Endowrist versus wrist: a case-controlled study comparing robotic versus hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

Comparing the effect of laparoscopic and robotic stapling on clinical outcomes, efficiency, and costs of robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is a commonly used surgery to successfully and durably treat obesity that is increasingly performed robotically. The anastomoses created during robot-assisted RYGB are usually stapled, either using laparoscopic or robotic staplers. This study aimed to compare the peri-operative efficiency, costs, and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic staplers in robot-assisted RYGB. This retrospective study analyzed patients who underwent robot-assisted RYGB (with or without hiatal hernia repair) with the Da Vinci Xi robotic system in a private practice in the United States. The gastric pouch and anastomoses were created either with robotic SureForm™ staplers or laparoscopic Endo GIA™ staplers; enterotomies and incisions were closed with sutures. The primary outcome was procedure time. The secondary outcomes were instrument exchanges and reloads used, stapling costs, length of stay, and complications within 3 months. Of the 105 patients included, 50 patients were treated with robotic staplers and 55 with laparoscopic staplers. None were lost to follow-up. Laparoscopic staplers were more efficient than robotic ones: they significantly reduced procedure times across all analyzed categories as well as the number of instrument exchanges and reloads needed per surgery. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay, and no complications were reported. The higher number of reloads and the higher unit cost resulted in higher total stapling costs for robotic compared to laparoscopic staplers. While robotic staplers in robot-assisted RYGB are safe and feasible, laparoscopic staplers improve efficiency, reduce resource use, and lower costs without compromising patient safety.

Open vs. Robot-Assisted Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation in Women with Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Multicenter Comparative Study

Background: The artificial urinary sphincter has been an effective treatment for stress urinary incontinence caused by intrinsic sphincter deficiency in women. However, the use of this device has been limited by the technical difficulties and risks associated with the open implantation procedure. Preliminary studies using robotic techniques have shown promising results, but only one small study has compared robotic to open procedures. This study aims to compare the outcomes of robotic and open artificial urinary sphincter implantation in women with stress urinary incontinence due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency in a large multicenter cohort. Methods: Data were collected retrospectively from female patients who underwent open or robot-assisted artificial urinary sphincter implantation from 2006 to 2020 at 12 urology departments. The primary outcome was the rate of complications within 30 days after surgery, graded using the Clavien-Dindo Classification. Perioperative and functional outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: A total of 135 patients were included, with 71 in the robotic group and 64 in the open group. The open group had a higher rate of intraoperative complications (27.4% vs. 12.7%; p = 0.03) and postoperative complications (46.8% vs. 15.5%; p < 0.0001). More patients in the robotic group achieved full continence (83.3% vs. 62.3%; p = 0.01). The open group had higher explantation (27.4% vs. 1.4%; p < 0.0001) and revision rates (17.5% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.02). The estimated 1-year explantation-free survival rate was higher in the robotic group. (98.6% vs. 78.3%; p = 0.001). Conclusions: Robot-assisted implantation may reduce perioperative morbidity and improve functional outcomes compared to open implantation in women with stress urinary incontinence.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria.

RESULTS

12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used.

CONCLUSION

Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.

The double bipolar method for robotic total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer

Although meta-analyses and systematic reviews have clarified the benefits of robotic surgery, few studies have focused on robotic rectal surgery (RRS) and the use of Endowrist® instruments. Therefore, we evaluated RRS using the double bipolar method (DBM) and compared its short-term outcomes with those of RRS using the single bipolar method (SBM). This study enrolled 157 consecutive patients and all procedures were performed by the same surgeon and recorded through short video clips. We analyzed the patient demographics and short-term clinical outcomes. Although this observational study has several limitations, the console time for total mesorectal excision using the DBM was significantly shorter than that using the SBM. Although the DBM did not demonstrate a specific learning curve, it was a safe and feasible procedure even for patients with advanced disease. Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the DBM.

Difference in surgical outcomes of rectal cancer by study design: meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, case-matched studies, and cohort studies

Background

RCTs are considered the standard in surgical research, whereas case-matched studies and propensity score matching studies are conducted as an alternative option. Both study designs have been used to investigate the potential superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. However, no conclusion has been reached regarding whether there are differences in findings according to study design. This study aimed to examine similarities and differences in findings relating to robotic surgery for rectal cancer by study design.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify RCTs, case-matched studies, and cohort studies that compared robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Primary outcomes were incidence of postoperative overall complications, incidence of anastomotic leakage, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed for each study design using a random-effects model.

Results

Fifty-nine articles were identified and reviewed. No differences were observed in incidence of anastomotic leakage, mortality, rate of positive circumferential resection margins, conversion rate, and duration of operation by study design. With respect to the incidence of postoperative overall complications and duration of hospital stay, the superiority of robotic surgery was most evident in cohort studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95 per cent c.i. 0.74 to 0.92, P < 0.001; mean difference (MD) –1.11 (95 per cent c.i. –1.86 to –0.36) days, P = 0.004; respectively), and least evident in RCTs (RR 1.12, 0.91 to 1.38, P = 0.27; MD –0.28 (–1.44 to 0.88) days, P = 0.64; respectively).

Conclusion

Results of case-matched studies were often similar to those of RCTs in terms of outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer. However, case-matched studies occasionally overestimated the effects of interventions compared with RCTs.

The use of robotic or laparoscopic stapler in rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Minimally invasive surgery for total mesorectal excision (TME) remains technically challenging due to poor maneuverability within the pelvis, which makes extremely difficult to introduce a laparoscopic stapler (LS) for the rectal transection. We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic TME after the use of robotic stapler (RS) or LS after robotic TME. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database. Participants who underwent robotic anterior resection were considered following these criteria: (1) studies comparing RS and LS; (2) studies reporting the rate of anastomotic leakage (AL). The primary outcome was the risk of AL. Secondary outcomes included the number of firings of stapler needed. A meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement was performed. A total of 4 studies including 391 patients (LS = 251, RS = 140) were included for analysis. Regarding the number of firings, overall results suggest that the rectal stapling was achieved with less firings in the RS group, but the difference is not significant [risk difference, (95% CI) 0.42 (- 0.13, 0.97)]. There was a 56% increased odds of AL for LS compared with RS; however, this was not statistically significant (OR: 1.56; 95% CI 0.59, 4.14). With the current literature evidence, the present study could not demonstrate a clear benefit of the RS over the LS. Although the development of an AL is multifactorial and unpredictable, our data may suggest that the use of the RS could help reducing the risk of AL. There is a need of future randomized clinical trial to assess the possible benefits of the RS.

The Use of Enhanced Technologies in Robotic Surgery and Its Impact on Outcomes in Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

The main advantage of the robotic approach is the surgical precision that the technology offers. It is particularly useful in rectal cancer as this is a technically challenging procedure. The technological advantage of the robot leads to better postoperative outcomes. Apart from the 3D vision and endowrist instrumentation in comparison to laparoscopy, the options of using fluorescence imaging, endowrist stapler, and table motion have revolutionised the way of performing an anterior resection. Thus, the true benefit of these advances will be the quality of the surgery, which leads to better postoperative outcomes. This article focuses on the current status of applications of new modalities and technology development in robotic rectal surgery. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and cochrane database. The studies included were considered based on the following (1) articles written in English, (2) full text is available, (3) whether the topic is related to the use of novel technologies during robotic rectal surgery, and (4) sample: adult patients and malignant rectal disease. The primary end point was to analyse the current use of technological advances in robotic rectal surgery. Only a few studies are currently available on the use of these different technologies in robotic colorectal surgery. Many of these reports describe promising results, although with short-term outcomes. The use of technologies in robotic colorectal surgery is safe and feasible and can be used together to improve short-term outcomes. Intraoperative fluorescence angiography has demonstrated to reduce the rate of anastomotic leak, whereas the robotic stapler and the table motion simplify anatomic resection.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: Operative Technique and Review of the Literature

The number of patients undergoing robotic surgery for rectal cancer has rapidly increased in Japan, since the government approved the procedure for national insurance coverage in April 2018. Robotic surgery has the potential to overcome some limitations of laparoscopic surgery, especially in the narrow pelvis, providing a three-dimensional view, articulated instruments, and a stable camera platform. Although meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate the superiority of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery with respect to the short-term clinical outcomes, the published findings suggest that robotic surgery may be potentially beneficial for patients who are obese, male, or patients undergoing sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer. The safety and feasibility of robotic surgery for lateral lymph node dissection, the standard procedure for locally advanced lower rectal cancer in Japan, have been demonstrated in some retrospective studies. However, additional prospective, randomized trials are required to determine the actual benefits of robotic surgery to ameliorate the urogenital and oncological outcomes. The cost of this approach is a long-standing principal concern. A literature search showed that the cost of robotic surgery for rectal cancer was 1.3-2.5 times higher per patient than that for the laparoscopic approach. We herein describe our surgical technique using a da Vinci Surgical System (S/Si/Xi) with 10 years of experience in performing robotic surgery. We also review current evidence regarding short-term clinical and long-term oncological outcomes, lateral lymph node dissection, and the cost of the procedure.

Cost-effectiveness of current approaches in rectal surgery

Colorectal cancer is ranked as the fourth malignant cause of mortality. With the tremendous revolution in the modern medical techniques, minimally invasive approaches have been incorporated into rectal surgery. The effectiveness of surgical procedures is usually measured by a combination of qualitative (quality of life) and quantitative (years of life) measures, while the costs should reflect the use of different resources that were involved in delivering the medical care and they are affected by several factors, including length of hospital stay. In this review, we provide an insight into the cost-effectiveness of the different types of rectal surgeries in order to present a systematic approach for future preferences. A comprehensive literature review using Medline (via PUBMED), Embase and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (via clinical trial.org) was performed. Minimally invasive rectal surgeries have considerable cost-effective properties that outweigh those of the open techniques in terms of earlier return to bowel function, lower morbidity rates, reduced pain, shorter length of hospital stay and the overall patients’ quality of life although there was no difference in long-term oncological and survival outcomes. The paucity of currently available long-term oncologic, quality of life, and economic outcomes may limit an adequate comparison of robotic surgeries to other surgical techniques. It is therefore recommended to conduct focused studies to help balance the cost/benefit factors along with other technical considerations aimed at reducing the cost of robotic systems with subsequent improvement of their cost-effectiveness.

•

Colorectal cancer is the fourth cause of mortality. Minimally invasive surgery is now considered the standard of care.

•

Cost of minimally invasive surgery is offset by the better outcomes due to less complications and shorter hospital stay.

•

TaTME requires two working teams and two sets of instruments which increases the total cost.

•

Robotic surgery in obese patients demonstrated superior results when it comes to hospital stay and overall complications.

•

Well conducted clinical trials looking at cost effectiveness of new technologies in colorectal surgery are needed.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I² = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (ρ < 0.001, I² = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (ρ < 0.001, I² = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (ρ < 0.001, I² = 94%; REM: MD - 0.77; 95% CI 1.12, - 0.41; day), time to oral diet (ρ < 0.001, I² = 60%; REM: MD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.64, - 0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (ρ = 0.01, I² = 88%; REM: MD - 18.05; 95% CI - 32.24, - 3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (ρ < 0.001, I² = 93%; REM: MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs

PURPOSE

The costs involved in performing robotic surgery present a critical issue which has not been well addressed yet. The aims of this study are to compare the clinical outcomes and cost differences of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer and to conduct a literature review of the cost analysis.

METHODS

This is an observational, comparative study whereby data were abstracted from a retrospective database of patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection from October 2010 to March 2017, at Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. An independent company performed the financial analysis, and fixed costs were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 86 robotic and 112 laparoscopic rectal resections were included. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the laparoscopic approach (336 versus 283 min; p = 0.001). The main pre-operative data, overall morbidity, hospital stay and oncological outcomes were similar in both groups, except for the readmission rate (robotic: 5.8%, laparoscopic: 11.6%; p = 0.001). The mean operative costs were higher for robotic surgery (4285.16 versus 3506.11€; p = 0.04); however, the mean overall costs were similar (7279.31€ for robotic and 6879.8€ for the laparoscopic approach; p = 0.44). We found four studies reporting costs, three comparing robotic versus laparoscopy costs, with all of them reporting a higher overall cost for the robotic rectal resection.

CONCLUSION

Robotic rectal resection has similar clinical outcomes to that of the conventional laparoscopic approach. Despite the higher operative costs of robotic rectal resection, overall mean costs were similar in our series.

Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over the laparoscopic one. For this reason a review of all the literature examining robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed. Two reviewers independently conducted a search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) using the key words “rectum”, “rectal”, “cancer”, “laparoscopy”, “robot”. After the initial screen of 266 articles, 43 papers were selected for review. A total of 3013 patients were included in the review. The most commonly performed intervention was low anterior resection (1450 patients, 48.1%), followed by anterior resections (997 patients, 33%), ultra-low anterior resections (393 patients, 13%) and abdominoperineal resections (173 patients, 5.7%). Robotic rectal surgery seems to offer potential advantages especially in low anterior resections with lower conversions rates and better preservation of the autonomic function. Quality of mesorectum and status of and circumferential resection margins are similar to those obtained with conventional laparoscopy even if robotic rectal surgery is undoubtedly associated with longer operative times. This review demonstrated that robotic rectal surgery is both safe and feasible but there is no evidence of its superiority over laparoscopy in terms of postoperative, clinical outcomes and incidence of complications. In conclusion robotic rectal surgery seems to overcome some of technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery especially for tumors requiring low and ultra-low anterior resections but this technical improvement seems not to provide, until now, any significant clinical advantages to the patients.