Is hybrid robotic laparoscopic assistance the ideal approach for restorative rectal cancer dissection?

Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives

Purpose

As robotic surgery is increasingly performed in patients with colorectal diseases, understanding proper port placement for robotic colorectal surgery is necessary. This review summarizes current port placement during robotic surgery for colorectal diseases and provides future perspective on port placements.

Methods

PubMed were searched from January 2009 to December 2018 using a combination of the search terms “robotic” [MeSH], “colon” [MeSH], “rectum” [MeSH], “colorectal” [MeSH], and “colorectal surgery” [MeSH]. Studies related to port placement were identified and included in the current study if they used the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi robotic system and if they described port placement.

Results

This review included 77 studies including a total of 3,145 operations. Fifty studies described port placement for left-sided and mesorectal excision; 17, 3, and 7 studies assessed port placement for right-sided colectomy, rectopexy, transanal surgery, respectively; and one study assessed surgery with reduced port placement. Recent literatures show that the single-docking technique included mobilization of the second and third robotic arms for the different parts without movement of patient cart and similar to previous dual or triple-docking technique. Besides, use of the da Vinci Xi system allowed a more simplified port configuration.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted colorectal surgery can be efficiently achieved with successful port placement without movement of patient cart dependent on the type of surgery and the robotic system.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with open resection for mid and low rectal cancer: a case-matched study with long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare the long-term surgical outcomes of patients with mid and low rectal cancer after open or hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS).

METHODS

A case-matched controlled prospective analysis of 116 patients who underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for stage I to III mid and low rectal cancer from 2005 to 2010 was performed. Contemporary patients who underwent open rectal surgery were matched to the HALS group at the ratio of 1:1. The perioperative clinical outcomes, postoperative pathology, and survival outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The patient characteristics between the two groups were comparable. Ninety patients in the open group and 85 in the HALS group received sphincter-preserving surgery. HALS resulted in less blood loss and wound infection, faster return to oral diet, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and longer operating time. The two groups had similar complication rates. Lymph node retrieval and involvement of circumferential and distal margins were similar for both procedures. Cumulative incidences of locoregional recurrence, disease-free, or overall survival rates were statistically similar.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that HALS for mid and low rectal cancer is acceptable in terms of short-term clinical outcomes and long-term survival results.

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.

Beginning robotic assisted colorectal surgery - it's harder than it looks!

Introduction

Laparoscopy has been introduced into the field of colorectal surgery with the aim of reducing morbidity. One of the major barriers to overcome is the steep learning curve. Robotic surgery offers substantial advantages over traditional laparoscopy, which make the whole procedure more user friendly.

Aim

To present our initial experiences with robotic assisted colorectal surgery.

Material and methods

Thirty-five patients with colorectal cancer underwent robotic assisted procedures between 2011 and 2013.

Results

In total we performed 16 low anterior resections, 14 right colectomies, 3 abdominosacral resections and 2 left colectomies. There were 22 males and 13 females. The mean operative time was 315 ±65 min for a low anterior resection. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.4 ±1 days. There were 4 conversions to open procedures, 2 anastomotic leaks, and 1 colovaginal fistula. The mean lymph node yield was 12.7 ±4.3. The resection margin was negative in all but 1 patient.

Conclusions

We agree with the opinion that robotic surgery brings many advantages in pelvic dissections. In order to facilitate safe acquisition of robotic total mesorectal excision skills, surgeons should begin with female patients, and less advanced rectal cancer. In some instances robotic assistance can be helpful in right colectomies.

Laparoscopic robotic total gastrectomy

Minimally invasive gastrectomy has become the standard of care in many centers in Asia but remains unpopular in Europe. The aim of this article is to present the technique of laparoscopic robot-assisted total gastrectomy. The presented case involved a 66-year-old female patient with an advanced gastric cancer on the lesser curvature of the stomach. The laparoscopic part of the procedure involved opening the lesser sac, mobilization of the greater curvature and transection of the duodenum. A robot was used for the D2 lymphadenectomy and creation of the anastomosis. In summary, we have found that during a total gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer a successful oncological resection can be achieved using a minimally invasive approach. We have also found that by combining conventional laparoscopy with robotic assistance we could overcome the technical difficulties with regards to lymph node dissection and anastomosis.

Quality of total mesorectal excision and depth of circumferential resection margin in rectal cancer: a matched comparison of the first 20 robotic cases

AIM

There are concerns about the impact of robotic proctectomy on the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and the impact of laparoscopic proctectomy on the depth of the circumferential resection margin (CRM). The aim of this study was to compare the first 20 consecutive robotic proctectomies performed in our unit with matched series of open and laparoscopic proctocolectomy performed by the same surgeon.

METHOD

Data on the first 20 consecutive patients treated with robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer, <12 cm from the anal verge, by the senior author (RB) were extracted from a prospectively maintained database. Groups of patients treated with open and laparoscopic proctectomy, matched for age, gender and body mass index (BMI) with those undergoing robotic proctectomy, were selected. The quality of the TME was judged as complete, nearly complete or incomplete. CRM clearance was reported in millimetres. Physiological parameters and operative severity were assessed.

RESULTS

Age (P = 0.619), Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Morbidity and Mortality (POSSUM) score (P = 0.657), operative severity score (P = 0.977), predicted mortality (P = 0.758), comorbidities (P = 0.427), previous abdominal surgery (P = 0.941), tumour height (P = 0.912), location (P = 0.876), stage (P = 0.984), neoadjuvant chemoradiation (P = 0.625), operating time (P = 0.066), blood loss (P = 0.356), ileostomy (P = 0.934), conversion (P = 0.362), resection type (P = 1.000), flatus (P = 0.437), diet (P = 0.439), length of hospital stay (P = 0.978), complications (P = 0.671), reoperations (P = 0.804), reinterventions (P = 0.612), readmissions (P = 0.349), tumour size (P = 0.542; P = 0.532; P = 0.238), distal margin (P = 0.790), nodes harvested (P = 0.338) and pathology stage (P = 0.623) did not differ among the three groups. The quality of TME showed a trend to be lower following robotic surgery, although this was not statistically significant [open 95/5/15 (complete/nearly complete/incompete) vs laparoscopic 95/5/15 vs robotic 80/5/15; P = 0.235], but the degree of clearance at the CRM was significantly greater in robotic patients [open 8 (0-30) mm vs laparoscopic 4 (0-30) mm vs robotic 10.5 (1-30) mm; P = 0.02].

CONCLUSION

The study reports no statistically significant difference between open and laparoscopic techniques in the quality of TME during the learning curve of robotic proctectomy for rectal cancer and demonstrates an improved CRM.