Navigating Progress: Eight-Year Single-Center Experience With Minimally Invasive Proctectomy and Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis has become the gold standard for treating ulcerative colitis, familial adenomatous polyposis, and selected cases of Crohn's colitis. Robotic surgery promises improved postoperative outcomes and decreased length of stay. However, few studies have evaluated the benefits of robotic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis compared to laparoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term 30-day postoperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and diverting loop ileostomy. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study from a single, high-volume center. SETTINGS Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (tertiary referral center for inflammatory bowel disease). PATIENTS All adult patients undergoing minimally invasive proctectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and DLI between January 2015 and April 2023. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Thirty-day complications, hospital length of stay, estimated blood loss, conversion rate, 30-day readmission, and 30-day reoperation. RESULTS: Two hundred seventeen patients were included in the study; 107 underwent robotic proctectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and diverting loop ileostomy, while 110 had laparoscopic proctectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and diverting loop ileostomy. Operating time was significantly longer in the robotic group (263 ± 38 minutes versus 228 ± 75 minutes, p < 0.0001); estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic group (81.5 ± 77.7 ml vs. 126.8 ± 111.0 ml, p = 0.0006) as well as the number of conversions (0% versus 8.2%, p = 0.003). Patients in the robotic group received more intraoperative fluids (3099 ± 1140 ml versus 2472 ± 996 ml, p = 0.0001). However, there was no difference in length of stay, 30-day morbidity, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, rate of diverting loop ileostomy closure at three months, and surgical ileal pouch-anal anastomosis complication rate after ileostomy closure. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, single-center study, potential bias due to the novelty of robotic approach, lack of long-term and quality-of-life outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic proctectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis and diverting loop ileostomy may offer advantages in terms of estimated blood loss and conversion rate, while maintaining the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Further research is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes. See Video Abstract.