Then we counted the frequency of energy device activation in initially 10 cases by a single surgical resident and observed its change.

Results

The number of participating surgeons was significantly less and postoperative hospital days were fewer in the Soloassist group. There was no significant difference between set-up time and blood loss both in elective and emergency cases. The total number of energy device activations and that in the dangerous area decreased in accordance with the experience.

Conclusion

Considering our results and previous reports, the combination use of an ideal active scope holder and a commercially available 3D scope is currently considered the best approach in laparoscopic surgery. In the near future, development of active scope holders might play an important role in laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: towards defining criteria to the right choice

OBJECTIVE

Analysis of various parameters related to the patient, the disease, and the needed surgical maneuvers to develop guidance for preoperative selection of the appropriate and the best approach for a given patient. Rapid advances in minimally invasive surgical technology are fascinating and challenging alike. It can be difficult for surgeons to keep up with new modalities that come on to the market place and to assess their true value, i.e., distinguish between fashionable trends versus scientific evidence. Laparoscopy established minimally invasive surgery and has revolutionized surgical concepts and approaches to diseases since its advent in the early 1990s. Now, with robotic surgery rapidly gaining traction in this high-tech surgical landscape, it remains to be seen how the long-term surgical landscape will be affected.

METHODS

Review of the surgical evolution, published data and cost factors to reflect on advantages and disadvantages in order to develop a broader perspective on the role of various technology platforms.

RESULTS

Advocates for robotic technology tout its advantages of 3D views, articulating wrists, lack of hand tremor, and surgeon comfort, which may extend the scope of minimally invasive surgery by allowing for operations in places that are more difficult to access for laparoscopic surgery (e.g., the deep pelvis), for complex tasks (e.g., intracorporeal suturing), and by decreasing the learning curve. But conventional laparoscopy has also evolved and offers high-definition 3D vision to all team members. It remains to be seen whether all together the robot features outweigh the downsides of higher cost, operative times, lack of tactile feedback, possibly unusual complications, inability to move the operative table with ease, and the difficulty to work in different quadrants.

CONCLUSIONS

While technical and design developments will likely address some shortcomings, the value-based impact of the various approaches will have to be examined in general and on a case-by-case basis. Value as the ratio of quality over cost depends on numerous parameters (disease, complications, patient, efficiency, finances).

Economic burden of cancer among patients with surgical resections of the lung, rectum, liver and uterus: results from a US hospital database claims analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine hospital resource utilization, associated costs and the risk of complications during hospitalization for four types of surgical resections and to estimate the incremental burden among patients with cancer compared to those without cancer.

METHODS

Patients (≥18 years old) were identified from the Premier Research Database of US hospitals if they had any of the following types of elective surgical resections between 1/2008 and 12/2014: lung lobectomy, lower anterior resection of the rectum (LAR), liver wedge resection, or total hysterectomy. Cancer status was determined based on ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes. Operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and total hospital costs, as well as frequency of bleeding and infections during hospitalization were evaluated. The impact of cancer status on outcomes (from a hospital perspective) was evaluated using multivariable generalized estimating equation models; analyses were conducted separately for each resection type.

RESULTS

Among the identified patients who underwent surgical resection, 23 858 (87.9% with cancer) underwent lung lobectomy, 13 522 (63.8% with cancer) underwent LAR, 2916 (30.0% with cancer) underwent liver wedge resection and 225 075 (11.3% with cancer) underwent total hysterectomy. After adjusting for patient, procedural, and hospital characteristics, mean ORT, LOS, and hospital cost were statistically higher by 3.2%, 8.2%, and 9.2%, respectively for patients with cancer vs. no cancer who underwent lung lobectomy; statistically higher by 6.9%, 9.4%, and 9.6%, respectively for patients with cancer vs. no cancer who underwent LAR; statistically higher by 4.9%, 14.8%, and 15.7%, respectively for patients with cancer vs. no cancer who underwent liver wedge resection; and statistically higher by 16.0%, 27.4%, and 31.3%, respectively for patients with cancer vs. no cancer who underwent total hysterectomy. Among patients who underwent each type of resection, risks for bleeding and infection were generally higher among patients with cancer as compared to those without cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, we found that patients who underwent lung lobectomy, lower anterior resection of the rectum (LAR), liver wedge resection or total hysterectomy for a cancer indication have significantly increased hospital resource utilization compared to these same surgeries for benign indications.

The robotic approach significantly reduces length of stay after colectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery has helped overcome several of the inherent limitations of conventional laparoscopy. The aim of this study is to identify any short-term advantage of robotic-assisted (RC) over laparoscopic colectomy (LC) using standardized nationwide data.

METHODS

Patients from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2012-2014 datasets who underwent elective LC or RC were compared for patient demographics, comorbidity, diagnosis, extent of colon resection, operative duration, and conversion rates. Thirty-day postoperative complications and post-discharge utilization of resources, readmission, and discharge to another facility were also evaluated. Propensity score matching was used to balance the sample size in the two groups.

RESULTS

Of 35,839 LC and RC procedures, 2482 cases were eligible for propensity score matching for the statistically significant variables (standardized difference > 0.10) and 1241 colectomy procedures were assigned to each group. Most of the major, minor surgical, and medical postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups. However, RC was associated with reduced 30-day postoperative septic complications (2.3 vs. 4%, p = 0.02), hospital stay (mean: 4.8 vs. 6.3 days, p = 0.001), and discharge to another facility (3.5 vs. 5.8%, p = 0.01). RC was, however, associated with readmission within 30 days after surgery (9.4 vs. 9.1%, p = 0.049). Postoperative ileus, anastomotic leak, reoperation, reintubation, and mortality were equivalent between RC and LC.

CONCLUSION

This propensity score-matched analysis suggests that RC is associated with some recovery benefits over LC. Greater experience with the technique may allow these advantages to counter some of the cost-related concerns that have deterred the more widespread utilization of robotic technology for colectomy.

The cost of conversion in robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Conversion from minimally invasive to open colorectal surgery remains common and costly. Robotic colorectal surgery is associated with lower rates of conversion than laparoscopy, but institutions and payers remain concerned about equipment and implementation costs. Recognizing that reimbursement reform and bundled payments expand perspectives on cost to include the entire surgical episode, we evaluated the role of minimally invasive conversion in total payments.

METHODS

This is an observational study from a linked data registry including clinical data from the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative and payment data from the Michigan Value Collaborative between July 2012 and April 2015. We evaluated colorectal resections initiated with open and minimally invasive approaches, and compared reported risk-adjusted and price-standardized 30-day episode payments and their components.

RESULTS

We identified 1061 open, 1604 laparoscopic, and 275 robotic colorectal resections. Adjusted episode payments were significantly higher for open operations than for minimally invasive procedures completed without conversion ($19,489 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). The conversion rate was significantly higher with laparoscopic than robotic operations (15.1 vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). Adjusted episode payments for minimally invasive operations converted to open were significantly higher than for those completed by minimally invasive approaches ($18,098 vs. $15,518, p < 0.001). Payments for operations completed robotically were greater than those completed laparoscopically ($16,949 vs. $15,250, p < 0.001), but the difference was substantially decreased when conversion to open cases was included ($16,939 vs. $15,699, p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

Episode payments for open colorectal surgery exceed both laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive options. Conversion to open surgery significantly increases the payments associated with minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Because conversion rates in robotic colorectal operations are half of those in laparoscopy, the excess expenditures attributable to robotics are attenuated by consideration of the cost of conversions.

Robot-Assisted Colectomy for Left-Sided Colon Cancer: Comparison of Reduced-Port and Conventional Multi-Port Robotic Surgery

PURPOSE

The robotic single-port access plus one conventional robotic port, a reduced-port robotic surgery (RPRS) for left-sided colon cancer, can enable lymphovascular dissection using the wristed instrumentation and safe rectal transection through an additional port maintaining the cosmetic advantage of the single-port surgery. The aim of this study is to compare the clinicopathological outcomes between reduced-port and conventional multi-port robotic colectomy for left-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

The study group included 23 patients who underwent an RPRS and 16 patients who underwent a multi-PRS (MPRS) for left-sided colon cancer between August 2013 and January 2016.

RESULTS

The operative time was significantly shorter in the RPRS group than in the MPRS group (mean time 258 ± 67 vs. 319 ± 66 minutes, P = .009). There were no apparent differences in tolerance of diet, postoperative pain score, length of hospital stay, the rate of postoperative complications, and the mean number of harvested lymph node, but the RPRS group had a significantly smaller total incision length (38 ± 12 mm vs. 83 ± 6 mm, P = .013).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the feasibility and safety of the RPRS, with clinicopathological outcomes that is comparable with that of the MPRS for left-sided colon cancer.

Multiquadrant robotic colorectal surgery: the da Vinci Xi vs Si comparison

The newly introduced da Vinci Xi Surgical System hopes to address the shortcomings of its predecessor, specifically robotic arm restrictions and difficulty working in multiple quadrants. We compare the two robot platforms in multiquadrant surgery at a major colorectal referral center. Forty-four patients in the da Vinci Si group and 26 patients in the Xi group underwent sigmoidectomy or low anterior resection between 2014 and 2016. Patient demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were compared using descriptive statistics. Both groups were similar in age, sex, BMI, pelvic surgeries, and ASA class. Splenic flexure was mobilized in more (p = 0.045) da Vinci Xi cases compared to da Vinci Si both for sigmoidectomy (50 vs 15.4%) and low anterior resection (60 vs 29%). There was no significant difference in operative time (219.9 vs 224.7 min; p = 0.640), blood loss (170.0 vs 188.1 mL; p = 0.289), length of stay (5.7 vs 6 days; p = 0.851), or overall complications (26.9 vs 22.7%; p = 0.692) between the da Vinci Xi and Si groups, respectively. Single-dock multiquadrant robotic surgery, measured by splenic flexure mobilization with concomitant pelvic dissection, was more frequently performed using the da Vinci Xi platform with no increase in operative time, bleeding, or postoperative complications. The new platform provides surgeons an easier alternative to the da Vinci Si dual docking or combined robotic/laparoscopic multiquadrant surgery.

Current status of robotic single-port colonic surgery

INTRODUCTION

The present paper reviews evidence and examines updates in single-port robotic surgery for colonic diseases reported in contemporary studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive online systematic search of PubMed databases was carried out in June 2015, identifying studies conducted on robotic single-port colectomy from 2008 to 2015.

RESULTS

The advantages and disadvantages of several available port-access systems, techniques for configuring robotic arms, and robotic surgical platforms, were presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Current studies show that single-port robotic colectomy is a safe and feasible procedure despite the lack of supporting evidence. Although significant advancements in the development and modification of single-access ports, configuration of robotic arms, and robotic surgical platforms have been achieved in the field of single-port robotic surgery for colonic disease, significant improvements to surgical platforms for single-port robotic surgery are needed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.