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.

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.

Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in small bowel adenocarcinoma with peritoneal metastasis: a systematic review.

Objectives: Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) with peritoneal metastasis (PM) is rare and despite treatment with systemic chemotherapy, the prognosis is poor. However, there is emerging evidence that cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) may offer a survival benefit over systemic therapy alone. This systematic review will assess the effectiveness of CRS-HIPEC for SBA-PM. Content: Three databases were searched from inception to 11/10/21. Clinical outcomes were extracted and analysed. Summary: A total of 164 cases of SBA-PM undergoing CRS-HIPEC were identified in 12 studies. The majority of patients had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (87/164, 53%) and complete cytoreduction (143/164, 87%) prior to HIPEC. The median overall survival was 9-32 months and 5-year survival ranged from 25 to 40%. Clavien-Dindo grade III/IV morbidity ranged between 19.1 and 50%, while overall mortality was low with only 3 treatment-related deaths. Outlook: CRS-HIPEC has the potential to improve the overall survival in a highly selected group of SBA-PM patients, with 5-year survival rates comparable to those reported in colorectal peritoneal metastases. However, the expected survival benefits need to be balanced against the intrinsic risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. Further multicentre studies are required to assess the safety and feasibility of CRS-HIPEC in SBA-PM to guide best practice management for this rare disease.

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.

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 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.

How to do a robotic lateral pelvic side wall dissection for rectal cancer.

Our article describes the anatomy, technical steps, common pitfalls, and our recommendations for performing a successful robotic lateral pelvic side wall dissection for rectal cancer. This is supplemented with videos and an image to clearly demonstrate our technique.

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.