Intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis for robotic-assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy: short-term outcomes of a multi-center prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies to date show contrasting conclusions when comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses for minimally invasive right colectomy. Large multi-center prospective studies comparing perioperative outcomes between these two techniques are needed. The purpose of this study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses outcomes for robotic assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy. METHODS: Multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients with malignant or benign disease scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic-assisted right colectomy. Outcomes included conversion rate, gastrointestinal recovery, and complication rates. RESULTS: There were 280 patients: 156 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) group and 124 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) group. The EA group was older (mean age 67 vs. 65 years, p = 0.05) and had fewer white (81% vs. 90%, p = 0.05) and Hispanic (2% vs. 12%, p = 0.003) patients. The EA group had more patients with comorbidities (82% vs. 72%, p = 0.04) while there was no significant difference in individual comorbidities between groups. IA was associated with fewer conversions to open and hand-assisted laparoscopic approaches (p = 0.007), shorter extraction site incision length (4.9 vs. 6.2 cm; p ≤ 0.0001), and longer operative time (156.9 vs. 118.2 min). Postoperatively, patients with IA had shorter time to first flatus, (1.5 vs. 1.8 days; p ≤ 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (1.6 vs. 2.0 days; p = 0.0005), time to resume soft/regular diet (29.0 vs. 37.5 h; p = 0.0014), and shorter length of hospital stay (median, 3 vs. 4 days; p ≤ 0.0001). Postoperative complication rates were comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: In this prospective, multi-center study of minimally invasive right colectomy across 20 institutions, IA was associated with significant improvements in conversion rates, return of bowel function, and shorter hospital stay, as well as significantly longer operative times compared to EA. These data validate current efforts to increase training and adoption of the IA technique for minimally invasive right colectomy.

Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Sigmoid Resection.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Published comparisons of minimally invasive approaches to colon surgery are limited. The objective of the current study is to compare the effectiveness of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sigmoid resection. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes from consecutive robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sigmoid resections performed between 2010 and 2015 by six general and colorectal surgeons, who are experienced in both robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgical techniques and who had >50 annual case volumes for each approach. Baseline characteristics and surgical risk factors between the two groups were balanced using a propensity score methodology with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Mean standardized differences were reported, and in all instances, a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-six cases (robotic-assisted, n = 211; laparoscopic, n = 125) met eligibility criteria and were included in the study. Following weighting, patient demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable between the robotic-assisted (n = 344) and laparoscopic (n = 349) groups. The laparoscopic group was associated with shorter operating room and surgical times. The robotic-assisted group had lower estimated blood loss and shorter time to first flatus compared to the laparoscopic group. Rates of complications post discharge to 30 d tended to be lower for the RA group: 5.1% vs 8.6% [p = 0.0657]. The RA group also had lower rates of readmissions and reoperations: 4% vs 8% [p = 0.029] and 0.5% vs 5.1% [p = 0.0003], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted sigmoid colon resection is clinically effective and provides a minimally invasive alternative to the laparoscopic approach with improved intraoperative and postoperative outcomes for colorectal patients.

Performance of da Vinci Stapler during robotic-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis.

Applications for surgical staplers continue to grow, due to the increase in minimally invasive surgical approaches, and range from vessel ligation to tissue transection and anastomoses. Complications associated with stapled tissue, such as bleeding or leaks, continue to be a concern for surgeons, as both can be associated with prolonged operative times and can contribute to postoperative morbidity and mortality. The goal of this retrospective study was to evaluate the performance of the da Vinci® Xi EndoWrist® Stapler 45 with SmartClamp™ technology during robotic-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. We reviewed 113 consecutive cases from four medical centers. Preclinical diagnoses were inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (n = 5), benign bowel disease (n = 77), and malignant bowel disease (n = 31). No anastomotic leaks occurred; one event of anastomotic bleeding (0.88%) resolved without surgical intervention. Overall, there were 643 clamp attempts (5.7 attempts per case), and 570 fires (5.0 fires per case). SmartClamp™ occurrences happened in approximately one out of three cases, with the highest proportion of occurrences in the IBD group (2.0 occurrences per case). The most commonly fired reload was blue (1.5 mm closed height) with 4.1 blue reloads fired per case overall. No incomplete fires occurred during the procedures. The study data demonstrate the performance of the da Vinci Xi EndoWrist® Stapler 45 as used in right colon resection with intracorporeal anastomosis. The collection and analysis of these data provide surgeons with information related to stapler firings, which were not previously available; as such, this analysis may lead to deductions that are useful for intraoperative decision-making and clinical outcomes.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive right colectomy: A multi-center propensity score-matched comparison of outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to retrospectively compare short-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for minimally invasive laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomies for benign and malignant disease. Recent studies suggest potential short-term outcomes advantages for the intracorporeal anastomosis technique. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score-matched comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomosis techniques for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted right colectomy between January 11, 2010, and July 21, 2016. RESULTS: After propensity score-matching, there were a total of 1029 minimal invasive surgery cases for analysis-379 right colectomies (335 robotic-assisted and 44 laparoscopic) done with an intracorporeal anastomosis and 650 right colectomies (253 robotic-assisted and 397 laparoscopic) done with an extracorporeal anastomosis. There were no significant differences in any preoperative patient characteristics between groups. The minimally invasive intracorporeal anastomosis group had significantly longer operative times (p<0.0001), lower conversion to open rate (p = 0.01), shorter hospital length of stay (p = 0.02) and lower complication rate from after discharge to 30-days (p = 0.04) than the extracorporeal anastomosis group. CONCLUSIONS: This comparison shows several clinical outcomes advantages for the intracorporeal anastomosis technique in minimally invasive right colectomy. These data may guide future refinements in minimally invasive training techniques and help surgeons choose among different minimally invasive options.

Patient comprehension and recall of laparoscopic surgery and outcomes in a non-English speaking population.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine patient recall and comprehension after laparoscopic appendectomy in an underserved population. Laparoscopic surgery can lead to diagnostic uncertainty secondary to poor recall and variable port placement. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, we identified a cohort of patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy from 2000 to 2004 at a single institution. We then attempted to contact the patients to conduct a 10-question telephone survey, which determined whether the patient spoke English or Spanish as a primary language, ethnicity, educational level, and questions about recall of perioperative events and diagnoses. If we could not reach the patient, we tried to call back on 2 different occasions. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2004, 186 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. Of these, 65% were Hispanic. We found that only 17% of these patients returned for a postoperative visit. Only 19.3% could be contacted by phone. Forty-seven percent of the patients contacted by phone spoke Spanish exclusively. Overall 92% of patients contacted knew what operation they had, and gave their correct diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The low percentage of patients available to follow-up makes this study statistically insignificant. However, we believe that fact in itself is important. In Southwestern states, we see a large migrant population. This highlights the need to communicate effectively with the patients at the time of surgery, which we speculate we did based on the percentage of patients that knew their diagnosis.

The conundrum of traumatic colon injury.

BACKGROUND: Surgical care in the case of traumatic injury to the colon has changed significantly. During World War II, diversion was dictum. Current trends favor primary repair. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of traumatic colon injuries at an urban level 1 trauma center was performed. Multiple data points were collected. Colon-related complications were examined in detail. RESULTS: Seventy-four charts fulfilled inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were treated with primary repair. The median Colon Injury Scale (CIS) grade was 2, and the average Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index (PATI) score was 19. Patients repaired by diversion suffered more colon-related complications; however, the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The emerging dictum for traumatic colon injuries is primary repair. Questions remain as to whether primary repair is the safest option for all colon injuries. The PATI score, CIS grade, and multiple other factors should be included in the decision making algorithm with an emphasis on primary repair.