Robotic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision: bottom-to-up suprapubic approach - a video vignette

Robot-assisted Treatment of Epigastric Hernias With a Suprapubic Approach

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted ventral hernia repair has shown itself to be feasible and safe in abdominal wall surgery. Presently, the ports are placed laterally to meet the distance from the fascial defect. The aim of our study is to report our experience of epigastric hernia treatment with trocar insertion in the suprapubic region.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

On a prospectively collected dataset on robot-assisted surgery, patients treated for epigastric hernias with suprapubic approach were identified. Demographic and clinical data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Twelve patients were selected. Median age was 58.5 years [interquartile range (IQR): 47.8 to 67.3 y]; 4 patients were male (33.3%) and the median body mass index was 23.9 kg/m2 (IQR: 22.3 to 26.2 kg/m2). All patients were referred to surgery because of pain. The median measure of the hernia defect was 30 mm (IQR: 13.75 to 31.0 mm); median larger mesh diameter was 13.5 cm (IQR: 9.5 to 15.0 cm); and median operative time was 136.5 minutes (IQR: 120.0 to 186.5 min). No intraoperative complication or conversion to open surgery occurred. Postoperatively, 2 patients presented a seroma and median length of hospital stay was 2.0 days (IQR: 1.75 to 3 d). No case of hernia recurrence was recorded at a mean follow-up of 11.2 months (range: 4 to 29 mo).

CONCLUSIONS

In the robot-assisted treatment of hernias of the epigastric region, a suprapubic port placement can be considered instead of a lateral one to have a better field overview, especially in subxiphoid hernias. Further studies are needed to assess the benefits and limitations of such technique.

Complete mesocolic excision in minimally invasive surgery of colonic cancer: do we need the robot?

Background

Robotic surgery offers favorable prerequisites for complex minimally invasive surgeries which are delivered by higher degrees of freedom, improved instrument stability, and a perfect visualization in 3D which is fully surgeon controlled. In this article we aim to assess its impact on complete mesocolic excision (CME) in colon cancer and to answer the question of whether the current evidence expresses a need for robotic surgery for this indication.

Methods

Retrospective analysis and review of the current literature on complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer comparing the outcome after open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.

Results

Complete mesocolic excision results in improved disease-free survival and reduced local recurrence, but turns out to be complex and prone to complications. Introduced in open surgery, the transfer to minimally invasive surgery resulted in comparable results, however, with high conversion rates. In comparison, robotic surgery shows a reduced conversion rate and a tendency toward higher lymph node yield. Data, however, are insufficient and no high-quality studies have been published to date. Almost no oncologic follow-up data are available in the literature.

Conclusion

The current data do not allow for a reliable conclusion on the need of robotic surgery for CME, but show results which hypothesize an equivalence if not superiority to laparoscopy. Due to recently published technical improvements for robotic CME and supplementary features of this method, we suppose that this approach will gain in importance in the future.

Implementing complete mesocolic excision for colon cancer - mission completed?

The definition of complete mesocolic excision (CME) for colon carcinomas revolutionized the way of colon surgery. This technique conquered the world starting from Erlangen. Nevertheless, currently new developments especially in minimally invasive surgery challenge CME to become settled as a standard of care. To understand the evolution of CME, anatomical details occurring during embryogenesis and their variations have to be considered. This knowledge is indispensable to transfer CME from an open to a minimally invasive setting. Conventional surgery for colon cancer (non-CME) has a morbidity of 12.1–28.5% and a 3.7% mortality risk vs. 12–36.4% morbidity and 2.1–3% mortality for open CME. The morbidity of laparoscopic CME is between 4 and 31% with a mortality of 0.5–0.9%. In robotic assisted surgery, morbidity between 10 and 25% with a mortality of 1% was published. The cancer-related survival after 3 and 5 years for open CME is respectively 91.3–95% and 90% vs. 87% and 74% for non-CME. For laparoscopic CME the 3- and 5-year cancer-related survival is 87.8–97% and 79.5–80.2%. In stage UICC III the 3- and 5-year cancer-related survival is 83.9% and 80.8% in the Erlangen data of open technique vs. 75.4% and 65.5–71.7% for laparoscopic surgery. For stage UICC III the 3- and 5-year local tumor recurrence is 3.8%. The published data and the results from Erlangen demonstrate that CME is safe in experienced hands with no increased morbidity. It offers an obvious survival benefit for the patients which can be achieved solely by surgery. Teaching programs are needed for minimally invasive CME to facilitate this technique in the same quality compared to open surgery. Passing these challenges CME will become the standard of care for patients with colon carcinomas offering all benefits of minimally invasive surgery and oncological outcome.