Robotic left hemicolectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: Description of the technique and initial results

Minimally invasive left colectomy with total intracorporeal anastomosis versus extracorporeal anastomosis. A single center cohort study. Stage 2b IDEAL framework for evaluating surgical innovation

PURPOSE

Performing intracorporeal anastomoses in minimally invasive colon surgery appears to provide better short-term outcomes for patients with colon cancer. The aim of the study is to compare surgical aspects and short-term outcomes between intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques in left colectomies with both laparoscopic and robotic approaches and evaluate advantages and disadvantages of intracorporeal anastomosis according to IDEAL framework (Exploration, stage 2b).

METHODS

This is a single center, ambispective cohort study comparing total intracorporeal anastomosis (TIA) and standard surgery with extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). Patients with colon cancer treated by left colectomy, sigmoidectomy and high anterior resection by total intracorporeal anastomosis between May 2020 and January 2023 without exclusion criteria were prospectively included in a standardized database. Short-term outcomes in the group undergoing TIA were compared with a historical EA cohort. The main assessment outcomes were intraoperative complications, postoperative morbidity according to the Clavien-Dindo scale and the comparison of pathological. We conducted a preliminary comparative study within the TIA group between approaches, a primary analysis between the two anastomotic techniques, and a propensity score matched analysis including only the laparoscopic approach, between both anastomotic techniques.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-six patients were included: 103 who underwent TIA, 35 of them with laparoscopic approach and 68 with robotic approach, and a comparison group comprising another 103 eligible consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic EA. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of demographic variables. No statistically significant differences were observed in anastomotic dehiscence. Intraoperative complications are fewer in the TIA group, with a higher C-Reactive Protein levels. Relevant anastomotic bleeding and the number of retrieved lymph nodes were higher in EA group. Nevertheless, no differences were observed in terms of overall morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive left colectomy with intracorporeal resection and anastomosis is technically feasible and safe suing either a laparoscopic or a robotic approach. Clinical data from this cohort demonstrate outcomes comparable to those achieved through the conventional EA procedure in relation to postoperative morbidity and oncological efficacy, with indications suggesting that the utilization of robotic-assisted techniques may play a contributing role in enhancing overall treatment outcomes.

The deconstructed procedural description in robotic colorectal surgery

Increasing robotic surgical utilisation in colorectal surgery internationally has strengthened the need for standardised training. Deconstructed procedural descriptions identify components of an operation that can be integrated into proficiency-based progression training. This approach allows both access to skill level appropriate training opportunities and objective and comparable assessment. Robotic colorectal surgery has graded difficulty of operative procedures lending itself ideally to component training. Developing deconstructed procedural descriptions may assist in the structure and progression components in robotic colorectal surgical training. There is no currently published guide to procedural descriptions in robotic colorectal surgical or assessment of their training utility. This scoping review was conducted in June 2022 following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines to identify which robotic colorectal surgical procedures have available component-based procedural descriptions. Secondary aims were identifying the method of development of these descriptions and how they have been adapted in a training context. 20 published procedural descriptions were identified covering 8 robotic colorectal surgical procedures with anterior resection the most frequently described procedure. Five publications included descriptions of how the procedural description has been utilised for education and training. From these publications terminology relating to using deconstructed procedural descriptions in robotic colorectal surgical training is proposed. Development of deconstructed robotic colorectal procedural descriptions (DPDs) in an international context may assist in the development of a global curriculum of component operating competencies supported by objective metrics. This will allow for standardisation of robotic colorectal surgical training and supports a proficiency-based training approach.