Robotic natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) for anterior resection.

Minimally invasive colorectal surgery is currently well-accepted, with open techniques being reserved for very difficult cases. Laparoscopic colectomy has been proven to have lower mortality, complication, and ostomy rates; a shorter median length of stay; and lower overall costs when compared to its open counterpart. This trend is seen in both benign and malignant indications. Natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES) in colorectal surgery was first described in the early 1990s. Three recent meta-analyses comparing transabdominal extraction against NOSES concluded that NOSES was superior in terms of overall postoperative complications, recovery of gastrointestinal function, postoperative pain, aesthetics, and hospital stay. However, NOSES was associated with a longer operative time. Herein, we present our technique of robotic NOSES anterior resection using the da Vinci Xi platform in diverticular disease and sigmoid colon cancers.

Feasibility and safety of a robotic approach to diverticular disease: a retrospective series of short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUNDS: Robotic colorectal surgery is a method of performing complex surgery in a minimally invasive manner. In diverticular disease, chronic inflammation obscures tissues planes and increases difficulty of resection. This study aims to assess feasibility and safety of application of a robotic approach to diverticular disease, by reviewing short-term outcomes from a series of diverticular resections. METHODS: Forty-one patients underwent robotic colorectal surgery for diverticular disease across three centres within Melbourne from June 2016 to June 2022. Demographic, operative, and clinicopathological data were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate primary and secondary outcomes. Comparative analysis between simple and complex diverticular disease was performed to identify differences in groups regarding short term outcomes. The primary outcome in this study is to determine conversion rate from minimally invasive to open surgery. Secondary outcomes include major complication rates and length of stay. RESULTS: Of the 41 patients, 24 (58.5%) had simple disease, and 17 (41.5%) had complex disease. One patient (2.4%) required conversion to open resection. The median length of stay for complex disease was 7 days, for simple disease 5 days (P = 0.05). Four surgical Clavien-Dindo III or above complications occurred (9.8%), one patient required return to theatre. There were no anastomotic leaks or collections requiring radiological drainage. Thirteen patients (31.7%) underwent ureteric stenting and intraoperative indocyanine green dye ureteric identification. CONCLUSION: Robotic diverticular resections in this series are safe and associated with a low conversion rate of 2.4%. Robotic resection of complex disease was feasible with an acceptable safety profile.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic resections for diverticular disease.

AIM: Resection of diverticular disease can be technically challenging. Tissue planes can be difficult to identify intraoperatively due to inflammation or fibrosis. Robotic surgery may improve identification of tissue planes and dissection which can facilitate difficult minimally invasive resections. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the role of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery in diverticular resection. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The search was completed using PubMed, OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE. A total of 490 articles were retrieved, and studies reporting primary outcomes for robotic diverticular resection were included in the final analysis. A meta-analysis of studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery was performed on rate of conversion to open surgery and complications. RESULTS: Fifteen articles (8 cohort studies and 7 case series) reporting 3711 robotic diverticular resections were analysed. In comparison to laparoscopic, robotic surgery for diverticular disease was associated with a reduced conversion to open and a longer operating time. Meta-analysis showed robotic resection was associated with a lower conversion rate compared to laparoscopic surgery (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.49-0.66, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in grade III and above complications (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.49-1.13, p = 0.17). Operating time was longer with a robotic approach (Hedge's G: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.04-0.81, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Robotic resection is a feasible and safe option in diverticular disease. Although associated with a longer operating time, robotic surgery may render diverticular disease resectable with a minimally invasive approach that would have otherwise necessitated a laparotomy. Randomised controlled data is required to better define the role of robotic surgery for diverticular disease resections.

Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in colorectal cancer.

In select colorectal cancer patients with metastatic retroperitoneal lymph node disease, surgical resection can be performed. We discuss our robotic technique.

Robotic pelvic side-wall dissection and en-bloc excision for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer: outcomes on feasibility and safety.

BACKGROUND: Global differences exist in managing lateral pelvic nodes in rectal cancer. Recent studies demonstrate improved local recurrence rates in patients undergoing lateral pelvic lymph node dissections (LPND) in addition to total mesorectal excision (TME) for advanced lower rectal cancer. This study aims to report on the safety and feasibility of the robotic approach in patients undergoing pelvic sidewall lymph node dissection or en-bloc sidewall resection for advanced lower rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients who underwent an elective robotic pelvic sidewall lymph node dissection or en-bloc sidewall resection for locally advanced rectal cancer with suspicious lateral lymph nodes or pelvic side wall involvement between January 2018 and March 2021 were included. Demographic, clinical, perioperative and histopathological variables were recorded and analysed. RESULTS: Eight patients (3 males) with a mean age of 55 (33-73) years and mean body mass index of 26.3 (20.7-30.0) kg/m2 were included. The median operative time and blood loss were 458.75 (360-540) min and 143.75 (100-300) mL, respectively. There were no conversions or intra-operative complications. There were three post-operative complications recorded (two ileus and one anastomotic leak which required an endoscopic washout in theatre and intravenous antibiotics thereafter). Median length of stay was 12.75 (7-23) days. All patients had an R0 resection, and the median lateral pelvic lymph node yield was 9.1 (6-14). CONCLUSION: This series demonstrates the practicality and the safety of the robotic approach in the introduction of this technique for en-bloc resection or LPND in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision surgery for primary and recurrent pelvic malignancy: Feasibility and short-term outcomes.

AIM: To explore the feasibility and safety of robotic beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery for primary and recurrent pelvic malignancy. METHODS: Patients undergoing robotic beyond TME resections for primary or recurrent pelvic malignancy between July 2015 and July 2021 in a public quaternary and a private tertiary centre were included. Demographic and clinical data were recorded and outcomes analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (50% males) were included, with a median age of 58 (45-70.8) years, and a BMI of 26 (24.3-28.1) kg/m2 . Indication for surgery was rectal adenocarcinoma in nineteen, leiomyosarcoma in two, anal squamous cell carcinoma in one and combined rectal and prostatic adenocarcinoma in two patients. All patients required resection of at least one adjacent pelvic organ including genitourinary structures (n = 23), internal iliac vessels (n = 3) and/or bone (n = 2). Eleven patients had a restorative procedure. Of the 13 nonrestorative cases, nine needed perineal reconstruction with a flap. There was one conversion due to bleeding. The mean operating time was 370 (285-424) min, and the median blood loss was 400 (200-2,000) ml. The median length of stay was 16 (9.3-23.8) days. Fourteen patients (58.3%) had postoperative complications; eight of them (33.3%) were Clavien-Dindo III or more complication. Twenty-three (95.8%) patients had an R0 resection. During a median follow-up of 10 (7-23.5) months, five patients (20.8%) had systemic recurrences. No local recurrences were identified during the study period. CONCLUSION: Implementation of robotic beyond TME surgery for primary and recurrent pelvic malignancy is feasible within a highly specialised setting.

Robotic complete mesocolic excision versus conventional robotic right colectomy for right-sided colon cancer: a comparative study of perioperative outcomes.

AIM: This study aims to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic complete mesocolic excision (RCME) versus conventional robotic right colectomy (RRC) for right-sided colon cancer. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent robotic surgery for right-sided colon cancer in a public quaternary and a private tertiary healthcare centre between November 2018 and June 2020 were included. Clinical, perioperative and histopathological variables were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were included; 25 (49%) of them had an RCME. The groups were evenly distributed in terms of demographic characteristics and tumour location. Operative time was similar between both groups, and no patients required conversion to open surgery. There were no differences in overall complications (16% in RCME vs. 26.9% in RRC; p = 0.499) or their profile between groups. There were no anastomotic leaks recorded, and the reoperation rates were similar (0% for RCME versus 3.8% for RRC; p = 1). In addition, the median length of hospital stay was similar in between the RCME and the RRC groups (4 [4-6] days versus 5 [3-8.5] days, respectively; p = 0.891). Whilst there were no differences in the TNM staging, the mean number of lymph nodes harvested with RCME was 37.7 (±12.9) compared to 21.8 (±7.5) with RCC (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In our series, RCME was associated with a higher lymph node harvest and a similar morbidity profile compared to RCC. Further studies are required to validate these results and provide long-term oncologic outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a retrospective cohort study of the Binational Colorectal Cancer Database.

Robotic right hemicolectomy (RRC) may have technical advantages over the conventional laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC) due to higher degrees of rotation, articulation, and tri-dimensional imaging. There is growing literature describing advantages of RRC compared to LRC; however, there is a lack of evidence about safety, oncologic quality of surgery and cost. This study aimed to analyse complication rates, length of stay and nodal harvest in patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemicolectomy for colon cancer from a prospective Australasian colorectal cancer database. This was a retrospective cohort study using nearest neighbour matching. The Binational Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) provided the data for analysis. The primary outcome was length of stay. Secondary outcomes were harvested lymph node count, anastomotic leak, postoperative haemorrhage, abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, wound infections and non-surgical complications. 4977 patients who underwent robotic (n = 146) or laparoscopic (n = 4831) right hemicolectomy for right-sided colon cancer were included. For RRC, LOS was shorter (5 vs 6.9 days, p = 0.01) and nodal harvest was higher (22 vs 19, p = 0.04). For RRC, surgical complications (5.9% vs 14.2%, p < 0.004) and non-surgical complications (4.6% vs 11.7%, p = 0.007) were lower though there was no difference in return to theatre or inpatient death. Robotic right hemicolectomy is associated shorter LOS and marginally higher lymph node count, though this may reflect anastomotic technique rather than surgical platform. Longer term studies are required to establish differences in overall survival, incisional hernia rates and cost effectiveness.

Robotic complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation for right-sided colon cancer: short-term outcomes from a case series.

BACKGROUND: Despite conflicting data regarding oncological outcomes, studies demonstrate that complete mesocolic excision (CME) and central vascular ligation (CVL) for right-sided colon cancer removes significantly more tissue and yields higher lymph node counts when compared to conventional resection. This study aims to report the safety profile of CME and CVL in patients undergoing robotic surgery for right-sided colon cancer during the introduction of this technique across two institutions. METHODS: Patients who underwent an elective robotic right colectomy with CME and CVL for right-sided colon cancer in a public quaternary and a private tertiary healthcare centre between November 2018 and April 2020 were included. Demographic, clinical, perioperative and histopathological variables were recorded and analysed. RESULTS: Twenty patients (13 females) with a median age of 69 (23-83) years and median body mass index of 27 (19-46) were included. All of them had a pre-operative diagnosis of right-sided colon adenocarcinoma. Median operative time and blood loss were 140 (130-300) min and 30 (20-100) mL, respectively. There were no conversions or intra-operative complications. There were two post-operative complications recorded (one ileus and one intra-abdominal collection treated with intravenous antibiotics) and no re-interventions. Median length of stay was 4 (2-8) days. All patients had an R0 resection, and the median lymph node yield was 36 (22-80) lymph nodes. CONCLUSION: This series demonstrates a safe introduction of robotic CME and CVL in patients with right-sided colon cancer. The lymph node harvest obtained with CME and CVL in this setting was high.

Beyond transanal total mesorectal excision: short-term outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision in locally advanced rectal cancer requiring resection beyond total mesorectal excision.

AIM: The aim of this work was to define the role of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) requiring resection beyond the mesorectal plane. METHOD: We performed a retrospective review of the outcomes of a case series of patients undergoing taTME for rectal cancer with mesorectal fascia or adjacent organ involvement. RESULTS: Eleven patients (six men) underwent taTME for LARC requiring resection beyond total mesorectal excision (TME). All had a restorative procedure. The transabdominal approach was open in five and minimally invasive in six cases. All patients required the resection of at least one adjacent structure, including presacral fascia, internal iliac vessels, nerve roots, uterus, vagina or seminal vesicles. Four patients required a pelvic side-wall lymph node dissection and four had intraoperative radiotherapy. In all cases, the transanal approach was useful to disconnect the rectum distally, resect adjacent organs or control the R1 risk-point. Three patients had a complication of Clavien-Dindo grade III or above (one mechanical bowel obstruction, one pelvic collection and one urine sepsis). There were no anastomotic complications. Ten patients had an R0 resection. During a median follow-up of 11 (8.6-16) months there were no local recurrences, but two patients had distant metastases. During the study period, eight patients underwent closure of their stoma whilst the remaining three have had normal anastomotic assessments and will be closed in the future. CONCLUSION: This early series shows that implementation of taTME for resections beyond TME may be feasible and safe in a highly selected setting.