Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome

A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing the efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in obese patients

This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and contrast the effectiveness of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the treatment of obese patients. In February 2024, we carried out an exhaustive search of key global databases including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, limiting our focus to studies published in English and Chinese. We excluded reviews, protocols lacking published results, articles derived solely from conference abstracts, and studies not relevant to our research objectives. To analyze categorical variables, we utilized the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method along with random-effects models, calculating inverse variances and presenting the outcomes as odds ratios (ORs) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical significance was determined when p values were less than 0.05. In our final meta-analysis, we included eight cohort studies, encompassing a total of 5,004 patients. When comparing the robotic surgery group to the laparoscopic group, the findings revealed that the robotic group experienced a longer operative time (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 37.53 min, 95% (CI) 15.58-59.47; p = 0.0008), a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -0.68 days, 95% CI -1.25 to -0.10; p = 0.02), and reduced blood loss (WMD = -49.23 mL, 95% CI -64.31 to -34.14; p < 0.00001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding overall complications, conversion rates, surgical site infections, readmission rates, lymph node yield, anastomotic leakage, and intestinal obstruction. The results of our study indicate that robot-assisted colorectal surgery offers benefits for obese patients by shortening the length of hospital stay and minimizing blood loss when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Nonetheless, it is associated with longer operation times and shows no significant difference in terms of overall complications, conversion rates, rehospitalization rates, and other similar metrics.

Robotic colorectal surgery and future directions

As the adoption of robotic-assisted procedures expands across various surgical specialties, colorectal surgery stands out as a prominent beneficiary. This rise in usage can be traced back to the increased accessibility of robotic platforms and a growing institutional shift towards cutting-edge surgical methods. When compared with traditional laparoscopic methods, robotic techniques offer distinct advantages. Their true potential shines in surgeries involving complex anatomical regions, where the robot's enhanced dexterity and range of motion prove invaluable. The three-dimensional, magnified view provided by robotic systems further boosts surgical precision and clarity. These advantages render robotic assistance especially suitable for colorectal surgeries, notably in intricate areas such as the rectum and endoluminal spaces. As the medical world emphasizes minimally invasive surgical methods, there's a pressing need to evolve and optimize robotic techniques in colorectal surgery. This article traces the evolution of robotic interventions in colorectal surgeries, highlighting both its historical milestones and anticipated future trends. We'll also explore emerging robotic tools and systems set to reshape the colorectal surgical arena.

Contemporary management of rectal cancer

The management of rectal cancer has undergone significant changes over the past 50 years, and this has been associated with major improvements in overall outcomes and quality of life. From standardization of total mesorectal excision to refinements in radiation delivery and shifting of chemoradiotherapy treatment to favor a neoadjuvant approach, as well as the development of targeted chemotherapeutics, these management strategies have continually aimed to achieve locoregional and systemic control while limiting adverse effects and enhance overall survival. This article highlights evolving aspects of rectal cancer therapy including improved staging modalities, total neoadjuvant therapy, the role of short-course and more selective radiotherapy strategies, as well as organ preservation. We also discuss the evolving role of minimally invasive surgery and comment on lateral pelvic lymph node dissection.

Key message

Rectal cancer management is constantly evolving through refinements in radiation timing and delivery, modification of chemoradiotherapy treatment schedules, and increasing utilization of minimally invasive surgical techniques and organ preservation strategies. This manuscript aims to provide a synopsis of recent changes in the management of rectal cancer, highlighting contemporary modifications in neoadjuvant approaches and surgical management to enhance the knowledge of surgeons who care for this challenging population.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic approach in rectal cancer: a single-center short-term analysis based on the learning curve

As a novel procedure becomes more and more used, knowledge about its learning curve and its impact on outcomes is useful for future implementations. Our aim is (i) to identify the phases of the robotic rectal surgery learning process and assess the safety and oncological outcomes during that period, (ii) to compare the robotic rectal surgery learning phases outcomes with laparoscopic rectal resections performed before the implementation of the robotic surgery program. We performed a retrospective study, based on a prospectively maintained database, with methodological quality assessment by STROBE checklist. All the procedures were performed by the same two surgeons. A total of 157 robotic rectal resections from June 2018 to January 2022 and 97 laparoscopic rectal resections from January 2018 to July 2019 were included. The learning phase was completed at case 26 for surgeon A, 36 for surgeon B, and 60 for the center (both A & B). There were no differences in histopathological results or postoperative complications between phases, achieving the same ratio of mesorectal quality, circumferential and distal resection margins as the laparoscopic approach. A transitory increase of major complications and anastomotic leakage could occur once overcoming the learning phase, secondary to the progressive complexity of cases. Robotic rectal cancer surgery learning curve phases in experienced laparoscopic surgeons was completed after 25-35 cases. Implementation of a robotic rectal surgery program is safe in oncologic terms, morbidity, mortality and length of stay.

Comparative analysis of short-term outcomes and oncological results between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer by multiple surgeon implementation: a propensity score-matched analysis

Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is becoming increasingly common for the surgical treatment of rectal cancer. However, the use and implementation of robotic surgery remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic surgery, focusing on pathological results and disease-free survival (DFS), in our cohort with initial robotic experience by multiple surgeon implementation. This retrospective study enrolled 571 patients diagnosed with rectal cancer, who were treated with chemoradiotherapy and surgery between January 2015 and December 2021. Surgical outcomes after RAS and laparoscopic surgery (LS) were compared using a propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis. After matching, 200 patients (100 in each group) were included. The median operative time was significantly longer in the RAS group than in the LS group (p < 0.001). The conversion and morbidity rates were similar between the groups. A significantly higher rate of complete mesorectal excision (92% vs. 72%; p = 0.001) and number of lymph nodes harvested (p = 0.009) was observed in the RAS group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding circumferential and distal resection margin involvement. The 3-year overall and disease-free survival rate was similar between the two groups (p = 0.849 and p = 0.582, respectively). Two patients in the LS group developed local recurrence and 27 patients (15.4%) developed metastatic disease. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor stage III was the only factor associated with disease-free survival (HR, 9.34; (95% CI 1.13-77.1), p = 0.038). RAS and LS showed similar outcomes in terms of perioperative, anatomopathological, and disease-free survival, after multiple surgeon implementations.

Comparing minimally invasive surgical and open approaches to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies - Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex multivisceral surgical procedure indicated for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. It poses significant technical challenges which account for the high risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. Developments in minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches and enhanced peri-operative care have facilitated improved long term outcomes. However, the optimum approach to PE remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify studies comparing MIS (robotic or laparoscopic) approaches for PE versus the open approach for patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed systematically and a meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

11 studies were identified, including 2009 patients, of whom 264 (13.1%) underwent MIS PE approaches. The MIS group displayed comparable R0 resections (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 0.98, 1.07, p = 0.35)) and Lymph node yield (Weighted Mean Difference [WMD] 1.42, 95% CI -0.58, 3.43, p = 0.16), and although MIS had a trend towards improved towards improved survival and recurrence outcomes, this did not reach statistical significance. MIS was associated with prolonged operating times (WMD 67.93, 95% CI 4.43, 131.42, p < 0.00001) however, this correlated with less intra-operative blood loss, and a shorter length of post-operative stay (WMD -3.89, 955 CI -6.53, -1.25, p < 0.00001). Readmission rates were higher with MIS (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.11, 4.02, p = 0.02), however, rates of pelvic abscess/sepsis were decreased (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21, 0.95, p = 0.04), and there was no difference in overall, major, or specific morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

MIS approaches are a safe and feasible option for PE, with no differences in survival or recurrence outcomes compared to the open approach. MIS also reduced the length of post-operative stay and decreased blood loss, offset by increased operating time.

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Low Rectal Cancer: A Narrative Review and Description of the Technique

Robotic surgery may offer significant advantages for treating extraperitoneal rectal cancer. Although laparoscopy has been shown to be safe and effective, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) remains technically challenging and is still performed in selected centers. Robotic anterior resection (RAR) may overcome the drawback of conventional laparoscopy, providing high-quality surgery with favorable oncological outcomes. Moreover, recent data show how RAR offers clinical and oncological benefits when affording difficult TMEs, such as low and advanced rectal tumors, in terms of complication rate, specimen quality, recurrence rate, and survival. This series aims to review the most recent and relevant literature, reporting mid- and long-term oncological outcomes and focusing on minimally invasive RAR for low rectal cancer.

Comparison of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery in short-terms outcomes of middle rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery is becoming less invasive as technology advances. Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) ushered in a new era of minimally invasive techniques. At the same time, NOSES is gaining popularity in the world. With their distinct advantages, surgical robots have advanced the development of NOSES. The aim of current study was to compare the short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted NOSES and laparoscopic-assisted NOSES for the treatment of middle rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients with middle rectal cancer who underwent robotic-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted NOSES at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between January 2020 and June 2022 had their clinicopathological data collected retrospectively. 46 patients were enrolled in the study: 23 in the robotic group and 23 in the laparoscopic group. Short-term outcomes and postoperative anal function in the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the clinicopathological data between the two groups. The robotic group had less intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.04), less postoperative abdominal drainage (p = 0.02), lower postoperative white blood cell counts (p = 0.024) and C-reactive protein levels (p = 0.017), and shorter catheter removal time when compared to the laparoscopic group (p = 0.003). Furthermore, there were no significant difference in mean operative time (159 ± 31 min vs 172 ± 41 min) between the robotic and laparoscopic groups (p = 0.235), but time to naked the rectum (86.4 ± 20.9 min vs. 103.8 ± 31.5 min p = 0.033) and time of digestive tract reconstruction (15.6 ± 3.88 min vs. 22.1 ± 2.81 min p < 0.01) in the robotic group were significantly shorter than laparoscopic group. The robotic group had lower postoperative Wexner scores than the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

This research reveals that combining a robotic surgical system and NOSES results in superior outcomes, with short-term outcomes preferable to laparoscopic-assisted NOSES.

Short-term outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis surgery: a propensity score match study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery offers improved short-term outcomes over open surgery but can be technically challenging. Robotic surgery has been increasingly used for IPAA surgery, but there is limited evidence supporting its use. This study aims to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic IPAA procedures.

METHODS

All consecutive patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic IPAA surgery at 3 centres, from 3 countries, between 2008 and 2019 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for gender, previous abdominal surgery, ASA grade (I, II vs III, IV) and procedure performed (proctocolectomy vs completion proctectomy). Their short-term outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients were identified (73 laparoscopic, 16 robotic). The 16 patients that received robotic surgery were matched with 15 laparoscopic patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated short-term outcomes. Length of stay trend was higher for laparoscopic surgery (9 vs 7 days, p = 0.072) CONCLUSION: Robotic IPAA surgery is safe and feasible and offers similar short-term outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Length of stay may be lower for robotic IPAA surgery, but further larger scale studies are required in order to demonstrate this.

Should minimally invasive approaches in rectal surgery be regarded as a key element of modern enhanced recovery perioperative care?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of study was to assess the impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol and minimally invasive approaches on short-term outcomes in rectal surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A consecutive series of patients that underwent open or minimally invasive rectal resections in a single institution between January 2015 and April 2020 were included in the study. An ERAS program was introduced in April 2016. The study cohort was divided into three groups: open surgery without ERAS, open surgery with ERAS, and minimally invasive surgery with ERAS. Outcome measures compared were recovery parameters, surgical stress parameters, 30-day morbidity and mortality, oncological radicality and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 202 patients were included: 43 in the open non-ERAS group, 92 in the open ERAS group and 67 in the minimally invasive ERAS group. All recovery parameters apart from postoperative nausea and vomiting were significantly improved in both ERAS groups. Surgical stress parameters, prolonged postoperative ileus, and hospital stay were significantly reduced in the minimally invasive ERAS group. The overall 30-day morbidity and mortality and oncological radicality did not significantly differ among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive approaches and enhanced recovery care in rectal surgery improve short-term outcomes. Their combination leads to an improvement in recovery parameters and a reduction of prolonged postoperative ileus and hospital stay.

Implementation of robotic rectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional nationwide study

AIM

An increasing number of centers have implemented a robotic surgical program for rectal cancer. Several randomized controls trials have shown similar oncological and postoperative outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic resections. While introducing a robot rectal resection program seems safe, there are no data regarding implementation on a nationwide scale. Since 2018 robot resections are separately registered in the mandatory Dutch Colorectal Audit. The present study aims to evaluate the trend in the implementation of robotic resections (RR) for rectal cancer relative to laparoscopic rectal resections (LRR) in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2020 and to compare the differences in outcomes between the operative approaches.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2018 and 2020 were selected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. The data included patient characteristics, disease characteristics, surgical procedure details, postoperative outcomes. The outcomes included any complication within 90 days after surgery; data were categorized according to surgical approach.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2020, 6330 patients were included in the analyses. 1146 patients underwent a RR (18%), 3312 patients a LRR (51%), 526 (8%) an open rectal resection, 641 a TaTME (10%), and 705 had a local resection (11%). The proportion of males and distal tumors was higher in the RR compared to the LRR. Over time, the proportion of robotic procedures increased from 15% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 13-16%) in 2018 to 22% (95% CI 20-24%) in 2020. Conversion rate was lower in the robotic group [4% (95% CI 3-5%) versus 7% (95% CI 6-8%)]. Anastomotic leakage rate was similar with 16%. Defunctioning ileostomies were more common in the RR group [42% (95% CI 38-46%) versus 29% (95% CI 26-31%)].

CONCLUSION

Rectal resections are increasingly being performed through a robot-assisted approach in the Netherlands. The proportion of males and low rectal cancers was higher in RR compared to LRR. Overall outcomes were comparable, while conversion rate was lower in RR, the proportion of defunctioning ileostomies was higher compared to LRR.

Robotic vs laparoscopic approach for single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy: a propensity score matching analysis

Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) are technically demanding hypo-absorptive bariatric procedures. They are often indicated in superobese patients (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m²), as robotic platform could improve ergonomics against a thick abdominal wall, preventing bending of instruments and simplifying hand-sewn anastomoses. We aimed to report our experience with robotic SADI-S (R-group) and to compare outcomes with the laparoscopic (L-group) approach. Among 2143 patients who underwent bariatric procedures at our institution between July 2016 and June 2021, 116 (5.4%) consenting patients were scheduled for SADI-S as primary or revisional procedure: 94 L-group, 22 R-group. R-group and L-group patients were matched using PSM analysis to overcome patients selection bias. Postoperative complications, operative time (OT), post-operative stay (POS) and follow-up data were compared. After PSM, 44 patients (22 patients for each group) were compared (Chi-square 0.317, p = 0.985). Median age, gender, median BMI, preoperative rates of comorbidities, previous abdominal bariatric and non-bariatric surgeries and type of surgical procedures (SADI-S/SADI) were comparable. Median OT was shorter in the L-group (130 Vs 191 min, p < 0.001). 30-days' re-operative complications and late complications rates were comparable. At 25-months' mean follow-up, the median Percentage Excess Weight Loss (72%) was comparable between the groups (p = 0.989). L-group and R-group were comparable in terms of re-operative complication rate and short-term outcomes. The robotic platform may increase the rate of single step procedure in challenging cases. Larger studies with longer follow-up and cost-analysis are necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

Outcomes of open vs laparoscopic vs robotic vs transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be achieved using open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or transanal techniques (TaTME). However, the optimal approach for access remains controversial. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to assess operative and oncological outcomes of all four surgical techniques.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched systematically from inception to September 2020, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two TME surgical techniques. A network meta-analysis using a Bayesian random-effects framework and mixed treatment comparison was performed. Primary outcomes were the rate of clear circumferential resection margin (CRM), defined as > 1 mm from the closest tumour to the cut edge of the tissue, and completeness of mesorectal excision. Secondary outcomes included radial and distal resection margin distance, postoperative complications, locoregional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to rank the relative effectiveness of each intervention for each outcome. The higher the SUCRA value, the higher the likelihood that the intervention is in the top rank or one of the top ranks.

RESULTS

Thirty-two RCTs with a total of 6151 patients were included. Compared with OpTME, there was no difference in the rates of clear CRM: LapTME RR = 0.99 (95% (Credible interval) CrI 0.97-1.0); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1). There was no difference in the rates of complete mesorectal excision: LapTME RR = 0.98 (95% CrI 0.98-1.1); RoTME RR = 1.1 (95% CrI 0.98-1.4); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.91-1.2). RoTME was associated with improved distal resection margin distance compared to other techniques (SUCRA 99%). LapTME had a higher rate of conversion to open surgery when compared with RoTME: RoTME RR = 0.23 (95% CrI 0.034-0.70). Length of stay was shortest in RoTME compared to other surgical approaches: OpTME mean difference in days (MD) 3.3 (95% CrI 0.12-6.0); LapTME MD 1.7 (95% CrI - 1.1-4.4); TaTME MD 1.3 (95% CrI - 5.2-7.4). There were no differences in 5-year overall survival (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.74, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.7, 95% CrI 0.79, 3.4), disease-free survival rates (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.76, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.52, 2.4), or anastomotic leakage (LapTME RR = 0.92 (95% CrI 0.63, 1.1); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.48, 1.8); TaTME RR = 0.53 (95% CrI 0.19, 1.2). The overall quality of evidence as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments across all outcomes including primary and secondary outcomes was deemed low.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients eligible for a RCT, RoTME achieved improved distal resection margin distance and a shorter length of hospital stay. No other differences were observed in oncological or recovery parameters between (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or trans-anal TME (TaTME). However, the overall quality of evidence across all outcomes was deemed low.

Outcomes and Cost Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopy for abdominoperineal resection has been well defined, the literature lacks comparative studies on robotic abdominoperineal resection. Because robotic abdominoperineal resections typically do not require splenic mobilization or an anastomosis for reconstruction, the mean console time is expected to be shorter than low anterior resection. We hypothesized that robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection would provide similar oncologic and financial outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to compare the perioperative, oncologic, and economic outcomes of the robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective, case-matched patient cohort.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

This study included all patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic abdominoperineal resections between January 2008 and April 2017; they were case-matched in a 1:1 ratio based on age ±5 years, BMI ±3 kg/m 2 , and sex criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Perioperative, oncologic, and economic (including survival) outcomes were compared. Because of institutional policy, actual cost values are presented as the lowest direct cost value as "100%," and other values are presented as proportional to the index value.

RESULTS

We examined 68 patients (34 in each group). Both groups had similar preoperative characteristics, including preoperative chemoradiation rates. Operative time (319 vs 309 min), length of stay (7.2 vs 7.4 d), postoperative complications (38.2% vs 41.2%), conversion to open (5 vs 4), complete mesorectal excision (76.4% vs 79.4%), radial margin involvement (2.9% vs 8.9%), and direct hospital cost parameters (mean difference 26%, median difference 43%) were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection groups, respectively (all p > 0.05). Local recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates (85.3% vs 76.5%) were also similar after 22 months of follow-up between the groups.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature and the variety in concomitant procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic abdominoperineal resections provided in carefully matched patients with rectal cancer showed similar perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes compared to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections. Our study was not powered to detect a significant increase in cost with robotic abdominoperineal resections. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B920 .

RESULTADOS Y ANLISIS DE COSTO DE LA RESECCIN ABDOMINOPERINEAL LAPAROSCPICA VS LA ROBTICA EN CASOS DE CNCER DE RECTO ESTUDIO DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS

ANTECEDENTES:Si bien la resección abdominoperineal laparoscópica está bien definida, la literatura carece de estudios comparativos sobre la resección abdominoperineal robótica. Dado que las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas generalmente no requieren movilización esplénica o una anastomosis en casos de reconstrucción, se supone que el tiempo medio en la consola sea más corto que durante una resección anterior baja. Hipotéticamente las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas y laparoscópicas nos proporcionarían resultados oncológicos y económicos similares.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados perioperatorios, oncológicos y económicos de la resección abdominoperineal robótica y laparoscópica.DISEÑO:Esta fue una cohorte de pacientes retrospectiva, emparejada por casos.AJUSTE:Estudio realizado en un centro de referencia terciario.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resecciones abdominoperineales LAParoscópicas o ROBóticas entre Enero de 2008 y Abril de 2017 fueron identificados y emparejados según la edad ±5, el IMC ±3 y los criterios de sexo en una proporción de 1:1.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se compararon los resultados perioperatorios, oncológicos y económicos (incluida la sobrevida). Debido a la política institucional, los valores de costos reales se presentan como el valor de costo directo más bajo al 100% y los otros valores se presentan como proporcionales al valor índice.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron 68 pacientes (LAP-34 y ROB-34). Ambos grupos tenían características preoperatorias similares, incluidas las tasas de radio-quimioterapia pre-operatoria. Los tiempos operatorios fueron de 319 y 309 minutos, la estadía hospitalaria de 7 días en los dos grupos, las complicaciones post-operatorias fueron de 38,2% LAP frente a 41,2% ROB, la tasa de conversion fué de 5 a 4, la excisión total del mesorrecto de 76,4% frente a 79,4%, la resección radial con afectación de los márgenes de 2,9% frente a 8,9% y los parámetros de costes hospitalarios directos (diferencia de medias 26%, diferencia de medianas 43%) fueron comparables entre los grupos, de resección abdominoperineal robótica y laparoscópica, respectivamente (todos p > 0,05). Las tasas de recurrencia local, sobrevida libre de enfermedad y sobrevida general (85,3% frente a 76,5%) también fueron similares después de 22 meses de seguimiento entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:La naturaleza retrospectiva y la variedad de procedimientos concomitantes fueron las principales limitaciones de este estudio.CONCLUSIONES:Las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas proporcionaron resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a corto plazo similares en pacientes con cáncer de recto cuidadosamente emparejados en comparación con las resecciones abdominoperineales laparoscópicas. Nuestro estudio no fue diseñado para detectar un aumento significativo en el costo relacionado con la resección abdominoperineal robótica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B920 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S): experience from a high-bariatric volume center

Purpose

Biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch and single anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADI-S) are technically demanding hypo-absorptive bariatric procedures generally indicated in super-obese patients (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2). Data from the literature prove the procedure to be safe and effective, with promising bariatric and metabolic effects. Anyway, international societies support the creation of multicentric national and international registries to obtain more homogeneous data over the long period. We aimed to report our experience with this procedure.

Methods

Among 2313 patients who underwent bariatric procedures at our institution, between July 2016 and August 2021, 121 (5.2%) consenting patients were scheduled for SADI-S as primary (SADIS) or revisional procedure after sleeve gastrectomy (SADI) (respectively 87 and 34 patients). Early and late post-operative complications, operative time, post-operative stay, and follow-up data were analyzed.

Results

Overall, the median preoperative BMI was 52.3 (48.75–57.05) kg/m2 with a median age of 44 (39–51) years, the median operative time was 120 (100–155) min. Complications at 30th-day post-op were registered in 4 (3.3%) patients and late complications in 4 (3.3%) patients. At a median follow-up of 31 (14–39) months, the median percentage excess weight loss was 79.8 (55.15–91.45)%, and the median total weight loss was 57.0650 (43.3925–71.3475)%.

Conclusion

Our data, coherently with the literature, confirm that SADI-S is a safe, effective procedure with acceptable complications rate. Larger studies with longer follow-ups are necessary to draw definitive conclusions.

Early experience with the ARTISENTIAL® articulated instruments in laparoscopic low anterior resection with TME

Background

The notion of articulation in surgery has been largely synonymous with robotics. The ARTISENTIAL^® instruments aim at bringing advanced articulation to laparoscopy to overcome challenges in narrow anatomical spaces. In this paper, we present first single-center results of a series of low anterior resections, performed with ARTISENTIAL^®.

Methods

Between September 2020 and August 2021, at the Department of Surgery, St. Marienkrankenhaus Siegen, Siegen, Germany, patients with cancer of the mid- and low rectum were prospectively enrolled in a pilot feasibility study to evaluate the ARTISENTIAL^® articulated instruments in performing a laparoscopic low anterior resection. Perioperative and short-term postoperative data were analyzed.

Results

Seventeen patients (10 males/7 females) were enrolled in this study. The patients had a median age of 66 years (range 47–80 years) and a median body mass index of 28 kg/m² (range 23–33 kg/m²). The median time to rectal transection was 155 min (range 118–280 min) and the median total operative time was 276 min (range 192–458 min). The median estimated blood loss was 30 ml (range 5–70 ml) and there were no conversions to laparotomy. The median number of harvested lymph nodes was 15 (range 12–28). Total mesorectal excision (TME) quality was ‘good’ in all patients with no cases of circumferential resection margin involvement (R0 = 100%). The median length of stay was 9 days (range 7–14 days). There were no anastomotic leaks and the overall complication rate was 17.6%. There was one unrelated readmission with no mortality.

Conclusions

Low anterior resection with ARTISENTIAL^® is feasible and safe. All patients had a successful TME procedure with a good oncological outcome. We will now seek to evaluate the benefits of ARTISENTIAL^® in comparison with standard laparoscopic instruments through a larger study.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10151-022-02588-y.

Effects of surgical approach on short- and long-term outcomes in early-stage rectal cancer: a multicenter, propensity score-weighted cohort study

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials have been unable to demonstrate noninferiority of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to assess oncologic resection success, short- and long-term morbidity, and overall survival by operative approach in a homogenous early-stage rectal cancer cohort.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, propensity score-weighted cohort study utilizing deidentified data from the National Cancer Database. Individuals who underwent a formal proctectomy for early-stage rectal cancer (T1-2, N0, M0) from 2010 to 2015 were included. The primary outcome was a composite variable indicating successful oncologic resection stratified by operative approach, defined as negative margins with at least 12 lymph nodes evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 3649 proctectomies for rectal adenocarcinoma, 1660 (45%) were approached open, 1461 (40%) laparoscopically, and 528 (15%) robotically. After propensity score weighting, compared to open approach, there were no differences in odds of successful oncologic resection (OR_adj = 1.07, 95% CI 0.9, 1.28 and OR_adj = 1.28, 95% CI 0.97, 1.7). Open approach was associated with longer mean (± SD) length of stay compared to laparoscopic (7.7 ± 0.18 vs. 6.5 ± 0.25 days, p < 0.001) and robotic (7.7 ± 0.18 vs. 6.3 ± 0.35 days, p < 0.001) approaches. In regard to 90-day mortality, compared to open approach, laparoscopic (OR_adj = 0.56, 95% CI 0.36, 0.88) and robotic (OR_adj = 0.45, 95% CI 0.22, 0.94) approaches were associated with a reduced odd of 90-day mortality. This mortality benefit persists in the long-term for laparoscopic approach (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

For individuals with early-stage rectal cancer treated with proctectomy, successful oncologic resection can be achieved irrespective of technical approach. Minimally invasive approaches provide short-term reduction in morbidity. Surgical approach must be tailored to each patient based on surgeon experience and judgement in collaboration with a multi-disciplinary team.

Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: What We Learned in the Last Two Decades and the Future Perspectives

The advancement in surgical techniques, optimization of systemic chemoradiotherapy, and development of refined diagnostic and imaging modalities have brought a phenomenal shift in the treatment of the locally advanced rectal cancer. Although each therapeutic option has shown substantial progress in their field, it is finding their ideal amalgamation which has baffled the clinician and researchers alike. In the effort to identifying the perfect salutary treatment plan, we have even shifted our attention from the trimodal approach to non-operative "watchful waiting" to more recent individualized care. In this article, we acknowledge the scientific progress in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer and compare the opportunities as well as the obstacles while implementing them clinically. We also explore the current challenges and controversies surrounding the multidisciplinary approach and highlight the new trends and recent advances with an ultimate goal to improve the patients' quality of life.

Systemic inflammatory response in robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer (SIRIRALS): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Robot-assisted surgery is being increasingly adopted in treating colorectal cancer, and the transition from laparoscopic surgery to robot-assisted surgery is a trend. The evidence of the benefits of robot-assisted surgery is sparse. However, findings are associated with improved patient-related outcomes and overall morbidity rates compared to laparoscopic surgery. This induction is unclear, considering both surgical modalities are characterized as minimally invasive. This study aims to evaluate the systemic and peritoneal inflammatory stress response induced by robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery for elective colon cancer resections in a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial.

Methods

This study is a single-centre randomized controlled superiority trial with 50 colon cancer participants. The primary endpoint is the level of systemic inflammatory response expressed as serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels between postoperative days one and three. Secondary endpoints include (i) levels of systemic inflammation in serum expressed by a panel of inflammatory and pro-inflammatory cytokines measured during the first three postoperative days, (ii) postoperative surgical and medical complications (30 days) according to Clavien-Dindo classification and Comprehensive Complication Index, (iii) intraoperative blood loss, (iv) conversion rate to open surgery, (v) length of surgery, (vi) operative time, (vii) the number of harvested lymph nodes, and (viii) length of hospital stay. The exploratory endpoints are (i) levels of peritoneal inflammatory response in peritoneal fluid expressed by inflammatory and pro-inflammatory cytokines between postoperative day one and three, (ii) patient-reported health-related quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15), (iii) 30 days mortality rate, (iv) heart rate variability and (v) gene transcript (mRNA) analysis.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first clinical randomized controlled trial to clarify the inflammatory stress response induced by robot-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer resections.

Trial registration This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04687384) on December, 29, 2020, Regional committee on health research ethics, Region of Southern Denmark (N75709) and Data Protection Agency, Hospital Sønderjylland, University Hospital of Southern Denmark (N20/46179).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12893-021-01355-4.

Brazilian society of surgical oncology: Guidelines for the surgical treatment of mid-low rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer in North America, Western Europe, and Brazil, and represents an important public health problem. It is estimated that approximately 30% of all the CRC cases correspond to tumors located in the rectum, requiring complex multidisciplinary treatment. In an effort to provide surgeons who treat rectal cancer with the most current information based on the best evidence in the literature, the Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology (SBCO) has produced the present guidelines for rectal cancer treatment that is focused on the main topics related to daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The SBCO developed the present guidelines to provide recommendations on the main topics related to the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer based on current scientific evidence.

METHODS

Between May and June 2021, 11 experts in CRC surgery met to develop the guidelines for the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer. A total of 22 relevant topics were disseminated among the participants. The methodological quality of a final list with 221 sources was evaluated, all the evidence was examined and revised, and the treatment guideline was formulated by the 11-expert committee. To reach a final consensus, all the topics were reviewed via a videoconference meeting that was attended by all 11 of the experts.

RESULTS

The prepared guidelines contained 22 topics considered to be highly relevant in the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer, covering subjects related to the tests required for staging, surgical technique-related aspects, recommended measures to reduce surgical complications, neoadjuvant strategies, and nonoperative treatments. In addition, a checklist was proposed to summarize the important information and offer an updated tool to assist surgeons who treat rectal cancer provide the best care to their patients.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines summarize concisely the recommendations based on the most current scientific evidence on the most relevant aspects of the treatment of mid-low rectal cancer and are a practical guide that can help surgeons who treat rectal cancer make the best therapeutic decision.

Technical essential aspects in robotic colorectal surgery: mastering the Da Vinci Si and Xi platforms

BACKGROUND

laparoscopy surgery has many proven clinical advantages over conventional surgery and more recently, robotic surgery has been the emerging platform in the minimally invasive era. In the colorectal field, although overcoming limitations of standard laparoscopy, robotic surgery still faces challenging situations even by the most experienced colorectal surgeons. This study reports essentials technical aspects and comparison between Da Vincis Si and Xi platforms aiming to master and maximize efficiency whenever performing robotic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

this study overviews the most structured concepts and practical applications in robotic colorectal surgery in both Si and Xi Da Vinci platforms. Possible pitfalls are emphasized and step-wise approach is described from port placement and docking process to surgical technique. We also present data collected from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

our early experience includes forty-four patients following a standardized total robotic left-colon and rectal resection. Guided information and practical applications for a safe and efficient robotic colorectal surgery are described. We also present illustrations and describe technical aspects of a standardized procedure.

CONCLUSION

performing robotic colorectal surgery is feasible and safe in experienced surgeons hands. Although the Da Vinci Xi platform demonstrates greater versatility in a more user-friendly design with technological advances, the correct mastery of technology by the surgical team is an essential condition for its fully robotic execution in a single docking approach.

Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Resection for Sigmoid and Rectal Cancer: Analysis of 109 Patients From a Single Center in China

Background: Robotic colorectal surgery has been increasingly performed in recent years. The safety and feasibility of its application has also been demonstrated worldwide.However, limited studies have presented clinical data for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving robotic surgery in China. The aim of this study is to present short-term clinical outcomes of robotic surgery and further confirm its safety and feasibility in Chinese CRC patients.

Methods: The clinical data of 109 consecutive CRC patients who received robotic surgery at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between June 2016 and May 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics,tumor traits, treatment details, complications, pathological details, and survival status were evaluated.

Results: Among the 109 patients, 35 (32.1%) had sigmoid cancer, and 74 (67.9%) had rectal cancer. Thirty-seven (33.9%) patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Ten (9.2%) patients underwent sigmoidectomy, 38 (34.9%) underwent high anterior resection (HAR), 45 (41.3%) underwent low anterior resection (LAR), and 16 (14.7%) underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR). The median surgical procedure time was 270 min (range 120–465 min). Pathologically complete resection was achieved in all patients. There was no postoperative mortality. Complications occurred in 11 (10.1%) patients, including 3 (2.8%) anastomotic leakage, 1 (0.9%) anastomotic bleeding, 1 (0.9%) pelvic hemorrhage, 4 (3.7%) intestinal obstruction, 2 (1.8%) chylous leakage, and 1 (0.9%) delayed wound union. At a median follow-up of 17 months (range 1–37 months), 1 (0.9%) patient developed local recurrence and 5 (4.6%) developed distant metastasis, with one death due to disease progression.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that robotic surgery is technically feasible and safe for Chinese CRC patients, especially for rectal cancer patients who received neoadjuvant treatment. A robotic laparoscope with large magnification showed a clear surgical space for pelvic autonomic nerve preservation in cases of mesorectal edema.

Update on Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

The minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer with Total Mesorectal Excision is a complex and challenging procedure due to technical and anatomical issues which could impair postoperative, oncological and functional outcomes, especially in a defined subgroup of patients. The results from recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery are still conflicting and trans-anal bottom-up approaches have recently been developed. Robotic surgery represents the latest consistent innovation in the field of minimally invasive surgery that may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy thanks to an enhanced dexterity, especially in deep narrow operative fields such as the pelvis. Results from population-based multicenter studies have shown the potential advantages of robotic surgery when compared to its laparoscopic counterpart in terms of reduced conversions, complication rates and length of stay. Costs, often advocated as one of the main drawbacks of robotic surgery, should be thoroughly evaluated including both the direct and indirect costs, with the latter having the potential of counterbalancing the excess of expenditure directly related to the purchase and maintenance of robotic equipment. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required to better delineate the advantages of the robotic platform, especially in the subset of most complex and technically challenging patients from both an anatomical and oncological standpoint.

Safety with Innovation in Colon and Rectal Robotic Surgery

Robotic colorectal surgery has been touted as a possible way to overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and has shown promise in rectal resections, thus shifting traditional open surgeons to a minimally invasive approach. The safety, efficacy, and learning curve have been established for most colorectal applications. With this and a robust sales and marketing model, utilization of the robot for colorectal surgery continues to grow steadily. However, this disruptive technology still requires standards for training, privileging and credentialing, and safe implementation into clinical practice.

Lower conversion rate with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy; a national cohort study

Background

Conversion from laparoscopic to open access colorectal surgery is associated with a poorer postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to assess conversion rates and outcomes after standard laparoscopic rectal resection (LR) and robotic laparoscopic rectal resection (RR).

Methods

A national 5-year cohort study utilizing prospectively recorded data on patients who underwent elective major laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. Data were retrieved from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. Primary end point was conversion rate. Secondary end points were postoperative complications within 30 days and histopathological results. Chi-square test, two-sided T test, and Mann–Whitney U test were used for univariable analyses. Both univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the relations between different predictors and outcomes, and propensity score matching was performed to address potential treatment assignment bias.

Results

A total of 1284 patients were included, of whom 375 underwent RR and 909 LR. Conversion rate was 8 out of 375 (2.1%) for RR compared with 87 out of 909 (9.6%) for LR (p < 0.001). RR was associated with reduced risk for conversion compared with LR (aOR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10–0.46). There were no other outcome differences between RR and LR. Factors associated with increased risk for conversion were male gender, severe cardiac disease and BMI > 30. Conversion was associated with higher rates of major complications (20 out of 95 (21.2%) vs 135 out of 1189 (11.4%) p = 0.005), reoperations (13 out of 95 (13.7%) vs 93 out of 1189 (7.1%) p = 0.020), and longer hospital stay (median 8 days vs 6 days, p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Conversion rate was lower with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy. Conversions were associated with higher rates of postoperative complications.

A literature review on large intestinal hyperelastic constitutive modeling

Impacts, traumas and strokes are spontaneously life-threatening, but chronic symptoms strangle patient every day. Colorectal tissue mechanics in such chronic situations not only regulates the physio-psychological well-being of the patient, but also confirms the level of comfort and post-operative clinical outcomes. Numerous uniaxial and multiaxial tensile experiments on healthy and affected samples have evidenced significant differences in tissue mechanical behavior and strong colorectal anisotropy across each layer in thickness direction and along the length. Furthermore, this study reviewed various forms of passive constitutive models for the highly fibrous colorectal tissue ranging from the simplest linearly elastic and the conventional isotropic hyperelastic to the most sophisticated second harmonic generation image based anisotropic mathematical formulation. Under large deformation, the isotropic description of tissue mechanics is unequivocally ineffective which demands a microstructural based tissue definition. Therefore, the information collected in this review paper would present the current state-of-the-art in colorectal biomechanics and profoundly serve as updated computational resources to develop a sophisticated characterization of colorectal tissues.

Implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery program with robotic surgery in high-risk patients obtains optimal results after colorectal resections

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs reduce postoperative complications and length of stay after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, but are still under evaluation after robotic colorectal surgery. To evaluate potential benefits in terms of length of stay and complications of an Enhanced recovery after surgery program in colorectal surgery. A subanalysis was performed to assess what combination of surgical approach and perioperative care had better outcomes. Prospective observational cohort study. 300 consecutive colorectal surgery patients: 150 were prospectively included in the enhanced recovery after Surgery program group and 150 retrospectively in the traditional care group, and subdivided according to the type of surgery, in Hospital Marques de Valdecilla, between 2013 and 2016. Postoperative complications decreased significantly (p = 0.002) from 46 to 28% (traditional care vs program group). The length of stay was decreased by 2 days (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated similar effect sizes after adjusting for age, gender, Charlson score, and type of surgery. Type of surgery was an independent predictive factor for postoperative complications and length of stay. Compared to open surgery, postoperative complications decreased by 50% (p < 0.001) after robotic surgery and by 40% (p = 0.01) after laparoscopic surgery, while the median length of stay decreased by three days (p < 0.001) after minimally invasive surgery. Enhanced recovery after surgery program and minimally invasive surgery were associated with decreased morbidity and length of stay after colorectal surgery compared to open surgery and traditional care. An enhanced recovery after surgery program with robotic surgery in high-risk patients might be beneficial.

Comparison of the operative outcomes and learning curves between laparoscopic and "Micro Hand S" robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The Micro Hand S robot is a new surgical tool that has been applied to total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer in our center. In this study, we compared the operative outcomes, functional outcomes and learning curves of the Micro Hand S robot-assisted TME (RTME) with laparoscopic TME (LTME).

METHODS

A total of 40 patients who underwent RTME and 65 who underwent LTME performed by a single surgeon between July 2015 and November 2018 were included in this retrospective study. Clinicopathologic characteristics, operative and functional outcomes, and learning curves were compared between the two groups. The learning curve was analyzed using the cumulative sum method and two stages (Phase 1, Phase 2) were identified and analyzed. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months.

RESULTS

The clinicopathologic characteristics of the two groups were similar. The learning curve was 17 cases for RTME and 34 cases for LTME. Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with less blood loss (148.2 vs. 195.0 ml, p = 0.022), and shorter length of hospital stay (9.5 vs. 12.2 days, p = 0.017), even during the learning period. With the accumulation of experience, the operative time decreased significantly from Phase 1 to Phase 2 (RTME, 360.6 vs. 323.5 min, p = 0.009; LTME, 338.1 vs. 301.9 min, p = 0.005), whereas other outcomes did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Micro Hand S robot-assisted TME is safe and feasible even during the learning period, with outcomes comparable to laparoscopic surgery but superior in terms of blood loss, length of hospital stay, and learning curve. Trial registration Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT04836741, retrospectively registered on 5 April 2021.

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.

Robotics in Spine Surgery: A Technical Overview and Review of Key Concepts

The use of robotic systems to aid in surgical procedures has greatly increased over the past decade. Fields such as general surgery, urology, and gynecology have widely adopted robotic surgery as part of everyday practice. The use of robotic systems in the field of spine surgery has recently begun to be explored. Surgical procedures involving the spine often require fixation via pedicle screw placement, which is a task that may be augmented by the use of robotic technology. There is little margin for error with pedicle screw placement, because screw malposition may lead to serious complications, such as neurologic or vascular injury. Robotic systems must provide a degree of accuracy comparable to that of already-established methods of screw placement, including free-hand, fluoroscopically assisted, and computed tomography–assisted screw placement. In the past several years, reports have cataloged early results that show the robotic systems are associated with equivalent accuracy and decreased radiation exposure compared with other methods of screw placement. However, the literature is still lacking with regard to long-term outcomes with these systems. This report provides a technical overview of robotics in spine surgery based on experience at a single institution using the ExcelsiusGPS (Globus Medical; Audobon, PA, USA) robotic system for pedicle screw fixation. The current state of the field with regard to salient issues in robotics and future directions for robotics in spinal surgery are also discussed.

Robotic rectal surgery: Outcomes of the first 102 totally robotic cases handled using the single-docking technique in a reference institution

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Rectal cancer is often surgically treated, but it is still associated with morbidity rates. Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly being used to reduce complications, and the use of such techniques can be found in the literature. This study aims to report our experience in a reference oncology center.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed on a prospective database of patients who underwent robotic surgery for rectal cancer using the single-docking technique from September 2014 to April 2018. Clinical and surgical variables, as well as morbidity and mortality rates, were analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and two patients underwent robotic surgery. Intraoperative complications occurred in six patients (4.9%), and postoperative complications in 24 patients (23.5%), of which anastomotic fistula represented 3.9%. The conversion rate was 1.96%. Two cases (1.9%) faced death within 30 days. The median length of hospitalization was 3 days. The median number of lymph nodes dissected was 15. Clinical and surgical data were correlated with postoperative complications, and no statistically significant differences were found.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is a safe and feasible approach to manage rectal cancer. The method presents satisfactory results with regard to the rate of operative complications, conversion rate, oncologic outcomes, and length of hospitalization.

Short-term clinical outcomes of a European training programme for robotic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Despite there being a considerable amount of published studies on robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) over the last few years, there is a lack of evidence regarding RCS training pathways. This study examines the short-term clinical outcomes of an international RCS training programme (the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery-EARCS).

METHODS

Consecutive cases from 26 European colorectal units who conducted RCS between 2014 and 2018 were included in this study. The baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes of cases performed by EARCS delegates during training were analysed and compared with cases performed by EARCS graduates and proctors.

RESULTS

Data from 1130 RCS procedures were collected and classified into three cohort groups (323 training, 626 graduates and 181 proctors). The training cases conversion rate was 2.2% and R1 resection rate was 1.5%. The three groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics with the exception of malignant cases and rectal resections performed. With the exception of operative time, blood loss and hospital stay (training vs. graduate vs. proctor: operative time 302, 265, 255 min, p < 0.001; blood loss 50, 50, 30 ml, p < 0.001; hospital stay 7, 6, 6 days, p = 0.003), all remaining short-term outcomes (conversion, 30-day reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, clinical anastomotic leak, complications, R1 resection and lymph node yield) were comparable between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal surgeons learning how to perform RCS under the EARCS-structured training pathway can safely achieve short-term clinical outcomes comparable to their trainers and overcome the learning process in a way that minimises patient harm.

Robotic rectal resection: oncologic outcomes

Robotic surgery has progressively gained popularity in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, only a few studies on its oncologic effectiveness are currently present, with contrasting results. The purpose of this study is to report a single surgeon’s experience on robotic rectal resection (RRR) for cancer, focusing on the analysis of oncologic outcomes, both in terms of pathological features and long-term results. One-hundred and twenty-two consecutive patients who underwent RRR for rectal cancer from January 2013 to December 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. Patients’ characteristics and perioperative outcomes were collected. The analyzed oncologic outcomes were pathological features [distal (DM), circumferential margin (CRM) status and quality of mesorectal excision (TME)] and long-term outcomes [overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS)]. The mean operative time was 275 (± 60.5) minutes. Conversion rate was 6.6%. Complications occurred in 27 cases (22.1%) and reoperation was needed in 2 patients (1.5%). The median follow-up was 30.5 (5.9–86.1) months. None presented DM positivity. CRM positivity was 2.5% (2 cases) while a complete TME was reached in 94.3% of cases (115 patients). Recurrence rate was 5.7% (2 local, 4 distant and 1 local plus distant tumor relapse). OS and DFS were 90.7% and 83%, respectively. At the multivariate analysis, both CRM positivity and near complete/incomplete TME were recognized as negative prognostic factors for OS and DFS. Under appropriate logistic and operative conditions, robotic surgery for rectal cancer proves to be oncologically effective, with adequate pathological results and long-term outcomes. It also offers acceptable peri-operative outcomes, further confirming the safety and feasibility of the technique.

Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: Current Evidences and Future Perspectives

Despite the technical limitations of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) for rectal cancer has short-term advantages over open surgery, but the pathological outcomes reported in randomized clinical trials are still in controversy. Minimally invasive robotic total mesorectal excision (RTME) has recently been gaining popularity as robotic surgical systems potentially provide greater benefits than LTME. Compared to LTME, RTME is associated with lower conversion rates and similar or better genitourinary functions, but its long-term oncological outcomes have not been established. Although the operating time of RTME is longer than that of LTME, RTME has a shorter learning curve, is more convenient for surgeons, and is better for sphincter-preserving operations than LTME. The robotic surgical system is a good technical tool for minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer, especially in male patients with narrow deep pelvises. Robotic systems and robotic surgical techniques are still improving, and the contribution of RTME to the treatment of rectal cancer will continue to increase in the future.

Robotic colorectal surgery in Australia: a cohort study examining clinical outcomes and cost

Objective The aim of this study was to compare robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal operations for clinical outcomes, safety and cost. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed of 213 elective colorectal operations (59 robotic, 154 laparoscopic), matched by surgeon and operation type. Results No differences in age, body mass index, median American Society of Anesthesiologists score or presence of cancer were observed between the laparoscopic or robotic surgery groups. However, patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery were more frequently male (P = 0.004) with earlier T stage tumours (P = 0.02) if cancer present. Procedures took longer in cases of robotic surgery (302 vs 130 min; P < 0.001), and patients in this group were more frequently admitted to intensive care units (P < 0.001). Overall length of stay was longer (7 vs 5 days; P = 0.03) and consumable cost was A$2728 higher per patient in the robotic surgery group. Conclusion Robotic colorectal surgery appears to be safe compared with current laparoscopic techniques, albeit with longer procedure times and overall length of stay, more frequent intensive care admissions and higher consumables cost. What is known about the topic? Robotic surgery is an emerging alternative to traditional laparoscopic approaches in colorectal surgery. International trials suggest the two techniques are equivalent in safety. What does this paper add? This is an original cohort study examining clinical outcomes in Australian colorectal robotic surgery. The data suggest it may be safe, but this paper demonstrates key issues in the implementation and audit of novel surgical technologies in relatively low-volume centres. What are implications for practitioners? In our study, patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery at a single centre in Australia had equivalent measured clinical outcomes to those undergoing laparoscopic surgery. However, practitioners may counsel patients that robotic procedures are typically longer and more expensive, with a longer overall hospital admission and a higher likelihood of intensive care admission.

Favourable long-term survival of patients with esophageal cancer treated with extended transhiatal esophagectomy combined with en bloc lymphadenectomy: results from a retrospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although considered complex and challenging, esophagectomy remains the best potentially curable treatment option for resectable esophageal and esophagogastric junction (AEG) carcinomas. The optimal surgical approach and technique as well as the extent of lymphadenectomy, particularly regarding quality of life and short- and long-term outcomes, are still a matter of debate. To lower perioperative morbidity, we combined the advantages of a one-cavity approach with extended lymph node dissection (usually achieved by only a two-cavity approach) and developed a modified single-cavity transhiatal approach for esophagectomy.

METHODS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of an extended transhiatal esophageal resection with radical bilateral mediastinal en bloc lymphadenectomy (eTHE). A prospective database of 166 patients with resectable cancers of the esophagus (including adenocarcinomas of the AEG types I and II) were analyzed. Patients were treated between 2001 and 2017 with eTHE at a tertiary care university center. Relevant patient characteristics and outcome parameters were collected and analyzed. The primary endpoint was 5-year overall survival. Secondary outcomes included short-term morbidity, mortality, radicalness of en bloc resection and oncologic efficacy.

RESULTS

The overall survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 84, 70, and 61.0%, respectively. The in-hospital mortality rate after eTHE was 1.2%. Complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of III/IV occurred in 31 cases (18.6%). A total of 25 patients (15.1%) had a major pulmonary complication. The median hospital stay was 17 days (interquartile range (IQR) 12). Most patients (n = 144; 86.7%) received neoadjuvant treatment. The median number of lymph nodes resected was 25 (IQR 17). The R0 resection rate was 97%.

CONCLUSION

In patients with esophageal cancer, eTHE without thoracotomy resulted in excellent long-term survival, an above average number of resected lymph nodes and an acceptable postoperative morbidity and mortality.

Surgical approach for rectal cancer: A network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME approaches

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) of rectal cancer remains controversial.

AIM

To compare short- and long-term outcomes after open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME) and transanal TME (TaTME).

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was performed up to January 1, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least 2 TME strategies. A Bayesian arm-based random effect network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, specifically, a mixed treatment comparison (MTC).

RESULTS

30 RCTs (and six updates) of 5586 patients with rectal cancer were included. No significant differences were identified in recurrence rates or survival rates. Operating time was shorter with OpTME (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] 0.96) compared to LapTME, RoTME and TaTME. Although OpTME was associated with the most blood loss (SUCRA 0.90) and had a slower recovery with increased length of stay (SUCRA 0.90) compared to the minimally invasive techniques, there was no difference in postoperative morbidity. OpTME was associated with a more complete TME specimen compared to LapTME (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 1.01, 1.11), and TaTME had less involved CRMs (RR 0.173, 95% CrI 0.02, 0.76) versus LapTME. There were no differences between the modalities in terms of deep TME defects, DRM distance, or lymph node yield.

CONCLUSIONS

While OpTME was the most effective TME modality for short term histopathological resection quality, there was no difference in long-term oncologic outcomes. Minimally invasive approaches enhance postoperative recovery, at the cost of longer operating times. Technique selection should be based on individual tumour characteristics and patient expectations, as well as surgeon and institutional expertise.

Comparative Evaluation of the Short-Term Treatment Outcomes Between Open, Laparoscopic- and Robotic-Assisted Surgical Approaches for Rectal Cancer Treatment

The open surgeries and more recently minimal invasive surgeries aided by laparoscopic or robotic approaches are employed for rectal cancer treatment procedures. The open approach is the most commonly opted technique, but recent studies have also shown that laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) has become the standard of care. There are certain shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery such as long learning curve, inadequate counter traction, limited dexterity, lack of tactile feedback and limited two-dimensional visions. Robotic surgery also offers several benefits to overcome the drawbacks of laparoscopic procedures, such as providing better dexterity and a more stable visualization. This study aims to analyse the surgical results in terms of completion of TME, short-term surgical outcomes and hospital stay in after open, laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted rectal resections respectively. A retrospective review of prospectively maintained database of patients operated for carcinoma rectum between January 2013 and August 2018 at Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Manipal-Vattikuti Institute of Robotic Surgery, Bangalore, was analysed in this study. The surgical parameters like completion of total mesorectal excision; proximal, distal and circumferential resection margins; number of nodes retrieved; and total post operative hospital stay were analysed in the open, laparoscopic-assisted and robotic-assisted groups. A total of 100 patients were included in the study consisting of 25, 25 and 50 patients each in the open, laparoscopic and robotic arms respectively. In case the desired results were not obtained using the advanced technique the procedure was converted and open technique was adopted. The conversion rate to open procedure was 8% (2of 25) in the laparoscopic-assisted group and 2% (1/50) in the robotic-assisted group. The average post operative hospital stay was 7.4, 7.36 and 6 days in the open, laparoscopic- and robotic-assisted group (p = 0.01) respectively. Robotic rectal resections show a trend towards better surgical results in the form of improved circumferential resection margins, completeness of TME and lower conversion rates.

Comparison of clinical efficacy between robotic-laparoscopic excision and traditional laparoscopy for rectal cancer: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUNDS

Laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted surgery and open surgery are the most commonly consumed surgical techniques in daily living. Considering that in recent years, the situation of choosing laparoscopic surgery and robot-assisted surgery to treat rectal cancer in China is prosperous. Meanwhile, researches lacked in the comparison part between the 2, so we will systematically compare the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted resection and traditional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search Clinical research literature published before January 2020 in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, Science Network, Wan Fang database, Chinese national knowledge infrastructure, and Chinese biomedicine that evaluate the correlation of rectal cancer with Leonardo's robot and traditional laparoscopy, from inception to July 2019. Weighted mean difference and odds ratio were used to compare the efficacy of robot-assisted resection versus conventional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer, and the main indicators are operation time, complication rate, conversion rate, blood loss, and length of stay.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

This study will systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted resection and traditional laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer, thus providing evidence to the clinical application. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethical approval and participant consent are required, since this study data is based on published literature. The results of the study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020172161.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic rectal resection: outcomes and learning curve of the initial 100 cases

Background

Following several landmark trials, laparoscopic rectal resection has reached standard clinical practice. Current literature is undecided on the advantages of robotic rectal resection and little is known on its learning curve. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the first 100 robotic rectal resections to the laparoscopic approach in a teaching hospital experienced in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted of a prospective cohort of all consecutive rectal resections between January 2012 and September 2019 at a single center. All laparoscopic cases were compared to the robotic approach. Outcomes included operative time, morbidity, anastomotic leakage, and hospital stay.

Results

Out of the 326 consecutive resections, 100 were performed robotically and 220 laparoscopically, the remaining 6 open cases were excluded. Median operative time was lower for robotic cases (147 (121–167) versus 162 (120–218) minutes P = 0.024). Overall morbidity was lower in robotic cases (25% versus 50%, P < 0.001), while major morbidity was similar. Anastomotic leakage was observed in 11% (8/70) of robotic and 15% (18/120) of laparoscopic anastomoses, despite more anastomoses in the robotic group (70%, 70/100 versus 55%, 120/220, P = 0.001). Median length of stay was 4 (4–7) days after a robotic and 6 (5–9) days after a laparoscopic procedure.

Discussion

Implementation of a robotic rectal resection program in an experienced laparoscopic surgery center was associated with reduced operative time, length of stay, and fewer complications despite a learning curve.

Use, Cost, Complications, and Mortality of Robotic versus Nonrobotic General Surgery Procedures Based on a Nationwide Database

Since its introduction in 1997, robotic surgery has overcome many limitations, including setup costs and surgeon training. The use of robotics in general surgery remains unknown. This study evaluates robotic-assisted procedures in general surgery by comparing characteristics with its nonrobotic (laparoscopic and open) counterparts. Weighted Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample data (2008, 2009) were used to identify the top 12 procedures for robotic general surgery. Robotic cases were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes 17.41 and 17.42. Procedures were grouped: esophagogastric, colorectal, adrenalectomy, lysis of adhesion, and cholecystectomy. Analyses were descriptive, t tests, χ2s, and logistic regression. Charges and length of stay were adjusted for gender, age, race, payer, hospital bed size, hospital location, hospital region, median household income, Charlson score, and procedure type. There were 1,389,235 (97.4%) nonrobotic and 37,270 (2.6%) robotic cases. Robotic cases increased from 0.8 per cent (2008) to 4.3 per cent (2009, P < 0.001). In all subgroups, robotic surgery had significantly shorter lengths of stay (4.9 days) than open surgery (6.1 days) and lower charges (median $30,540) than laparoscopic ($34,537) and open ($46,704) surgery. Fewer complications were seen in robotic-assisted colorectal, adrenalectomy and lysis of adhesion; however, robotic cholecystectomy and esophagogastric procedures had higher complications than nonrobotic surgery ( P < 0.05). Overall robotic surgery had a lower mortality rate (0.097%) than nonrobotic surgeries per 10,000 procedures (laparoscopic 0.48%, open 0.92%; P < 0.001). The cost of robotic surgery is generally considered a prohibitive factor. In the present study, when overall cost was considered, including length of stay, robotic surgery appeared to be cost-effective and as safe as nonrobotic surgery except in cholecystectomy and esophagogastric procedures. Further study is needed to fully understand the long-term implications of this new technology.

Total Mesorectal Excision Technique-Past, Present, and Future

While the treatment of rectal cancer is multimodal, above all, a proper oncological resection is critical. The surgical management of rectal cancer has substantially evolved over the past 100 years, and continues to progress as we seek the best treatment. Rectal cancer was historically an unsurvivable disease, with poor understanding of the embryological planes, lymphatic drainage, and lack of standardized technique. Major improvements in recurrence, survival, and quality of life have resulted from advances in preoperative staging, pathologic assessment, the development and timing of multimodal therapies, and surgical technique. The most significant contribution in advancing rectal cancer care may be the standardization and widespread implementation of total mesorectal excision (TME). The TME, popularized by Professor Heald in the early 1980s as a sharp, meticulous dissection of the tumor and mesorectum with all associated lymph nodes through the avascular embryologic plane, has shown universal reproducible reductions in local recurrence and improvement in disease-free and overall survival. Widespread education and training of surgeons worldwide in the TME have significantly impact outcomes for rectal cancer surgery, and the procedure has become the gold standard for curative resection of rectal cancer. In this article, we discuss the evolution of the standard abdominal approach to the TME, with emphasis on the history, relevant anatomy, standard procedure steps, oncologic outcomes, and technical evolution.

Feasibility of robotic assisted bladder sparing pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer: A single institution case series

BACKGROUND

Pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer involving prostate has been performed via open surgery. Robotic pelvic exenteration offers benefits of better pelvic visualisation and dissection for bladder preserving prostatectomy with vesicourethral anastomosis, while achieving clear margins.

AIM

To determine the feasibility of robotic assisted bladder sparing pelvic exenteration.

METHODS

We describe robotic assisted pelvic exenteration in three cases of locally advanced rectal cancer involving prostate and seminal vesicles (SV). The da Vinci S robotic system was used. Robotic console was docked at left oblique position for abdominal phase and redocked to between the patient’s legs for pelvic phase. All three cases were performed fully robotically at Tan Tock Seng Hospital by colorectal and urological teams.

RESULTS

Case 1: 67-year-old with low rectal tumour 3cm from anal verge involving the prostate. He underwent neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and robotic abdominoperineal resection with en-bloc prostatectomy. Case 2: 66-year-old with low rectal tumour 3cm from anal verge involving prostate and bilateral SV. He underwent neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and robot assisted ultra-low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis and en-bloc prostatectomy. Case 3: 57-year-old with metachronous rectal tumour in the rectovesical pouch inseparable from the anterior mid rectum, prostate and bilateral SV. He underwent robot assisted ultra-low anterior resection with en-bloc prostatectomy. Bladder neck margin revealed cauterized tumour cells, and he underwent total cystectomy and ileal conduit creation. Histology revealed no residual tumour. All patients are currently disease free

CONCLUSION

Robot assisted bladder sparing pelvic exenteration can be safely performed in locally advanced rectal cancer with acceptable surgical outcome while preserving benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

Long-term oncological outcomes in robotic versus laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Short-term outcomes of robotic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer resection seem comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic mesorectal excision. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of robot mesorectal excision require further investigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from the date of database inception to March 31, 2019 for all available trials; the results of robotic and laparoscopic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer surgery were compared. Survival parameters, including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), were independently extracted by two investigators. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models. The presence of heterogeneity was assessed using Q test, and the extent of heterogeneity was quantified by I² index. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software, version 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies including 2593 patients (1362 treated by robotic mesorectal excision and 1231 by laparoscopic mesorectal excision) were included. Pooled analyses showed no significant difference in OS (HR = 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63 to 1.39, P = 0.75) or DFS (HR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.10, P = 0.85) between the robotic and laparoscopic mesorectal excision for treatment of rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Regarding long-term survival, robotic mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is comparable to laparoscopic mesorectal excision. More prospective, multicenter randomized trials with longer follow-up periods are needed to determine the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing robotic mesorectal excision.

A roadmap for robotic-assisted sigmoid resection in diverticular disease using a Senhance™ Surgical Robotic System: results and technical aspects

Since the turn of the century, robotic-assisted colorectal surgery has been synonymous with the da Vinci® robotic surgical system. We report in this study our first results in robotic-assisted sigmoid resection for diverticular disease using the Senhance™ Surgical Robotic System, while introducing a standardized roadmap for engaging the robotic arms. 12 patients underwent a sigmoid resection using the Senhance™ Surgical Robotic System. All four arms of the robotic system were engaged during all procedures according to a previously devised roadmap. A 4-trocar technique was used in all patients. Perioperative data, including those regarding technical difficulties, were collected and analyzed. Two procedures were converted into standard laparoscopy. There were no conversions to open surgery. The mean age of the patients was 62.5 years (47-79). One third of the patients were males. The mean BMI was 27 kg/m2 (19-38). The mean operative time, the mean console time and the mean docking time were 219 min (204-305), 149 min (124-205) and 10 min (6-15), respectively. The mean length of stay was 9 days (6-15). There was one major complication (8.3%, Clavien-Dindo IIIb). There were no mortalities. No other complications were observed. No patients were readmitted after discharge. The Senhance™ Surgical Robotic System can be used safely in sigmoid resection for diverticular disease after adequate training and systematic planning of the different steps of the procedure. Further experience is needed to judge the benefit for patient and surgeon, as well as the cost and time effectiveness.