Learning curve and safety of the implementation of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision with intracorporeal anastomosis for right-sided colon cancer: results from a propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies and randomized controlled trials support the safety of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) for the treatment of right-sided colon cancer (RSCC). Few studies, however, examine the learning curve of this operation and its impact on safety during an implementation period. We aim to evaluate the learning curve and safety of the implementation of laparoscopic CME with intracorporeal anastomosis for RSCC. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing a laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis for RSCC between January 2016 and June 2023 were included. Clinical, perioperative, and histopathological variables were collected. Correlation and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analyses between the operating time and case number were performed. Breakpoints of the learning curve were estimated using the broken-line model. CME and conventional laparoscopic right colectomy outcomes were compared after propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety patients underwent laparoscopic right colectomy during study period. One hundred and eight met inclusion criteria. After PSM, 56 non-CME and 28 CME patients were compared. CME group had a non-statistically significant tendency to a longer operating time (201 versus 195 min; p = 0.657) and a shorter hospital stay (3 versus 4 days; p = 0.279). No significant differences were found in total complication rates or their profile. Correlation analysis identified a significant trend toward operating time reduction with increasing case numbers (Pearson correlation coefficient = - 0.624; p = 0.001). According to the CUSUM analysis, an institutional learning curve was deemed completed after 13 cases and the broken-line model identified three phases: learning (1-6 cases), consolidation (7-13 cases), and mastery (after 13 cases). CONCLUSION: The learning curve of laparoscopic CME for RSCC can be achieved after 13 cases in centers with experience in advanced laparoscopic surgery and surgeons with familiarity with this technique. Its implementation within this setting seems to be as safe as performing a conventional right colectomy.

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.

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 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.

The learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

AIM: The learning curve has implications for efficient surgical training. Robotic surgery is perceived to have a shorter learning curve than laparoscopy; however, detailed analysis is lacking. The aim of this work was to analyse studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic colorectal learning curves. Simulation studies comparing novices' learning curves were analysed in order to surmise applicability to colorectal surgery. METHOD: A systematic search of Medline, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library identified colorectal papers (from 1 January 2000 to 3 March 2021) comparing robotic and laparoscopic learning curves where surgeons lacked laparoscopic colorectal experience. Simulation studies comparing learning curves were also included. The learning curve was defined as the period of ongoing improvement in speed and/or accuracy. RESULTS: From 576 abstracts reviewed, three operative and 16 simulation studies were included. The robotic learning curve for right colectomy was significantly faster in one study (16 vs. 25 cases) and equal for anterior resection in two studies (44 vs. 41 cases and 55 vs. 55). One study showed fewer complications for robotic patients (14.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.013). Ten simulation studies reported faster times and eight recorded error rates favouring robotic surgery. Seven studies measured the learning curve. Four favoured laparoscopic surgery, but operating times were faster using the robotic platform. CONCLUSION: Operating times for robotic surgery may be faster than laparoscopy when surgeons are inexperienced with both platforms. This may be related to a superior baseline performance rather than a shorter learning curve. Whether a shorter learning curve on the laparoscopic platform will persist for long enough to enable skills to overtake robotic ability needs further investigation.

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.

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.

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.