Robotic surgery for inguinal and ventral hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopy or open surgery for inguinal (IHR) and ventral (VHR) hernia repair. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to July 2022. Meta-analyses were performed for postoperative complications, surgical site infections (SSI), seroma/hematoma, hernia recurrence, operating time (OT), intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative bowel injury, conversion to open surgery, length of stay (LOS), mortality, reoperation rate, readmission rate, use of opioids, time to return to work and time to return to normal activities. RESULTS: Overall, 64 studies were selected and 58 were used for pooled data analyses: 35 studies (227 242 patients) deal with IHR and 32 (158 384 patients) with VHR. Robotic IHR was associated with lower hernia recurrence (OR 0.54; 95%CI 0.29, 0.99; I2: 0%) compared to laparoscopic IHR, and lower use of opioids compared to open IHR (OR 0.46; 95%CI 0.25, 0.84; I2: 55.8%). Robotic VHR was associated with lower bowel injuries (OR 0.59; 95%CI 0.42, 0.85; I2: 0%) and less conversions to open surgery (OR 0.51; 95%CI 0.43, 0.60; I2: 0%) compared to laparoscopy. Compared to open surgery, robotic VHR was associated with lower postoperative complications (OR 0.61; 95%CI 0.39, 0.96; I2: 68%), less SSI (OR 0.47; 95%CI 0.31, 0.72; I2: 0%), less intraoperative blood loss (- 95 mL), shorter LOS (- 3.4 day), and less hospital readmissions (OR 0.66; 95%CI 0.44, 0.99; I2: 24.7%). However, both robotic IHR and VHR were associated with significantly longer OT compared to laparoscopy and open surgery. CONCLUSION: These results support robotic surgery as a safe, effective, and viable alternative for IHR and VHR as it can brings several intraoperative and postoperative advantages over laparoscopy and open surgery.

Does conversion during minimally invasive rectal surgery for cancer have an impact on short-term and oncologic outcomes? Results of a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although minimally invasive rectal surgery (MIRS) for cancer provides better recovery for similar oncologic outcomes over open approach, conversion is still required in 10% and its impact on short-term and long-term outcomes remains unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of conversion on postoperative and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing MIRS for cancer. METHODS: From June 2011 to March 2020, we reviewed 257 minimally invasive rectal resections for cancer recorded in a prospectively maintained database, with 192 robotic and 65 laparoscopic approaches. Patients who required conversion to open (Conversion group) were compared to those who did not have conversion (No conversion group) in terms of short-term, histologic, and oncologic outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the risk factors for postoperative morbidity were performed. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (7%) required conversion. The conversion rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopic approach than in the robotic approach (16.9% vs 3.6%, p < 0.01). Among the 4 reactive conversions, 3 (75%) were required during robotic resections. Patients in the Conversion group had a higher morbidity rate (83.3% vs 43.1%, p = 0.01) and more severe complications (38.9%, vs 18.8%, p = 0.041). Male sex [HR = 2.46, 95%CI (1.41-4.26)], total mesorectal excision [HR = 2.89, 95%CI (1.57-5.320)], and conversion (HR = 4.87, 95%CI [1.34-17.73]) were independently associated with a higher risk of overall 30-day morbidity. R1 resections were more frequent in the Conversion group (22.2% vs 5.4%, p = 0.023) without differences in the overall (82.7 ± 7.0 months vs 79.4 ± 3.3 months, p = 0.448) and disease-free survivals (49.0 ± 8.6 months vs 70.2 ± 4.1 months, p = 0.362). CONCLUSION: Conversion to laparotomy during MIRS for cancer was associated with poorer postoperative results without impairing oncologic outcomes. The high frequency of reactive conversion due to intraoperative complications in robotic resections confirmed that MIRS for cancer is a technically challenging procedure.

Transitioning From Open to Robotic Liver Resection. Results of 46 Consecutive Procedures Including a Majority of Major Hepatectomies.

Aims. Minimally invasive liver resection is a complex and challenging operation. Although authors have reported robotic liver resection shows improved safety and efficacy compared with open liver resection, robotic major liver resections for malignant liver lesions treatment remain inadequately evaluated. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the feasibility and safety of transitioning from open to robotic liver resection in a nonuniversity hospital. Patients and Methods. From December 2015 to March 2020, 46 patients underwent totally robotic-assisted liver resections out of 446 robotic procedures. Also, we retrospectively reviewed the last 27 open right hepatectomies (ORHs) and compared then with the first 25 anatomic robotic-assisted right hepatectomies (RRHs). Results. Mean operative time, mean blood lost, rate of complications, and mean hospital stay were associated with the complexity of the procedure. The comparison between ORH and RRH showed that intraoperative complications were less frequently observed during ORH whereas RRH showed a trend in favor of less blood loss. ORH had a trend toward smaller surgical margins and higher rate of R1 resections. Recurrence occurred in 31 (59%) patients and was more frequently observed after ORH. However, the mean follow-up was significantly shorter after RRH. Conclusion. Our study demonstrated the technical feasibility and safety of transitioning from open to robotic liver resection (including major hepatectomies) in a nonuniversity setting. Higher costs remain an important drawback for robotic surgery.

Teaching robotic rectal cancer surgery at your workplace: does the presence of visiting surgeons in the operating room have a detrimental effect on outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Surgery demonstration (SD) is considered to be a mainstay of surgical education, but controversy exists concerning the patient's safety. Indeed, the presence of visiting surgeons is a source of distraction and may have an impact on surgeon's performance. This study's objective was to evaluate possible differences in outcomes between robotic sphincter-saving rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) performed during routine surgical practice versus in the presence of visiting surgeons in the operating room (OR) with direct access to the surgeon. METHODS: Retrospective case-matched studies were conducted from a prospectively collected database. 114 patients (38 with the presence of visiting surgeons) who underwent RRCS between January 2013 and September 2018 were included. Patients were matched in a 1:2 basis after propensity score analysis using five criteria: gender, body mass index, preoperative chemoradiation, type of mesorectum excision, and synchronous liver metastasis. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two groups with regard to mean operating time, estimated blood loss, conversion, and hospital stay. Also, overall (44% vs. 40%; P = 0.6), major morbidity (26% vs. 19%; P = 0.5), and unplanned reoperation (17% vs. 15%; P = 1.0) rates were not statistically different. No difference was noted with regard to the quality of mesorectum excision, or positive rate of circumferential and distal longitudinal resection margins. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes (17 vs. 14.5; P = 0.04) was lower in the SD group and the number of patients with < 12 harvested lymph nodes (31% vs. 16%; P = 0.09) was greater after SD although it did not reach statistical significance. No differences were observed in disease-free or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of visiting surgeons in the OR seems not to interfere in the quality of rectal resection and does not compromise patient's short-term outcome and survival. However, mild differences in the extent of lymphadenectomy were observed and the surgeons performing SD may be aware of this.

Experience With Transitioning From Laparoscopic to Robotic Right Colectomy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The number of robotic colorectal procedures performed has rapidly increased, but there are only sparse data available about the robotic learning curve of expert laparoscopic colorectal surgeons. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we reviewed 101 minimally invasive right colectomies consecutively performed by a single surgeon with 20 years of clinical practice fully dedicated to laparoscopic surgery. Thus, the last 59 laparoscopic resections were compared with the first 42 robotic resections. RESULTS: The duration of the procedure was longer in the robotic group, but the conversion rate was the same in both groups. There was no difference between groups in rates of overall and severe postoperative complications, reoperation, hospital length of stay, and readmission. Number of harvested lymph nodes and oncological quality of resection defined by the pathologist were the same. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the transition from the right laparoscopic colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis to the robot-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis when performed by a surgeon with experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery may not entail any increase on the morbidity rate or reduce the oncologic quality of the resection.

Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection for sphincter-saving surgery: pathological and short-term outcomes in a single-center analysis of 130 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive sphincter-saving rectal resection represents a challenging procedure. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer has several advantages over conventional surgery in performing precise dissection and was proved to be safe and effective in previous studies. However, comparison between laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection has drawn contradictory results. The aim of the present study was to compare robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving rectal resections for short-term and pathological outcomes. METHODS: Between January 2013 and May 2016, we performed a total of 258 robotic surgeries, including 146 colorectal resections (56%). For this study, we included the first 65 sphincter-saving robotic resections and compared them to the last 65 consecutive laparoscopic resections. The laparoscopic group was constituted by the last 65 consecutively operated patients who matched the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in both the groups. Conversion rate was greater in the laparoscopic group (17 vs. 5%, p=0.044). Reoperation rate, overall and severe morbidity, and median hospital stay were similar in both the groups. Quality of mesorectal excision specimen was considered complete or near complete in 97 and 96% in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively. There was no difference in the rates of negative circumferential radial margin, distal margin, and surgical success measured by composite criteria. CONCLUSION: The main finding of this study was that robotic proctectomy for sphincter-saving procedures offers similar quality of TME with a statistically significant lower rate of conversion when compared to laparoscopic proctectomy.

Right hepatectomy with extra-hepatic vascular division prior to transection: intention-to-treat analysis of a standardized policy.

BACKGROUND: Right hepatectomy (RH) is the most common type of major hepatectomy and can be achieved without portal triad clamping (PTC) in non-cirrhotic liver. The present study reviews our standardized policy of performing RH without systematic PTC. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-one consecutive RH were performed in non-cirrhotic patients, with division of the right afferent and efferent blood vessels prior to transection, without systematically using PTC. Prospectively collected data were analysed, focusing on the following endpoints: need for salvage PTC, ischaemic time, blood loss and post-operative outcome. RESULTS: Extra-hepatic division of the right hepatic vessels was feasible in all patients, but was ineffective in 48 patients (26.5%) who required salvage PTC during transection. In those patients, the median ischaemic time was 20 min. The median blood loss was 500 ml (50-3000). Six patients (3.3%) experienced post-operative liver failure. Overall morbidity, severe morbidity and mortality were 42%, 12.1% and 1.6%, respectively, with peri-operative transfusion rate (16.6%) being the only factor associated with morbidity. DISCUSSION: By performing RH with extra-hepatic vascular division prior to transection, PTC can be safely avoided in the majority of patients.

[Surgical treatment of liver metastasis in patients with colorectal cancer]. / Cancers colorectaux : traitement chirurgical des métastases hépatiques.

Half of patients with colorectal cancer have liver metastasis during their illness. Surgical resection of metastases represents the only curative treatment with prolonged survival in more than 50 % of patients. The aim of liver resection is complete excision of the lesions with histological negative margins while preserving sufficient functional liver parenchyma. In patients with diffuse liver disease, the radiofrequency ablation of metastases may be associated with surgical resection. The use of portal vein remobilization and neoadjuvant chemotherapy can also increase the number of patients for curative treatment. Despite this progress, from 50 to 60 % of patients relapse after complete resection of MHCCR. Surgical treatment of recurrent aggressive and effective chemotherapy allows the prolonged survival of these patients. The modern treatment of liver metastasis of colorectal cancers can be envisaged as part of a multidisciplinary approach to increase the number of patients for curative treatment.

Remnant liver volume to body weight ratio > or =0.5%: A new cut-off to estimate postoperative risks after extended resection in noncirrhotic liver.

BACKGROUND: Before extended hepatectomy of five or more segments, the remnant liver volume (RLV) is usually calculated as a ratio of RLV to total liver volume (RLV-TLV) and must be >20% to 25%. This method can lead to compare parts of normal liver parenchyma to others compromised by biliary or vascular obstruction or by portal vein embolization. Extrapolating from living-donor liver transplantation, we hypothesized that RLV to body weight ratio (RLV-BWR) could accurately assess the functional limit of hepatectomy. STUDY DESIGN: From September 2000 to December 2004, volumetric measurements of RLV using computed tomography were obtained before right-extended hepatectomy in 31 patients. RLV-BWR of 0.5% as a critical point for patient course was compared with stratification by RLV-TLV (< or =25% or >25% and < or =20% or >20%). RESULTS: Three-month morbidity and mortality were not significantly different between groups RLV-TLV < or = and >25% and between groups RLV-TLV < or = and >20%, but increased significantly in group RLV-BWR < or = 0.5% compared with group RLV-BWR > 0.5% (p = 0.038 and p = 0.019, respectively) with an non-significant increase in death from liver failure (p = 0.077). CONCLUSIONS: RLV-BWR was more specific than RLV-TLV in predicting postoperative course after extended hepatectomy. Patients with an anticipated RLV < or = 0.5% of body weight are at considerable risk for hepatic dysfunction and postoperative mortality.