Robotic colonic surgery: is it advisable to commence a new learning curve?

Perceptions of theatre team members to robotic assisted surgery and the aid of technology in colorectal surgery

The implementation of robotic assisted surgery (RAS) has brought in a change to the perception and roles of theatre staff, as well as the dynamics of the operative environment and team. This study aims to identify and describe current perceptions of theatre staff in the context of RAS. 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted in a tertiary level university hospital, where RAS is utilised in selected elective settings. Interviews were conducted by an experienced research nurse to staff of the colorectal department operating theatre (nursing, surgical and anaesthetics) with some experience in operating within open, laparoscopic and RAS surgical settings. Thematic analysis on all interviews was performed, with formation of preliminary themes. Respondents all discussed advantages of all modes of operating. All respondents appreciated the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, in the reduced physiological insult to patients. However, interviewees remarked on the current perceived limitations of RAS in terms of logistics. Some voiced apprehension and anxieties about the safety if an operation needs to be converted to open. An overarching theme with participants of all levels and backgrounds was the 'Teamwork' and the concept of the [robotic] team. The physical differences of RAS changes the traditional methods of communication, with the loss of face-to-face contact and the physical 'separation' of the surgeon from the rest of the operating team impacting theatre dynamics. It is vital to understand the staff cultures, concerns and perception to the use of this relatively new technology in colorectal surgery.

Robotic colorectal surgery and future directions

As the adoption of robotic-assisted procedures expands across various surgical specialties, colorectal surgery stands out as a prominent beneficiary. This rise in usage can be traced back to the increased accessibility of robotic platforms and a growing institutional shift towards cutting-edge surgical methods. When compared with traditional laparoscopic methods, robotic techniques offer distinct advantages. Their true potential shines in surgeries involving complex anatomical regions, where the robot's enhanced dexterity and range of motion prove invaluable. The three-dimensional, magnified view provided by robotic systems further boosts surgical precision and clarity. These advantages render robotic assistance especially suitable for colorectal surgeries, notably in intricate areas such as the rectum and endoluminal spaces. As the medical world emphasizes minimally invasive surgical methods, there's a pressing need to evolve and optimize robotic techniques in colorectal surgery. This article traces the evolution of robotic interventions in colorectal surgeries, highlighting both its historical milestones and anticipated future trends. We'll also explore emerging robotic tools and systems set to reshape the colorectal surgical arena.

Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

There is still controversy on whether or not robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) have advantages over laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery(LACS).

Materials and methods

The four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library)were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of RACS and LACS in the treatment of colorectal cancer from inception to 22 July 2023.

Results

Eleven RCTs were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Compared with LACS,RACS has significantly longer operation time(MD=5.19,95%CI: 18.00,39.82, P<0.00001), but shorter hospital stay(MD=2.97,95%CI:-1.60,-0.33,P = 0.003),lower conversion rate(RR=3.62,95%CI:0.40,0.76,P = 0.0003), lower complication rate(RR=3.31,95%CI:0.64,0.89,P=0.0009),fewer blood loss(MD=2.71,95%CI:-33.24,-5.35,P = 0.007),lower reoperation rate(RR=2.12, 95%CI:0.33,0.96,P=0.03)and longer distal resection margin(MD=2.16, 95%CI:0.04,0.94, P = 0.03). There was no significantly difference in harvested lymph nodes, the time of first flatus, the time of first defecation,the time of first resume diet, proximal resection margin, readmission rates, mortalities and CRM+ rates between two group.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that RACS is a feasible and safe technique that can achieve better surgical efficacy compared with LACS in terms of short-term outcomes.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447088.

Robotic Surgery for Ulcerative Colitis

Subtotal colectomy (STC) or total proctocolectomy (TPC) and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) performed in two or three stages remain the procedure of choice for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Minimally invasive laparoscopic approaches for STC and IPAA have been established for over a decade, having been shown to reduce postoperative pain, length of stay, and improve fertility. However "straight-stick" laparoscopy has ergonomic and visual disadvantages in the pelvis, which may contribute to IPAA failure. The robotic platform was developed to overcome these limitations. Robotic STC is associated with lower conversion rates and earlier return of bowel function with acceptably longer operative time (mean, 28 minutes) than laparoscopic STC. The robotic approach has also been shown in case series to be safe in urgent settings. Robotic IPAA is associated with lower blood loss and length of stay than laparoscopic IPAA. Robotic TPC/IPAA has been shown in small case series to be safe and feasible despite longer operating times.

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies: intra- and postoperative outcomes of 683 patients

Background

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery has gained more and more popularity over the last years. It seems to be advantageous to laparoscopic surgery in selected situations, especially in confined regions like a narrow male pelvis in rectal surgery. Whether robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies can serve as safe training operations for less frequent, low anterior resections for rectal cancer is still under debate. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate intra- and postoperative results of robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAL) compared to laparoscopic (LSC) surgery in left-sided colectomies.

Methods

Between June 2015 and December 2019, 683 patients undergoing minimally invasive left-sided colectomies in two Swiss, high-volume colorectal centers were included. Intra- and postoperative outcome parameters were collected and analyzed.

Results

A total of 179 patients undergoing RAL and 504 patients undergoing LSC were analyzed. Baseline characteristics showed similar results. Intraoperative complications occurred in 0.6% of RAL and 2.0% of LSC patients (p = 0.193). Differences in postoperative complications graded Dindo ≥ 3 were not statistically significant (RAL 3.9% vs. LSC 6.3%, p = 0.227). Occurrence of anastomotic leakages showed no statistically significant difference [RAL n = 2 (1.1%), LSC n = 8 (1.6%), p = 0.653]. Length of hospital stay was similar in both groups. Conversions to open surgery were significantly higher in the LSC group (6.2% vs.1.7%, p = 0.018), while stoma formation was similar in both groups [RAL n = 1 (0.6%), LSC n = 5 (1.0%), p = 0.594]. Operative time was longer in the RAL group (300 vs. 210.0 min, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies are safe and feasible compared to laparoscopic resections. Intra- and postoperative complications are similar in both groups. Most notably, the rate of anastomotic leakages is similar. Compared to laparoscopic resections, the analyzed robotic-assisted resections have longer operative times but less conversion rates. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the safety of robotic-assisted, left-sided colectomies as training procedures for low anterior resections.

Update on Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

The minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer with Total Mesorectal Excision is a complex and challenging procedure due to technical and anatomical issues which could impair postoperative, oncological and functional outcomes, especially in a defined subgroup of patients. The results from recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery are still conflicting and trans-anal bottom-up approaches have recently been developed. Robotic surgery represents the latest consistent innovation in the field of minimally invasive surgery that may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy thanks to an enhanced dexterity, especially in deep narrow operative fields such as the pelvis. Results from population-based multicenter studies have shown the potential advantages of robotic surgery when compared to its laparoscopic counterpart in terms of reduced conversions, complication rates and length of stay. Costs, often advocated as one of the main drawbacks of robotic surgery, should be thoroughly evaluated including both the direct and indirect costs, with the latter having the potential of counterbalancing the excess of expenditure directly related to the purchase and maintenance of robotic equipment. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required to better delineate the advantages of the robotic platform, especially in the subset of most complex and technically challenging patients from both an anatomical and oncological standpoint.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

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

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.

Is robotic right colectomy economically sustainable? a multicentre retrospective comparative study and cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Following the Food and Drug Administration approval, robot-assisted colorectal surgery has gained more acceptance among surgeons. One of the open issues about robotic surgery is the economic sustainability. The aim of our study is to evaluate the economic sustainability of robotic as compared to laparoscopic right colectomy for the Italian National Health System.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective multicentre case-matched study including 94 patients for each group from four different Italian surgical departments. An economic evaluation gathered from a real-world data was performed to assess the sustainability of the robotic approach for right colectomy in the Italian National Health System. In particular, a differential cost analysis between the two procedures was performed.

RESULTS

No statistical differences were found between the two groups for postoperative outcomes. After a careful review of the literature on the cost assessment for the operative room, medical devices and hospital stay according with our data, we estimated the followings: (a) the mean operative room cost for robotic group was 2179 ± 476 € vs. 1376 ± 322 € for laparoscopic group; (b) the mean hospital stay cost for robotic group was 3143 ± 1435 € vs. 3292 ± 1123 € for laparoscopic group; and (c) the mean cost for instruments was 6280 € for robotic group vs. 1504 € for laparoscopic group. The total mean cost of robotic right colectomy was 11,576 ± 1915 € vs. 6196 ± 1444 € for laparoscopic right colectomy.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, to date, robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis does not provide any significant clinical advantages, which may justify the additional costs, as compared to its laparoscopic counterpart. Further evolution of robotic technology and experience may lead to a reduction of costs, especially if the robotic platform is used in an appropriate healthcare setting.

From Da Vinci Si to Da Vinci Xi: realistic times in draping and docking the robot

Robot-assisted surgery is assumed to be time consuming partially due to extra time needed in preparing the robot. The objective of this study was to give realistic times in Da Vinci Xi draping and docking and to analyse the learning curve in the transition from the Si to the Xi in an experienced team. This prospective study was held in a hospital with a high volume of robot-assisted surgery in general surgery, urology and gynaecology. Times from the moment patients entered the operating room until the surgeon took place behind console were precisely recorded during the first 6 weeks after the implementation of the Xi. In total, 65 procedures were performed and documented. The learning curve for the process of draping and docking the robot was reached after 21 and 18 cases, respectively. Mean times after completion of the learning curve were 5 min for draping and 7 min for docking and were statistically different from mean times before completion of the learning curve (p values < 0.01). In dedicated teams netto extra time needed for preparing the Xi can even be reduced to just the time needed for docking. Thus, setting up the robot should have limited impact on overall time spent in the operation room.

Propensity-Matched Analysis of Sigmoidectomies for Diverticular Disease

Background and Objectives:

The role for the robotic-assisted approach as a minimally invasive alternative to open colorectal surgery is in the evaluation phase. While the benefits of minimally invasive colorectal surgery when compared to the open approach have been clearly demonstrated, the adoption of laparoscopy has been limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes, hospital and payer characteristics of patients undergoing robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease in the United States.

Methods:

This is a retrospective propensity score–matched analysis. The Premier Healthcare Database was queried for patients with diverticular disease. Patients with diverticular disease who underwent robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease from January 2013 through September 2015 were included. Propensity-score matching (1:1) facilitated comparison of robotic-assisted versus open approach and robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic approach. Peri-operative outcomes were assessed for both comparisons.

Results:

There were several outcomes advantages for the robotic-assisted approach when compared to laparoscopic and open sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease that included significantly fewer conversions to open (P = .0002), shorter hospital length of stay, fewer postoperative complications—ileus, wound complications, and acute renal failure—and more patients discharged directly to home.

Conclusions:

The robotic-assisted minimally invasive approach to elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease results in favorable intra-operative and postoperative outcomes when compared to laparoscopic and open approaches.

Open versus minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center cohort study on 237 consecutive patients

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is gaining popularity in rectal tumor treatment. However, contrasting data are available regarding its safety and efficacy. Our aim is to compare the open and MIS approaches for rectal cancer treatment. Two-hundred-thirty-seven patients were included: 113 open and 124 MIS rectal resections. After the propensity score matching analysis (PS), the cases were matched into 42 open and 42 MIS. Short- and long-term outcomes, and pathological findings were analyzed before and after PS. A further comparison of the same outcomes and costs was conducted between the laparoscopic and the robotic approaches. As a whole, a sphincter-preserving procedure was more frequently performed in the MIS group (110 vs 75 cases; p < 0.0001). The estimated blood loss during MIS was significantly lower than during open surgery [127 (± 92) vs 242 (± 122) mL; p < 0.0001], with clear advantages for the robotic approach over laparoscopy [113 (± 87) vs 147 (± 93) mL; p 0.01]. Complication rate was comparable between the two groups. A higher rate of CRM positivity was evidenced after open surgery (12.4% vs 1.7%; p 0.004). A higher number of lymph nodes was harvested in the MIS group [12.5 (± 6.4) vs 11 (± 5.6); p 0.04]. After PS, no difference in terms of perioperative outcomes was noted, with the only exception of a higher blood loss in the open approach [242 (± 122) vs 127 (± 92) mL; p < 0.0001]. For the matched cases, no difference in 5-year overall and disease-free survival was evidenced (p 0.50 and 0.88, respectively). Mean costs were higher for robotics as compared to laparoscopy [9812 (±1974)€ vs 9045 (± 1893)€; p 0.02]. MIS could be considered as a treatment option for rectal cancer. The PS study evidenced clear advantages in terms of estimated blood loss over the open surgery. Costs still remain the main limit for robotics.

Minimally Invasive Colon Cancer Surgery

Colon cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Advances in surgical resection techniques, including minimally invasive colectomy, are becoming a standard of care. The oncologic principles of colectomy have included adequate lymphadenectomy, proximal ligation of primary vessels, and resection with adequate longitudinal margins. More recently, complete mesocolic excision has been advocated. Open and minimally invasive approaches must accomplish the same outcomes. This article focuses on the surgical principles of colon cancer, perioperative considerations, and technical aspects of minimally invasive colectomy. We review the current literature regarding oncologic and short-term outcomes of minimally invasive surgery.

Advantages of Robotic Right Colectomy With Intracorporeal Anastomosis

Through retrospective review of consecutive charts, we compare the short-term and long-term clinical outcomes after robotic-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (RIA) (n=89) and laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (LEA) (n=135). Cohorts were similar in demographic characteristics, comorbidities, pathology, and perioperative outcomes (conversion, days to flatus and bowel movement, and length of hospitalization). The RIA cohort experienced statistically significant: less blood loss, shorter incision lengths, and longer specimen lengths than the LEA cohort. Operative times were significantly longer for the RIA group. No incisional hernias occurred in the RIA group, whereas the LEA group had 5 incisional hernias; mean follow-up was 33 and 30 months, respectively. RIA is effective and safe and provides some clinical advantages. Future studies may show that, in obese and other technically challenging patients, RIA facilitates resection of a longer, consistent specimen with less mesentery trauma that can be extracted through smaller incisions.

Surgery in ulcerative colitis: When? How?

Ulcerative Colitis (UC) is an idiopathic chronically-remitting inflammatory bowel disorder characterized by a contiguous inflammation of the colonic mucosa affecting the rectum that generally extends proximally in a continuous manner through the entire colon. Patients typically experience intermittent exacerbations, with symptoms characterized by bloody diarrhea associated with urgency and tenesmus. The anatomical extent of mucosal involvement is the most important factor determining disease course and is an important predictor of colectomy. The precise etiology of UC is unknown. However, a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental factors seems to have a key role in the development of the disease. UC usually is mildly active but it can be a life-threatening condition because of colonic and systemic complications, and later in the disease course due to the development of colorectal cancer. Interestingly, even if pathogenetic features detected in patients with sporadic CRC can be also found in UC-related colorectal cancer (UC-CRC), this latter is, usually, driven by an inflammation-driven pathway rising from a non-neoplastic inflammatory epithelium to dysplasia to cancer. Thus, a long-term follow-up with colonoscopy surveillance has been recommended. Approximately 15% of UC patients develop an acute attack of severe colitis, and 30% of these patients require colectomy. The initial treatment strategy in UC typically follows the traditional step-up approach. One third of the patients will not respond to steroid therapy and cyclosporine and infliximab are the most common salvage agents employed in these cases in order to avoid emergent surgery. Unfortunately, although a significant short-term benefit have been observed after infliximab treatment, the colectomy rate have remained stable. Surgery in UC depends on the stage of the disease as well as patient's status and is divided into the following settings: urgent, emergent and elective. Despite many efforts the surgical management of UC remains a significant challenge. A multidisciplinary management of UC is key in order to define the best timing and the best procedure for each patient in an individualized basis.

Robotic vs laparoscopic rectal surgery in high-risk patients

AIM

Laparoscopic rectal surgery is associated with a steep learning curve and high conversion rate despite progress in equipment design and consistent practice. The robotic system has shown an advantage over the laparoscopic approach due to stable three-dimensional views, improved dexterity and better ergonomics. These factors make the robotic approach more favourable for rectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery in high-risk patients.

METHOD

A prospectively collected dataset for high-risk patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery between May 2013 and November 2015 was analysed. Patients with any of the following characteristics were defined as high risk: a body mass index ≥30, male gender, preoperative chemoradiotherapy, tumour <8 cm from the anal verge and previous abdominal surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 184 high-risk patients were identified: 99 in the robotic group and 85 in the laparoscopic group. Robotic surgery was associated with a significantly higher sphincter preservation rate (86% vs 74%, P = 0.045), shorter operative time (240 vs 270 min, P = 0.013) and hospital stay (7 vs 9 days, P = 0.001), less blood loss (10 vs 100 ml, P < 0.001) and a smaller conversion rate to open surgery (0% vs 5%, P = 0.043) compared with the laparoscopic technique. Reoperation, anastomotic leak rate, 30-day mortality and oncological outcomes were comparable between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery in high-risk patients is associated with higher sphincter preservation, reduced blood loss, smaller conversion rates, and shorter operating time and hospital stay. However, further studies are required to evaluate this notion.

First experience in colorectal surgery with a new robotic platform with haptic feedback

The use of robotic techniques is increasing in colorectal surgery. Recently, the Senhance™ surgical robotic system was introduced as a novel robotic platform designed to overcome some of the limits of standard laparoscopy. This study describes the initial, single center experience, evaluating feasibility and safety of the new robotic system in performing colorectal surgical procedures.

METHODS

From June 2015 to November 2016, perioperative data of the first 45 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery with the SenhanceTM surgical robotic system were collected and analyzed. Indications for surgery included inflammatory bowel disease, colorectal cancer, endoscopically unresectable adenomas and complicated diverticular disease.

RESULTS

The median age was 57 years (18-92) and the median BMI was 24 Kg/m2 (16-30). Surgical indications were colorectal cancer (66%), complicated inflammatory bowel disease (18%), diverticular disease (11%) and endoscopically unresectable adenoma (4.4%). The median operative time was 256 minutes; the median docking time 10.7 min (range 2-25). There were 3 conversions to standard laparoscopy, and none to laparotomy. All patients operated on for malignancy (28 adenocarcinoma, 2 neuroendocrine tumors) underwent an appropriate oncological procedure. The median time to discharge was 5 days (range 3-19). The incidence of post-operative complications was 35.5% (Clavien-Dindo I/II-14 patients, III-2 patients). One patient was readmitted in the postoperative period. No patient required reoperation.

CONCLUSION

The results of this audit suggest that adoption of The Senhance™ surgical robotic system in colorectal surgery is feasible and safe. More clinical data are needed to determine whether this approach can offer any other benefits over other minimally invasive surgical techniques. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Recent advances in the management of rectal cancer: No surgery, minimal surgery or minimally invasive surgery

Over the last decade, with the acceptance of the need for improvements in the outcome of patients affected with rectal cancer, there has been a significant increase in the literature regarding treatment options available to patients affected by this disease. That treatment related decisions should be made at a high volume multidisciplinary tumor board, after pre-operative rectal magnetic resonance imaging and the importance of total mesorectal excision (TME) are accepted standard of care. More controversial is the emerging role for watchful waiting rather than radical surgery in complete pathologic responders, which may be appropriate in 20% of patients. Patients with early T1 rectal cancers and favorable pathologic features can be cured with local excision only, with transanal minimal invasive surgery (TAMIS) because of its versatility and almost universal availability of the necessary equipment and skillset in the average laparoscopic surgeon, emerging as the leading option. Recent trials have raised concerns about the oncologic outcomes of the standard “top-down” TME hence transanal TME (TaTME “bottom-up”) approach has gained popularity as an alternative. The challenges are many, with a dearth of evidence of the oncologic superiority in the long-term for any given option. However, this review highlights recent advances in the role of chemoradiation only for complete pathologic responders, TAMIS for highly selected early rectal cancer patients and TaTME as options to improve cure rates whilst maintaining quality of life in these patients, while we await the results of further definitive trials being currently conducted.

A realist process evaluation of robot-assisted surgery: integration into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration and decision-making

Background

The implementation of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) can be challenging, with reports of surgical robots being underused. This raises questions about differences compared with open and laparoscopic surgery and how best to integrate RAS into practice.

Objectives

To (1) contribute to reporting of the ROLARR (RObotic versus LAparoscopic Resection for Rectal cancer) trial, by investigating how variations in the implementation of RAS and the context impact outcomes; (2) produce guidance on factors likely to facilitate successful implementation; (3) produce guidance on how to ensure effective teamwork; and (4) provide data to inform the development of tools for RAS.

Design

Realist process evaluation alongside ROLARR. Phase 1 – a literature review identified theories concerning how RAS becomes embedded into practice and impacts on teamwork and decision-making. These were refined through interviews across nine NHS trusts with theatre teams. Phase 2 – a multisite case study was conducted across four trusts to test the theories. Data were collected using observation, video recording, interviews and questionnaires. Phase 3 – interviews were conducted in other surgical disciplines to assess the generalisability of the findings.

Findings

The introduction of RAS is surgeon led but dependent on support at multiple levels. There is significant variation in the training provided to theatre teams. Contextual factors supporting the integration of RAS include the provision of whole-team training, the presence of handpicked dedicated teams and the availability of suitably sized operating theatres. RAS introduces challenges for teamwork that can impact operation duration, but, over time, teams develop strategies to overcome these challenges. Working with an experienced assistant supports teamwork, but experience of the procedure is insufficient for competence in RAS and experienced scrub practitioners are important in supporting inexperienced assistants. RAS can result in reduced distraction and increased concentration for the surgeon when he or she is supported by an experienced assistant or scrub practitioner.

Conclusions

Our research suggests a need to pay greater attention to the training and skill mix of the team. To support effective teamwork, our research suggests that it is beneficial for surgeons to (1) encourage the team to communicate actions and concerns; (2) alert the attention of the assistant before issuing a request; and (3) acknowledge the scrub practitioner’s role in supporting inexperienced assistants. It is beneficial for the team to provide oral responses to the surgeon’s requests.

Limitations

This study started after the trial, limiting impact on analysis of the trial. The small number of operations observed may mean that less frequent impacts of RAS were missed.

Future work

Future research should include (1) exploring the transferability of guidance for effective teamwork to other surgical domains in which technology leads to the physical or perceptual separation of surgeon and team; (2) exploring the benefits and challenges of including realist methods in feasibility and pilot studies; (3) assessing the feasibility of using routine data to understand the impact of RAS on rare end points associated with patient safety; (4) developing and evaluating methods for whole-team training; and (5) evaluating the impact of different physical configurations of the robotic console and team members on teamwork.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Is right colectomy a complete learning procedure for a robotic surgical program?

This study analyses the utility of right colectomy as a learning procedure at the beginning of a robotic surgical program. The hypothesis is that right colectomy contains all the technical steps necessary to acquire basic abilities in robotics surgery. The first 23 consecutive robotic right colectomy performed at the beginning of a robotic program were analysed. All surgical times were recorded in the operating room and second checked on a dedicated video-database. Specific robotic times were analysed using CUSUM method to evaluate the learning curve. CUSUM-derived learning phases were compared. Fourteen males and nine females with a mean age of 68.7 (46-84) underwent robotic right colectomy. The mean overall time was 265.3 min (180-320 min), docking time was 7 min (5-12 min), console time was 205.9 min (145-260 min), and anastomotic time was 43.6 (25-60 min). CUSUM analyses identified two learning phases: "starting phase" and "consolidation phase". Interphase comparison confirmed the significant (p < 0.05) differences between the two phases. Robotic technology facilitates the training process in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. At the beginning of the learning curve, right colectomy could represent a complete procedure to be proficient in robotic colorectal surgery.

Laparoscopy for Rectal Cancer

It is evident that the use of laparoscopy in the management of rectal cancer has gained popularity in the last few years. It is still, however, not widely accepted as the standard of care. Multiple randomized trials have shown that short-term outcomes and perioperative morbidity and mortality of laparoscopic proctectomy are equivalent to open surgery. However, data regarding long-term oncologic outcomes are still scarce, with only a few randomized trials reporting similar outcomes in both laparoscopic and open group. A more recent trial failed to replicate those results in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. In this article, we will look at the most recent evidence regarding the use of laparoscopy for patients with rectal cancer. We will also briefly discuss the different approaches and new minimally invasive techniques used in this field, and we will talk about the challenges facing the widespread adoption of laparoscopic surgery in the management of rectal cancer.

Prior experience in laparoscopic rectal surgery can minimise the learning curve for robotic rectal resections: a cumulative sum analysis

BACKGROUND

The learning curve for robotic colorectal surgery is ill-defined. This study aimed to investigate the learning curve of experienced laparoscopic rectal surgeons when starting with robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) using cumulative sum (CUSUM) charts.

METHODS

This retrospective case series analysed patients who underwent curative and elective laparoscopic or robotic TMEs for rectal cancer performed by two surgeons. The first consecutive robotic TME cases of each surgeon were 1:1 propensity score matched to their laparoscopic TME cases using age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, T stage (AJCC) and tumour location height. The matched laparoscopic cases defined individual standards for the quality indicators: operating time, R stage, lymph node harvest, length of hospital stay and major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3-5). Deviation of more than a quarter of a standard deviation from the mean for the continuous indicators, or exceeding the observed risk for the binary indicators was defined as off-target with an upward inflection in the CUSUM curve.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2015, 384 (294 laparoscopic; 90 robotic) TMEs met the inclusion criteria. Surgeon A performed 206 (70.1%) of the laparoscopic and 43 (47.8%) of the robotic cases. Surgeon B performed 88 (29.9%) of the laparoscopic and 47 (52.2%) of the robotic cases. After matching, no covariate exhibited an absolute standardised mean difference >0.25. For surgeon A, the CUSUM curves showed no apparent learning process compared to his laparoscopic standards. For surgeon B, a learning process for operation time, lymph node harvest and major complications was demonstrated by an initial upward inflection of the CUSUM curves; after 15 cases, all quality indicators were generally on target.

CONCLUSIONS

For experienced laparoscopic colorectal surgeons, the formal learning process for robotic TME may be short to reach a similar performance level as obtained in conventional laparoscopy.

Robotic right hemicolectomy: Analysis of 108 consecutive procedures and multidimensional assessment of the learning curve

PURPOSE

Surgeons tend to view the robotic right colectomy (RRC) as an ideal beginning procedure to gain proficiency in robotic general and colorectal surgery. Nevertheless, oncological RRC, especially if performed with intracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis confectioning, cannot be considered a technically easier procedure. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curve of the RRC performed for oncological purposes and to evaluate its safety and efficacy investigating the perioperative and pathology outcomes in the different learning phases.

METHODS

Data on a consecutive series of 108 patients undergoing RRC with intracorporeal anastomosis between June 2011 and September 2015 at our institution were prospectively collected to evaluate surgical and short-term oncological outcomes. CUSUM (Cumulative Sum) and Risk-Adjusted (RA) CUSUM analysis were performed in order to perform a multidimensional assessment of the learning curve for the RRC surgical procedure. Intraoperative, postoperative and pathological outcomes were compared among the learning curve phases.

RESULTS

Based on the CUSUM and RA-CUSUM analyses, the learning curve for RRC could be divided into 3 different phases: phase 1, the initial learning period (1st-44th case); phase 2, the consolidation period (45th-90th case); and phase 3, the mastery period (91th-108th case). Operation time, conversion to open surgery rate and the number of harvested lymph nodes significantly improve through the three learning phases.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve for oncological RRC with intracorporeal anastomosis is composed of 3 phases. Our data indicate that the performance of RRC is safe from an oncological point of view in all of the three phases of the learning curve. However, the technical skills necessary to significantly reduce operative time, conversion to open surgery rate and to significantly improve the number of harvested lymph nodes were achieved after 44 procedures. These data suggest that it might be prudent to start the RRC learning curve by treating only benign diseases and to reserve the performance of oncological resection to when at least the initial learning phase has been completed.

Recent surgical advances in colorectal cancer excision: toward optimal outcomes

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer affecting both males and females in the western world. Despite all the developments in the current treatment of colorectal cancer, it is still continuing to be an important factor of patient morbidity and mortality worldwide. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for colorectal cancer. Over the last decade, there have been major changes and developments in the surgical treatment. Understanding the importance of the anatomy, technological advances in minimally invasive surgery and effects of chemoradiotherapy have changed the approaches to colorectal cancer treatment. Today, novel treatment strategies must be targeted not only minimally invasive approaches, but also aiming to increase patients’ quality of life without compromising the oncological principles.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Right Colectomy for Colon Cancer: Analysis of the Initial Simultaneous Learning Curve of a Surgical Fellow

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery was introduced to overcome laparoscopic drawbacks. This study aimed to compare the learning curve of robotic-assisted right colectomy (RRC) versus laparoscopic-assisted right colectomy (LRC) for colon cancer with respect to operative times and perioperative outcomes. In addition, the health-related costs associated with both procedures were analyzed and compared.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2015, 30 consecutive patients underwent RRC and 50 patients LRC for colon cancer. All procedures were performed by a surgical fellow novice in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The operative time and the cumulative sum method were used to evaluate the learning curve of RRC versus LRC.

RESULTS

The mean operative times were 200.5 minutes for RRC and 204.1 minutes for LRC (P = .408) and showed a significant decrease over consecutive procedures (P < .0001). The number of cases necessary to identify a drop in the operative time was 16 for RRC and 25 for LRC. RRC procedures were associated with significantly reduced blood loss (P = .012). Two patients (4%) in the LRC group were converted to laparotomy, whereas no conversion was required in the RRC group. Surgery-related costs were significantly more expensive for RRC, but when combined with the hospitalization-related costs, LRC and RRC did not differ (P = .632).

CONCLUSIONS

Both robotic and laparoscopic operative times decrease rapidly with practice. However, RRC is associated with a faster learning curve than LRC. The simultaneous development of these two minimally invasive approaches appears to be safe and feasible with acceptable health-related costs.

Robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Over the years, there has been a continual shift toward more minimally invasive surgical techniques, such as the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. Recently, there has been increasing adoption of robotic technology. Our study aims to compare and contrast robot-assisted and laparoscopic approaches to colorectal operations.

METHODS

Forty patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic colorectal surgery performed by 2 surgeons at an academic center, regardless of indication, were included in this retrospective review. Patients undergoing open approaches were excluded. Study outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, complications, and conversion rate to an open procedure.

RESULTS

Twenty-five laparoscopic and fifteen robot-assisted colorectal surgeries were performed. The mean patient age was 61.1 ± 10.7 years in the laparoscopic group compared with 61.1 ± 8.5 years in the robotic group (P = .997). Patients had a similar body mass index and history of abdominal surgery. Mean blood loss was 163.3 ± 249.2 mL and 96.8 ± 157.7 mL, respectively (P = .385). Operative times were similar, with 190.8 ± 84.3 minutes in the laparoscopic group versus 258.4 ± 170.8 minutes in the robotic group (P = .183), as were lengths of hospital stay: 9.6 ± 7.3 and 6.5 ± 3.8 days, respectively (P = .091). In addition, there was no difference in the number of lymph nodes harvested between the laparoscopic group (14.0 ± 6.5) and robotic group (12.3 ± 4.2, P = .683).

CONCLUSIONS

In our early experience, the robotic approach to colorectal surgery can be considered both safe and efficacious. Furthermore, it also preserves oncologically sufficient outcomes when performed for cancer operations.

Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic approaches have become increasingly used for colorectal surgery. The aim of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of robotic colorectal procedures in an adult population.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review of articles in both PubMed and Embase comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures was performed. Clinical trials and observational studies in an adult population were included. Approaches were evaluated in terms of operative time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, number of lymph nodes harvested, and perioperative complications. Mean net differences and odds ratios were calculated to examine treatment effect of each group.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighteen articles were identified, and 17 met the inclusion criteria, representing 4,342 patients: 920 robotic and 3,422 in the laparoscopic group. Operative time for the robotic approach was 38.849 minutes longer (95% confidence interval: 17.944 to 59.755). The robotic group had lower estimated blood loss (14.17 mL; 95% confidence interval: -27.63 to -1.60), and patients were 1.78 times more likely to be converted to an open procedure (95% confidence interval: 1.24 to 2.55). There was no difference between groups with respect to number of lymph nodes harvested, length of stay, readmission rate, or perioperative complication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach to colorectal surgery is as safe and efficacious as conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, it is associated with longer operative time and an increased rate of conversion to laparotomy. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted to examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic colorectal surgery before it can be adopted as the new standard of care.

Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted colectomy and rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Lately, the main technical innovations in the field of colorectal surgery have been the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic techniques; the aim of this study is to investigate the results and the advantages of these two surgical approaches.

METHODS

Twenty-two studies including 1652 laparoscopic and 1120 robotic-assisted resections were analyzed and categorized into right, left, and pelvic resections of the middle/low rectum, aiming to the following outcomes: operating time, blood loss, bowel function recovery, return to oral intake, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs.

RESULTS

The vast majority of the studies were non-randomized investigations (19/22 studies) enrolling small cohorts of patients (median 55.0 laparoscopic and 34.5 robotic-assisted group) with a mean age of 62.2-61.0 years. Funnel plot analysis documented heterogeneity in studies which combined cancers and benign diseases. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a significant difference in favor of laparoscopic procedures regarding costs and operating time (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.686 and 0.493) and in favor of robotic surgery concerning morbidity rate (odds ratio (OR) 0.763), although no benefits were documented when analyzing exclusively randomized trials. When we differentiated approaches by side of resections, a significant difference was found in favor of the laparoscopic group when analyzing operating time in left-sided and pelvic procedures (SMD 0.609 and 0.529) and blood loss in pelvic resections (SMD 0.339).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic techniques were documented as the shorter procedures, which provided lower blood loss in pelvic resections, while morbidity rate was more favorable in robotic surgery. However, these results could not be confirmed when we focused the analysis on randomized trials only.

Shifting Paradigms in Minimally Invasive Surgery: Applications of Transanal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery in Colorectal Surgery

Since the advent of laparoscopy, minimally invasive techniques such as single port laparoscopy, robotics, endoscopically assisted laparoscopy, and transanal endoscopic surgery continue to revolutionize the field of colorectal surgery. Transanal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) represents a further paradigm shift by combining the advantages of these earlier techniques to reduce the size and number of abdominal incisions and potentially optimize rectal dissection, especially with respect to performance of an oncologically adequate total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer. Since the first experimental report of transanal rectosigmoid resection in 2007, the potential impact of transanal NOTES in colorectal surgery has been extensively investigated in experimental models and recently transitioned to clinical application. There have been 14 clinical trials of transanal TME (taTME) for rectal cancer that have demonstrated the feasibility and preliminary oncologic safety of this approach in carefully selected patients, with results comparable to outcomes after laparoscopic and open TME, including cumulative intraoperative and postoperative complication rates of 5.5 and 35.5%, respectively, 97.3% rate of complete or near-complete specimens, and 93.6% rate of negative margins. Transanal NOTES has also been safely applied to proctectomy and colectomy for benign indications. The consensus among published series suggests that taTME is most safely performed with transabdominal assistance by surgeons experienced with laparoscopic TME, transanal endoscopic surgery, and sphincter-preserving techniques including intersphincteric resection. Future applications of transanal NOTES may include evolution to a pure endoscopic transanal approach for TME, colectomy, and sentinel lymph node biopsy for rectal cancer, with a potential role for robotic assistance.

A Review of the Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer

The goal of this review was to compare long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer. A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Medline (2002-2014). Search terms: laparoscopic, robotic, rectal, colon, surgery, oncologic, and outcomes. Studies comparing overall and disease free survival of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer were included. Meta-analysis was performed using OpenMeta[Analyst] for Windows 8. Five studies were identified reporting on overall survival, disease free survival, lymph node extraction, and distal and circumferential resection margin. Three hundred and seventeen patients underwent robotic resection and 368 underwent laparoscopic resection, with similar demographics. Operative times were longer with robotic resections, with no difference in estimated blood loss (EBL) or length of stay. The disease stage was distributed similarly in both groups. Similar numbers underwent neo-adjuvant therapy. Laparoscopic resection was associated with 3.2 mm larger distal resection margins (p = 0.04) and 2.2 more lymph nodes removed (p = 0.001), but with equivalent circumferential resection margin status. Disease-free and overall survival was equivalent. Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer offer comparable overall and disease free survival. Laparoscopic surgery offered a slight advantage in operative time, distal margin, and lymph node yield. Larger, prospective trials are needed to confirm the equivalence of these approaches.

Initial experience of robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy for transverse colon cancer: a matched case-control study

Background

Robotic surgery for transverse colon cancer has rarely been described. This study reports our initial experience in robotic resection for transverse colon cancer, by comparing robotic transverse colectomy (RC) to laparoscopic transverse colectomy (LC) in terms of safety, feasibility, short-term outcomes, and the surgeon’s psychological stress and physical pain.

Methods

The study population included the first 22 consecutive patients who underwent RC between March 2013 and December 2014 for histologically confirmed transverse colon adenocarcinoma. These patients were compared with 22 matched patients undergoing LC between December 2010 and February 2013. Patients were matched based on age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor stage, and tumor location (ratio 1:1). Mortality, morbidity, operative, and short-term oncologic outcomes were compared between groups. The operating surgeon’s stress and pain were assessed before and after surgery on a 0–100-mm visual analog scale.

Results

The demographic and preoperative characteristics were comparable between RC and LC patients. No group difference was observed for intraoperative complications, blood loss, postoperative pain, time to flatus, time to regular diet, and hospital stay. RC was associated with longer operative time than LC (260 min vs. 225 min; p = 0.014), but the overall operative and robotic time in the RC group decreased over time reflecting the increasing experience in performing this procedure. No conversion to laparotomy was observed in the RC group, while two LC patients were converted due to uncontrolled bleeding and technically difficult middle colic pedicle dissection. Postoperative complications (Dindo-Clavien grade I or II) occurred in 11.3 % of patients with no group difference. Mortality was nil. All resections were R0, with >12 lymph nodes harvested in 90.9 % of RC and 95.5 % of LC patients. The surgeon’s stress was not different between RC and LC, whereas the surgeon’s hand and neck/shoulder pain were significantly lower after RC.

Conclusions

RC for transverse colon cancer appears to be safe and feasible with short-term outcomes comparable to LC.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Approach in Colonic Resections for Cancer and Benign Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic colectomy (RC) with laparoscopic colectomy (LC) in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

Materials and Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to retrieve comparative studies of robotic and laparoscopic colectomy. The databases searched were PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2000 to October 2014. The Odds ratio, Risk difference and Mean difference were used as the summary statistics.

Results

A total of 12 studies, which included a total of 4,148 patients who had undergone robotic or laparoscopic colectomy, were included and analyzed. RC demonstrated a longer operative time (MD 41.52, P<0.00001) and higher cost (MD 2.42, P<0.00001) than did LC. The time to first flatus passage (MD -0.51, P = 0.003) and the length of hospital stay (MD -0.68, P = 0.01) were significantly shorter after RC. Additionally, the intraoperative blood loss (MD -16.82, P<0.00001) was significantly less in RC. There was also a significantly lower incidence of overall postoperative complications (OR 0.74, P = 0.02) and wound infections (RD -0.02, P = 0.03) after RC. No differences in the postoperative ileus, in the anastomotic leak, or in the conversion to open surgery rate and in the number of harvested lymph nodes outcomes were found between the approaches.

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis, mainly based on observational studies, suggests that RC is more time-consuming and expensive than laparoscopy but that it results in faster recovery of bowel function, a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and lower rates of both overall postoperative complications and wound infections.

SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci ® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA)

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci(®) Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is a computer-assisted (robotic) surgical system designed to enable and enhance minimally invasive surgery. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared computer-assisted surgical systems for use by trained physicians in an operating room environment for laparoscopic surgical procedures in general, cardiac, colorectal, gynecologic, head and neck, thoracic and urologic surgical procedures. There are substantial numbers of peer-reviewed papers regarding the da Vinci(®) Surgical System, and a thoughtful assessment of evidence framed by clinical opinion is warranted.

METHODS

The SAGES da Vinci(®) TAVAC sub-committee performed a literature review of the da Vinci(®) Surgical System regarding gastrointestinal surgery. Conclusions by the sub-committee were vetted by the SAGES TAVAC Committee and SAGES Executive Board. Following revisions, the document was evaluated by the TAVAC Committee and Executive Board again for final approval.

RESULTS

Several conclusions were drawn based on expert opinion organized by safety, efficacy, and cost for robotic foregut, bariatric, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, colorectal surgery, and single-incision cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrointestinal surgery with the da Vinci(®) Surgical System is safe and comparable, but not superior to standard laparoscopic approaches. Although clinically acceptable, its use may be costly for select gastrointestinal procedures. Current data are limited to the da Vinci(®) Surgical System; further analyses are needed.

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database

BACKGROUND

Until randomized trials mature, large database analyses assist in determining the role of robotics in colorectal surgery. ACS NSQIP database coding now allows differentiation between laparoscopic (LC) and robotic (RC) colorectal procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare LC and RC outcomes by analyzing the ACS NSQIP database.

METHODS

The ACS NSQIP database was queried to identify patients who had undergone RC and LC during 2013. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were identified. Using propensity score matching, abdominal and pelvic colorectal operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 11,477 cases were identified. In the abdomen, 7790 LC and 299 RC cases were identified, and 2057 LC and 331 RC cases were identified in the pelvis. There were significant differences in operative time, conversion to an open procedure in the pelvis, and hospital length of stay. RC operative times were significantly longer in both abdominal and pelvic cases. Conversion rates in the pelvis were less for RC when compared to LC--10.0 and 13.7%, respectively (p = 0.01). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for RC abdominal cases than for LC abdominal cases (4.3 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001) and for RC pelvic cases when compared to LC pelvic cases (4.5 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, wound complications, anastomotic leak, sepsis/shock, or need for reoperation within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

As the robotic platform continues to grow in colorectal surgery and as technical upgrades continue to advance, comparison of outcomes requires continuous reevaluation. This study demonstrated that robotic operations have longer operative times, decreased hospital length of stay, and decreased rates of conversion to open in the pelvis. These findings warrant continued evaluation of the role of minimally invasive technical upgrades in colorectal surgery.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal operations: a-single center experience

OBJECTIVE

Robotic surgery was first introduced in 2000 especially to overcome the limitations of low rectum cancer surgery. There is still no consensus regarding the standard method for colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to compare robotic surgery with laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study. Data of patients with a diagnosis of colon or rectal cancer were analyzed for robotic colorectal surgery and laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

The cost of robotic surgery group was statistically higher than the laparoscopic surgery group (p=0.032). The average operation duration was 178 minutes in the laparoscopic surgery group and 228 minutes in the robotic surgery group, and this difference was statistically significant (p=0.044). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding other parameters.

DISCUSSION

Disadvantages of robotic surgery seem to be its higher cost and longer operation duration as compared to laparoscopic surgery. We claim that an increase in the number of cases and experience may shorten the operation time while the increase in commercial interest may decrease the cost disadvantage of robotic surgery.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Robotic right colectomy: A worthwhile procedure? Results of a meta-analysis of trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy

BACKGROUND

Robotic right colectomy (RRC) is a complex procedure, offered to selected patients at institutions highly experienced with the procedure. It is still not clear if this approach is worthwhile in enhancing patient recovery and reducing post-operative complications, compared with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). Literature is still fragmented and no meta-analyses have been conducted to compare the two procedures. This work aims at reducing this gap in literature, in order to draw some preliminary conclusions on the differences and similarities between RRC and LRC, focusing on short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing RRC and LRC, and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Peri-operative outcomes (e.g., morbidity, mortality, anastomotic leakage rates, blood loss, operative time) constituted the study end points.

RESULTS

Six studies, including 168 patients undergoing RRC and 348 patients undergoing LRC were considered as suitable. The patients in the two groups were similar with respect to sex, body mass index, presence of malignant disease, previous abdominal surgery, and different with respect to age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. There were no statistically significant differences between RRC and LRC regarding estimated blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, number of retrieved lymph nodes, development of anastomotic leakage and other complications, overall morbidity, rates of reoperation, overall mortality, hospital stays. RRC resulted in significantly longer operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

The RRC procedure is feasible, safe, and effective in selected patients. However, operative times are longer comparing to LRC and no advantages in peri-operative and post-operative outcomes are demonstrated with the use of the robotic surgical system.

Comparative effectiveness in colon and rectal cancer

Treatment of colorectal cancer is becoming more uniform, with wider acceptance of standardized guidelines. However, areas of controversy exist where the appropriate treatment is not clear, including: should a segmental colectomy or a more extensive resection be performed in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer? should an asymptomatic primary cancer be resected in the presence of unresectable metastatic disease? what is the role of extended lymph node resection in colon and rectal cancer? are there clinically significant benefits for a robotic approach to colorectal resection versus a laparoscopic approach? This chapter will examine these issues and discuss how they may be resolved.

Laparoscopic surgery for ulcerative colitis: a review of the literature

Despite the development of new therapies, including anti-TNF alpha antibodies and immunosuppressants, a substantial proportion of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) still require surgery. Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal-pouch anal anastomosis is the standard surgical treatment of choice for UC. With the advent of laparoscopic techniques for colorectal surgery, ileal-pouch anal anastomosis has also been performed laparoscopically. This paper reviews the history and current trends in laparoscopic surgery for UC. The accumulation of experience and improvement of laparoscopic devices have shifted the paradigm of UC surgery towards laparoscopic surgery over the past decade. Although laparoscopic surgery requires a longer operation, it provides significantly better short and long-term outcomes. The short-term benefits of laparoscopic surgery over open surgery include shorter hospital stays and fasting times, as well as better cosmesis. The long-term benefits of laparoscopy include better fecundity in young females. Some surgeons favor laparoscopic surgery even for severe acute colitis. More efforts are being made to develop newer laparoscopic methods, such as reduced port surgery, including single incision laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery.

Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis compared with laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis: a retrospective multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence suggests that the intracorporeal fashioning of an anastomosis after a laparoscopic right colectomy may offer several advantages. However, due to the difficulty of the intracorporeal technique, laparoscopic extracorporeal confectioning of the anastomosis remains the most widely adopted technique. Although the purpose of the robotic approach was to overcome the limitations of the laparoscopic technique and to simplify the most demanding surgical procedures, such as performing an intracorporeal anastomosis, evidence is lacking that compares the robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (RRCIA) technique with both the conventional laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (LRCEA) and the laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis confectioning (LRCIA) techniques. This study aims to compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of the RRCIA to those of both the LRCEA and the LRCIA.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of two Italian centres was performed on the data on patients undergoing an RRCIA, LRCEA or LRCIA for cancer or adenomas.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-six patients (RRCIA = 102, LRCEA = 94, LRCIA = 40) met the criteria for inclusion in the study. The three groups were comparable in their demographic and baseline characteristics. No significant differences were found in the conversion to open rates, intraoperative blood loss, 30-day morbidity and mortality, number of lymphnodes harvested and other pathological characteristics. Compared with the LRCEA, the RRCIA required a longer operative time (P < 0.0001) but had better recovery outcomes, such as a shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.0001). Compared with the LRCIA, the RRCIA had a shorter time to first flatus (P < 0.0001) but offered no advantages in terms of the length of the hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Performing the RRCIA offers significantly better perioperative recovery outcomes compared with the LRCEA, with a substantial reduction in the length of the hospital stay. The RRCIA does not offer the same advantages compared with the LRCIA.

Future directions in surgery for colorectal cancer: the evolving role of transanal endoscopic surgery

SUMMARY 

The morbidity associated with radical surgery for rectal cancer has launched a revolution in increasingly less-invasive methods of resection, including a recent resurgence in transanal endoscopic surgical approaches. The next evolution in transanal surgery for rectal cancer is natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). To date, 14 series of transanal NOTES total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer have been published (n = 76). Overall, the intraoperative and postoperative complication rates of 8 and 28%, respectively, compare favorably to those expected from laparoscopic and open TME. Short-term follow-up after NOTES TME has yielded no cancer recurrence in average-risk patients. High-risk patients have cancer recurrence rates similar to those after laparoscopic TME. Overall, these early data support transanal NOTES TME as a safe and viable alternative to conventional TME. Advances in instrumentation, surgical expertise and neoadjuvant treatment may expand current indications for NOTES even further.

Robotic-assisted reversal of Hartmann's procedure for diverticulitis

The minimally invasive laparoscopic approach for the reversal of Hartmann's procedure (HP) has been shown to be a safe and feasible approach associated with low morbidity and fast recovery. Robotic surgery has not yet been described for HP reversal. We report the case of an 84-year-old man originally operated on in an emergency setting by conventional HP for complicated diverticulitis who underwent a robotic-assisted HP reversal. The surgical procedure and the post-operative follow-up were uneventful, with low post-operative pain, early return to bowel function, and discharge at day 3. The robotic surgery appeared to be a safe, feasible, and valuable approach for HP reversal.