The rise of robotic colorectal surgery: better for patients and better for surgeons.

Robotic colorectal surgery represents a major technological advancement in the treatment of patients with colorectal disease. Several recent randomized controlled trials comparing robotic colorectal surgery with laparoscopic surgery have demonstrated improved short-term patient outcomes in the robotic group. Whilst the primary focus of research in robotic surgery has been on patient outcomes, the robotic platform also provides unparalleled benefits for the surgeon, including improved ergonomics and surgeon comfort, with the potential to reduce occupational injuries and prolong career longevity. It is becoming clear that robotic surgical systems improve patient outcomes and may provide significant benefits to the surgical workforce.

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.

Robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy: a comparative study of short-term economic and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although several studies compare the clinical outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy, most of them reflect the outcomes of the utilisation of older generation robotic platforms. The aim of this study is to compare the financial and clinical outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic proctectomy within a public healthcare system, utilising a multi-quadrant platform. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic proctectomy between January 2017 and June 2020 in a public quaternary centre were included. Demographic characteristics, baseline clinical, tumour and operative variables, perioperative, histopathological outcomes and costs were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic groups. Simple linear regression and generalised linear model analyses with gamma distribution and log-link function were used to determine the impact of the surgical approach on overall costs. RESULTS: During the study period, 113 patients underwent minimally invasive proctectomy. Of these, 81 (71.7%) underwent a robotic proctectomy. A robotic approach was associated with a lower conversion rate (2.5% versus 21.8%;P = 0.002) at the expense of longer operating times (284 ± 83.4 versus 243 ± 89.8 min;P = 0.025). Regarding financial outcomes, robotic surgery was associated with increased theatre costs (A$23,019 ± 8235 versus A$15,525 ± 6382; P < 0.001) and overall costs (A$34,350 ± 14,770 versus A$26,083 ± 12,647; P = 0.003). Hospitalisation costs were similar between both approaches. An ASA ≥ 3, non-metastatic disease, low rectal cancer, neoadjuvant therapy, non-restorative resection, extended resection, and a robotic approach were identified as drivers of overall costs in the univariate analysis. However, after performing a multivariate analysis, a robotic approach was not identified as an independent driver of overall costs during the inpatient episode (P = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Robotic proctectomy was associated with increased theatre costs but not with increased overall inpatient costs within a public healthcare setting. Conversion was less common for robotic proctectomy at the expense of increased operating time. Larger studies will be needed to confirm these findings and examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic proctectomy to further justify its penetration in the public healthcare system.

Impact of the approach on conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to explore the impact of the approach on conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision within a single unit. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision between January 2006 and June 2020 were included. Subjects were classified according to the presence or absence of conversion. Baseline variables and short-term outcomes were compared. Regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between the approach and conversion. RESULTS: During the study period, 318 patients underwent a restorative proctectomy. Of these, 240 met the inclusion criteria. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches were undertaken in 147 (61.3%) and 93 (38.8%) cases, respectively. A transanal approach was utilised in 62 (25.8%) cases (58.1% in combination with a robotic transabdominal approach). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 30 cases (12.5%). Conversion was associated with an increased overall complication rate (P = 0.003), surgical complications (P = 0.009), superficial surgical site infections (P = 0.02) and an increased length of hospital stay (P = 0.006). Robotic and transanal approaches were both associated with decreased conversion rates. The multiple logistic regression analysis, however, showed that only a transanal approach was independently associated with a lower risk of conversion (OR 0.147, 0.023-0.532; P = 0.01), whilst obesity was an independent risk factor for conversion (OR 4.388, 1.852-10.56; P < 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: A transanal component is associated with a reduced conversion rate in minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision, regardless of the transabdominal approach utilised. Larger studies will be required to confirm these findings and define which subgroup of patients could benefit from transanal component when a robotic approach is undertaken.

Perioperative outcomes of cytoreductive surgery for tumours of colorectal or appendiceal origin with ovarian involvement.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ovarian metastases (OM) are a common site for metastases in gastrointestinal tumours with peritoneal disease. This study aimed to evaluate perioperative complications between patients with and without OM following cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for appendiceal/colorectal cancer. METHODS: Female patients undergoing CRS ± HIPEC for appendiceal/colorectal tumours at a single centre from 2009 to 2020 were analysed. Patients were grouped according to presence or absence of OM at the time of CRS. RESULTS: The study included 318 patients, 72 (22.6%) had OM. Operation duration was longer for patients with OM (332 vs. 276 min, p < 0.0001). Patients with OM achieved higher rates of complete cytoreduction (93% vs. 79%, p = 0.006) despite a higher peritoneal carcinomatosis index (13 vs. 7, p < 0.001) and were more likely to require a blood transfusion (32% vs. 19%, p = 0.024) and a stoma (24% vs.10%, p = 0.005). Increasing age and presence of abdominal symptoms were independent predictors of major and all-cause morbidity, respectively. The presence of abdominal symptoms was independently associated with all-cause morbidity in the OM group. CONCLUSION: These results may assist with preoperative counselling. Prospective multicentre datasets are needed to evaluate morbidity in one- versus two-stage approaches for those with abdominal symptoms and OM.

Robotic pelvic side-wall lymph node dissection for rectal cancer: a systematic review of videos and application of the IDEAL 2A framework.

Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) in rectal cancer has gained increasing traction worldwide. Robotic LPLND is an emerging technique. Utilising the IDEAL (idea, development, exploration, assessment and long-term follow-up) framework for surgical innovation, robotic LPLND is currently at the IDEAL 2A stage (development) mainly limited to case reports, case series and videos. A systematic literature review was performed for videographic robotic LPLND. Pubmed, Ovid and Web of Science were searched with a predefined search strategy. The LapVEGAS score for peer review of video surgery was adapted for the robotic approach (RoVEGAS) and applied to measure video quality. Two reviewers independently reviewed videos and consensus reached on technical steps and learning points. Data are presented as a narrative synthesis of results. The IDEAL 2A framework was applied to videos to assess their content at the present stage of innovation. A total of 83 abstracts were identified. In accordance with the PRISMA statement, nine videos were analysed. Adherence to the complete IDEAL 2a framework was low. All videos demonstrated LPLND; however, reporting of clinical outcomes was heterogeneous and completed in six of nine videos. Histopathology was reported in six videos, with other outcomes variably reported. No videos presented patient-reported outcome measures. Two videos reported presence or absence of recurrence on follow-up. Video articles provide a valuable educational resource in dissemination and adoption of robotic techniques. Standardisation of reporting objectives are needed. Complete reporting of pathology and oncologic outcomes is required in videographic procedural-based publications to meet the IDEAL 2A framework criteria.

Operative and oncological outcomes after robotic rectal resection compared with laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic surgery, show little difference in clinical outcomes to justify the expense. We systematically reviewed and pooled evidence from studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection. METHOD: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica (EMBASE), and Cochrane databases were searched for studies between 1996 and 2021 comparing clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgeries involving total mesorectal excision. Outcome measures included operative times, conversions to open, complications, recurrence and survival rates. RESULTS: Fifty eligible studies compared outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections; three were randomized trials. Pooled results showed significantly longer operating times for robotic surgery but lower conversion and complications rates, shorter lengths of stay in hospital, better rates of complete mesorectal resection and better three-year overall survival. However, the low number of randomized studies makes most data subject to bias. CONCLUSION: Available evidence supports the safety and ongoing use of robotic rectal cancer surgery, while further high-quality evidence is sought to justify the expense.

Transferability of robotic console skills by early robotic surgeons: a multi-platform crossover trial of simulation training.

Robotic surgical training is undergoing a period of transition now that new robotic operating platforms are entering clinical practice. As this occurs, training will need to be adapted to include strategies to train across various consoles. These new consoles differ in multiple ways, with some new vendors using flat screen open source 3D enhanced vision with glasses and differences in design will require surgeons to learn new skills. This process has parallels with aviation credentialling across different aircraft described as type rating. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that technical robotic console operating skills are transferrable across different robotic operating platforms. Ten participants sequentially completed four Mimic®(Surgical Science) simulation exercises on two different robotic operating platforms (DaVinci®, Intuitive Surgical and HUGO™ RAS, Medtronic). Ethical approval and informed consent were obtained for this study. Groups were balanced for key demographics including previous robotic simulator experience. Data for simulation metrics and time to proficiency were collected for each attempt at the simulated exercise and analysed. Qualitative feedback on multi-platform learning was sought via unstructured interviews and a questionnaire. Participants were divided into two groups of 5. Group 1 completed the simulation exercises on console A first then repeated these exercises on console B. Group 2 completed the simulated exercises on console B first then repeated these exercises on console A. Group 1 candidates adapted quicker to the second console and Group 2 candidates reached proficiency faster on the first console. Participants were slower on the second attempt of the final exercise regardless of their allocated group. Quality and efficiency metrics and risk and safety metrics were equivalent across consoles. The data from this investigation suggests that console operating skills are transferrable across different platforms. Overall risk and safety metrics are within acceptable limits regardless of the order of progression of console indicating that training can safely occur across multiple consoles contemporaneously. This data has implications for the design of training and certification as new platforms progress to market and supports a proficiency-based approach.

Metabolic and magnetic resonance imaging: complementary modalities for the preoperative assessment of lateral pelvic lymph nodes in rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The management of lateral pelvic lymph nodes for rectal cancer is a topical and controversial issue. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between lateral pelvic lymph node features on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) with oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 284 patients with primary locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy and surgical resection with curative intent between January 2003 and Dec 2018 was undertaken. From this study population, a select cohort of 77 patients with abnormal lateral pelvic lymph nodes on preoperative imaging had imaging re-analysed by radiologists blinded to clinical outcomes. Pre and post neoadjuvant therapy MRI and PET-CT lateral pelvic lymph node features were correlated with oncological outcomes. RESULTS: A lateral pelvic lymph node short axis size ≥5 mm on post neoadjuvant therapy MRI was a significant predictor of worse 3-year local recurrence free survival (HR 8.35, P = 0.001). Lateral pelvic lymph node avidity on post neoadjuvant therapy PET-CT was a significant predictor of worse 3-year distant recurrence free survival (HR 5.62, P = 0.001). No correlation of oncological outcomes with overall survival was identified. CONCLUSION: Lateral pelvic lymph node imaging features on post-neoadjuvant therapy MRI and PET-CT predicted those at risk of rectal cancer recurrence. Further studies are required to confirm these findings that suggest restaging MRI and PET-CT are complementary modalities for the preoperative assessment of lateral pelvic lymph nodes in rectal cancer.

Major vascular reconstruction in colorectal adenocarcinoma and retroperitoneal sarcoma: A retrospective study of safety and margins in a tertiary referral centre.

BACKGROUND: The role of en bloc vascular resection and reconstruction (EVRR) is controversial in colorectal adenocarcinoma (CRC), but well-established in retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). Sparse data exists regarding these complex procedures. METHODS: Patients undergoing curative intent EVRR for advanced CRC and RPS between 2014 and 2021 at a tertiary centre were included. Morbidity, margins, recurrence, and survival were evaluated. RESULTS: 24 patients underwent EVRR with 48 reconstructions (11 CRC and 13 RPS). For CRC, 100% of patients underwent Iliac system reconstructions. For RPS, inferior vena cava reconstructions were the most common (69.2%). There were 2 arterial and 1 venous graft thromboses. Primary graft patency was 89.4% arterial and 93.1% venous, while secondary patency was 100% arterial and 96.5% venous at last follow up. 1 venous and 1 arterial graft required reoperation for bleeding. There were no compromised limbs. Major complications occurred in 6 patients (25.0%) with no observed difference between CRC and RPS (OR 0.43 95%CI[0.60,3.19], P = 0.41). R1 margins occurred 1 CRC (90.9%) and 3 RPS (76.9%), with no R2 resections. All vascular resection margins were clear. There were 6 CRC (50%) and 4 RPS (33.3%) recurrences. Median recurrence time was 20.9 months for CRC and 'not yet reached' for RPS. Median follow-up was 19.4 months for CRC and 21.4 months for RPS. CONCLUSION: EVRR for locally advanced CRC or RPS is safe and achieves favorable R0 resection rates. CRC patients with major vascular invasion can still be considered for curative intent surgery. Larger cohorts with longer follow up are needed to assess oncologic outcomes.

Application of minimally invasive approaches to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and locally recurrent pelvic malignancy - A narrative review of outcomes in an evolving field.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive surgical techniques are being successfully used to treat locally advanced and recurrent pelvic malignancy of colorectal origin. This review aims to describe the application of minimally invasive approaches to pelvic exenteration and compare current reported surgical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: A literature search was performed of PubMed, Google Scholar and EMBASE for studies on pelvic exenteration with locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer utilising minimally invasive techniques. A total of 22 studies were reviewed, including four case reports describing novel approaches. DISCUSSION: Laparoscopic, robotic and trans-anal total mesenteric excision (TaTME) aided pelvic exenteration methods have recently demonstrated low post-operative morbidity and mortality trends. Minimally invasive methods also have improved rates of R0 resection in modest cohort studies. Hybrid methods have also been proposed to overcome observed technical difficulties such as the narrow male pelvis and obese habitus. There is still limited data beyond case report and small cohort studies on challenging patient groups such as those with recurrent rectal cancer or bony involvement, as a consequence of patient selection for these novel approaches. CONCLUSION: International, multicentre studies have provided the best opportunity to explore efficacy of these methods on a larger scale. Further research is required into patient selection, safety and long-term outcomes of these approaches within high volume centres practicing beyond the surgical learning curve.

Effect of Surgical Humidification on Inflammation and Peritoneal Trauma in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pre-clinical studies indicate that dry-cold-carbon-dioxide (DC-CO2) insufflation leads to more peritoneal damage, inflammation and hypothermia compared with humidified-warm-CO2 (HW-CO2). Peritoneum and core temperature in patients undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery were compared. METHODS: Sixty-six patients were randomized into laparoscopic groups; those insufflated with DC-CO2 or HW-CO2. A separate group of nineteen patients undergoing laparotomy were randomised to conventional surgery or with the insertion of a device delivering HW-CO2. Temperatures were monitored and peritoneal biopsies and bloods were taken at the start of surgery, at 1 and 3 h. Further bloods were taken depending upon hospital length-of-stay (LOS). Peritoneal samples were subjected to scanning electron microscopy to evaluate mesothelial damage. RESULTS: Laparoscopic cases experienced a temperature drop despite Bair-HuggerTM use. HW-CO2 restored normothermia (≥ 36.5 °C) by 3 h, DC-CO2 did not. LOS was shorter for colon compared with rectal cancer cases and if insufflated with HW-CO2 compared with DC-CO2; 5.0 vs 7.2 days, colon and 11.6 vs 15.4 days rectum, respectively. Unexpectedly, one third of patients had pre-existing damage. Damage increased at 1 and 3 h to a greater extent in the DC-CO2 compared with the HW-CO2 laparoscopic cohort. C-reactive protein levels were higher in open than laparoscopic cases and lower in both matched HW-CO2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective RCT is in accord with animal studies while highlighting pre-existing damage in some patients. Peritoneal mesothelium protection, reduced inflammation and restoration of core-body temperature data suggest benefit with the use of HW-CO2 in patients undergoing CRC surgery.

Patient-Related Functional Outcomes After Robotic-Assisted Rectal Surgery Compared With a Laparoscopic Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has gained significant momentum in rectal cancer surgery. Most studies focus on short-term and oncological outcomes, showing similar outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Increasing survivorship mandates greater emphasis on quality of life and long-term function. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare quality of life and urinary, sexual, and lower GI functions between robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgeries. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials Register, and Cochrane Library-identified articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic rectal resections was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were quality of life and urinary, sexual, and GI functions between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection patient groups. Where comparable data were available, results were pooled for analysis. RESULTS: The initial search revealed 1777 papers; 101 were reviewed in full, and 14 studies were included for review. Eleven assessed male sexual function; 7 favored robotic surgery, and the remaining studies showed no significant difference. Pooled analysis of 5 studies reporting rates of male sexual dysfunction at 12 months showed significantly lower rates after robotic surgery (OR, 0.51; p = 0.043). Twelve studies compared urinary function. Six favored robotic surgery, but in 2 studies, a difference was seen at 6 months but not sustained at 12 months. Pooled analysis of 4 studies demonstrated significantly better urinary function scores at 12 months after robotic surgery (OR, 0.26; p = 0.016). Quality of life and GI function were equivalent, but very little data exist for these parameters. LIMITATIONS: A small number of studies compare outcomes between these groups; only 2 are randomized. Different scoring systems limit comparisons and pooling of data. CONCLUSIONS: The limited available data suggest that robotic rectal cancer resection improves male sexual and urinary functions when compared with laparoscopy, but there is no difference in quality of life or GI function. Future studies should report all facets of functional outcomes using standardized scoring systems.