Robotic versus Laparoscopic Approach in Colonic Resections for Cancer and Benign Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of different surgical techniques and anastomosis methods in short-term outcomes of right colon cancer: a network meta-analysis of open surgery, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis

With the rapid development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, there remains considerable controversy regarding the choice of surgical approach and anastomosis method for patients with right-sded colon cancer (RSCC). This meta-analysis compared the short-term outcomes of open right colectomies (ORC), laparoscopic right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (LRC-IA and LRC-EA), as well as robot right colectomies with intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (RRC-IA and RRC-EA). A systematic search was conducted across PubMed (n = 549), Web of Science (n = 821), Embase (n = 591), and the Cochrane Central Register (n = 86) from January 2000 to August 2024. Studies comparing at least two of the surgical techniques for RSCC were included. The primary outcomes evaluated were overall complications, wound infection, ileus, and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes included operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, time to resume diet, and conversion rates. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. A total of 39 studies comprising 6098 patients were included. The results indicated that LRC-IA had the lowest overall complication rate (OR 0.65; 95% CI [0.41, 1.07]), while ORC had the highest. RRC-IA was most effective in reducing wound infection (OR 0.77; 95% CI [0.39, 1.35]), blood loss (MD 18.01; 95% CI [4.62, 40.87]), and hospital stay (MD 0.93; 95% CI [0.67, 1.31]), while also demonstrating advantages in preventing postoperative ileus (OR 0.47; 95% CI [0.05, 1.31]) and ensuring faster bowel function recovery (OR 0.80; 95% CI [0.44, 1.53]). The analysis demonstrates that for patients with RSCC, RRC shows better short-term outcomes compared to LRC and ORC, while IA also surpasses EA.

Outcome of robotic colon surgery in older patients with colon cancer

INTRODUCTION

Older patients are less likely to undergo curative surgery for colon cancer (CC) because of a higher rate in comorbidities that increases the risk for complications and mortality. Robot-assisted surgery could be an alternative minimally invasive approach allowing surgical treatment in a higher percentage of patients above 70 years old. This study aims at evaluating the safety of robotic surgery in older patients with CC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected data from all patients receiving robot-assisted surgery for CC at a tertiary center between 2016 and 2022 were used for retrospective subgroup analysis based on age and tumor location (right-sided, left-sided). Perioperative outcome including 30-day major morbidity and 90-day mortality rate, overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 231 patients met inclusion criteria of the study: n = 89 < 70 years, n = 64 between 70 and 79 years, n = 72 between 80 and 89 years, and n = 6 ≥ 90 years. No differences in 90-day mortality or 30-day major morbidity were observed between age groups. Thirty-day overall morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and days to full mobility were increased in ≥70-year-olds for right- and left-sided surgery. One-, three-, and five-year CSS did not differ while the three- and five-year OS significantly decreased with age.

DISCUSSION

Robot-assisted surgery for resection of CC can be used safely in older patients.

Feasibility of hybrid robotic rectal surgery

PURPOSE

To investigate the feasibility of combined robotic rectal surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision (hybrid robotic surgery).

METHODS

Among 143 robotic rectal surgeries performed from 2017 to 2022, 85 were hybrid robotic surgeries and were analyzed in this study. The cohort comprised 59 males and 26 females with a mean age of 65.8 years old and a mean body mass index of 22.6 kg/m2. The cStage was I in 20 cases, II in 21, III in 36, IV in 4, and other in 4. The operation types were low anterior resection in 21 cases, intersphincteric resection in 27, abdominoperineal resection in 32, total pelvic exenteration in 2, and other in 3. Twelve patients (14.1%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, and 39 (45.9%) underwent lateral lymph node dissection.

RESULTS

The mean operation time for total mesorectal excision was 302.7 min, and the median blood loss was 71.5 ml. No cases required conversion to laparotomy. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 15.9 days. Complications of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 occurred in 3 cases (4.2%). Urinary dysfunction occurred in 6 cases (8.3%). Three (4.2%) patients were diagnosed with positive circumferential resection margins.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid robotic surgery is safe and oncologically feasible.

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

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

Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Elective Sigmoid Resection for Complicated Diverticulitis

Objective

Minimally invasive surgical techniques for colorectal surgery have continued to grow in prevalence with robotic surgery potentially providing advantages in complex pelvic operations. We sought to examine the outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic elective sigmoid colon resection for complicated diverticulitis.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of patients at an academic tertiary care center from 2018-2023 who underwent elective minimally invasive sigmoid colon resections for complicated diverticulitis. Multiple regression analysis was performed with primary outcomes being reoperation within 30 days and overall complications. Secondary outcomes included conversion to open, estimated blood loss, operative time, days until return of bowel function, and length of stay.

Results

In this cohort of 131 patients, 38 underwent laparoscopic colectomy and 93 patients underwent robotic colectomy. There were no significant differences between rate of reoperation (7.7% vs 2.1%, P = .42), complications (5.1% vs 8.4%, P = .52), conversion to open (5.1% vs 2.1%, P = .25), days until return of bowel function (1.87 vs 2.01, P = .41), or length of stay (5.2 vs 5.2, P = .92). There were significant differences in operative time and estimated blood loss. Robotic approach was 128.11 minutes longer (β = 128.11, SE = 12, p < .001) and had 33.4 cc less estimated blood loss (β = -33.4, SE = 16.6, P = .046), when adjusting for other confounders.

Conclusion

Robotic sigmoid colectomy for complicated diverticulitis had mostly equivalent outcomes at this institution. There was some decrease in estimated blood loss, however, operative time was increased in the robotic group.

Robotic surgery versus conventional laparoscopy in colon cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare robotic versus laparoscopic colectomies in colon cancer patients in general complications.

METHODS

Nine databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating patients with colon cancer, submitted to robotic surgery (RS) compared to a laparoscopic (LC) approach. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 tool, and certainty of the evidence was evaluated by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Data synthesis was performed using the software R. The meta-analysis of the included studies was carried out using the fixed-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). Heterogeneity was measured using I2 analysis.

RESULTS

A total of four studies were used with 293 patients. Three studies were used in this comparative LC vs. RS when evaluating infection rates on surgical wound sites. The odds ratio (OR) appeared to be slightly favorable to LC (OR = 3.05; 95% confidence interval-95%CI 0.78-11.96). In the hospitalization rates analysis, two randomized controlled trials were used, and the mean differences slightly favored the RS (MD = -0.54; 95%CI -2.28-1.19). GRADE evaluation detected a serious risk of bias due to RCT format and RoB-2 concurred.

CONCLUSION

Both types of procedures seem to have their own benefits, risks, and limitations. They seem close to equal in terms of postsurgical infection and hospitalization.

Artificial intelligence: revolutionizing robotic surgery: review

Robotic surgery, known for its minimally invasive techniques and computer-controlled robotic arms, has revolutionized modern medicine by providing improved dexterity, visualization, and tremor reduction compared to traditional methods. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into robotic surgery has further advanced surgical precision, efficiency, and accessibility. This paper examines the current landscape of AI-driven robotic surgical systems, detailing their benefits, limitations, and future prospects. Initially, AI applications in robotic surgery focused on automating tasks like suturing and tissue dissection to enhance consistency and reduce surgeon workload. Present AI-driven systems incorporate functionalities such as image recognition, motion control, and haptic feedback, allowing real-time analysis of surgical field images and optimizing instrument movements for surgeons. The advantages of AI integration include enhanced precision, reduced surgeon fatigue, and improved safety. However, challenges such as high development costs, reliance on data quality, and ethical concerns about autonomy and liability hinder widespread adoption. Regulatory hurdles and workflow integration also present obstacles. Future directions for AI integration in robotic surgery include enhancing autonomy, personalizing surgical approaches, and refining surgical training through AI-powered simulations and virtual reality. Overall, AI integration holds promise for advancing surgical care, with potential benefits including improved patient outcomes and increased access to specialized expertise. Addressing challenges and promoting responsible adoption are essential for realizing the full potential of AI-driven robotic surgery.

Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review

Robot-assisted general surgery, an advanced technology in minimally invasive procedures, is increasingly employed in elective general surgery, showing benefits over laparoscopy in specific cases. Although laparoscopy remains a standard approach for common acute abdominal conditions, the role of robotic surgery in emergency general surgery remains uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare outcomes in acute general surgery settings for robotic versus laparoscopic surgeries. A PRISMA-compliant systematic search across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. The literature review focused on articles comparing perioperative outcomes of emergency general surgery managed laparoscopically versus robot-assisted. A descriptive analysis was performed, and outcome measures were recorded. Six articles, involving 1,063 patients, compared outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Two articles covered cholecystectomies, while the others addressed ileocaecal resection, subtotal colectomy, hiatal hernia and repair of perforated gastrojejunal ulcers. The level of evidence was low. Laparoscopic bowel resection in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) had higher complications; no significant differences were found in complications for other operations. Operative time showed no differences for cholecystectomies, but robotic approaches took longer for other procedures. Robotic cases had shorter hospital length of stay, although the associated costs were significantly higher. Perioperative outcomes for emergency robotic surgery in selected general surgery conditions are comparable to laparoscopic surgery. However, recommending robotic surgery in the acute setting necessitates a well-powered large population study for stronger evidence.

Robotic approach to colonic resection: For some or for all patients?

The robotic approach is rapidly gaining momentum in colorectal surgery. Its benefits in pelvic surgery have been extensively discussed and are well established amongst those who perform minimally invasive surgery. However, the same cannot be said for the robotic approach for colonic resection, where its role is still debated. Here we aim to provide an extensive debate between selective and absolute use of the robotic approach for colonic resection by combining the thoughts of experts in the field of robotic and minimally invasive colorectal surgery, dissecting all key aspects for a critical view on this exciting new paradigm in colorectal surgery.

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

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

Laparoscopic vs. robotic colectomy for left-sided diverticulitis

Diverticulitis is a prevalent gastrointestinal disease that often warrants surgical intervention. However, the optimal approach between traditional laparoscopy (LC) and robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RAC) for diverticulitis remains unclear. Our research compares these techniques in patients diagnosed with left-sided diverticulitis treated at a single, tertiary referral center from 2019 to 2022. Among the 134 patients, 86 underwent laparoscopic and 48 robotic-assisted surgeries. The surgeries included in this analysis are left colectomy, sigmoid colectomy, low anterior resection, and Hartmann's procedure. Primary outcomes were major morbidity and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were operative time, conversion to open, length of stay, unplanned return to the operating room, 30-day readmission rate, and overall morbidity. While demographics and comorbidities were similar for both groups, the robotic-assisted group displayed a statistically significant longer operative time (198.0 ± 84.4 LC vs. 264.8 ± 78.5 min RAC, p < 0.001). When investigated further, there was a significant difference in operative time for uncomplicated diverticulitis cases favoring the LC approach (169.17 ± 58.1 LC vs. 244.82 ± 58.79 min RAC, p < 0.001). This significant difference, however, was not present in complicated diverticulitis cases. Other factors, such as overall and major morbidity, rate of conversion to open approach, ostomy creation, estimated blood loss, time to return of bowel function, length of stay, and 30-day readmission rate, did not significantly differ between the groups. There was no 30-day mortality in either group. Favorable patient outcomes, lack of significant difference in operative time compared with traditional laparoscopy, and absence of differences in morbidities or efficacy, raises an interesting question in the world of minimally invasive surgery: is the robotic-assisted approach emerging as the advantageous approach for complicated diverticulitis cases? We encourage additional, multi-center analysis of specifically complicated diverticulitis managed with both surgical approaches to investigate if these findings are replicated outside of our institution.

Robotic versus laparoscopic approach for left-sided colon cancer: a nationwide cohort study

AIM

The use of robot-assisted surgery for left-sided colon cancer is increasing in Denmark; however, it is yet to be established if the robotic approach results in improved clinical outcomes compared with the corresponding laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to compare the intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopic surgery for left-sided colon cancer at a national level.

METHOD

The study is a nationwide database study based on data from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Group database. Patients from all colorectal centres in Denmark treated with surgery with curative intent in an elective setting with either robotic or laparoscopic left colectomy or sigmoidectomy during the period 2014-2019 were included. To adjust for confounding, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed and the groups were compared for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, performance score, year of diagnosis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, left colectomy or sigmoidectomy, tumour localization, use of stoma or stenting and pathological T (pT) category.

RESULTS

A total of 5532 patients were available for analysis, and after PSM in a ratio of 2:1, 1392 laparoscopic and 696 robotic cases were identified. After matching we found a lower conversion rate and a higher lymph node yield in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group (5.8% vs. 11%, p < 0.001 and 27 vs. 24, p < 0.001, respectively). Further, we found a higher proportion of patients with a lymph node yield of 12 or more in the robotic group (97% vs. 94.8%, p = 0.02). Plane of dissection, radicality and pathological disease stages did not differ between the two groups. We found no difference in either overall surgical (13% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.23) or medical (5.6% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.49) postoperative complications and no difference in 30-day (p = 0.369) or 90-day mortality (p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted surgery for left-sided colon cancer was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate and a significantly higher lymph node yield than the laparoscopic approach. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar in the two groups.

Robotic-assisted colectomy in children: a comparative study with laparoscopic surgery

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted colectomy in children. All children who underwent a colectomy with a laparoscopic (LapC) or robotic-assisted (RobC) approach in our institution (January 2010-March 2023) were included. Demographics, surgical data, and post-operative outcomes within 30 days were collected. Additional cost related to the robotic approach was calculated. Comparisons were performed using Fisher tests for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney tests for continuous variables. A total of 55 colectomies were performed: 31 LapC and 24 RobC (median age: 14.9 years). Main indications included: inflammatory bowel disease (n = 36, 65%), familial adenomatous polyposis (n = 6, 11%), sigmoid volvulus (n = 5, 9%), chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction (n = 3, 5%). LapC included 22 right, 4 left, and 5 total colectomies. RobC included 15 right, 4 left, and 5 total colectomies. Robotic-assisted surgery was associated with increased operative time (3 h vs 2.5 h, p = 0.02), with a median increase in operative time of 36 min. There were no conversions. Post-operative complications occurred in 35% of LapC and 38% of RobC (p = 0.99). Complications requiring treatment under general anesthesia (Clavien-Dindo 3) occurred in similar rates (23% in LapC vs 13% in RobC, p = 0.49). Length of hospitalization was 10 days in LapC and 8.5 days in RobC (p = 0.39). The robotic approach was associated with a median additional cost of 2156€ per surgery. Robotic-assisted colectomy is as safe and feasible as laparoscopic colectomy in children, with similar complication rates but increased operative times and cost.

A retrospective comparison of 90-day outcomes, length of stay, and readmissions between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colectomy

Investigations generally assess 30 days of perioperative outcomes with robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colectomy. Outcomes beyond 30 days serve as a quality metric of surgical services and an assessment of 90 days of outcomes may have greater clinical utility. The purpose of this study was to assess 90 days of outcomes, length of stay (LOS), and readmissions among patients who underwent a robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic colectomy using a national database. Patients undergoing either robotic-assisted or laparoscopic colectomy were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes within PearlDiver, a national, inpatient records database from 2010 to 2019. Outcomes were defined using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) risk calculator and identified using International Classification of Disease (ICD) diagnosis codes. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square tests, and continuous variables were compared using paired t tests. Covariate-adjusted regression models were also constructed to evaluate these associations while accounting for potential confounders. A total of 82,495 patients were assessed in this study. At 90 days, patients of the laparoscopic colectomy cohort experienced a higher rate of complications than patients who underwent robotic-assisted colectomy (9.5 vs. 6.6%, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in LOS (6 vs. 6.5 days, p = 0.08) and readmissions (6.1 vs. 6.7%, p = 0.851) at 90 days. Patients undergoing robotic-assisted colectomy have a lower risk for morbidity at 90 days. Neither approach is superior for LOS nor 90 days of readmissions. Both techniques are effective minimally invasive procedures, yet patients may gain a greater risk benefit from robotic colectomy.

Robotic-assisted intracorporeal versus extracorporeal techniques in sigmoidectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis

Scarce research has been performed to assess the safety and efficacy of anastomosis technique on robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy. This study was designed to evaluate the difference between intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques during robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy. Clinical data of 193 cases who received robotic-assisted sigmoidectomy were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Only 116 cases were available for analysis (intracorporeal group = 58 and extracorporeal group = 58) after propensity score matching. Independent sample t test was conducted to evaluate the continuous variables. Moreover, the statistical significance of categorical variables was tested using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Statistical analysis showed that the intracorporeal group demonstrated greater superiorities in pain scale on the first and second postoperative day (P < 0.05), time of catheter indwelling (P = 0.009), and length of hospital stay (P = 0.019). Additionally, the intracorporeal technique contributed to fewer complications including urinary retention (P = 0.027) and hernia (P = 0.037) than the extracorporeal group. Our analysis revealed that intracorporeal technique was safe and feasible due to the shorter time of catheter indwelling and length of hospital stay and fewer post-operation complications.

Implementation of totally robotic right hemicolectomy: lessons learned from a prospective cohort

Robotics facilitates the realization of intra-corporeal anastomosis during right hemicolectomy and allows extracting the operative specimen through a C-section, offering potential benefits in terms of post-operative recovery and incidence of incisional hernia. Therefore, we progressively implemented robotic right hemicolectomy (robRHC) in our centre, and would like to report our initial experience with the technique. Consecutive patients who underwent robRHC within a single centre were prospectively included. Variables related to patients' demographics, surgical procedures, post-operative recovery and pathological outcomes were collected. Sixty patients underwent robRHC in our centre. Indications for robRHC were colon cancer in 58 patients (96.7%) and polyps not amenable to endoscopic resection in 2 patients (3.3%). Fifty-eight patients underwent robRHC with D2 lymphadenectomy and central vessel ligation (96.7%), and two patients (3.3%) had robRHC associated with another procedure. All patients had intra-corporeal anastomosis. The mean ± operative time was of 200.4 ± 114.9 min. Two conversions (3.3%) to open surgery were performed. The mean ± SD length of stay was of 5.4 ± 3.8 days. Seven patients (11.7%) experienced a post-operative complication with a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 2. Two patients (3.5%) had an anastomotic leak. The mean ± SD number of harvested lymph nodes was of 22.4 ± 7.6. All patients had negative pathological margins (R0 resection). To conclude, robotic RHC is a safe procedure, which can be implemented with satisfying peri- and post-operative outcomes. The potential benefits of the technique remain to be demonstrated by randomized controlled trials.

Clinical outcomes of elective robotic vs laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer utilizing a large national database

BACKGROUND

Prior studies have shown comparable outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic approaches across a range of surgeries; however, these have been limited in size. This study investigates differences in outcomes following robotic (RC) vs laparoscopic (LC) colectomy across several years utilizing a large national database.

METHODS

We analyzed data from ACS NSQIP for patients who underwent elective minimally invasive colectomies for colon cancer from 2012 to 2020. Inverse probability weighting with regression adjustment (IPWRA) incorporating demographics, operative factors, and comorbidities was used. Outcomes included mortality, complications, return to the operating room (OR), post-operative length of stay (LOS), operative time, readmission, and anastomotic leak. Secondary analysis was performed to further assess anastomotic leak rate following right and left colectomies.

RESULTS

We identified 83,841 patients who underwent elective minimally invasive colectomies: 14,122 (16.8%) RC and 69,719 (83.2%) LC. Patients who underwent RC were younger, more likely to be male, non-Hispanic White, with higher body mass index (BMI) and fewer comorbidities (for all, P < 0.05). After adjustment, there were no differences between RC and LC for 30-day mortality (0.8% vs 0.9% respectively, P = 0.457) or overall complications (16.9% vs 17.2%, P = 0.432). RC was associated with higher return to OR (5.1% vs 3.6%, P < 0.001), lower LOS (4.9 vs 5.1 days, P < 0.001), longer operative time (247 vs 184 min, P < 0.001), and higher rates of readmission (8.8% vs 7.2%, P < 0.001). Anastomotic leak rates were comparable for right-sided RC vs LC (2.1% vs 2.2%, P = 0.713), higher for left-sided LC (2.7%, P < 0.001), and highest for left-sided RC (3.4%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic approach for elective colon cancer resection has similar outcomes to its laparoscopic counterpart. There were no differences in mortality or overall complications, however anastomotic leaks were highest after left RC. Further investigation is imperative to better understand the potential impact of technological advancement such as robotic surgery on patient outcomes.

Early outcomes from the Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy Anastomosis study (MIRCAST)

BACKGROUND

The impact of method of anastomosis and minimally invasive surgical technique on surgical and clinical outcomes after right hemicolectomy is uncertain. The aim of the MIRCAST study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis (ICA and ECA respectively), each using either a laparoscopic approach or robot-assisted surgery during right hemicolectomies for benign or malignant tumours.

METHODS

This was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational, monitored, non-randomized, parallel, four-cohort study (laparoscopic ECA; laparoscopic ICA; robot-assisted ECA; robot-assisted ICA). High-volume surgeons (at least 30 minimally invasive right colectomy procedures/year) from 59 hospitals across 12 European countries treated patients over a 3-year interval The primary composite endpoint was 30-day success, defined by two measures of efficacy-absence of surgical wound infection and of any major complication within the first 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were: overall complications, conversion rate, duration of operation, and number of lymph nodes harvested. Propensity score analysis was used for comparison of ICA with ECA, and robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Some 1320 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis (laparoscopic ECA, 555; laparoscopic ICA, 356; robot-assisted ECA, 88; robot-assisted ICA, 321). No differences in the co-primary endpoint at 30 days after surgery were observed between cohorts (7.2 and 7.6 per cent in ECA and ICA groups respectively; 7.8 and 6.6 per cent in laparoscopic and robot-assisted groups). Lower overall complication rates were observed after ICA, specifically less ileus, and nausea and vomiting after robot-assisted procedures.

CONCLUSION

No difference in the composite outcome of surgical wound infections and severe postoperative complications was found between intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis or laparoscopy versus robot-assisted surgery.

Incidence of colonic fistulas in patients with colon cancer submitted to robotic surgery versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Up to the present time, the laparoscopic approach for colon cancer is considered the gold standard. However, robotic surgery has been appraised in modern medicine. It is essential to evaluate the differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, owing to the significant impact they cause in postoperative morbidity and mortality. This article aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to compare robotic versus laparoscopic colectomies in patients with colon cancer in terms of the incidence of colonic fistulas.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, LILACS and Clinical trials databases will be searched for randomised clinical trials investigating the incidence of colonic fistulas in patients with colonic cancer, submitted to robotic surgery compared with a laparoscopic approach. No language or publication period restrictions will be imposed. The primary outcome will be the incidence of colonic fistulas in patients with colon cancer in different surgical approaches. The secondary outcomes will be the incidence of infection, sepsis, mortality, length of hospitalisation and malnutrition. Three independent reviewers will select the studies and extract data from the original publications. The risk of bias will be assessed using The Risk of Bias 2 tool, and the evidence's certainty will be made using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data synthesis will be performed using the Review Manager software (RevMan V.5.2.3). To assess heterogeneity. We will compute the I² statistics. In addition, a quantitative synthesis will be performed if the included studies are sufficiently homogeneous.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will review the published data; thus, it is not necessary to obtain ethical approval. The findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021295313.

Robotic colon surgery in obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Colon cancer resection can be technically difficult in the obese (OB) population. Robotic surgery is a promising technique but its benefits remain uncertain in OB patients. The aim of this study is to compare OB versus non-obese (NOB) patients undergoing robotic colon surgery, as well as OB patients undergoing robotic versus open or laparoscopic colonic surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Primary outcome measures included length of stay (LOS), surgical site infection (SSI) rate, complications, anastomotic leak and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were included, with five comparing OB and NOB patients undergoing robotic colon surgery included in meta-analysis. A total of 263 OB patients and 400 NOB patients formed the sample for meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the two groups in operative time, conversion to open, LOS, lymph node yield, anastomotic leak and postoperative ileus. There was a trend towards a significant increase in overall complications and SSI in the OB group (32.3% OB versus 26.8% NOB for complications, 14.2% OB versus 9.9% NOB for SSI). The three included studies comparing surgical techniques were too heterogeneous to undergo meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colon surgery is safe in obese patients, but high-quality prospective evidence is lacking. Future studies should report on oncological safety and the cost-effectiveness of adopting the robotic technique in these challenging patients.

Robotic-assisted Surgery: Expanding Indication to Colon Cancer in Japan

In recent years, robotic-assisted surgery has demonstrated remarkable progress as a minimally invasive procedure for colorectal cancer. While there have been fewer studies investigating robotic-assisted surgery for the treatment of colon cancer than rectal cancer, evidence regarding robotic-assisted colectomy has been accumulating due to increasing use of the procedure. Robotic-assisted colectomy generally requires a long operative time and involves high costs. However, as evidence is increasingly supportive of its higher accuracy and less invasive nature compared to laparoscopic colectomy, the procedure is anticipated to improve the ratio of conversion to laparotomy and accelerate postoperative recovery. Robotic-assisted surgery has also been suggested for a specific level of effectiveness in manipulative procedures, such as intracorporeal anastomosis, and is increasingly indicated as a less problematic procedure compared to conventional laparoscopy and open surgery in terms of long-term oncological outcomes. Although robotic-assisted colectomy has been widely adopted abroad, only a limited number of institutions have been using this procedure in Japan. Further accumulation of experience and studies investigating surgical outcomes using this approach are required in Japan.

Short- and Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic- versus Robotic-Assisted Right Colectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There is a rapidly growing literature available on right hemicolectomy comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic right colectomy (RRC) to that of laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to revise current comparative literature systematically. Methods: A systematic review of comparative studies published between 2000 to 2021 in PubMed, Scopus and Embase was performed. The primary endpoint was postoperative morbidity, mortality and long-term oncological results. Secondary endpoints consist of blood loss, conversion rates, complications, time to first flatus, hospital stay and incisional hernia rate. Results: 25 of 322 studies were considered for data extraction. A total of 16,099 individual patients who underwent RRC (n = 1842) or LRC (n = 14,257) between 2002 and 2020 were identified. Operative time was significantly shorter in the LRC group (LRC 165.31 min ± 43.08 vs. RRC 207.38 min ± 189.13, MD: −42.01 (95% CI: −51.06−32.96), p < 0.001). Blood loss was significantly lower in the RRC group (LRC 63.57 ± 35.21 vs. RRC 53.62 ± 34.02, MD: 10.03 (95% CI: 1.61−18.45), p = 0.02) as well as conversion rate (LRC 1155/11,629 vs. RRC 94/1534, OR: 1.65 (1.28−2.13), p < 0.001) and hospital stay (LRC 6.15 ± 31.77 vs. RRC 5.31 ± 1.65, MD: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.29−1.38), p = 0.003). Oncological long-term results did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: The advantages of robotic colorectal procedures were clearly demonstrated. RRC can be regarded as safe and feasible. Most of the included studies were retrospective with a limited level of evidence. Further randomized trials would be suitable.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Colorectal Resection: Are We There Yet?

Background: Laparoscopy-assisted surgery (LAS) for colorectal cancer (CRC) was first described in 1991 and robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) for CRC was first reported in 2002; robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is becoming increasingly popular. However, data comparing its outcomes to other established techniques remain limited to small case series. Our primary goal was to review the mortality outcome difference between laparoscopic versus robotic elective colon resection at a small, community hospital.

Study design: We conducted a retrospective review of 2089 patients at the South Atlantic division for cases who underwent robotic and laparoscopic colectomies at our division in 2014-2018. All cases were elective surgeries and analysis was performed within these two subgroups.

Results: In this study, 306 patients underwent robotic colorectal surgery versus 1783 patients who underwent laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery. Readmission rate within 30 days of operation was significantly lower for laparoscopic-assisted colorectal resection (LACR) versus RACS (445.4% vs. 53.9%, p= 0.006). However, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for RACS with a median of three days (interquartile range {IQR}: 2-5) versus four days (IQR: 3-7) for LACR (p=0.0001). There were no significant differences between the two groups for post-operative incisional hernias, anastomotic leaks, post-operative pain control, surgical site infections, or rate of conversion to an open procedure.

Conclusion: Our study showed a similar outcome between LACR and RACS for post-operative incisional hernias, anastomotic leaks, post-operative pain control, surgical site infections, and rate of conversion to an open procedure. Also, our study showed a readmission rate within 30 days of operation was significantly lower for LACR versus RACS. However, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for RACS with a median of three days when compared to LACR. Future research should focus on surgeon-specific variables, such as comfort, ergonomics, distractibility, and ease of use, as other ways to potentially distinguish robotic from laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Supplementary Information

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

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Minimally invasive right versus left colectomy for cancer: does robotic surgery mitigate differences in short-term outcomes?

Studies comparing right (RC) and left colectomies (LC) show higher rates of ileus in RC and higher wound infection and anastomotic leak rates in LC. However, prior studies did not include robotic procedures. We compared short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic RC and LC for cancer, with sub-analysis of robotic procedures. In a retrospective review of a prospective database, preoperative factors, intraoperative events, and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared. Student's t tests and Chi-square tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. A logistic binomial regression was performed to assess whether type of surgery was associated with postoperative complications. Between January 2014 and August 2020, 115 patients underwent minimally invasive RC or LC for cancer. Sixty-eight RC [30 (44.1%) laparoscopic, 38 (55.9%) robotic] and 47 LC [13 (27.6%) laparoscopic, 34 (72.4%) robotic] cases were included. On univariate analysis, RC patients had significantly higher overall postoperative complications but no differences in rates of ileus/small bowel obstruction, wound infection, time to first flatus/bowel movement, length of hospital stay, and 30-day readmissions. On multivariate analysis, there was no significant difference in overall complications and laparoscopic surgery had a 2.5 times higher likelihood of complications than robotic surgery. In sub-analysis of robotic cases, there was no significant difference among all outcome variables. Previously reported outcome differences between laparoscopic RC and LC for cancer may be mitigated by robotic surgery.

Robotic Intracorporeal Anastomosis

Robotic intracorporeal anastomosis is currently increasingly used for the performance of colorectal anastomosis. We describe the technical details for the proper performance of an iso- and anti-peristaltic anastomosis including the set up of the robotic platform and the performance of the anastomosis.

Update on Robotic Rectal Prolapse Treatment

Rectal prolapse is a condition that can cause significant social impairment and negatively affects quality of life. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, with the aim of restoring the anatomy and correcting the associated functional disorders. During recent decades, laparoscopic abdominal procedures have emerged as effective tools for the treatment of rectal prolapse, with the advantages of faster recovery, lower morbidity, and shorter length of stay. Robotic surgery represents the latest evolution in the field of minimally invasive surgery, with the benefits of enhanced dexterity in deep narrow fields such as the pelvis, and may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal prolapse is feasible and safe. It could reduce complication rates and length of hospital stay, as well as shorten the learning curve, when compared to conventional laparoscopy. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required on long-term functional outcomes and recurrence rates.

Simultaneous Robot Assisted Colon and Liver Resection for Metastatic Colon Cancer

Introduction

Simultaneous robot assisted colon and liver resections are being performed more frequently at present due to the expanded adoption of the robotic platform for surgical management of metastatic colon cancer. However, this approach has not been studied in detail with only case series available in the literature. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current body of evidence on the feasibility of performing simultaneous robotic colon and liver resections.

Methods

A systematic review was performed through PubMed to identify relevant articles describing simultaneous colon and liver resections for metastatic colon cancer.

Results

A total of 28 patients underwent simultaneous resections robotically with an average operative time of 420.3 minutes and average blood loss of 275.6 ml. Postoperative stay was 8.6 days on average with all cases achieving negative surgical margins.

Conclusions

Robotic simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer with liver metastases is technically feasible and seems oncologically equivalent to open or laparoscopic surgery. Further studies are urgently needed to assess benefits of robotic surgery in the patient population.

Ureteral injuries in colorectal surgery and the impact of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches

BACKGROUND

Ureteral injury is a feared complication in colorectal surgery that has been increasing over the past decade. Some have attributed this to an increased adoption of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), but the literature is hardly conclusive. In this study we aim to further assess the overall trend of ureteral injuries in colorectal surgery, and investigate propensity adjusted contributions from open and MIS to include robotic-assisted surgery.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of colorectal surgeries from 2006 to 2016 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify predisposing and protective factors. Demographics, hospital factors, and case-mix differences for open and MIS were accounted for via propensity analysis. The NIS coding structure changed in 2015, which could introduce a potential source of incongruity in complication rates over time. As a result, all statistical analyses included only the first nine years of data, or were conducted before and after the change for comparison.

RESULTS

Of 514,162 colorectal surgeries identified there were 1598 ureteral injuries (0.31%). Ureteral injuries were found to be increasing through 2015 (2.3/1000 vs 3.3/1000; p < 0.001) and through the coding transition to 2016 (4.8/1000; p < 0.001). This trend was entirely accounted for by injuries made during open surgery, with decreasing injury rates for MIS over time. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) for ureteral injury with all MIS vs. open cases was 0.81 (95% CI 0.70-0.93, p = 0.003) and for robotic-assisted surgery alone versus open cases was 0.50 (95% CI 0.33-0.77, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence rate of ureteral injuries during open colorectal surgery is increasing over time, but have been stable or decreasing for MIS cases. These findings hold even after using propensity score analysis. More research is needed to further delineate the impact of MIS and robotic-assisted surgery on ureteral injuries.

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.

Colorectal robotic surgery: INCA's experience

Introduction Minimally invasive surgery has revolutionized surgical management in the treatment of colorectal neoplasms, reducing morbidity and mortality, hospitalization, inactivity time and minimizing cost, as well as providing adequate oncological results when compared to the conventional approach. Robotic surgery, with Da Vinci Platform, emerges as a step ahead for its potentials. The objective of this article is to report the single institutional experience with the use of Da Vinci Platform in robotic colorectal surgeries performed at a reference center in oncological surgery in Brazil.

Materials and methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on the prospective database of patients from the institution submitted to robotic surgery for treatment of colorectal cancer from July 2012 to September 2017. Clinical and surgical variables were analyzed as predictors of morbidity and mortality.

Results A total of 117 patients underwent robotic surgery. The complications related to surgery occurred in 33 patients (28%), the most frequent being anastomotic fistula and surgical wound infection, which corresponded to 11% and 3%, respectively. Conversion rate was 1.7%. Median length of stay was 5 days. The only variable associated with increase of complications and death risk was BMI >30, with p-value of 0.038 and 0.027, respectively.

Conclusion Robotic surgery is safe and feasible for approaching colorectal cancer surgeries, presenting satisfactory results regarding length of hospital stay and rate of operative complications, as well as presenting a low rate of conversion. Obesity has been shown to be a risk factor for surgical complication in robotic colorectal surgery.

[Robot-assisted operations in visceral surgery]

BACKGROUND

Although only a low percentage of abdominal surgical interventions are performed using a robotic platform, the total number has significantly increased in recent years and robotic surgery (RS) is no longer limited only to university hospitals. Despite the increasing popularity and many innovations in the field of robotic surgery with new devices, the data situation is confusing.

OBJECTIVE

This review deals with the current areas of application of robotic devices in abdominal surgery and whether there are any advantages compared to laparoscopic surgery (LS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The current international literature was evaluated and is critically discussed with a particular focus on clinical trials.

RESULTS

While the disadvantages include high costs and longer times of surgery, the advantages are a stable optical platform and the high mobility even in confined spaces; however, no high-quality, randomized controlled trial in abdominal surgery is currently available that could demonstrate an advantage of RS compared to LS.

CONCLUSION

Although no clear advantages of RS for the patients could so far be demonstrated, it seems to be at least equivalent to LS. Undisputed is the level of comfort for the surgeon. Once the costs of RS can be reduced, LS will probably be replaced for most indications.

Surgical skin adhesive bond is safe and feasible wound closure method to reduce surgical site infection following minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery

Purpose

Minimally invasive colorectal surgery had reduced the rate of surgical site infection. The use of surgical skin adhesive bond (2-octyl cyanoacrylate) for wound closure reduces postoperative pain and provides better cosmetic effect compared to conventional sutures or staples. But role of surgical skin adhesive bond for reducing surgical site infection is unclear. Our objective in this study was to evaluate the role of surgical skin adhesive bond in reducing surgical site infection following minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of 492 patients treated using minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer at Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea. Of these, surgical skin adhesive bond was used for wound closure in 284 cases and skin stapling in 208. The rate of surgical site infection including deep or organ/space level infections was compared between the 2 groups.

Results

The rate of superficial surgical site infection was significantly lower in the group using skin adhesive (P = 0.024), and total costs for wound care were significantly lower in the skin adhesive group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

This study showed that surgical skin adhesive bond reduced surgical site infection and total cost for wound care following minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery compared to conventional skin stapler technique. Surgical skin adhesive bond is a safe and feasible alternative surgical wound closure technique following minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery.

Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Sigmoid Resection

Background and Objectives:

Published comparisons of minimally invasive approaches to colon surgery are limited. The objective of the current study is to compare the effectiveness of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sigmoid resection.

Methods:

A multicenter retrospective comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes from consecutive robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sigmoid resections performed between 2010 and 2015 by six general and colorectal surgeons, who are experienced in both robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgical techniques and who had >50 annual case volumes for each approach. Baseline characteristics and surgical risk factors between the two groups were balanced using a propensity score methodology with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Mean standardized differences were reported, and in all instances, a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Three hundred thirty-six cases (robotic-assisted, n = 211; laparoscopic, n = 125) met eligibility criteria and were included in the study. Following weighting, patient demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable between the robotic-assisted (n = 344) and laparoscopic (n = 349) groups. The laparoscopic group was associated with shorter operating room and surgical times. The robotic-assisted group had lower estimated blood loss and shorter time to first flatus compared to the laparoscopic group. Rates of complications post discharge to 30 d tended to be lower for the RA group: 5.1% vs 8.6% [p = 0.0657]. The RA group also had lower rates of readmissions and reoperations: 4% vs 8% [p = 0.029] and 0.5% vs 5.1% [p = 0.0003], respectively.

Conclusions:

Robotic-assisted sigmoid colon resection is clinically effective and provides a minimally invasive alternative to the laparoscopic approach with improved intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for colorectal patients.

Minimally invasive right colectomy anastomosis study (MIRCAST): protocol for an observational cohort study of surgical complications using four surgical techniques for anastomosis in patients with a right colon tumor

BACKGROUND

Right colectomy is the standard surgical treatment for tumors in the right colon and surgical complications are reduced with minimally-invasive laparoscopy compared with open surgery, with potential further benefits achieved with robotic assistance. The anastomotic technique used can also have an impact on patient outcomes. However, there are no large, prospective studies that have compared all techniques.

METHODS/DESIGN

MIRCAST is the Minimally-Invasive Right Colectomy Anastomosis Study that will compare laparoscopy with robot-assisted surgery, using either intracorporeal or extracorporeal anastomosis, in a large prospective, observational, multicenter, parallel, four-cohort study in patients with a benign or malignant, non-metastatic tumor of the right colon. Over 2 years of follow-up, the study will prospectively evaluate peri- and postoperative complications, postoperative recovery, hospital stay, and mid-term results including survival, local recurrence, metastases rate, and conversion rate. The primary composite endpoint will be the efficacy of the surgical method regarding surgical wound infections and postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV complications at 30 days post-surgery). Secondary endpoints include long-term oncologic results, conversion rate, operative time, length of stay, and quality of life.

DISCUSSION

This will be the first large, international study to prospectively evaluate the use of minimally-invasive laparoscopy or robot-assisted surgery during right hemicolectomy and to control for the impact of the anastomotic technique. The research will contribute to current knowledge regarding the medical care of patients with malignant or benign tumors of the right colon, and enable physicians to determine which technique may be the most appropriate for their patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03650517 ) on August 28th 2018 (study protocol version CI18/02 revision A, 21 February 2018).

Successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer - a systematic review

AIM

Minimally invasive surgical approaches for cancer of the right colon have been well described with significant patient and equivalent oncological benefits. Robotic surgery has advanced in its ability to provide multi-quadrant abdominal access, leading the surgical community to widen its application outside of the pelvis to other abdominal compartments. Globally it is being realized that a patient's surgical episode of care is becoming the epicentre of cancer treatment. In order to establish the role of robotic surgery in a patient's episode of care, 'successful patient-oriented surgical' parameters in right hemicolectomy for malignancy were measured. The objective was to examine the rates of successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) compared to laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) for cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE (Ovid: 1946-present), PubMed (NCBI), Embase (Ovid: 1966-present) and Cochrane Library was conducted using PRISMA for parameters of successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in RRH and LRH for malignancy alone. The parameters measured included postoperative ileus, anastomotic complication, surgical wound infection, length of stay (LOS), incisional hernia rate, conversion to open, margin status, lymph node harvest and overall morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

There were 15 studies which included 831 RRH patients and 3241 LRH patients, with a median age of 62-74 years. No study analysed the concept of successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative ileus, with less time to first flatus in RRH (2.0-2.7 days, compared with 2.5-4.0 days, P < 0.05). Anastomotic leak rate in one study reported a significant increase in LRH compared to RRH (P < 0.05, 0% vs 8.3%). Significantly decreased LOS following RRH was outlined in six studies. One study reported a significantly higher rate of incisional hernias following LRH with extracorporeal anastomoses compared to RRH with intracorporeal anastomoses. Overall rates of conversion to open surgery were less with RRH (0%-3.9% vs 0%-18%, P < 0.001, 0.05). One study outlined significantly higher rates of incomplete resection with an open right hemicolectomy compared with minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic resections, with positive margin rates of 2.3%, 0.9% and 0% respectively (P < 0.001). Two studies reported significantly higher lymph node harvest in RRH (P < 0.05). Overall morbidity and 30-day mortality were comparable in both approaches.

CONCLUSION

Thirty-day morbidity and mortality were comparable between the two approaches, with patients undergoing RRH having lower anastomotic complications, increased lymph node harvest, and reduced LOS, conversion to open and incisional hernia rates in a number of studies. There are limited data on surgical approach and impact on quality of life and what patients deem successful surgical outcomes. There is a further need for a randomized controlled trial examining successful patient-oriented outcomes in right hemicolectomy for malignancy.

Frailer Patients Undergoing Robotic Colectomies for Colon Cancer Experience Increased Complication Rates Compared With Open or Laparoscopic Approaches

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgical techniques are routinely promoted as alternatives to open surgery because of improved outcomes. However, the impact of robotic surgery on certain subsets of the population, such as frail patients, is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to examine the association between frailty and minimally invasive surgical approaches with colon cancer surgery.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective study of prospectively collected outcomes data. Thirty-day surgical outcomes were compared by frailty and surgical approach using doubly robust multivariable logistic regression with propensity score weighting, and testing for interaction effects between frailty and surgical approach.

SETTING

Patients undergoing an open, laparoscopic, or robotic colectomy for primary colon cancer, 2012 to 2016, were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing a colectomy with an operative indication for primary colon cancer were selected.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were 30-day postoperative complications.

RESULTS

After propensity score weighting of patients undergoing colectomy, 33.8% (n = 27,649) underwent an open approach versus 34.3% (n = 28,058) underwent laparoscopic surgery versus 31.9% (n = 26,096) underwent robotic surgery. Robotic (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42-0.69, p < 0.001) and laparoscopic (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66, p < 0.001) surgeries were independently associated with decreased rates of major complications. Frailer patients had increased complication rates (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.07-2.25, p = 0.018). When considering the interaction effects between surgical approach and frailty, frailer patients undergoing robotic surgery were more likely to develop a major complication (combined adjusted OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.34-7.45, p = 0.009) compared with patients undergoing open surgery.

LIMITATIONS

Use of the modified Frailty Index as an associative proxy for frailty was a limitation of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Although minimally invasive surgical approaches have decreased postoperative complications, this effect may be reversed in frail patients. These findings challenge the belief that robotic surgery provides a favorable alternative to open surgery in frail patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B163. LOS PACIENTES MÁS FRÁGILES SOMETIDOS A COLECTOMÍA ROBÓTICA POR CÁNCER DE COLON EXPERIMENTAN MAYORES TASAS DE COMPLICACIONES EN COMPARACIÓN CON ABORDAJES LAPAROSCÓPICO O ABIERTO: Las técnicas quirúrgicas mínimamente invasivas estan frecuentement promovidas como alternativas a la cirugía abierta debido a sus mejores resultados. Sin embargo, el impacto de la cirugía robótica en ciertos subgrupos de población, como el caso de los pacientes endebles, es poco conocido.El propósito de nuestro estudio fue examinar la asociación entre la fragilidad de los pacientes y el aborgaje quirúrgico mínimamente invasivo para la cirugía de cáncer de colon.Estudio retrospectivo de datos de resultados recolectados prospectivamente. Los resultados quirúrgicos a 30 días se compararon entre fragilidad y abordaje quirúrgico utilizando la regresión logística multivariable doblemente robusta con ponderación de puntaje de propensión y pruebas de efectos de interacción entre fragilidad y abordaje quirúrgico.Los pacientes identificados en la base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Estadounidense de Cirujanos, que fueron sometidos a una colectomía abierta, laparoscópica o robótica por cáncer de colon primario, de 2012 a 2016.Todos aquellos pacientes seleccionados con indicación quirúrgica de cáncer primario de colon que fueron sometidos a una colectomía.Las complicaciones postoperatorias a 30 días.Luego de ponderar el puntaje de propensión de los pacientes colectomizados, el 33.8% (n = 27,649) fué sometido a laparotomía versus el 34.3% (n = 28,058) operados por laparoscopía versus el 31.9% (n = 26,096) operados con tecnica robótica. Las cirugías robóticas (OR 0.53, IC 95% 0.42-0.69, p < 0.001) y laparoscópicas (OR 0.58, IC 95% 0.52-0.66, p < 0.001) se asociaron de forma independiente con una disminución de las tasas de complicaciones mayores. Los pacientes más delicados tenían mayores tasas de complicaciones (OR 1.56, IC 95% 1.07-2.25, p = 0.018). Al considerar los efectos de interacción entre el abordaje quirúrgico y la fragilidad, los pacientes más débiles sometidos a cirugía robótica tenían más probabilidades de desarrollar una complicación mayor (OR ajustado combinado 3.15, IC 95% 1.34-7.45, p = 0.009) en comparación con los pacientes sometidos a cirugía abierta.El uso del índice de fragilidad modificado como apoderado asociativo de la fragilidad.Si bien los abordajes quirúrgicos mínimamente invasivos han disminuido las complicaciones postoperatorias, este efecto puede revertirse en pacientes lábiles. Estos hallazgos desafían la creencia de que la cirugía robótica proporciona una alternativa favorable a la cirugía abierta en pacientes frágiles. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B163. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Case-Control Outcome Analysis and Surgical Resident Training Implications

Background

The robotic approach in surgery is becoming more widely used in many subspecialties. Robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures provide potential improvements in clinical outcomes due to improved visualization and enhanced surgical ergonomics. In this study, we measured and compared outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the conventional laparoscopic technique, as well as the implications for the training of surgical residents.

Method

We compared a total of 244 patients undergoing minimally invasive cholecystectomies performed by one surgeon between July 2013 and June 2016 examining relevant clinical outcomes including operative room (OR) time, length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission to the hospital, post-operative emergency department (ED) visits, and post-operative pain between laparoscopic single-incision cholecystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A chi-square test and Student’s t-test were used to compare these variables between the two groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used using gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) as variables.

Results

From the total number of procedures of 244, 144 were included in the laparoscopic group and 100 in the robot-assisted group. The robot-assisted patients had a shorter post-operative LOS (mean: 0.8 vs. 1.6 days; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the OR time (mean: 64.8 vs. 65.0 minutes; p = 0.945), readmissions (4.0% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.830), post-operative ED visits (7.0% vs. 7.6%; p = 0.851), or post-operative pain (13.0% vs. 21.3%; p= 0.137). Robotic cholecystectomy patients were younger (mean: 46 vs. 52 years; p = 0.023) and had lower BMIs (mean: 31 vs. 33; p = 0.038). Because of these differences, we compared the two groups using PSM that confirmed the shorter LOS in the robotic group (mean: 0.9 vs. 1.9; p = 0.009).

Conclusions

These results demonstrate that robotic cholecystectomies can reduce LOS for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, without increasing OR time. Increased surgeon experience with robotic procedures and improved OR efficiency will allow greater opportunities for resident participation. Robotic training curricula need to be employed and objectively evaluated to improve surgical resident skill acquisition and provide earlier and progressive clinical participation in robotic procedures.

Comparison of outcome and cost between the open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for colon cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis using nationwide hospital record database

BACKGROUND

There are limited studies that compare the cost and outcome of robotic-assisted surgery to open and laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer treatment. We aimed to compare the three surgical modalities for colon cancer treatment.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study using the population-based Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Patients with a primary diagnosis of colon cancer who underwent robotic, laparoscopic, or open surgeries between 2008 and 2014 were eligible for enrollment. We compared in-hospital mortality, complications, length of hospital stay, and cost for patients undergoing one of these three procedures using a multivariate adjusted logistic regression analysis and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of the 531,536 patients undergoing surgical treatment for colon cancer during the study period, 348,645 (65.6%) patients underwent open surgeries, 174,748 (32.9%) underwent laparoscopic surgeries, and 8143 (1.5%) underwent robotic surgeries. In-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, wound complications, general medical complications, general surgical complications, and costs of the three surgical treatment modalities. Compared to those undergoing laparoscopic surgery, patients undergoing open surgery had a higher mortality rate (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.61-3.40), more general medical complications (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.67-1.87), a longer length of hospital stay (6.60 vs. 4.36 days), and higher total cost ($18,541 vs. $14,487) in the propensity score matched cohort. Mortality rate and general medical complications were equivalent in the laparoscopic and robotic surgery groups, but the median cost was lower in the laparoscopic group ($14641 vs. $16,628 USD).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colon cancer surgery was associated with a favourable short-term outcome and lower cost compared with open surgery. Robot-assisted surgery had comparable outcomes but higher cost as compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I² = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (ρ < 0.001, I² = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (ρ < 0.001, I² = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (ρ < 0.001, I² = 94%; REM: MD - 0.77; 95% CI 1.12, - 0.41; day), time to oral diet (ρ < 0.001, I² = 60%; REM: MD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.64, - 0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (ρ = 0.01, I² = 88%; REM: MD - 18.05; 95% CI - 32.24, - 3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (ρ < 0.001, I² = 93%; REM: MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

Propensity-Matched Analysis of Sigmoidectomies for Diverticular Disease

Background and Objectives:

The role for the robotic-assisted approach as a minimally invasive alternative to open colorectal surgery is in the evaluation phase. While the benefits of minimally invasive colorectal surgery when compared to the open approach have been clearly demonstrated, the adoption of laparoscopy has been limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes, hospital and payer characteristics of patients undergoing robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease in the United States.

Methods:

This is a retrospective propensity score–matched analysis. The Premier Healthcare Database was queried for patients with diverticular disease. Patients with diverticular disease who underwent robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease from January 2013 through September 2015 were included. Propensity-score matching (1:1) facilitated comparison of robotic-assisted versus open approach and robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic approach. Peri-operative outcomes were assessed for both comparisons.

Results:

There were several outcomes advantages for the robotic-assisted approach when compared to laparoscopic and open sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease that included significantly fewer conversions to open (P = .0002), shorter hospital length of stay, fewer postoperative complications—ileus, wound complications, and acute renal failure—and more patients discharged directly to home.

Conclusions:

The robotic-assisted minimally invasive approach to elective sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease results in favorable intra-operative and postoperative outcomes when compared to laparoscopic and open approaches.

Short- and long-term outcomes of totally robotic versus robotic-assisted right hemicolectomy for colon cancer: A retrospective study

Totally robotic right hemicolectomy (TRRH) is a novel alternative surgical method used for the treatment of colon cancer. The aim of this study was to compare both the short-and long-term outcomes of TRRH and robotic-assisted right hemicolectomy (RARH) for the treatment of colon cancer.We performed a 1:2 matched propensity score analysis. We then retrospectively analyzed all procedures (64 cases TRRH and 128 cases RARH) carried out by a single surgeon between December 4, 2014 and June 20, 2018 at a large center. Both short-and long-term surgical outcomes were compared between 2 different groups.Based on the propensity score matching, we selected 64 patients that had undergone TRRH treatment and 128 patients who had undergone RARH treatment. The preoperative clinical-pathological characteristics were well matched between the 2 groups. We observed no significant differences between the 2 groups in postoperative pathological outcomes. The mean operative time was found to be significantly longer in the TRRH group compared to the RARH group (168.2 ± 9.1 minutes vs 153.4 ± 7.4 minutes, P = .034). The mean operative incision length was found to be significantly longer in the TRRH group than in the RARH group (4.5 ± 0.6 cm vs 6.9 ± 1.1 cm, P = .023). Postoperative pain score (visual analog scale at day 1) was found to be significantly lower in the TRRH group than in the RARH group (2.9 ± 1.3 vs 4.1 ± 2.1, P = .005). The time to pass flatus was observed to be statistically lower in the TRRH group (P = .042). We observed 3 twists of mesentery in the RARH group, while none were observed in the TRRH group (P < .050). Both the 3-year overall survival (TRRH [91.6%] vs RARH [89.2%], P = .467) and the 3-year disease-free survival (TRRH [81.4%] vs RARH [78.2%], P = .551) were determined to be comparable between the 2 groups studied here.We show that TRRH is a safe and feasible treatment option for colon cancer patients in terms of both short- and long-term outcomes. High-volume, randomized, controlled trials with sufficient follow-up studies will need to be carried out in order to confirm this rationale.

Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Cohort Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the intestinal function recovery time and other short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (R-TME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) for rectal cancer. This is a retrospective study using a prospectively collected database. Patients’ records were obtained from Gansu Provincial Hospital between July 2015 and October 2017. Eighty patients underwent R-TME, and 116 with the same histopathological stage of the tumor underwent an L-TME. Both operations were performed by the same surgeon, comparing intra- and postoperative outcomes intergroups. The time to the first passage of flatus ( P < 0.001), the time to the first postoperative oral fluid intake ( P < 0.001), and the length of hospital stay ( P < 0.01) of the R-TME group were about three days faster than those in the L-TME group. The rate of conversion to open laparotomy ( P = 0.038) and postoperative urinary retention ( P = 0.016) were significantly lower in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group. Intraoperative blood loss of the R-TME group was more than that of the L-TME group ( P < 0.01).The operation time, number of lymph nodes harvested, and rate of positive circumferential resection margin were similar intergroup. The total cost of the R-TME group was higher than that of the L-TME group, but with a lack of statistical significance (85,623.91 ± 13,310.50 vs 67,356.79 ± 17,107.68 CNY, P = 0.084). The R-TME is safe and effective and has better postoperative short-term outcomes and faster intestinal function recovery time, contrasting with the L-TME. The large, multicenter, prospective studies were needed to validate the advantages of robotic surgery system used in rectal cancer.

The oncological and surgical safety of robot-assisted surgery in colorectal cancer: outcomes of a longitudinal prospective cohort study

Background

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCRS) is a frequently used modality. A new development in minimally invasive surgery is robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACRS).

Methods

Prospectively collected data of 378 consecutive patients who underwent RACRS or LCRS for stage I–III colorectal cancer from Dec 2014 to Oct 2017 were analyzed. Primary outcome was oncological outcome (radical margins, number of retrieved lymph nodes, locoregional recurrence). Secondary outcomes were distant metastases, overall and disease-free survival, operation time, conversion, length of hospital stay, and intra- and post-operative complications.

Results

206 RACRS (129 colon and 77 rectal) and 172 LCRS (138 colon and 34 rectal) procedures were included. Baseline characteristics were similar. Overall median follow-up time was 15 months (0.2–36). Oncological outcome was similar. In colon cancer, radical margins were achieved in 99.3% in RACRS group versus 98.6% in LCRS group (p = 0.60), the average number of harvested lymph nodes was 16 ± 6 versus 18 ± 7 (p = 0.16), and locoregional recurrence rate in 24 months was 3.8% vs 3.8% (p = 0.99), respectively. In rectal cancer, radical margins were achieved in 89.6% in RACRS group versus 94.3% in LCRS group (p = 0.42), the average number of harvested lymph nodes was 16 ± 8 versus 15 ± 4 (p = 0.51), and locoregional recurrence rate in 24 months was 9.5 versus 5.6% (p = 0.42), respectively. Incidence of metastasis, survival rates, operation time, length of hospital stay, and number of severe post-operative complications measured by Clavien–Dindo scores did not differ between RACRS and LCRS groups. Conversion and intra-operative complication rates were significantly lower in the RACRS group as compared to the LCRS group (3% vs 9%, p = 0.008 and 2% vs 8%, p = 0.003, respectively).

Conclusion

RACRS is safe in the treatment of patients with stage I–III colorectal cancer. Oncological outcome did not differ between RACRS and LCRS groups. RACRS had lower conversion and intra-operative complication rates.