Lymph node yield in right colectomy for cancer: a comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic approaches

Efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic radical resection has become the most important treatment for resectable colorectal cancer (CRC). However, there is still a lack of researches on the efficacy and safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (RPLS) versus conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in the treatment of CRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2019 to July 2022, 698 patients with CRC received surgical treatment in the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. Patients were divided into RPLS group (n = 220) and CLS group (n = 478) according to their surgical procedures. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust the differences in baseline characteristics. The incidence of perioperative outcomes and survival rates related results were analyzed after PSM.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-two patients were equally divided into RPLS group (n = 211) and CLS group (n = 211) after PSM. There were no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the two groups (P value was 0.773 and 0.579 respectively). The perioperative outcomes of patients between the two groups were comparable, except that patients in the RPLS group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (P value < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For patients with CRC, both RPLS and CLS might be acceptable surgical options. No significant differences in perioperative outcomes, PFS rates and OS rates were observed between the two groups. For certain cases, RPLS was superior to CLS in terms of postoperative recovery.

A Narrative Review on the Role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Colorectal Cancer Management

The role of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and deep learning in medical practice in the management of colorectal cancer has gathered significant attention in recent years. Colorectal cancer, being the third most common type of malignancy, requires an innovative approach to augment early detection and advanced surgical techniques to reduce morbidity and mortality. With its emerging potential, AI improves colorectal cancer management by assisting with accuracy in screening, pathology evaluation, precision, and postoperative care. Evidence suggests that AI minimizes missed cases during colorectal cancer screening, plays a promising role in pathology and imaging diagnoses, and facilitates accurate staging. In surgical management, AI demonstrates comparable or superior outcomes to laparoscopic approaches, with reduced hospital stays and conversion rates. However, these outcomes are influenced by clinical expertise and other dependable factors, including expertise in implementing AI-based software and detecting possible errors. Despite these advancements, limited multicenter studies and randomized trials restrict the comprehensive evaluation of AI's true potential and integration into standard practice. We used Pubmed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for this review. The final number of articles selected, depending on inclusion and exclusion criteria, is 122. We included papers published in the English language, literature published in the last 10 years, and adult patient populations above 35 years with colorectal cancer. We thoroughly included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, and case-control studies. The use of AI paves the way for the adoption of more personalized medicine. This review highlights the advantages of AI at various disease stages for colorectal cancer patients and evaluates its potential for cost-effective implementation in clinical practice.

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes and Long-Term Survival Rates between Patients Who Underwent Robotic and Laparoscopic Complete Mesocolic Excision for Right-Sided Colon Cancer

Introduction: Right colon cancer often requires surgical intervention, and complete mesocolic excision (CME) has emerged as a standard procedure. The study aims to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of robotic and laparoscopic CME for patients with right colon cancer and 5-year survival rates examined to determine the outcomes. Materials and Methods: Patients who underwent CME for right-sided colon cancer between 2014 and 2021 were included in this study. Group differences of age, body mass index, operation time, bleeding amount, total harvested lymph nodes, and postoperative stay were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. Group differences of sex, American Society of Anesthesiology, and tumor, node, and metastasis stage were analyzed by the Chi-squared test. Disease-free and overall survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves with the log-rank Mantel-Cox test. Results: From 109 patients, 74 of them were 1:1 propensity score matched and used for analysis. Total harvested lymph node (P ≤ .001) and estimated blood loss (P = .031) were found to be statistically significant between the groups. We found no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of disease-free and overall survival (P = .27, .86, respectively), and the mortality rate was 9.17%, with no deaths directly attributed to the surgery. Conclusions: Study shows that minimally invasive surgery is a feasible option for CME in right colon cancers, with acceptable overall survival rates. Although the robotic approach has a higher lymph node yield, there was no significant difference in survival rates. Further randomized trials are needed to determine the clinical significance of both approaches.

Feasibility, clinical outcomes, and learning curves of robotic-assisted colorectal cancer surgery in a high-volume district general hospital: a cohort study

Introduction

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is one of the most influential surgical advances with widespread clinical and health-economic benefits. West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospital NHS Trust was the first in the UK to simultaneously integrate two CMR Surgical Versius robots. This study aims to investigate clinical outcomes of RAS, explore surgeon learning curves and assess the feasibility of implementation within a district general hospital (DGH).

Methods

A prospective cohort study of 100 consecutive patient data were collected between July 2022 and August 2023, including demographics, operative and clinical variables, and compared with laparoscopic surgery (LS) data from the National Bowel Cancer Audit. Surgeon learning curves were analysed using sequential surgical and console times.

Results

In the RAS cohort, the median age was 70 (IQR 57-78 years) and 60% were male. Retrieval of a minimum of 12 lymph nodes significantly increased in RAS compared to LS (95% vs. 88%, P=0.05). The negative mesorectal margin rate was similar between RAS and LS (97% vs. 91%, P=0.10), as well as length of stay greater than 5 days (42% vs. 39%, P=0.27). For anterior resections performed by the highest volume surgeon (n=16), surgical time was reduced over 1 year by 35% (304.9-196.9 min), whilst console time increased by 111% (63.0-132.8 min).

Conclusions

Key quality performance indicators were either unchanged or improved with RAS. There is potential for improved theatre utilisation and cost-savings with increased RAS. This study demonstrates the feasibility and easy integration of robotic platforms into DGHs, offering wider training opportunities for the next generation of surgeons.

Advanced Preoperative Clinical Stage Is Associated With More Lymph Node Harvest in Patients With Right Colon Cancer

PURPOSE

The adequacy of lymph node (LN) harvest is important in oncological colon cancer resections. While several studies have suggested factors influencing LN yield in colon cancer, limited data are available only regarding right hemicolectomies with complete mesocolic excision (CME) and central vessel ligation (CVL).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 169 patients who underwent right hemicolectomies with CME and CVL for right-sided colon cancer between February 2019 and March 2023. The patients were divided into 2 groups: groups with ≤24 LN yield and >24 LN yield, and the patient, surgical, and pathologic factors, which could potentially influence the LN yield, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Younger age, lower American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and advanced clinical TNM (cTNM) stage among patient factors, the presence of obstructions regarding the surgical factors, and the presence of desmoplastic tumor reaction in the pathologic factors were more likely to harvest >24 LNs. In a multivariate analysis, younger age, lower ASA classification, advanced cTNM stage, and an ileocolic artery (ICA) crossing pattern posterior to the superior mesenteric vein (SMV) were independently associated with a >24 LN harvest. Patients with cTNM 3,4 showed the tendency of > 24 LN yield consistently within each subgroup, irrespective of the age, ASA classification, and ileocolic artery crossing pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

Our investigation revealed a significant correlation between the advanced preoperative clinical stage and an increased number of harvested lymph nodes (LNs) in patients undergoing right hemicolectomies with CME a CVL. The observed association is potentially influenced by tumor aggressiveness and the extent of surgical resection performed by the surgeon. To elucidate the intricate relationship between surgical outcomes and the quantity of LN harvest in patients subjected to standardized CME and CVL for right-sided colon cancer, further dedicated research is warranted.

Comparing extracorporeal, semi-extracorporeal, and intracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: introducing a bridging technique for colorectal surgeons

PURPOSE

Intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy has been associated with faster recovery in bowel function compared to extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). However, the technical difficulty of laparoscopic suturing technique and intraabdominal fecal contamination hinder many surgeons from implementing such a procedure. We introduce and compare a bridging technique designated as "semi-extracorporeal" anastomosis (SEA), which embraces the advantages and amends the drawbacks of IA and EA.

METHODS

Between May 2016 and October 2022, 100 patients who underwent laparoscopic right hemicolectomy were analyzed. All patients who received laparoscopic right hemicolectomy underwent one of the 3 anastomosis methods (EA, SEA, and IA) by a single colorectal surgeon at a single tertiary care hospital. Data including perioperative parameters and postoperative outcomes were analyzed by each group.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were reviewed. Thirty patients underwent EA; 50 and 20 patients underwent SEA and IA, respectively. Operation time (minute) was 170 (range, 100-285), 170 (range, 110-280), and 147.5 (range, 80-235) in EA, SEA, and IA, respectively (P = 0.010). Wound size was smaller in SEA and IA compared to EA (P < 0.001). IA was associated with a shorter time (day) to first flatus compared to SEA and EA (4 [range, 2-13] vs. 4 [range, 2-7] vs. 2.5 [range, 1-4], P < 0.001). Postoperative complication showed no statistical significance between the 3 groups.

CONCLUSION

Semi-extracorporeal was an attractive bridging option for colorectal surgeons worrisome of the technical difficulty of IA while maintaining faster bowel recovery and smaller wound incisions compared to EA.

Peri-operative, oncological and functional outcomes of robotic versus transanal total mesorectal excision in patients with rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparative outcomes of robotic low anterior resection (rTME) and trans-anal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in patients with low rectal cancer were evaluated.

METHODS

A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Comparative studies of rTME versus TaTME for low rectal cancer were included. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, including anastomotic leak, surgical site infection, and Clavien-Dindo complication rate. Total operative time, conversion to open surgery, intra-operative blood loss, intensive therapy unit (ITU) and total hospital length of stay (LOS), oncological outcomes and functional outcomes were the other evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies with a total number of 3025 patients divided between rTME (n = 1881) and TaTME (n = 1144) groups were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups for total operative time (P = 0.39), conversion to open surgery (P = 0.29) and intra-operative blood loss (P = 0.62). Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complication rate (P = 0.47), anastomotic leak (P = 0.89), rates of re-operation (P = 0.62) and re-admission (P = 0.92), R0 resections (P = 0.52), ITU LOS (P = 0.63) and total hospital LOS (P = 0.30) also showed similar results between the two groups. However, the rTME group had higher rates of total harvested lymph nodes (P = 0.04) and complete total mesorectal excision (TME) resections (P = 0.05). Albeit with a limited dataset, the Wexner and low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) scores showed better functional results in the rTME group compared with the TaTME group (P = 0.0009 and P = 0.00001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Compared with TaTME, rTME seems to provide better functional outcomes, higher lymph node yield and more complete TME resections with a similar post-operative complications profile.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review of the evidence

Robotics may facilitate the realization of fully minimally invasive right hemicolectomy, including intra-corporeal anastomosis and off-midline extraction, when compared to laparoscopy. Our aim was to compare laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with robotic right hemicolectomy in terms of peri-operative outcomes. MEDLINE was searched for original studies comparing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with robotic right hemicolectomy in terms of peri-operative outcomes. The systematic review complied with the PRISMA 2020 recommendations. Variables related to patients' demographics, surgical procedures, post-operative recovery and pathological outcomes were collected and qualitatively assessed. Two-hundred and ninety-three publications were screened, 277 were excluded and 16 were retained for qualitative analysis. The majority of included studies were observational and of limited sample size. When the type of anastomosis was left at surgeon's discretion, intra-corporeal anastomosis was favoured in robotic right hemicolectomy (4/4 studies). When compared to laparoscopy, robotics allowed harvesting more lymph nodes (4/15 studies), a lower conversion rate to open surgery (5/14 studies), a shorter time to faeces (2/3 studies) and a shorter length of stay (5/14 studies), at the cost of a longer operative time (13/14 studies). Systematic review of existing studies, which are mostly non-randomized, suggests that robotic surgery may facilitate fully minimally invasive right hemicolectomy, including intra-corporeal anastomosis, and offer improved post-operative recovery.

Complete mesocolic excision versus standard resection for colon cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative safety and an evaluation of the use of a robotic approach

PURPOSE

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been associated with improved oncological outcomes in treatment of colon cancer. However, widespread adoption is limited partly because of the technical complexity and perceived risks of the approach. The aim of out study was to evaluate the safety of CME compared to standard resection and to compare robotic versus laparoscopic approaches.

METHODS

Two parallel searches were undertaken in MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases 12 December 2021. The first was to evaluate IDEAL stage 3 evidence to compare complication rates as a surrogate marker of perioperative safety between CME and standard resection. The second independent search compared lymph node yield and survival outcomes between minimally invasive approaches.

RESULTS

There were four randomized control trials (n = 1422) comparing CME to standard resection, and three studies comparing laparoscopic (n = 164) to robotic (n = 161) approaches. Compared to standard resection, CME was associated with a reduction in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher complication rates (3.56% vs. 7.24%, p = 0.002), reduced blood loss (113.1 ml vs. 137.6 ml, p < 0.0001) and greater mean lymph node harvest (25.6 vs. 20.9 nodes, p = 0.001). Between the robotic and laparoscopic groups, there were no significant differences in complication rates, blood loss, lymph node yield, 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.05, p = 0.87) and overall survival (OR 0.83, p = 0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated improved safety with CME. There was no difference in safety or survival outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic CME. The advantage of a robotic approach may lie in the reduced learning curve and an increased penetration of minimally invasive approach to CME. Further studies are required to explore this.

PROSPERO ID

CRD42021287065.

Comparison of Robotic, Laparoscopic, and Open Resections of Nonmetastatic Colon Cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection for colon cancer has not been associated with improvements in oncological outcomes in comparison to open resection. Robotic resections are associated with increased lymph node yield and radicality of mesenteric resection in patients with right-sided tumors. It is unclear whether lymph node yield is higher in robotic resections in other parts of the colon and whether higher lymph node yield is associated with improved survival.

OBJECTIVE

To compare survival rates between robotic, laparoscopic, and open resections in a large cohort of patients with nonmetastatic colon cancer.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective observational study.

SETTING

A single comprehensive cancer center.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent resection of nonmetastatic primary colon cancer between January 2006 and December 2018.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Univariable and multivariable models were used to identify predictors of disease-free and overall survival. Lymph node yield and perioperative outcomes were compared between operative approaches.

RESULTS

There were 2398 patients who met the inclusion criteria: 699 (29%) underwent open, 824 (34%) underwent laparoscopic, and 875 (36%) underwent robotic resection. The median follow-up was 3.8 years (45.4 months). Robotic surgery was associated with higher lymph node yield and radicality of mesenteric resection. On multivariable analysis, the surgical approach was not associated with a difference in disease-free or overall survival. Minimally invasive colectomy was associated with fewer complications and shorter length of stay in comparison to open surgery. In a direct comparison between the 2 minimally invasive approaches, robotic colectomy was associated with fewer complications, shorter length of stay, and lower conversion rate than laparoscopy.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that the 3 surgical approaches are similarly effective in treating primary resectable colon cancer and that differences in outcomes are observed primarily in the early postoperative period. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C115 .

COMPARACIN DE RESECCIONES ROBTICAS, LAPAROSCPICAS Y ABIERTAS DE CNCER DE COLON NO METASTSICO

ANTECEDENTES:La resección laparoscópica para el cáncer de colon no se ha asociado con mejoras en los resultados oncológicos en comparación con la resección abierta. Las resecciones robóticas se asocian con un mayor rendimiento de los ganglios linfáticos y la radicalidad de la resección mesentérica en pacientes con tumores del lado derecho. No está claro si la cosecha ganglionar es mayor en las resecciones robóticas en otras partes del colon y si un mayor rendimiento de los ganglios linfáticos se asocia con una mejor supervivencia.OBJETIVO:Comparar las tasas de supervivencia entre resecciones robóticas, laparoscópicas y abiertas en una gran cohorte de pacientes con cáncer de colon no metastásico.DISEÑO:Este es un estudio observacional retrospectivo.ESCENARIO:Este estudio se realizó en un único centro oncológico integral.PACIENTES:Pacientes que se sometieron a resección de cáncer de colon primario no metastásico entre enero de 2006 y diciembre de 2018.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se utilizaron modelos univariables y multivariables para identificar predictores de supervivencia libre de enfermedad y global. La cosecha ganglionar y los resultados perioperatorios se compararon entre los abordajes quirúrgicos.RESULTADOS:Hubo 2398 pacientes que cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión: 699 (29%) se sometieron a cirugía abierta, 824 (34%) se sometieron a resección laparoscópica y 875 (36%) se sometieron a resección robótica. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 3,8 años (45,4 meses). La cirugía robótica se asoció con una mayor cosecha ganglionar y la radicalidad de la resección mesentérica. En el análisis multivariable, el abordaje quirúrgico no se asoció con una diferencia en la supervivencia general o libre de enfermedad. La colectomía mínimamente invasiva se asoció con menos complicaciones y una estancia más corta en comparación con la cirugía abierta. En una comparación directa entre los dos enfoques mínimamente invasivos, la colectomía robótica se asoció con menos complicaciones, una estancia más corta y una tasa de conversión más baja que la laparoscopia.LIMITACIONES:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo de un solo centro.CONCLUSIONES:Nuestros datos indican que los tres enfoques quirúrgicos son igualmente efectivos en el tratamiento del cáncer de colon resecable primario y que las diferencias en los resultados se observan principalmente en el período posoperatorio temprano. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C115 . (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio ).

Macroscopic Evaluation of Colon Cancer Resection Specimens

Colon cancer is a common disease internationally. Outcomes have not improved to the same degree as in rectal cancer, where the focus on total mesorectal excision and pathological feedback has significantly contributed to improved survival and reduced local recurrence. Colon cancer surgery shows significant variation around the world, with differences in mesocolic integrity, height of the vascular ligation and length of the bowel resected. This leads to variation in well-recognised quality measures like lymph node yield. Pathologists are able to assess all of these variables and are ideally placed to provide feedback to surgeons and the wider multidisciplinary team to improve surgical quality over time. With a move towards complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation to remove the primary tumour and all mechanisms of spread within an intact package, pathological feedback will be central to improving outcomes for patients with operable colon cancer. This review focusses on the key quality measures and the evidence that underpins them.

Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy node retrieval in the obese population

Data are scarce comparing robotic and laparoscopic colectomy node retrieval based on body mass index or age. With differences in anastomosis, mobilization, and ligation between these approaches, obese and/or elderly patients undergoing robotic surgery may have differences in node yield compared to laparoscopy. A retrospective review was conducted between four institutions from February 1, 2019 through August 1, 2021, during which 144 right colectomies were performed. Benign pathology, open colectomies, and conversions to open were excluded. All included surgeons had at least five patients to ensure experience. The population was categorized by a robotic or laparoscopic approach. Records were reviewed focusing on age, body mass index, surgical approach, anastomosis, pathology, and node count. The node count was then compared by body mass index and age between the robotic or laparoscopic approach to identify differences. After applied exclusions and outlier analysis, our final sample consisted of 80 patients. Both body mass index and age were significant, (p = 0.002 and p = 0.005, respectively). Body mass index ≤ 25.0 and age < 60 years old had higher average node counts. These variables interacted, (p = 0.003); those with both < 60 years old and body mass index ≤ 25 showed the greatest number of nodes (36.9). Laparoscopy yielded more nodes in ≥ 60 years old than robotics (27.4 verses 20.9), though this was not significant (p = 0.68). Node retrieval in overweight and obese patients did not differ between approaches (p = 0.48). Both body mass index and age influence the number of nodes that can be extracted in right hemicolectomies by experienced surgeons.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision: a retrospective multicenter study with propensity score matching

OBJECTIVE

During the past decade, the concept of complete mesocolic excision (CME) has been developed in an attempt to minimize recurrence for right-sided colon cancer. This study aims to compare outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME for right-sided colon cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective multicenter propensity score matching study. From July 2016 to July 2021, 382 consecutive patients from different Chinese surgical departments were available for inclusion out of an initial cohort of 412, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with CME. Data of all patients were retrospectively collected and reviewed. Of these, 149 cases were performed by a robotic approach, while the other 233 cases were done by laparoscopy. Propensity score matching was applied at a ratio of 1:1 to compare perioperative, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes between the robotic and the laparoscopic groups (n = 142).

RESULTS

Before propensity score matching, there were no statistical differences regarding the sex, history of abdominal surgery, body mass index (BMI), American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system, tumor location, and center between groups (p > 0.05), while a significant difference was observed regarding age (p = 0.029). After matching, two comparable groups of 142 cases were obtained with equivalent patient characteristics (p > 0.05). Blood loss, time to oral intake, return of bowel function, length of stay, and complications were not different between groups (p > 0.05). The robotic group showed a significantly lower conversion rate (0% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.03), but a longer operative time (200.9 min vs. 182.3 min, p < 0.001) and a higher total hospital cost (85,016 RMB vs. 58,266 RMB, p < 0.001) compared with the laparoscopic group. The number of harvested lymph nodes was comparable (20.4 vs. 20.5, p = 0.861). Incidence of complications, mortality, and pathologic outcomes were similar between groups (p > 0.05). The 2-year disease-free survival rates were 84.9% and 87.1% (p = 0.679), and the overall survival rates between groups were 83.8% and 80.7% (p = 0.943).

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations of a retrospective analysis, the outcomes of robotic right hemicolectomy with CME were comparable to the laparoscopic procedures with fewer conversions to open surgery. More clinical advantages of the robotic surgery system need to be further confirmed by well-conducted randomized clinical trials with large cohorts of patients.

Comparison of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

For right colon surgery, there is an increasing body of literature comparing the safety of robotic right colectomy (RRC) with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the safety and efficacy of RRC versus LRC, including homogeneous subgroup analyses for extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) and intracorporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published between January 2000 and January 2022. Length of hospital stay, operation time, rate of conversion to laparotomy, time to first flatus, number of harvested lymph nodes, estimated blood loss, rate of overall complication, ileus, anastomotic leakage, wound infection, and total costs were measured.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies (RRC: 2772 patients; LRC: 12,469 patients) were evaluated. Regardless of the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter length of hospital stay, lower rate of conversion to laparotomy, shorter time to first flatus, lower rate of overall complications, and a higher number of harvested lymph nodes compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the IA subgroup, RRC had a shorter length of hospital stay, longer operative time, and lower rate of conversion to laparotomy compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes. In the EA subgroup, RRC had a longer operative time, lower estimated blood loss, lower rate of overall complications, and higher total costs compared with LRC, with the other outcomes being similar.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of RRC is superior to LRC, especially when an intracorporeal anastomosis is performed. Most included articles were retrospective, offering low-quality evidence and limited conclusions.

Clinicopathological Factors Affecting Lymph Node Yield and Positivity in Left-Sided Colon and Rectal Cancers

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of cancer‐related deaths worldwide and is the third most common cause of cancer deaths in the UK. The status of lymph node metastasis is a key factor for predicting the prognosis of a patient's CRC.

Aims

This study aimed to analyze the demographics of left-sided colonic and rectal cancers at a single institution. We looked closely at the correlation between patient age and various histological factors. We tried to find any significant difference in lymph node yield (LNY) between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS). We aimed to identify any statistical correlation between LNY and lymph node positivity (LNP) with other patient, surgical and histopathological features.

Methodology

This is a retrospective, non-interventional review of consecutive patients who underwent left-sided colonic and rectal cancer resections over a three-year period between 01 April 2018 and 31 March 2021. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were used. Chi-squared / Fisher exact test was used on a categorical scale between two or more groups and non-parametric setting for qualitative data analysis.

Results

A total of 102 patients were included in the study. No statistical correlation was found between the age of the patient with the LNY, LNP, location of the tumor, type, and urgency of the operation. LNY ranged between one and 43 nodes (median (interquartile range (IQR)) 17, 8). There was no statistically significant difference in LNY between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS) (p=0.1449). Significant statistical correlation was identified between LNP and completeness of resection (CoR) (p=0.039), vascular invasion (VI) (p<0.001), perineural invasion (PI) (p<0.001), and circumferential resectional margin involvement (CRMI) (p=0.039).

Discussion

LNY and LNP are important prognostic indices in colorectal cancer. Patient age, tumor location, the urgency of surgery, and consultant experience did not significantly impact the LNY. Our study showed a positive correlation between LNP and CRMI, VI and PI comparable to literature. Contrary to other studies, we found no statistical significance between LS vs. OS and LNY. Whether 12 nodes per patient is an appropriate level remains controversial.

Short-term outcomes in robot-assisted compared to laparoscopic colon cancer resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS).

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I², and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

Results

Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD =  − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE.

Conclusion

RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08782-7.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a retrospective cohort study of the Binational Colorectal Cancer Database

Robotic right hemicolectomy (RRC) may have technical advantages over the conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) due to higher degrees of rotation, articulation, and tri-dimensional imaging. There is growing literature describing advantages of RRC compared to LRC; however, there is a lack of evidence about safety, oncologic quality of surgery and cost. This study aimed to analyse complication rates, length of stay and nodal harvest in patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer from a prospective Australasian colorectal cancer database. This was a retrospective cohort study using nearest neighbour matching. The Binational Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) provided the data for analysis. The primary outcome was length of stay. Secondary outcomes were harvested lymph node count, anastomotic leak, postoperative haemorrhage, abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, wound infections and non-surgical complications. 4977 patients who underwent robotic (n = 146) or laparoscopic (n = 4831) right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer were included. For RRC, LOS was shorter (5 vs 6.9 days, p = 0.01) and nodal harvest was higher (22 vs 19, p = 0.04). For RRC, surgical complications (5.9% vs 14.2%, p < 0.004) and non-surgical complications (4.6% vs 11.7%, p = 0.007) were lower though there was no difference in return to theatre or inpatient death. Robotic right hemicolectomy is associated shorter LOS and marginally higher lymph node count, though this may reflect anastomotic technique rather than surgical platform. Longer term studies are required to establish differences in overall survival, incisional hernia rates and cost effectiveness.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: a nationwide cohort study

PURPOSE

On a national level, the minimally invasive approach is widely adopted in Denmark. The adoption of robotic colorectal surgery is increasing; however, the advantage of a robotic approach in right colectomy is still uncertain. The purpose of this study was to compare robotic right colectomy with laparoscopic right colectomy on a national level.

METHODS

This was a nationwide database study based on data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients from all colorectal centers in Denmark in the period 2014-2018 treated with curative intend in an elective setting with either robotic or laparoscopic right colectomy were identified. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounding, and the groups were compared on demographics, disease characteristics, operative data, and postoperative and pathology outcomes. Reporting was done in accordance with the STROBE statement.

RESULTS

In total, 4002 patients were available for analysis. Propensity score matching in ratio 2:1 identified 718 laparoscopic and 359 robotic cases. After matching, we found a higher lymph node yield in the robotic group compared to the laparoscopic group, (32.5 vs. 28.4, P < 0.001), while radicality, plane of dissection, and pathological disease stages showed no differences. There were no statistical differences in morbidity and mortality. Intracorporeal anastomosis (23.7% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.001) was more commonly performed with a robotic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic approach was associated with a significant higher lymph node yield and with similar postoperative morbidity compared to a laparoscopic approach for right colectomy.

Comparison of clinical efficacy of robotic right colectomy and laparoscopic right colectomy for right colon tumor: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of robotic right colectomy (RRC) and laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) in the treatment of right colon tumor.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of science, EMBASE ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register for studies (studies published between January 2011 and June 2020). The included studies compared the clinical efficacy of RRC and LRC in the treatment of right colon tumor, and analyzed the perioperative data.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 10 studies involving 1180 patients who underwent 2 surgical procedures, RRC and LRC. This study showed that compared with LRC, there was no significant difference in first flatus passage (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.37, 95% CI: -1.09-0.36, P = .32), hospital length of stay (WMD: -0.23, 95% CI: -0.73-0.28, P = .32), reoperation (OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 0.67-4.10, P = .27), complication (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60-1.14, P = .25), mortality (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.02-11.22, P = .63), wound infection (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.34-1.25, P = .20), and anastomotic leak (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.33-1.63, P = .44). This study showed that compared with LRC, the lymph nodes retrieved (WMD: 1.47, 95% CI: -0.00-2.94, P = .05) of RRC were similar, with slight advantages, and resulted in longer operative time (WMD: 65.20, 95% CI: 53.40-77.01, P < .00001), less estimated blood loss (WMD: -13.43, 95% CI: -20.65-6.21, P = .0003), and less conversion to open surgery (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.17-0.54, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

RRC is equivalent to LRC with respect to first flatus passage, hospital length of stay, reoperation, complication, and results in less conversion to LRC.

Is newer always better?: comparing cost and short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic right hemicolectomy

BACKGROUND

Enthusiasm is high for expansion of robotic assisted surgery into right hemicolectomy. But data on outcomes and cost is lacking. Our objective was to determine the association between surgical approach and cost for minimally invasive right hemicolectomy. We hypothesized that a robot approach would have increased costs (both economic and opportunity) while achieving similar short-term outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis with a simulation of operating room utilization at a quaternary care, academic institution. We enrolled patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemicolectomy from November 2017 to August 2019. Patients were categorized by the intended approach- laparoscopic or robotic. The primary outcome was the technical variable direct cost. Secondary outcomes included total cost, supply cost, operating room utilization, operative time, conversion, length of stay and 30-day post-operative outcomes.

RESULTS

79 patients were included in the study. A robotic approach was used in 22% of the cohort. The groups differed significantly only in etiology of surgery. Robotic surgery was associated with a 1.5 times increase in the technical variable direct cost (p < 0.001), increased supply cost (2.6 times; p < 0.001) and increased total cost (1.3 times; p < 0.001). Significant differences were observed in median room time (Robotic: 285 min vs. Laparoscopic: 170 min; p < 0.001) and procedure time (Robotic: 203 min vs. Laparoscopic: 118 min; p < 0.001). There were no differences observed in post-operative outcomes including length of stay or readmission. In a simulation of OR utilization, 45 laparoscopic right hemicolectomies could be performed in an OR in a month compared to 31 robotic cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic right hemicolectomy was associated with increased costs with no improvement in post-operative outcomes. In a simulation of operating room efficiency, a robotic approach was associated with 14 fewer cases per month. Practitioners and administrators should be aware of the increased cost of a robotic approach.

Improved perioperative outcomes and reduced inflammatory stress response in malignant robot-assisted colorectal resections: a retrospective cohort study of 298 patients

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly implemented for the resection of colorectal cancer, although the scientific evidence for adopting this technique is still limited. This study’s main objective was to compare short-term complication rates, oncological outcomes, and the inflammatory stress response after colorectal resection for cancer performed laparoscopic or robot-assisted.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the robot-assisted approach to laparoscopic surgery for elective malignant colorectal neoplasm. Certified colorectal and da Vinci ® robotic surgeons performed resections at a Danish tertiary colorectal high volume center from May 2017 to March 2019. We analyzed the two surgical groups using uni- and multivariate regression analyses to detect differences in intra- and postoperative clinical outcomes and the inflammatory stress response.

Results

Two hundred and ninety-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Significant differences favoring robot-assisted surgery was demonstrated for; length of hospital stay (4 days, interquartile range (4, 5) versus 5 days, interquartile range (4–7), p < 0.001), and intraoperative blood loss (50 mL, interquartile range (20–100) versus 100 mL, interquartile range (50–150), p < 0.001) compared to laparoscopic surgery. The inflammatory stress response was significantly higher after laparoscopic compared to robot-assisted surgery reflected by an increase in C-reactive protein concentration (exponentiated coefficient = 1.23, 95% confidence interval (1.06–1.46), p = 0.008). No differences between the two groups were found concerning mortality, microradical resection rate, conversion to open surgery, and surgical or medical short-term complication rates.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted surgery is feasible and can be safely implemented for colorectal resections. The robot-assisted approach, when compared to laparoscopic surgery, was associated with improved intra- and postoperative outcomes. Extensive prospective studies are needed to determine the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Optimizing outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery with robotic platforms

Advanced robotic technology makes it easier to perform total mesorectal excision procedures in the narrow pelvis for rectal cancer while maintaining the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer leads to lower conversion rates and faster recovery of urogenital function than conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, longer operative time and high cost are major weaknesses of robotic surgery. To date, most other short-term surgical outcomes, pathologic outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic surgery have not shown significant advantages over laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery is still a valid and highly anticipated surgical approach for rectal cancer because it greatly reduces the surgeon's workload and learning curve. There are also advantages when robotic techniques are applied to technically demanding procedures such as lateral pelvic lymph node dissection or intersphincteric resection. The introduction of new surgical robot systems, including the da Vinci® SP system, is expected to expand the applications of robotic surgery and provide new advantages.

Does minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy increase the chance of a textbook oncologic outcome?

BACKGROUND

Textbook oncologic outcome has been described in an effort to improve upon traditional outcomes defining care after pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma. We sought to examine whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy increased the likelihood of an optimal textbook oncologic outcome.

METHODS

Patients undergoing open pancreaticoduodenectomy or minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy between 2010 and 2015 were identified in the National Cancer Database. Textbook oncologic outcome was defined as R0 resection with American Joint Committee on Cancer compliant lymphadenectomy, no prolonged duration of stay, no 30-day readmission/mortality, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. Propensity score matching was employed to evaluate adjusted rates of textbook oncologic outcome, in addition to overall survival.

RESULTS

Among 12,854 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, 48.3% were female, and the median patient age was 66 years; 87.5% underwent open pancreaticoduodenectomy, and 12.5% underwent whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy. After propensity score matching, there were no noted differences in the likelihood of R0 resection, adequate lymphadenectomy, nonprolonged duration of stay, no readmission, no 30-day mortality, adjuvant chemotherapy, or textbook oncologic outcome among open pancreaticoduodenectomy versus minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (P > .05). Textbook oncologic outcome was associated with an improved median overall survival (negative textbook oncologic outcome: 21.3 months vs positive textbook oncologic outcome: 27.6 months, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Although textbook oncologic outcome was associated with a survival advantage, it was only achieved in 1 in 4 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma. Achievement of textbook oncologic outcome was equivalent among patients who underwent minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy compared with open pancreaticoduodenectomy after propensity score matching.

Does Obesity Impact Surgical and Pathological Outcomes in Robotic Complete Mesocolic Excision for Colon Cancer?

Background: Obesity is one of the contributing factors to technical difficulties in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. However, there are no data regarding the outcomes for obese patients undergoing robotic complete mesocolic excision (CME) for colon cancer. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether robotic CME in obese patients can be performed with similar morbidity and pathological results compared with nonobese patients. Methods: Patients who underwent robotic CME between 2014 and 2019 were classified into obese and nonobese groups. Obesity was defined as body mass index ≥30 kg/m². Demographic data, perioperative outcomes and pathological results were compared between the groups. Results: There were 42 and 105 patients in the obese and nonobese group, respectively. The groups were comparable regarding preoperative characteristics. There were no significant differences with respect to operative times (244 ± 64 versus 304 ± 75 minutes, P = .29), blood loss (median, 50 versus 80 mL, P = .20), intraoperative complications (0% versus 3.8%, P > .99), and conversions (0% versus 1.9%, P > .99). No differences were detected in length of hospital stay (6 ± 1 versus 6 ± 2 days, P = .73), anastomotic leak (2.4% versus 1.9%, P > .99), septic complications, reoperations (2.4% versus 3.8%), and readmissions (2.4% versus 2.9%) (P > .05). The mean number of harvested lymph nodes (33 ± 11 versus 34 ± 13, P = .79), resection margin status, and mesocolic fascia grading were similar. Conclusion: Robotic CME in obese patients can be performed with a similar morbidity and pathological profile compared with nonobese patients. The Clinical Trial Registration number is not applicable for this study.

Robotic Complete Mesocolic Excision with Central Vascular Ligation for Right Colon Cancer: Surgical Technique and Short-term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive colorectal surgery has demonstrated to have the same oncological results as open surgery, with better clinical outcomes. Robotic assistance is an evolution of minimally invasive technique.

PURPOSE

The study aims to present technical details and short-term oncological outcomes of robotic-assisted complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) for right colon cancer.

METHODOLOGY

Fifty-two consecutive patients affected by right colon cancer were operated between May 2016 and February 2020 with da Vinci Xi platform. Data regarding surgical and short-term oncological outcomes were systematically collected in a colorectal specific database for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven (71.15%) and 15 (28.85%) patients underwent right and extended right hemicoletomy with an extracorporeal anastomosis. Median age was 55 years. Mean operative time was 182 ± 36 min. Mean blood loss was 110 ± 90 ml. Conversion rate was 3.84% (two cases). 78.84% (41 cases) were pT3 and mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 28 ± 4. 1/52 (1.92%) had a documented anastomotic leak requiring exploratory laparotomy and diversion proximal ileostomy. Surgery-related grade IIIa-IIIb Calvien Dindo morbidity were noted in 9.61% and 1.92%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Robotic assistance allows performance of oncological adequate dissection of the right colon with radical lymphadenectomy as in open surgery, confirming the safety and oncological adequacy of this technique, with acceptable results and short-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy with extra-corporeal or intra-corporeal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) versus robotic right colectomy (RRC) using homogeneous subgroup analyses for extra-corporeal anastomosis (EA) and intra-corporeal anastomosis (IA).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2020 for prospective or retrospective studies comparing LRC versus RRC on at least one short- or long-term outcome. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes included operative and pathological results, survival, and total costs. LRC and RRC were compared using three homogeneous subgroups: without distinction by the type of anastomosis, EA only, and IA only. Pooled data analyses were performed using mean difference (MD) and random effects model.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 448 studies were selected. The included patients were 21,397 for the LRC group and 2796 for the RRC group. Regardless for the type of anastomosis, RRC showed shorter LOS, lower blood loss, lower conversion rate, shorter time to flatus, and lower overall complication rate compared with LRC, but longer operative time and higher total costs. In the EA subgroup, RRC showed similar LOS, longer operative time, and higher costs compared with LRC, the other outcomes being similar. In the IA subgroup, RRC showed shorter LOS and longer operative time compared with LRC, with no difference for the remaining outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most included articles are retrospective, providing low-quality evidence and limiting conclusions. The more frequent use of the IA seems to explain the advantages of RRC over LRC.

Current status and trend of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer

Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) is utilized worldwide as one of the standard surgical treatments for right-sided colon cancer. However, there have been issues concerning its applicability, techniques, and trend. The present study aimed to elucidate the current status and trend of LRH by reviewing literature focusing on important issues associated with this surgery. Based on previous studies, LRH most likely provides better short-term outcomes and similar oncological outcomes compared to open surgery. Despite the increasing use of robotic approach in this surgery, it seems to have always been associated with longer operative times and greater hospital cost with limited advantage. Intracorporeal anastomosis seems to improve short-term outcomes, such as quicker recovery of bowel function, compared to extracorporeal anastomosis. However, it does not contribute to shorter hospital stay. With regard to dissection technique, various approaches, and landmarks have been advocated to overcome the technical difficulty in LRH. This difficulty is likely to be caused by anatomical variation, especially in venous structures. The superiority of one approach or landmark over another is still argued about due to the lack of large-scale prospective studies. However, deep understanding both of anatomical variation and characteristics of each approach would be of extreme importance to minimize adverse effects and maximize patient benefit after LRH.

Comparing the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy after robotic and laparoscopic colon cancer surgeries: A case-controlled study with propensity score matching

Purpose

Early initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy after colon cancer surgery has shown better oncologic outcomes in previous studies. However, the clinical impact of robotic and laparoscopic surgeries on the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy has not been widely evaluated. Hence, the study's aim was to compare the influence of both surgical approaches on the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy after colon cancer surgery.

Methods

From June 2011 to September 2017, 289 patients underwent curative robotic or laparoscopic surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II and III colon cancer. To control for different demographic factors in the two groups, propensity score case matching was used at a 1:4 ratio. Finally, 190 patients were matched with 38 patients of the robotic surgery group and 152 patients of the laparoscopic surgery group.

Results

The operation time was longer in the robotic surgery group (297 minutes vs. 170 minutes, respectively; P<0.001). However, conversion rate, number of retrieved lymph nodes, first flatus, first soft diet, length of stay, postoperative complication rate, and Clavien-Dindo grade were not significantly different between the two groups. Additionally, there was no difference in the time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy between the two groups (31.5 days vs. 29.0 days, respectively; P=0.226). Disease-free and overall survival rates were also not significantly different.

Conclusion

Robotic and laparoscopic surgeries showed no different impact on the initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. This finding suggests that the two surgical approaches offer similar postoperative outcomes.

Robotic surgery in colorectal cancer: the way forward or a passing fad

Introduced mainly to overcome the technical limitations of laparoscopy, robotic colorectal surgery (CRS) has been touted to provide superior optics, ergonomics, and surgeon autonomy. This technological advancement is nonetheless associated with certain drawbacks, mainly involving its cost and the lack of unequivocal benefit over conventional laparoscopy. In this era of evidence-based medicine, robotic CRS remains predominantly a subject of individual institution case series, retrospective studies, matched comparisons at best, and repeated reviews of the above literature. This article provides a critique of the more contemporary data regarding the use of robotics in colorectal cancer surgery and the controversies surrounding the literature.

A standardized suprapubic bottom-to-up approach in robotic right colectomy: technical and oncological advances for complete mesocolic excision (CME)

Backround

Several studies have demonstrated a direct correlation between lymph node yield and survival after colectomy for cancer. Complete mesocolic excision (CME) in right colectomy (RC) reduces local recurrence but is technically demanding. Here we report our early single center experience with robotic right colectomy comparing our standardized bottom-to-up (BTU) approach of robotic RC with CME and central vessel ligation (CVL) facilitated by a suprapubic access with the “classical” medial-to-lateral (MTL) strategy.

Methods

A 4-step BTU approach of robotic RC guided by embryonal planes in the process of retrocolic mobilization with suprapubic port placement was performed in the BTU-group (n = 24; all with intention to treat cancer). In step 1 CME was initiated with caudolateral mobilization of the right colon guided by the fascia of Toldt across the duodenum and up to the Trunk of Henle. Subsequently, dissection was performed BTU right of the middle supramesenteric vessels with central ileocolic vessel ligation in step 2. Subsequent to separation of the transverse retromesenteric space and completion of mobilization the hepatic flexure in step 3, the transverse mesocolon was then transected right of the middle colic vessels in step 4. An extracorporeal side to side anastomosis was performed. We compared the outcome of the BTU-group with a MTL-group (n = 7).

Results

Patient characteristics like age, gender, BMI, comorbidity (ASA) and M-status were comparable among groups. There was no conversion. Overall complication rate was 35.5%. We experienced no anastomoses insufficiency, grade Dindo/Clavien III/IV complication or mortality in this study. Type I and II complications and surgical characteristics incl. OR-time, ICU- and hospital-stay were comparable between the two groups. However, the lymph node yield was superior in the BTU-group (mean 40.2 ± 17.1) when compared with the MTL-group (16,3 nodes ±8.5; p <  0,001).

Conclusions

Compared to the classical MTL approach, robotic suprapubic BTU RC changes from a search of the layers bordering the oncological dissection to a consequent utilization of the planes as a retro-mesocolic guide during CME. The BTU strategy could bear the potential to increase the lymph node yield. Robotic systems may provide the technical requirements to combine advantages of both open and minimally invasive RC.

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 colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis is feasible with no operative conversions during the learning curve for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon developing a robotics program

The benefits of performing a colectomy robotically instead of laparoscopically have not conclusively been demonstrated. Evaluation of studies is limited by sample size, retrospective design, heterogeneity of operative techniques, sparse adjustment for learning curve, and mixed results. Consequently, adoption of robotic colectomy by surgeons has been expectedly slow. The objectives of the study were to compare the outcomes of robotic colectomy to laparoscopic colectomy for patients with right-sided tumors undergoing a standardized completely intracorporeal operation and to examine the impact of prior experience with laparoscopic right colectomies on the performance of robotic right colectomies. Retrospective review of outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing a robotic right colectomy (robot) compared to those undergoing laparoscopic colectomy (LAP). LAP patients were further subdivided into a group during the learning curve (LC) and after the learning curve (post-LC). Data collected included operative time (OT), conversion to laparotomy, lymph nodes harvested (LN), length of stay (LOS), 30-day morbidity, and mortality. Comparison of continuous and categorical variables was assessed with the independent samples t test and Chi-square test, respectively. Data are expressed as mean ± SD, and significance defined as p < 0.05. 122 patients underwent robot (n = 21), LAP (n = 101), LC (n = 51), or post-LC (n = 50). OT was decreased for post-LC compared to LC (198 vs. 228 min). There were no conversions in robot and five with LAP. Morbidity was similar for robot (14%) compared to LAP (22%), LC (24%), or post-LC cases (20%). Median LOS was similar for robot vs. LAP (3 vs. 5 days). Robot had greater mean LN yield vs. LAP (19 vs. 14, p = 0.02). The initial outcomes with completely intracorporeal colectomy achieved robotically were equivalent to results during or after LC for laparoscopic resection. Proficiency gained with LAP seems to positively impact the initial results with the robot.

Appraisal and Current Considerations of Robotics in Colon and Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology aims to obviate some of the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, yet the role of robotics in colorectal surgery is still largely undefined and varies with respect to its application in abdominal versus pelvic surgery.

METHODS

With this review, we aimed to highlight current developments in colorectal robotic surgery. We systematically searched the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. We critically reviewed the available literature on the use of robotic technology in colon and rectal surgery.

RESULTS

Robotic colorectal surgery is oncologically safe and has short-term outcomes comparable to conventional laparoscopy, with potential benefits in rectal surgery. It has a shorter learning curve but increased operative times and costs. It offers potential advantages in the resection of rectal cancer, due to lower conversion rates. There is also a trend toward better outcomes in anastomotic leak rates, circumferential margin positivity, and perseveration of autonomic function.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy remains technically challenging and conversion rates are still high. Therefore, most cases of colorectal surgery are still performed open. Robotic surgery aims to overcome the limits of the laparoscopic technique. This new technology has many advantages in terms of articulating instruments, advanced three-dimensional optics, surgeon ergonomics, and improved accessibility to narrow spaces, such as the pelvis. However, further studies are needed to assess long-term results and benefits.

From Laparoscopic Right Colectomy with Extracorporeal Anastomosis to Robot-Assisted Intracorporeal Anastomosis to Totally Robotic Right Colectomy for Cancer: The Evolution of Robotic Multiquadrant Abdominal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) in right colectomies shows many advantages over extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). Many difficulties encountered in laparoscopic IA can be overcome with hybrid robot-assisted IA or recently with totally robotic procedures. In the literature, few works have been published comparing laparoscopic, hybrid, and totally robotic right colectomies. The aim of this study is to retrospectively analyze the improvements brought on by the evolution of robotic surgery at our specialized center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred six (hybrid and totally) robotic right colectomies (RRCs) with IA were compared with 160 laparoscopic right colectomies (LRCs) with EA. A separate analysis carried out by the robotic group compared 30 totally robotic right colectomies (TRRCs) with 176 hybrid robot-assisted right colectomies (HRRCs). Demographics, pathological features, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

The groups were comparable with respect to demographics and tumor staging. When compared with LRC, RRC showed shorter time to first flatus (P < .001), stools (P < .001), solid diet (P < .001), and discharge (P < .001). The number of lymph nodes harvested was 23.13 ± 11.2 in RRC versus 20.5 ± 11.2 in LRC (P = .031). Operative time was longer in RRC (253.0 ± 47 minutes versus 209.9 ± 64 minutes; P < .001), but conversion to open (2.4% versus 18.1%; P < .001), anastomotic leaks (0.5% versus 5%; P = .012), and bleeding (0.3% versus 4.4%; P = .024) were significantly less frequent. Subsequent analysis shows no significant increase in operative time in TRRC versus HRRC (261.0 ± 41 minutes versus 251.6 ± 47.6 minutes; P = .310). Even if not statistically significant, TRRC showed faster bowel function recovery and tolerance to solid diet.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed the clinical advantages of RRC with IA over LRC with EA in postoperative recovery outcomes and complication rate. Furthermore, our preliminary analysis in a cohort of 30 TRRC shows promising results.

Robotic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision and indocyanine green guidance

BACKGROUND

Robotic complete mesocolic excision (CME) has recently emerged as promising technique to enhance oncologic results in hemicolectomy for cancer. The potential near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence with indocyanine-green (ICG) dye for lymphatic mapping is under investigation and few small case-series are reported.

METHODS

ICG solution was endoscopically injected the day before surgery in patients undergoing robotic right colectomy with CME using the Da Vinci Xi® system and the bottom to up technique. During surgery the ICG was excited by light in the near-infrared (NIR) spectrum of the Firefly™ system, of the Da Vinci Xi® system for image comparison in standard white light and NIR, and real-time visualization of the lymphatic drainage.

RESULTS

Twenty patients affected by right colon cancer underwent robotic right colectomy with the bottom to up technique. No cases converted to open surgery were observed. During surgery, a fluorescent mapping of draining lymph nodes, was visualized in all the 20 patients. In seven patients (35%), lymph nodes outside the standard lymphatic basin were identified and removed.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of robotic right colectomy with the bottom to up technique and ICG-guided lymphadenectomy is a feasible and safe procedure. ICG lymphatic mapping may help to perform a correct CME, although the independent impact of these procedures on oncologic outcome deserves further investigations.