Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a case-control study

Impact of autonomic nerve-oriented anatomical laparoscopic surgery on recovery in patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Implementation of an autonomic nerve-oriented anatomical approach in laparoscopic surgery for patients with colorectal cancer may provide a new reference for surgical intervention in this patient population.

AIM

To assess the impact of autonomic nerve-oriented anatomical laparoscopic surgery on recovery and postoperative risks in patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Data from 116 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer, treated between January 2016 and May 2024, were randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 58 each) according to surgical approach: Control (radical vessel-oriented laparoscopic surgery); and Observation (autonomic nerve-oriented anatomical surgery). Perioperative indicators, and postoperative risk for urinary dysfunction and sexual function were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, the observation group experienced less intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.05) and exhibited superior perioperative indicators (P < 0.05). At 2 weeks and 3 months postoperatively, the proportion of patients with urinary dysfunction in the observation group was lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). Four months postoperatively, there were significant differences in male erectile dysfunction, female dyspareunia, and sexual pleasure grading between the 2 groups (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The autonomic nerve-oriented anatomical approach to laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer accelerates postoperative recovery, with decreased intraoperative blood loss, lower impact on urinary and sexual functions, and enhances surgical safety.

Construction and application of composite insulation scheme in the perioperative period of patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery are at high risk for hypothermia-related complications. This study explores the efficacy of perioperative composite insulation interventions in maintaining normothermia and reducing postoperative risks in this vulnerable group.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of perioperative composite insulation in older patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

We selected 100 older patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer at Huzhou Central Hospital from September 2023 to April 2024. Using a random number table, patients were divided into a control group and intervention group of 50 patients each. After returning to the regular ward, the conventional group received traditional insulation intervention measures, while the intervention group received composite insulation nursing intervention. We observed and recorded postoperative blood pressure and heart rate changes, as well as postoperative anesthesia recovery time and incidence of complications.

RESULTS

The statistical results showed significant differences (P < 0.05) in heart rate changes and systolic blood pressure between the two groups. There was a significant change in heart rate between the groups immediately after surgery and at 15 and 30 minutes after surgery (P < 0.05). The heart rate and systolic blood pressure of the intervention group were significantly lower than those of the control group at 15 and 30 minutes after surgery (P < 0.05). The rewarming time of the intervention group was shorter than that of the control group, and the overall incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower than that of the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery, a composite insulation intervention during the perioperative period can maintain body temperature, reduce postoperative stress, and significantly reduce the incidence of hypothermia and related complications.

Lower Limb Compartment Syndrome Among Colorectal Patients: Risk Factors and Proposed Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Lower limb compartment syndrome (LLCS) is a rare but potentially devastating complication of prolonged lithotomy positioning in colorectal surgery. The mechanisms appear to be related to prolonged pressure on muscle compartments, leading to hypoperfusion followed by reperfusion injury. This study aims to identify the incidence of LLCS after colorectal surgery and identify associated risk factors to inform evidence-based prevention strategies.

STUDY DESIGN

Adults from the American College of Surgeons NSQIP (2006 to 2022) undergoing colorectal surgery were included. The primary outcome was postoperative compartment syndrome leading to fasciotomy. Patients with concurrent vascular procedures and embolism diagnoses were excluded. The association between operative time and fasciotomy was assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 773,981 patients, 35 underwent fasciotomy within 2 days of their colorectal procedure. The median operative time was 388 minutes (interquartile range 165 to 539) for the fasciotomy group and 162 minutes (interquartile range 113 to 320) for the nonfasciotomy group (p < 0.001). Adjusted multivariable analysis demonstrated a time-response relationship between operative time and fasciotomy as the odds of fasciotomy were 3.5-fold higher after 3 to 5 hours and increased with longer operative time. In addition, other factors associated with fasciotomy included age younger than 50 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV to V, and preoperative transfusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers should exercise caution when operating on younger patients in lithotomy positions with an operative time more than 3 to 5 hours, as prolonged operative time is associated with an increased risk of fasciotomy. Improving awareness alongside the development of guidelines for routine intraoperative lower extremity assessment can facilitate early recognition and prevention of LLCS.

Comparative study of robotic-assisted vs. laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a single-center experience

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) surgeries are commonly performed using either robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) or laparoscopic colorectal surgery (LCS). This study aimed to compare clinical and surgical outcomes between RACS and LCS for CRC patients.

Methods

We included 225 patients from Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital (TJMUCH) between January 2021 and June 2024, divided into RACS (n=82) and LCS (n=143) groups. Data on demographics, clinicopathological variables, surgical parameters, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

RACS was associated with longer surgery durations (median: 218.5 vs. 165 minutes) and greater blood loss (median: 100 vs. 50 mL) compared to LCS (p < 0.001 for both). Additionally, the median hospitalization cost was notably higher for RACS at 117,822 RMB compared to 78,174 RMB for LCS (p < 0.0001). RACS was used more frequently for proctectomy (87.80% vs. 72.48%). No significant differences were found in lymph node dissection (LND), postoperative hospital stay, conversion to open surgery, or postoperative complications between the groups (p > 0.05). Anastomotic leakage was the most common complication in both groups (RACS: 3.66%, LCS: 4.20%), with no significant difference in incidence (p = 0.876). To reduce bias due to surgical site, cases of rectal and sigmoid colon cancer were singled out. Hierarchical analysis showed significant differences still remained in surgical duration, blood loss, and surgical site distribution for proctectomy and sigmoid colon resection (p < 0.001). RACS did not show a clear advantage in surgical field exposure or tissue retraction.

Conclusion

RACS, despite superior visualization, involved longer operative times and more blood loss than LCS. Both techniques had similar clinical outcomes, with LCS offering specific technical advantages.

Clinical comparative study of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic surgery in patients with cervical cancer: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

A new era in minimally invasive surgery has been ushered in by Leonardo's robot surgical system, but the safety and effectiveness in cervical cancer is lake of evidence. This study aimed to compare the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (RRH) and conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) in patients with cervical cancer.

METHODS

Patients with cervical cancer who had radical surgery at the first affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University between January 2017 and June 2022 were enrolled. Patients in the LRH and RRH groups were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching (PSM), all patients were followed up to September 2023, cancer recurrence occurred or death, whichever came first.

RESULTS

522 cervical cancer patients were enrolled in this study, 261 of whom were in the LRH group and 261 of whom were in the RRH group. Univariate analysis showed that the RRH group had less intraoperative blood loss, shorter operation time and hospital stay, lower incidence of composite complications and urinary retention, but had higher hospitalization costs. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that LRH was an independent protective factor for composite complications (OR 1.531; 95%CI,1.022 to 2.295; P = .039). Cox regression analysis with cancer recurrence as the endpoint showed that LRH (HR 0.320; 95%CI,0.255 to 0.401; P < .001) and longer operation time (HR 0.995; 95%CI,0.993 to 0.997; P < .001) reduced 68% and 5% risk of cancer recurrence ; results also indicated that the older age (HR 1.017; 95%CI,1.007 to 1.027; P = .001) and postoperative complications (HR 22.410; 95%CI,16.019 to 31.350; P < .001) would increase 224% recurrence risk of cancer recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LRH and RRH demonstrated good short-term efficacy, with RRH outperforming LRH in terms of reduced intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospital stays and operation times, and fewer composite complications. However, the RRH group faces a higher risk of early cancer recurrence and incurs greater expenses. In summary, comprehensive long-term prospective studies are needed to thoroughly explore the effectiveness and safety of both LRH and RRH.

Evaluation and analysis of neurocognitive dysfunction in patients with colorectal cancer after radical resection: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

With the continuous progress of colorectal cancer treatment technology, the survival rate of patients has improved significantly, but the problem of postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction has gradually attracted attention.

AIM

To analyze the risk factors for delayed postoperative neurocognitive recovery (DNR) after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery and constructed a risk prediction model to provide an evidence-based reference for the prevention and treatment of DNR after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

The clinical data of 227 patients with colorectal cancer who underwent laparoscopic surgery and regional cerebral saturation oxygenation (rScO2) monitoring at our hospital from March 2020 to July 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Common factors and potential factors affecting postoperative DNR were used as analysis variables, and univariate analysis and multifactor analysis were carried out step by step to determine the predictors of the model and construct a risk prediction model. The predictive performance of the model was assessed by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the calibration curve was used to assess the fit of the model to the data, and a nomogram was drawn. In addition, 30 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria from January 2023 to July 2023 were selected for external verification of the prediction model.

RESULTS

The incidence of postoperative DNR in the modeling group was 15.4% (35/227). Multivariate analysis revealed that age, years of education, diabetes status, and the lowest rScO2 value were the independent influencing factors of postoperative DNR (all P < 0.05). Accordingly, a DNR risk prediction model was constructed after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. The area under the ROC curve of the model was 0.757 (95%CI: 0.676-0.839, P < 0.001), and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of the calibration curve suggested that the model was well fitted (P = 0.516). The C-index for external validation of the row was 0.617.

CONCLUSION

The DNR risk prediction model associated with rScO2 monitoring can be used for individualized assessment of patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery and provides a clinical basis for the prevention of DNR after surgery.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Adults Aged 75 Years and Older: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery has been increasingly adopted in colorectal cancer resection.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to compare the inpatient outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection in patients aged 75 years and older.

DESIGN

A retrospective, population-based study.

SETTINGS

This study analyzed data from the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2018.

PATIENTS

Patients with colorectal cancer aged 75 years and older and who underwent robot-assisted or conventional laparoscopic resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, and total hospital costs were assessed.

RESULTS

Data from 14,108 patients were analyzed. After adjustment, any postoperative complications (adjusted OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99; p = 0.030) and prolonged length of stay (adjusted OR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91; p = 0.001) were significantly less in the robotic than the laparoscopic group. In addition, robotic surgery was associated with significantly higher total hospital costs (26.06 USD greater cost; 95% CI, 21.35-30.77 USD; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

The analysis was limited by its retrospective and observational nature, potential coding errors, and the lack of intraoperative factors, such as operative time, laboratory measures, and information on surgeons' experience.

CONCLUSIONS

In the United States, in patients with colorectal cancer aged 75 years and older who were undergoing tumor resections, compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery is associated with better inpatient outcomes in terms of complication rate and risk of prolonged length of stay. This finding is especially true among patients with colon cancer. However, robotic surgery is associated with higher total hospital costs. See Video Abstract .

RESULTADOS DE LA CIRUGA ASISTIDA POR ROBOT FRENTE A LA CIRUGA LAPAROSCPICA PARA EL CNCER COLORRECTAL EN ADULTOS AOS DE EDAD UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO POR PUNTUACIN DE PROPENSIN DE LA MUESTRA NACIONAL DE PACIENTES HOSPITALIZADOS DE ESTADOS UNIDOS

ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía asistida por robot se ha adoptado cada vez más en la resección del cáncer colorrectal.OBJETIVO:El estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar los resultados hospitalarios de la resección del cáncer colorrectal asistida por robot versus la laparoscópica convencional en pacientes ≥ 75 años.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de base poblacional.AJUSTES:Este estudio analizó datos de la Muestra Nacional de Pacientes Hospitalizados de Estados Unidos de 2005 a 2018.PACIENTES:Pacientes con cáncer colorrectal ≥ 75 años y sometidos a resección laparoscópica convencional o asistida por robot.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se evaluaron las complicaciones posoperatorias, la duración prolongada de la estancia hospitalaria y los costos hospitalarios totales.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron datos de 14.108 pacientes. Después del ajuste, cualquier complicación posoperatoria (aOR = 0,87; IC del 95 %: 0,77-0,99, p = 0,030) y duración prolongada de la estancia hospitalaria (aOR = 0,78; IC del 95 %: 0,67-0,91, p = 0,001) fueron significativamente menores en el grupo robótico que el grupo laparoscópico. Además, la cirugía robótica se asoció con costos hospitalarios totales significativamente mayores ($26,06 USD mayor costo; IC 95%: 21,35-30,77 USD, p < 0,001).LIMITACIONES:El análisis estuvo limitado por su naturaleza retrospectiva y observacional, posibles errores de codificación y la falta de factores intraoperatorios como el tiempo operatorio, medidas de laboratorio e información sobre la experiencia de los cirujanos.CONCLUSIONES:En Estados Unidos, los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal ≥ 75 años que se sometieron a resecciones tumorales, en comparación con la cirugía laparoscópica convencional, la cirugía robótica se asocia con mejores resultados hospitalarios en términos de tasa de complicaciones y riesgo de estadía prolongada, especialmente entre pacientes con cáncer de colon. Sin embargo, la cirugía robótica se asocia a costes hospitalarios totales más elevados. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Meta-analysis of robotic-assisted NOSE versus traditional TWSR in colorectal cancer surgery: postoperative outcomes and efficacy

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSE) compared to traditional robotic transabdominal wall specimen retrieval surgery (TWSR) for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Embase) from inception to August 2023. Primary outcomes included postoperative complications, the number of lymph nodes harvested, overall survival and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, the additional use of analgesics, the restoration of gastrointestinal function, blood loss, the mean operation time, and length of postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, a total of 717 patients from 6 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with the TWSR group, the NOSE group had greater benefits in terms of overall postoperative complications [odds ratios (OR) 0.55; 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.34 to 0.89; P = 0.01, I2 = 0%)], the number of lymph nodes harvested [weighted mean differences (WMD) = 1.18; 95% CI = 0.15 to 2.21; P = 0.02, I2 = 0%)], the rate of wound infection (OR 0.17; 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.80; P = 0.02, I2 = 0%), the passed flatus time (WMD =  - 0.35 days; 95% CI =  - 0.60 to - 0.10; P = 0.007, I2 = 73%), the additional use of analgesics (OR 0.25; 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.40; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%), the diet recovery time (WMD =  - 0.56; 95% CI =  - 1.00 to - 0.11; P = 0.01, I2 = 78%) and the postoperative VAS score (WMD =  - 1.23; 95% CI =  - 1.63 to - 0.83; P < 0.001, I2 = 65%). There were no significant differences in the blood loss (WMD =  - 5.78 ml; 95% CI =  - 17.57 to 6.00; P = 0.34, I2 = 90%), mean operation time (WMD = 14.10 min; 95% CI =  - 3.76 to 31.96; P = 0.12) (I2 = 93%), length of postoperative hospital stay (WMD =  - 0.47 day; 95% CI =  - 0.98 to 0.03; P = 0.07, I2 = 51%), incidences of postoperative ileus (OR 1.0; 95% CI = 0.22 to 4.46; P = 1.00, I2 = 0%), anastomotic leakage (OR 0.73; 95% CI = 0.33 to 1.60; P = 0.43, I2 = 0%), and intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.59; 95% CI = 0.47 to 5.40; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%), or 3-year overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.60 to 1.94; P = 0.81)] or disease-free survival (HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.54 to 1.63; P = 0.82, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that the NOSE group had better postoperative outcomes than did the TWSR group and that NOSE was a safe and viable alternative to TWSR. More large-sample reviews and further randomized trials are warranted.

A Concept for Preoperative and Intraoperative Molecular Imaging and Detection for Assessing Extent of Disease of Solid Tumors

The authors propose a concept of "systems engineering," the approach to assessing the extent of diseased tissue (EODT) in solid tumors. We modeled the proof of this concept based on our clinical experience with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) and gastrinoma that included short and long-term survival data of CRC patients. This concept, applicable to various solid tumors, combines resources from surgery, nuclear medicine, radiology, pathology, and oncology needed for preoperative and intraoperative assessments of a patient's EODT. The concept begins with a patient presenting with biopsy-proven cancer. An appropriate preferential locator (PL) is a molecule that preferentially binds to a cancer-related molecular target (i.e., tumor marker) lacking in non-malignant tissue and is the essential element. Detecting the PL after an intravenous injection requires the PL labeling with an appropriate tracer radionuclide, a fluoroprobe, or both. Preoperative imaging of the tracer's signal requires molecular imaging modalities alone or in combination with computerized tomography (CT). These include positron emission tomography (PET), PET/CT, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), SPECT/CT for preoperative imaging, gamma cameras for intraoperative imaging, and gamma-detecting probes for precise localization. Similarly, fluorescent-labeled PLs require appropriate cameras and probes. This approach provides the surgeon with real-time information needed for R0 resection.

Comparing short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic total mesorectal excision surgery for rectal cancer in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Da Vinci Robotics-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for rectal cancer is becoming more widely used. There is no strong evidence that robotic-assisted surgery and laparoscopic surgery have similar outcomes in elderly patients with TME for rectal cancer.

AIM

To determine the improved oncological outcomes and short-term efficacy of robot-assisted surgery in elderly patients undergoing TME surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective study of the clinical pathology and follow-up of elderly patients who underwent TME surgery at the Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology at the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine was conducted from March 2020 through September 2023. The patients were divided into a robot-assisted group (the R-TME group) and a laparoscopic group (the L-TME group), and the short-term efficacy of the two groups was compared.

RESULTS

There were 45 elderly patients (≥ 60 years) in the R-TME group and 50 elderly patients (≥ 60 years) in the L-TME group. There were no differences in demographics, conversion rates, or postoperative complication rates. The L-TME group had a longer surgical time than the R-TME group [145 (125, 187.5) vs 180 (148.75, 206.25) min, P = 0.005), and the first postoperative meal time in the L-TME group was longer than that in the R-TME (4 vs 3 d, P = 0.048). Among the sex and body mass index (BMI) subgroups, the R-TME group had better outcomes than did the L-TME group in terms of operation time (P = 0.042) and intraoperative assessment of bleeding (P = 0.042). In the high BMI group, catheter removal occurred earlier in the R-TME group than in the L-TME group (3 vs 4 d, P = 0.001), and autonomous voiding function was restored.

CONCLUSION

The curative effect and short-term efficacy of robot-assisted TME surgery for elderly patients with rectal cancer are similar to those of laparoscopic TME surgery; however, robotic-assisted surgery has better short-term outcomes for individuals with risk factors such as obesity and pelvic stenosis. Optimizing the learning curve can shorten the operation time, reduce the recovery time of gastrointestinal function, and improve the prognosis.

Demographic characteristics and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colon cancer surgeries at a newly developed cancer center in Peshawar, Pakistan

Objective

In Pakistan, colon cancer ranks fourth in incidence, exhibiting survival rates of 90% to 14%, contingent on TNM staging and early detection. This research focuses on the demographic involvement and short-term outcomes of elective colon cancer resections at a newly established tertiary care cancer center utilizing laparoscopic procedures.

Method

A retrospective analysis of elective laparoscopic colorectal resections at Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Peshawar, from April 2021 to February 2022 was conducted. Out of 157 cases, 79 had colon cancer. Criteria included patients >18 years old with positive biopsies; consent non-providers were excluded. Statistical analysis employed descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations using SPSS-22.

Results

The study encompassed biopsy-confirmed colon cancers in patients >18 years. 157 colorectal cases were performed, including 79 colon cancers. The sample comprised 61 males (77.2%) and 18 females (22.7%), mean age 42 years. Most patients (33%) were in the 36-45 age group. Majority were from KPK (69.6%), followed by Afghanistan (24%). Tumors were predominantly in the ascending colon (30.3%). Most were moderately differentiated (70.8%). Mean lymph node yield was 19.0, with 1.2% requiring open laparotomy. Post-discharge, one readmission occurred within 30 days. Mortality within 90 days was 2%, attributed to aspiration pneumonia and chemotherapy-related effects.

Conclusions

Elective laparoscopic colonic surgery exhibits safety and efficacy in treating colon cancer. The study provides evidence of minimal morbidity and mortality, low readmission rates, and absence of anastomotic leaks. Hence, elective laparoscopic colonic surgery should be favored due to fewer post-operative complications and superior short-term outcomes. Larger studies on colon cancer are imperative for enhanced healthcare delivery.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Colon Cancer: Efficacy, Safety, and Outcomes-A Focus on Studies from 2020-2024

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of colon cancer has significantly advanced over the years. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the operative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of colon cancer, focusing on operative time, hospital stay, conversion rates, anastomotic leak rates, and total number lymph node harvested.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic search across four databases up to January 2024, registering our protocol with PROSPERO (CRD42024513326). We included studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for colon cancer, assessing operative time, hospital length of stay, and other perioperative outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist. Statistical analysis utilized a mix of fixed and random-effects models based on heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 50,771 patients, with 21.75% undergoing robotic surgery and 78.25% laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery was associated with longer operative times (SMD = -1.27, p < 0.00001) but shorter hospital stays (MD = 0.42, p = 0.003) compared to laparoscopic surgery. Conversion rates were significantly higher in laparoscopic procedures (OR = 2.02, p < 0.00001). No significant differences were found in anastomotic leak rates. A higher number of lymph nodes was harvested by robotic approach (MD = -0.65, p = 0.04). Publication bias was addressed through funnel plot analysis and Egger's test, indicating the presence of asymmetry (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of surgical method should be individualized, considering factors such as surgeon expertise, medical facilities, and patient-specific considerations. Future research should aim to elucidate long-term outcomes to further guide the clinical decision-making.

Outcome of Colorectal Robotic Surgery in Newly Established Robotic Surgery Center: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

The robotic platform compared to laparoscopy has proven to have similar postoperative outcomes, however its adoption in the Middle East has been slow and there is limited data regarding outcomes with its use in small newly established robotic colorectal programs. Our aim was to report our experience and outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare them to larger, more experienced centers.

METHODS

This is retrospective review of data collected between November 2021 and March 2023 from a tertiary health care referral center. The series included 51 patients who had elective or urgent robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who had emergency surgery were excluded. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and quality of oncological specimen.

RESULTS

The overall morbidity was 31.4% (n = 16 patients). Only 9.8% (n = 5) had serious morbidity of which three required interventions under general anesthesia. The median length of hospital stay was 6 days (IQR = 4), and there was no mortality. Of 17 rectal cancer resections, 88% had complete mesorectal excision, 15 of them were R0 resections, median lymph node harvested was 14 (IQR = 7) and two cases were converted to open. All the colon cancer resections had R0 resection, median lymph nodes harvested was 21 (IQR = 4) and none were converted to open.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery at a newly established center in a small country, when led by fellowship trained robotic colorectal surgeons, is safe and effective in terms of morbidity, mortality, conversion to open and specimen pathological quality.

Outcomes in robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in a newly established colorectal tertiary center: a retrospective comparative cohort study

The robotic platform matches or surpasses laparoscopic surgery in postoperative results. However, limited date and slow adoption are noticed in the middle east. We aimed to report outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare it to larger more experienced centers. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data between 2021 and 2023 of 107 patients who had robotic-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery was included in the study. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and the quality of oncological specimen. Of 107 patients, 57 were in the robotic and 50 were in the laparoscopic surgery groups. Overall, there were no significant differences in overall morbidity (46.8 vs. 53.2%, p = 0.9), serious morbidity (10.5 vs. 8%, p = 0.7), or mortality (0 vs. 4%, p = 0.2). Regarding oncological outcomes, there were no significant difference between the two groups regarding the number of lymph node harvested (17.7 ± 6.9 vs 19.0 ± 9.7, p = 0.5), R0 resections (92.7 vs. 87.1%, p = 0.5), and the rate of complete mesorectal excision (92.7 vs. 71.4%, p = 0.19). The study found that the robotic group had an 86% reduction in conversion rate to open surgery compared to the laparoscopic group, despite including more obese and physically dependent patients (OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.7, p = 0.01). Robotic surgery appears to be a safe and effective as laparoscopic surgery in smaller colorectal surgery programs led by fellowship-trained robotic surgeons, with outcomes comparable to those of larger programs.

Predictive value of red blood cell distribution width and hematocrit for short-term outcomes and prognosis in colorectal cancer patients undergoing radical surgery

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported that low hematocrit levels indicate poor survival in patients with ovarian cancer and cervical cancer, the prognostic value of hematocrit for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients has not been determined. The prognostic value of red blood cell distribution width (RDW) for CRC patients was controversial.

AIM

To investigate the impact of RDW and hematocrit on the short-term outcomes and long-term prognosis of CRC patients who underwent radical surgery.

METHODS

Patients who were diagnosed with CRC and underwent radical CRC resection between January 2011 and January 2020 at a single clinical center were included. The short-term outcomes, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared among the different groups. Cox analysis was also conducted to identify independent risk factors for OS and DFS.

RESULTS

There were 4258 CRC patients who underwent radical surgery included in our study. A total of 1573 patients were in the lower RDW group and 2685 patients were in the higher RDW group. There were 2166 and 2092 patients in the higher hematocrit group and lower hematocrit group, respectively. Patients in the higher RDW group had more intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.01) and more overall complications (P < 0.01) than did those in the lower RDW group. Similarly, patients in the lower hematocrit group had more intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.012), longer hospital stay (P = 0.016) and overall complications (P < 0.01) than did those in the higher hematocrit group. The higher RDW group had a worse OS and DFS than did the lower RDW group for tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage I (OS, P < 0.05; DFS, P = 0.001) and stage II (OS, P = 0.004; DFS, P = 0.01) than the lower RDW group; the lower hematocrit group had worse OS and DFS for TNM stage II (OS, P < 0.05; DFS, P = 0.001) and stage III (OS, P = 0.001; DFS, P = 0.001) than did the higher hematocrit group. Preoperative hematocrit was an independent risk factor for OS [P = 0.017, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.256, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.041-1.515] and DFS (P = 0.035, HR = 1.194, 95%CI: 1.013-1.408).

CONCLUSION

A higher preoperative RDW and lower hematocrit were associated with more postoperative complications. However, only hematocrit was an independent risk factor for OS and DFS in CRC patients who underwent radical surgery, while RDW was not.

Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis of Intra- and Post-Operative Complications

BACKGROUND

The use of robotic surgery is attracting ever-growing interest for its potential advantages such as small incisions, fine movements, and magnification of the operating field. Only a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have explored the differences in perioperative outcomes between the two approaches.

METHODS

We screened the main online databases from inception to May 2023. We included studies in English enrolling adult patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery. We used the following exclusion criteria: surgery with the involvement of thoracic esophagus, and patients affected by severe heart, pulmonary and end-stage renal disease. We compared intra- and post-operative complications, length of hospitalization, and costs between laparoscopic and robotic approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs were included. We found no differences in the rate of anastomotic leakage, cardiovascular complications, estimated blood loss, readmission, deep vein thrombosis, length of hospitalization, mortality, and post-operative pain between robotic and laparoscopic surgery; post-operative pneumonia was less frequent in the robotic approach. The conversion to open surgery was less frequent in the robotic approach, which was characterized by shorter time to first flatus but higher operative time and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic gastrointestinal surgery has some advantages compared to the laparoscopic technique such as lower conversion rate, faster recovery of bowel movement, but it has higher economic costs.

Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy node retrieval in the obese population

Data are scarce comparing robotic and laparoscopic colectomy node retrieval based on body mass index or age. With differences in anastomosis, mobilization, and ligation between these approaches, obese and/or elderly patients undergoing robotic surgery may have differences in node yield compared to laparoscopy. A retrospective review was conducted between four institutions from February 1, 2019 through August 1, 2021, during which 144 right colectomies were performed. Benign pathology, open colectomies, and conversions to open were excluded. All included surgeons had at least five patients to ensure experience. The population was categorized by a robotic or laparoscopic approach. Records were reviewed focusing on age, body mass index, surgical approach, anastomosis, pathology, and node count. The node count was then compared by body mass index and age between the robotic or laparoscopic approach to identify differences. After applied exclusions and outlier analysis, our final sample consisted of 80 patients. Both body mass index and age were significant, (p = 0.002 and p = 0.005, respectively). Body mass index ≤ 25.0 and age < 60 years old had higher average node counts. These variables interacted, (p = 0.003); those with both < 60 years old and body mass index ≤ 25 showed the greatest number of nodes (36.9). Laparoscopy yielded more nodes in ≥ 60 years old than robotics (27.4 verses 20.9), though this was not significant (p = 0.68). Node retrieval in overweight and obese patients did not differ between approaches (p = 0.48). Both body mass index and age influence the number of nodes that can be extracted in right hemicolectomies by experienced surgeons.

Robotic colorectal surgery in the emergent diverticulitis setting: is it safe? A review of large national database

BACKGROUND

As robotic colorectal surgery continues to advance in conjunction with improved recovery protocols, we began implementing robotic surgery (RS) as an option for emergent diverticulitis surgery. Our hospital system utilizes the Da Vinci Xi system, and staff are required to undergo training, making emergent colorectal surgery a feasible option. However, it is essential to determine the safety with reproducibility of our experiences.

METHODS

A de-identified retrospective review was performed of Intuitive's national database which obtained data from 262 facilities from January 2018 through December 2021. This identified over 22,000 emergent colorectal surgeries. Of those, over 2500 were performed for diverticulitis in which 126 were RS, 446 laparoscopic surgery (LS), and 1952 open surgery (OS). Clinical outcome metrics including conversion rates, anastomotic leaks, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of stay, mortality, and readmissions were obtained. The cohort was defined by patients who were seen in the emergency department (ED) with diverticulitis and proceeded to have a sigmoid colectomy within 24 h of ED arrival.

RESULTS

RS was associated with increased operating time (RS 262, LS 207, OS 182 min), but data has shown many benefits of emergent RS compared to OS. We identified significant decreases in ICU admission rates (OS 19.0%, RS 9.5%, p = 0.01) and anastomotic leak rates (OS 4.4%, RS 0.8%, p = 0.04), with borderline improvement in overall length of stay (OS 9.9, RS 8.9 days, p = 0.05). When compared with LS, RS showed many comparable results. However, RS witnessed a statistically significant improvement in anastomotic leak rates (LS 4.5%, RS 0.8%, p = 0.04). Importantly, there was a striking difference in conversion rates to OS. LS converted over 28.7% of cases to OS, whereas RS only converted 7.9%, p = 0.000005.

CONCLUSION

Given these findings, RS is another MIS tool that could be a safe and feasible option for the acute management of emergent diverticulitis.

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery versus conventional robotic resection for patients with colorectal neoplasms

Background

Laparoscopic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) has been widely used in colorectal neoplasms. However, only a few studies have focused on robotic NOSES. This study compared the short-term clinical outcomes and long-term survival outcomes between robotic NOSES and conventional robotic resection (CRR) groups.

Methods

From March 2016 to October 2018, a consecutive of 143 patients who underwent robotic sigmoid and rectal resection at the Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, were considered for inclusion in this study. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to account for differences in the baseline characteristics. After PSM, 39 patients were included in the robotic NOSES group, and 39 patients in the CRR group. The baseline characteristics between the two groups were all balanced and comparable.

Results

Patients in the NOSES group experienced less intraoperative blood loss (p=0.001), lower requirements for additional analgesia (p=0.020), shorter time to first flatus (p=0.010), and a shorter time to first liquid diet (p=0.003) than the CRR group. The 3-year overall survival rates (NOSES: 92.3% vs. CRR: 89.7% p=1.000) and 3-year disease-free survival rates (NOSES: 82.1% vs. CRR: 84.6% p=0.761) between the two groups were comparable.

Conclusion

Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery is a safe and feasible surgery for patients with colorectal neoplasms. Robotic NOSES is associated with better short-term clinical outcomes and similar long-term survival outcomes to conventional robotic resection.

Application of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer: A novel Prospect

In the past few decades, according to the rapid development of information technology, artificial intelligence (AI) has also made significant progress in the medical field. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed cancer worldwide, and its incidence and mortality rates are increasing yearly, especially in developing countries. This article reviews the latest progress in AI in diagnosing and treating CRC based on a systematic collection of previous literature. Most CRCs transform from polyp mutations. The computer-aided detection systems can significantly improve the polyp and adenoma detection rate by early colonoscopy screening, thereby lowering the possibility of mutating into CRC. Machine learning and bioinformatics analysis can help screen and identify more CRC biomarkers to provide the basis for non-invasive screening. The Convolutional neural networks can assist in reading histopathologic tissue images, reducing the experience difference among doctors. Various studies have shown that AI-based high-level auxiliary diagnostic systems can significantly improve the readability of medical images and help clinicians make more accurate diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. Moreover, Robotic surgery systems such as da Vinci have been more and more commonly used to treat CRC patients, according to their precise operating performance. The application of AI in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has further improved the treatment and efficacy evaluation of CRC. In addition, AI represented by deep learning in gene sequencing research offers a new treatment option. All of these things have seen that AI has a promising prospect in the era of precision medicine.

PADI1 and Its Co-Expressed Gene Signature Unveil Colorectal Cancer Prognosis and Immunotherapy Efficacy

Peptidyl arginine deiminase 1 (PADI1) catalyzes protein citrullination and has a role in regulating immune responses. The tumor immune microenvironment has been reported to be important in colorectal cancer (CRC), which was correlated with the ability of CRC patients to benefit from immunotherapy. However, there is a lack of molecular markers for matching CRC immunotherapy. Previously, single-gene risk models have only considered the effect of individual genes on intrinsic tumor properties, ignoring the role of genes and their co-expressed genes as a whole. In this study, we analyzed the differential expression of PADI1 in colorectal cancer (CRC). We found that PADI1 was highly expressed in CRC. Subgroup survival analysis revealed a prognostic survival difference for PADI1 in CRC patients aged less than 65 years, male, T stage, N0, M0, and stage I-II (p < 0.05). In addition, we analyzed the functions and signaling pathways associated with PADI1 in CRC and found that it was highly enriched in several immune-related functions and pathways. Then, a set of PADI1 co-expressed genes (PCGs) risk-prognosis scores was developed with PADI1 as the core, which could accurately predict the prognosis of CRC (p < 0.05). PCGs risk score can be an independent prognostic factor for CRC. A new set of Norman plot models were developed for clinical characteristics with age, sex, and TNM stage, which can accurately predict CRC 1, 3, and 5 years survival, and calibration curves and decision curve analysis (DCA) validated the accuracy of the models. The risk score assessed the immune microenvironment of CRC and found that the immune score was higher in the low-risk group, and CD4+ T cells, helper T cells, and eosinophils were more infiltrated in the low-risk group (p < 0.05). Immunotherapy efficacy was better in the low-risk group (p < 0.05). The underlying mechanism may be that the high-risk group of PCGs was enriched in some pathways that promote immune escape and immune dysfunction. In conclusion, PCGs may better predict CRC prognosis and immunotherapeutic response.

Is Robotic Assisted Colorectal Cancer Surgery Equivalent Compared to Laparoscopic Procedures during the Introduction of a Robotic Program? A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis

Simple Summary

The introduction of a robotic program is challenging and requires extensive experience in minimally invasive surgery. Short-term outcomes and oncological quality should not differ between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. To our knowledge, no data on the quality of surgery at the time of introduction of the robotic platform are available. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes and oncological findings of robotic-assisted colorectal resections with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery within the first three years after the introduction of the robotic platform.

Abstract

Background: Robotic surgery represents a novel approach for the treatment of colorectal cancers and has been established as an important and effective method over the last years. The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of a robotic program on oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery within the first three years after the introduction. Methods: All colorectal cancer patients from two centers that either received robotic-assisted or conventional laparoscopic surgery were included in a comparative study. A propensity-score-matched analysis was used to reduce confounding differences. Results: A laparoscopic resection (LR Group) was performed in 82 cases, and 93 patients were treated robotic-assisted surgery (RR Group). Patients’ characteristics did not differ between groups. In right-sided resections, an intracorporeal anastomosis was significantly more often performed in the RR Group (LR Group: 5 (26.31%) vs. RR Group: 10 (76.92%), p = 0.008). Operative time was shown to be significantly shorter in the LR Group (LR Group: 200 min (150–243) vs. 204 min (174–278), p = 0.045). Conversions to open surgery did occur more often in the LR Group (LR Group: 16 (19.51%) vs. RR Group: 5 (5.38%), p = 0.004). Postoperative morbidity, the number of harvested lymph nodes, quality of resection and postoperative tumor stage did not differ between groups. Conclusion: In this study, we could clearly demonstrate robotic-assisted colorectal cancer surgery as effective, feasible and safe regarding postoperative morbidity and oncological findings compared to conventional laparoscopy during the introduction of a robotic system.