Robotic rectal surgery has advantages over laparoscopic surgery in selected patients and centres

The Impact of a Modular Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision Training Program on Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes in Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

Structured training programs for robotic colorectal surgery are limited, and there are concerns about surgical outcomes and operating times.

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer performed by expert consultants and surgical trainees in a modular surgical training program.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTINGS

Conducted at a colorectal training referral center for robotic surgery.

PATIENTS

Consecutive robotic total mesorectal excision cases between May 2013 and December 2017 were evaluated retrospectively from a prospectively maintained institutional database and divided into 2 groups: group I comprised expert surgeons and group II comprised supervised trainees. Robotic total mesorectal excision training modules (5 modules) were performed stepwise with increasing complexity. Patients' demographic, perioperative, and oncological data were collected.

INTERVENTIONS

Modular robotic training.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Comparable R0 resection rate, lymph node harvest, and oncological outcomes between experts and trainees, suggesting good quality in oncological resection.

RESULTS

A total of 177 robotic total mesorectal excision resections were performed (group I: n = 80, group II: n = 97). Four trainees completed 37.5 modules each. Patients' age, sex, and BMI were similar between groups. Group II had a higher ASA III score (6.3% vs 25.8%, p = 0.002). Clinical TNM and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy rates were similar. Group II had a longer operative time (225 [197.5-297.5] vs 250 [230-300] minutes, p = 0.004). No conversion occurred. There were no differences in intra- or postoperative outcomes between groups. The rate of R0 resection and the number of harvested lymph nodes were also similar between groups. The median follow-up was 75 (64.0-81.7) and 47 (38.0-55.0) months, respectively. Local and distant recurrence rates, 5-year overall survival (81.1% group I vs 81.3% group II, p = 0.832), and 5-year disease-free survival (79.7% group I vs 80.7% group II, p = 0.725) were similar between groups.

LIMITATIONS

The groups operated in 2 consecutive periods.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic total mesorectal excision modular surgical training program maximizes training experience without significantly affecting the perioperative and oncological outcomes of patients with rectal cancer. See Video Abstract.

EL IMPACTO DEL PROGRAMA MODULAR DE ENTRENAMIENTO EN ESCISIN MESORRECTAL TOTAL ROBTICA EN LOS RESULTADOS PERIOPERATORIOS Y ONCOLGICOS EN LA CIRUGA ROBTICA DEL CNCER DE RECTO

ANTECEDENTES:Los programas de entrenamiento estructurados para la cirugía colorrectal robótica están limitados debido a preocupaciones sobre los resultados quirúrgicos y los tiempos de operación.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados perioperatorios y oncológicos de la escisión mesorrectal total robótica para el cáncer de recto realizada por consultores expertos y aprendices de cirugía en un programa modular de entrenamiento quirúrgica.DISEÑO:Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Realizado en un centro de referencia de entrenamiento colorrectal para cirugía robótica.PACIENTES:Se evaluaron retrospectivamente casos consecutivos de escisión mesorrectal total robótica entre mayo de 2013 y diciembre de 2017 a partir de una base de datos institucional mantenida prospectivamente y se dividieron en dos grupos: Grupo I: cirujanos expertos; Grupo II: aprendices supervisados. Los módulos de entrenamiento robótico de escisión mesorrectal total (cinco módulos) se realizaron paso a paso con complejidad creciente. Se recogieron datos demográficos, perioperatorios y oncológicos.INTERVENCIONES:Entrenamiento modular en robótica.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tasa de resección R0 comparable, extracción de ganglios linfáticos y resultados oncológicos entre expertos y aprendices que sugieren buena calidad en la resección oncológica.RESULTADOS:Se realizaron un total de 177 resecciones por escisión mesorrectal total robótica (Grupo I: n = 80, Grupo II: n = 97). Cuatro alumnos completaron 37,5 módulos cada uno. La edad, el sexo y el IMC fueron similares entre los grupos. El grupo II tuvo una puntuación más alta de la Sociedad Americana de Anestesiólogos III (6,3% frente a 25,8%, p = 0,002). Las tasas clínicas de TNM y quimiorradioterapia neoadyuvante fueron similares. El grupo II tuvo mayor tiempo operatorio (225 (197,5-297,5) vs 250 (230-300) minutos, p = 0,004). No se produjo ninguna conversión. No hubo diferencias en los resultados intra o posoperatorios entre los grupos. La tasa de resección R0 y el número de ganglios linfáticos extraídos también fueron similares entre los grupos. La mediana de seguimiento fue de 75 (64,0-81,7) y 47 (38,0-55,0) meses, respectivamente. Tasas de recurrencia local y a distancia, supervivencia general a 5 años (81,1% Grupo I vs. 81,3% Grupo II, p = 0,832) y supervivencia libre de enfermedad a 5 años (79,7% Grupo I vs. 80,7% Grupo II, p = 0,725) fueron similares entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:Los grupos operaron en dos períodos consecutivos.CONCLUSIONES:El programa de entrenamiento quirúrgico modular para la escisión mesorrectal total robótica maximiza la experiencia de capacitación sin afectar significativamente los resultados perioperatorios y oncológicos de los pacientes con cáncer de recto. (Traducción-Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez).

Robotic Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection in Rectal Cancer: A Feasibility Study from a European Centre

INTRODUCTION

The role of robotic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) for lateral pelvic nodal disease (LPND) in rectal cancer has yet to be investigated in the Western hemisphere. This study aims to investigate the safety and feasibility of robotic LPLND by utilising a well-established totally robotic TME protocol.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study on 17 consecutive patients who underwent robotic LPLND for LPND ± TME for rectal cancer between 2015 and 2021. A single docking totally robotic approach from the left hip with full splenic mobilisation was performed using the X/Xi da Vinci platform. All patients underwent a tri-compartmental robotic en bloc excision of LPND with preservation of the obturator nerve and pelvic nerve plexus, leaving a well-skeletonised internal iliac vessel and its branches.

RESULTS

The median operative time was 280 min, which was 40 min longer than our standard robotic TME. The median BMI was 26, and there were no conversions. The median inpatient stay was 7 days with no Clavien-Dindo > 3 complications. One patient (6%) developed local recurrence and metastatic disease within 5 months. The proportion of histologically confirmed LPND was 41%, of which 94% were well to moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. Median pre-operative lateral pelvic node size was significantly higher in positive nodes (14 mm vs. 8 mm (p = 0.01)). All patients had clear resection margins on histology.

DISCUSSION

Robotic LPLND is safe and feasible with good peri-operative and short-term outcomes, with the ergonomic advantages of a robotic TME docking protocol readily transferrable in LPLND.

Current status of robotic surgery in colorectal residency training programs

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery (RS) has been increasingly incorporated into colorectal surgery (CRS) training. The degree to which RS has been integrated into CRS residency training is not well described.

METHODS

A web-based survey was sent to all 2019 accredited CRS residency programs within the United States and Canada. Program directors (PDs) were queried on how robotic surgery had been integrated into their program, specifics on RS curriculum and opinions on RS training during general surgery residency. We compared survey responses by program type (university-based, university-affiliated programs, or independent programs) and by geographic region. In addition, a chi-square test was used to evaluate differences in survey responses with respect to robotic curriculum components.

RESULTS

Of 66 programs, 42 (64%) responded to the survey. Of the responding programs, 35 (83%) were university-based or university-affiliated, while 7 (17%) were independent. Most programs were in the Midwest (33%). Forty-one (98%) reported having a surgical robot in use at their institution, with 95% reporting active participation of CRS residents in RS. While 74% of programs have a formal RS training curriculum for CRS residents, there was considerable variability in the curriculum elements employed by each institution, and the differences in proportions of these elements were significant (χ2 99.8, p < 0.001). The median operative approach to abdominopelvic cases was estimated to be 33% robotic, 40% laparoscopic and 20% open. There were no significant differences in the survey responses between university/university-affiliated and independent programs (p > 0.05) or among the different regions (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that almost all CRS residencies have integrated RS and have trainees operating at the robotic console. Most programs have a robotics curriculum and there are expanding indications for RS within CRS. This expansion calls for discussion on implementation of training standards such as curricular requisites, baseline competency assessments, and definitions of minimum case requirements to ensure adequate training.

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

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