Short-term clinical outcomes of a European training programme for robotic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Despite there being a considerable amount of published studies on robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) over the last few years, there is a lack of evidence regarding RCS training pathways. This study examines the short-term clinical outcomes of an international RCS training programme (the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery-EARCS). METHODS: Consecutive cases from 26 European colorectal units who conducted RCS between 2014 and 2018 were included in this study. The baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes of cases performed by EARCS delegates during training were analysed and compared with cases performed by EARCS graduates and proctors. RESULTS: Data from 1130 RCS procedures were collected and classified into three cohort groups (323 training, 626 graduates and 181 proctors). The training cases conversion rate was 2.2% and R1 resection rate was 1.5%. The three groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics with the exception of malignant cases and rectal resections performed. With the exception of operative time, blood loss and hospital stay (training vs. graduate vs. proctor: operative time 302, 265, 255 min, p < 0.001; blood loss 50, 50, 30 ml, p < 0.001; hospital stay 7, 6, 6 days, p = 0.003), all remaining short-term outcomes (conversion, 30-day reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, clinical anastomotic leak, complications, R1 resection and lymph node yield) were comparable between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal surgeons learning how to perform RCS under the EARCS-structured training pathway can safely achieve short-term clinical outcomes comparable to their trainers and overcome the learning process in a way that minimises patient harm.

Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer results of a non-randomized study.

INTRODUCTION: The Czech Republic belongs to countries in which colorectal cancer significantly contributes to the overall oncological burden. Radical removal of tumor-affected tissues plays a key role in the multimodal therapy of rectal cancer. In the first decade of the third millennium the mini-invasive approach in rectal cancer surgery gradually expanded to include robotic-assisted surgeries. The aim of this paper is to present the results of a non-randomized study with prospectively collected data from robotically assisted rectal cancer surgeries. METHODS: 204 patients with rectal cancer (.

Short-term and long-term outcomes of robotic rectal surgery-from the real word data of 1145 consecutive cases in China.

BACKGROUND: Due to a limited patient sample size, substantial data on robotic rectal resection (RRR) is lacking. Here, we reported a large consecutive cases from the real word data to assess the safety and efficacy of RRR. METHODS: From September 2010 to June 2017, a total of 1145 consecutive RRR procedures were performed in patients with stage I-IV disease. We conducted an analysis based on information from a prospectively designed database to evaluate surgical outcomes, urogenital function, and long-term oncological outcomes. RESULTS: Of three types of RRR performed, 227 (24.2%) were abdominoperineal resections, 865 (75.5%) were anterior resections, and 3 (0.3%) were Hartmann. Conversion to an open procedure occurred in 5.9% of patients. The overall positive circumferential margin rate was 1.3%. Surgical complication rate and mortality were 16.2% and 0.8% within 30 days of surgery, respectively. Mean hospital stay after surgery and hospital cost were 6.3 ± 2.9 days and 10442.5 ± 3321.5 US dollars, respectively. Risk factors for surgical complications included male gender, tumor location (mid-low rectum), combined organ resection, and clinical T category (cT3-4). Urinary function and general sexual satisfaction decreased significantly 1 month after surgery for both sexes. Subsequently, both parameters increased progressively, and the values 1 year after surgery were comparable to those measured before surgery. At a median follow-up of 34.6 months, local recurrence and distant metastases occurred in 2.3% and 21.1% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic rectal resection was safe with preserved urogenital function and arrived equivalent oncological outcomes in a nonselected group of patients with rectal cancer.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background. Robotic surgery has been recently used as a novel tool for rectal surgery. This study assessed the current evidence regarding the efficiency, safety, and potential advantages of robotic rectal surgery (RRS) compared with laparoscopic rectal surgery (LRS). Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases and performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the 2 approaches. Results. Seven RCTs including a total of 1022 cases were identified. The conversion rate is significantly lower for RRS (odds ratio: 0.29; 95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 0.96; P = .04). The length of the distal margin was significantly shorter in the LRS group than in the RRS group (weighted mean difference: 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.09 to 1.10; P = .02). Perioperative complication rates, harvested lymph nodes, positive circumferential resection margins, complete total mesorectal excision, first flatus, and length of stay did not differ significantly between approaches (P > .05). Conclusions. This meta-analysis indicates that RRS is a safe and effective approach. It is not inferior to LRS in terms of oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications. Future large-volume, well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-up are awaited to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Robotic rectal surgery.

Robotic technology is increasingly used in colorectal surgery during last decade. Whether this technology will translate into clinical efficiency and value of care remains to be determined. This review aims to discuss current data in robotic rectal surgery with emphasize on ergonomics, cost, and learning curve aspects. All relevant articles are reviewed in addition to published and unpublished work from the authors' own experience.

First worldwide report on rectal resections with Hugo™ surgical system: description of docking angles and tips for an effective setup.

BACKGROUNDS: Rectal robotic surgery gained momentum in the last decade, but it is still associated with not-negligible costs. In order to reduce costs, recently different robotic systems have received approval for clinical use. This study aims to present the first case series of rectal resection with the novel cost-effective platform Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS) Hugo™. Tips for effective set up of the system and detailed configuration of tilt and docking angles are also provided. METHODS: Three cases of rectal resection with Hugo RAS™ system are reported. After the first two cases of resection with partial mesorectal excision in which surgeries were performed with the setup proposed by the vendor company, in the third case we tested a novel setup that allowed a full robotic low rectal resection performing vascular ligations, TME and colonic splenic flexure mobilization without the need of any de-docking. RESULTS: Our first three robotic rectal resections with the Hugo RAS™ system were completed without complications with a median docking time of 12 min (range 8-15) and a median console time of 345 minutes (range 271-475). In the first two cases, hybrid robotic and laparoscopic surgeries were performed to obtain an adequate haemostasis and traction during the pelvic phase. In the third case, a full robotic TME was successfully accomplished. CONCLUSION: Our experience demonstrates that a full robotic low rectal resection with TME with Hugo™ RAS system is feasible, safe and associated with satisfactory postoperative outcomes.

Effect of previous abdominal surgery on robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The effect of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) in laparoscopic surgery is well known and significantly adds to longer hospital length of stay (LOS), postoperative ileus, and inadvertent enterotomies. However, little evidence exists in patients with PAS undergoing robotic-assisted (RA) rectal surgery. METHODS: All patients undergoing RA surgery for rectal cancer were reviewed. Patients with PAS were divided into minor and major PAS groups, defined as surgery involving >1 quadrant. The primary outcome was the risk of conversion to open surgery. RESULTS: A total of 750 patients were included, 531 in the no-PAS (NPAS) group, 31 in the major PAS group, and 188 in the minor PAS group. Patients in the major PAS group had significantly longer hospital LOS (P < .001) and lower adherence to enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs; P = .004). The conversion rates to open surgery were similar: 3.4% in the NPAS group, 5.9% in the minor PAS group, and 9.7% in the major PAS group (P = .113). Estimated blood loss (EBL; P = .961), operative times (OTs; P = .062), complication rates (P = .162), 30-day readmission (P = .691), and 30-day mortality (P = .494) were similar. Of note, 53 patients underwent lysis of adhesions (LOA). On multivariate analysis, EBL >500 mL and LOA significantly influenced conversion to open surgery. EBL >500 mL, age >65 years, conversion to open surgery, and prolonged OT were risk factors for prolonged LOS, whereas adherence to ERPs was a protector. CONCLUSION: PAS did not seem to affect the outcomes in RA rectal surgery. Given this finding, the robotic approach may ultimately provide patients with PAS with similar risk to patients without PAS.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery with a fluorescent near-infrared ray ureteral catheter for a rectal cancer patient with pelvic kidney: A case report.

An 85-year-old woman presented with a stomachache after a meal and was admitted to the previous clinic. Multi-detector computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen showed wall thickening in the rectum and right ectopic pelvic kidney. Colonoscopy revealed a mass at the rectum, and a biopsy showed adenocarcinoma. CT showed no lymphadenopathy or distant metastasis. Hartmann's procedure with fluorescent near-infrared ray ureteral catheters was used to avoid causing urinary injury. Robotic surgery was performed while checking the route of the ureter in near-infrared mode. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 14 without specific complications. This case appears to be the first of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for a rectal cancer patient with pelvic kidney.

Trans-anal Minimally Invasive Surgery Combined With a Robotic Anterior Approach for Sleeve Resection of a Huge Rectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor.

Due to anatomical complexity, large rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in the pelvis at the anterior aspect often require extended abdominal surgery to obtain clear surgical margins. Here, we show our trans-anal minimally invasive surgery combined with a robotic anterior approach for a huge low rectal GIST that was widely in contact with the prostate and urethra. By performing lateral dissection first, we can identify the orientation of critical organs such as the prostate, urethra, and neurovascular bundles, facilitating anterior anorectal dissection without urethral injury. Although the combination with a transabdominal robotic approach was required because of firm inflammatory adhesion between the tumor and prostate, the preceding trans-anal dissection plane facilitated the robotic anterior dissection and contributed to achieving complete dissection with negative resection margins.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients: ACS-NSQIP analysis.

Laparoscopic rectal surgery within the confines of a narrow pelvis may be associated with a high rate of open conversion. In the obese and morbidly obese patient, the complexity of laparoscopic surgery increases substantially. Robotic technology is known to reduce the risk of conversion, but it is unclear if it can overcome the technical challenges associated with obesity. The ACS NSQIP database was used to identify obese patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic-assisted rectal resection from 2015 to 2016. Obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2. Morbid obesity was defined as a BMI greater than or equal to 35 kg/m2. The primary outcome was unplanned conversions to open. Other outcomes measures assessed included anastomotic leak, operative time, surgical site infections, length of hospital stay, readmissions and mortality. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 (IBM SPSS, USA). 1490 patients had robotic-assisted and 4967 patients had laparoscopic rectal resections between 2015 and 2016. Of those patients, 561 obese patients had robotic-assisted rectal resections and 1824 patients underwent laparoscopic rectal surgery. In the obese cohort, the rate of unplanned conversion to open in the robotic group was 14% compared to 24% in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.0001). Median operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group (248 min vs. 215 min, P < 0.0001). There was no difference in anastomotic leak or systemic sepsis between the laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgery groups. In morbidly obese patients (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), the rate of unplanned conversion to open in the robotic group was 19% compared to 26% in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.027). There was no difference in anastomotic leak, systemic sepsis or surgical site infection rates between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection. Multivariate analysis showed that robotic-assisted surgery was associated with fewer unplanned conversions to open (OR 0.28, P < 0.0001). Robotic-assisted surgery is associated with a decreased risk of conversion to open in obese and morbidly obese patients when compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery was associated with longer operative time and despite improvement in the rate of conversion to open, there was no difference in complications or length of stay. Our findings are limited by the retrospective non-randomised nature of the study, demographic differences between the two groups, and the likely difference in surgeon experience between the two groups. Large randomised controlled studies are needed to further explore the role of robotic rectal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients.

Average treatment effect of robotic versus laparoscopic rectal surgery for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to estimate what would have happened if all patients treated with laparoscopy for rectal cancer had instead been treated with the robotic technique. METHODS: To estimate the average treatment effect (ATE) of the robotic technique over the laparoscopic approach, data from patients treated at two centres between 2007 and 2018 were used to obtain counterfactual outcomes using an inverse probability weighting (IPW) adjustment. RESULTS: This study enrolled 261 patients, of which 177 and 84 patients had undergone robotic surgery and standard laparoscopy, respectively. After IPW adjustment, the difference between the groups was similar in the pseudo-population. The average conversion rate would fall by an estimated 6.1% if all procedures had been robotic (p = 0.045). All other post-operative variables showed no differences regardless of the approach. CONCLUSION: ATE estimation suggests that robotic rectal cancer surgery could be associated with a lower conversion rate. The approach did not affect the post-operative morbidity rates or the operative time.

Robotic Colorectal Surgery.

The role of robotics in colon and rectal surgery has been established as an important and effective tool for the surgeon. Its inherent technologies have provided for increased visualization and ease of dissection in the minimally invasive approach to surgery. The value of the robot is apparent in the more challenging aspects of colon and rectal procedures, including the intracorporeal anastomosis for right colectomies and the low pelvic dissection for benign and malignant diseases.

A trinity technique for prevention of low rectal anastomotic leakage in the robotic era.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic leakage (AL) is a severe complication of low anterior resection (LAR) for rectal cancer, and effective prevention is urgently needed. In the robotic era, this study aimed to explore the role of innovative techniques in preventing AL in rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic LAR. METHODS: From May 2012 to May 2017, a total of 601 patients underwent robotic LAR, with 191 patients participated as control subjects (non-PST group) and 410 patients are subjected to a trinity technique (PST group). The AL rate, short-term and long-term outcomes are analyzed and compared. RESULTS: The overall rate of AL was 6.8% out of 601 patients, with Grade B at 5.7% and Grade C at 1.1%, using the ISREC grading system. The PST group presented lower incidence of both overall AL (5.1% vs 10.5%, P = 0.015) and major AL (0.2% vs 3.2%, P = 0.005), when compared with the non-PST group, respectively. Furthermore, the PST group had similar surgical complications (17.3% vs 20.9%, P = 0.286), while with lower re-hospitalization rate (2.7% vs 6.3%, P = 0.038) and reoperation rate (0.2% vs 4.2%, P = 0.001), compared with the non-PST group, respectively. Short-term recovery and long-term oncological outcomes were not significant in the two groups. By multivariate logistic regression models, the risk factors of AL of robotic LAR are confirmed as non-PST technique, estimated blood loss ≥100 mL, anastomosis from anal verge <5 cm, and distal resection margin from tumor <2 cm. CONCLUSIONS: The innovative PST technique may shed light on an effective method for preventing occurrence of AL in robotic LAR.

Short term outcomes of minimally invasive selective lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for low rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic recurrence after rectal cancer surgery is still a significant problem despite the introduction of total mesorectal excision and chemoradiation treatment (CRT), and one of the most common areas of recurrence is in the lateral pelvic lymph nodes. Hence, there is a possible role for lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPND) in rectal cancer. AIM: To evaluate the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive LPND during rectal cancer surgery. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate for any predictive factors to determine lymph node metastases based on pre-operative scans. METHODS: From October 2016 to November 2019, 22 patients with stage II or III rectal cancer underwent minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery and LPND. These patients were all discussed at a multidisciplinary tumor board meeting and most of them received neoadjuvant chemoradiation prior to surgery. All patients had radiologically positive lateral pelvic lymph nodes on the initial staging scans, defined as lymph nodes larger than 7 mm in long axis measurement, or abnormal radiological morphology. LPND was only performed on the involved side. RESULTS: Majority of the patients were male (18/22, 81.8%), with a median age of 65 years (44-81). Eighteen patients completed neoadjuvant CRT pre-operatively. 18 patients (81.8%) had unilateral LPND, with the others receiving bilateral surgery. The median number of lateral pelvic lymph nodes harvested was 10 (3-22) per pelvic side wall. 8 patients (36.4%) had positive metastases identified in the lymph nodes harvested. The median pre-CRT size of these positive lymph nodes was 10mm. Median length of stay was 7.5 d (3-76), and only 2 patients failed initial removal of their urinary catheter. Complication rates were low, with only 1 lymphocele and 1 anastomotic leak. There was only 1 mortality (4.5%). There have been no recurrences so far. CONCLUSION: Chemoradiation is inadequate in completely eradicating lateral wall metastasis and there are still technical limitations in accurately diagnosing metastases in these areas. A pre-CRT lymph node size of ≥ 10 mm is suggestive of metastases. LPND may be performed safely with minimally invasive surgery.

Robotic colorectal surgery: more than a fantastic toy?

There has been a rapid rise in the number of robotic colorectal procedures worldwide since the da Vinci Surgical System robotic technology was approved for surgical procedures in the year 2000. Several recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown a significant difference in outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, these results from pooled data have not been supported by the initial results reported from the Robotic assisted versus laparoscopic assisted resection for rectal cancer trial. In this article, we examine the current evidence for robotic colorectal surgery, assess its features and functionality, evaluate its learning curve and provide our perspective on its future.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Resection for Mid and Low Rectal Cancers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The current study was conducted to determine whether robotic low anterior resection (RLAR) has real benefit over laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR) in terms of surgical and early oncologic outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 35 RLARs and 28 LLARs, performed for mid and low rectal cancers, from January 2013 through June 2015. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients were included in the study. All surgeries were performed successfully. The clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had less intraoperative blood loss (165 vs. 120 mL; P < .05) and higher mean operative time (252 vs. 208 min; P < .05). No significant differences were observed in the time to flatus passage, length of hospital stay, and postoperative morbidity. Pathological examination of total mesorectal excision (TME) specimens showed that both circumferential resection margin and transverse (proximal and distal) margins were negative in the RLAR group. However, 1 patient each had positive circumferential resection margin and positive distal transverse margin in the LLAR group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 27 in the RLAR group and 23 in the LLAR group. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancers were similar to those of laparoscopic surgery. The quality of TME specimens was better in the patients who underwent robotic surgery. However, the longer operative time was a limitation of robotic surgery.

Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art.

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over the laparoscopic one. For this reason a review of all the literature examining robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed. Two reviewers independently conducted a search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) using the key words "rectum", "rectal", "cancer", "laparoscopy", "robot". After the initial screen of 266 articles, 43 papers were selected for review. A total of 3013 patients were included in the review. The most commonly performed intervention was low anterior resection (1450 patients, 48.1%), followed by anterior resections (997 patients, 33%), ultra-low anterior resections (393 patients, 13%) and abdominoperineal resections (173 patients, 5.7%). Robotic rectal surgery seems to offer potential advantages especially in low anterior resections with lower conversions rates and better preservation of the autonomic function. Quality of mesorectum and status of and circumferential resection margins are similar to those obtained with conventional laparoscopy even if robotic rectal surgery is undoubtedly associated with longer operative times. This review demonstrated that robotic rectal surgery is both safe and feasible but there is no evidence of its superiority over laparoscopy in terms of postoperative, clinical outcomes and incidence of complications. In conclusion robotic rectal surgery seems to overcome some of technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery especially for tumors requiring low and ultra-low anterior resections but this technical improvement seems not to provide, until now, any significant clinical advantages to the patients.

Four-arm single docking full robotic surgery for low rectal cancer: techniques and post-operative outcomes / Cirurgia totalmente robótica para o tratamento do câncer do reto distal: técnicas e resultados do pós-operatório imediato

BACKGROUND: laparoscopic rectal surgery has not yet achieved a high penetration rate because of its steep learning curve and its relatively high conversion rate. Robotic rectal resection represents the main indication of the use of the robotic platform in colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to present an early experience with robotic surgery to treat mid and low rectal cancer focusing on the technique and early postoperative outcomes. METHODS: from December 2012 to October 2013, a total of 16 patients with colorectal diseases were operated on using a four-arm single docking full robotic procedure (daVinci Si Surgical System). The treatment of six consecutive patients who underwent robotic rectal cancer surgery for mid or low rectal adenocarcinoma was prospectively analyzed regarding technique standardization, pathological findings and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: there were no conversions and one intraoperative complication. The mean operative time was 245 min (180-360 min). The mean console time was 170 min (110-240 min). All patients underwent a standardized totally robotic rectal dissection. There were no mortality or urinary dysfunction and one complication (postoperative ileo-16%). The median length of hospital stay was 6 (4-11 days). The median number of lymph nodes harvested was 22 (7-38), and distal and circumferential resection margins were negative in all specimen. R0 resection was achieved in all cases and complete total mesorectal excision in five specimen and nearly complete in one. CONCLUSION: standardized robotic rectal surgery is a promising alternative to treat patients with mid or low rectal cancer and is expected to overcome the low penetration rate of laparoscopic surgery in this field. This technique was successfully performed in six patients with excellent immediate postoperative and pathological results. Additional studies in a large series of patients are necessary to confirm those advantages. (AU)

INTRODUÇÃO: a utilização da cirurgia videolaparoscópica para o tratamento do câncer do reto ainda não apresentou uma alta penetração devido a longa curva de aprendizado e a uma taxa de conversão relativamente alta. A ressecção retal robótica é a principal indicação para o uso da plataforma robótica na cirurgia colorretal. O objetivo desse estudo é apresentar as técnicas e os resultados pós-operatórios imediatos com o uso da cirurgia robótica para o tratamento do câncer do reto distal. PACIENTES E MÉTODOS: no período de dezembro de 2012 a outubro de 2013 foram operados 16 pacientes com patologias colorretais utilizando o robô daVinci SI Surgical System. O tratamento de 6 consecutivos pacientes portadores de câncer do reto do terço médio e do terço inferior foram prospectivamente avaliados quanto a sistematização técnica, achados patológicos e evolução pós-operatória. RESULTADOS: não houve conversão e ocorreu uma complicação intraoperatória. A duração média das operações foi de 245 minutos (180-360 minutos) e o tempo médio do uso do console foi de 170 minutos (110-240 minutos). Ocorreu uma complicação pós-operatória (Íleo) e não houveram nenhuma disfunção urinária ou mortalidade. A duração média da internação hospitalar foi de 6 dias (4-11 dias). O número médio de linfonodos examinados foi de 22 (7-38) e todas as peças tinham margens distal e circunferencial negativas. Ressecção RO foi observada em todos os casos e o grau de excisão total do mesorreto foi completo em 5 peças e quase completo em uma. CONCLUSÃO: cirurgia robótica sistematizada esta tendo uma crescente aceitação e é uma ótima alternativa para o tratamento dos pacientes com câncer do reto distal. Esta tecnologia foi utilizada em 6 pacientes com excelentes resultados não só na recuperação pós-operatória imediata como também nos achados da avaliação patológica. Grandes series randomizadas são importantes para confirmar as possíveis vantagens dessa nova tecnologia. (AU)