The role of RObotic surgery in EMergency setting (ROEM): protocol for a multicentre, observational, prospective international study on the use of robotic platform in emergency surgery.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has gained widespread acceptance in elective interventions, yet its role in emergency procedures remains underexplored. While the 2021 WSES position paper discussed limited studies on the application of robotics in emergency general surgery, it recommended strict patient selection, adequate training, and improved platform accessibility. This prospective study aims to define the role of robotic surgery in emergency settings, evaluating intraoperative and postoperative outcomes and assessing its feasibility and safety. METHODS: The ROEM study is an observational, prospective, multicentre, international analysis of clinically stable adult patients undergoing robotic surgery for emergency treatment of acute pathologies including diverticulitis, cholecystitis, and obstructed hernias. Data collection includes patient demographics and intervention details. Furthermore, data relating to the operating theatre team and the surgical instruments used will be collected in order to conduct a cost analysis. The study plans to enrol at least 500 patients from 50 participating centres, with each centre having a local lead and collaborators. All data will be collected and stored online through a secure server running the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) web application. Ethical considerations and data governance will be paramount, requiring local ethical committee approvals from participating centres. DISCUSSION: Current literature and expert consensus suggest the feasibility of robotic surgery in emergencies with proper support. However, challenges include staff training, scheduling conflicts with elective surgeries, and increased costs. The ROEM study seeks to contribute valuable data on the safety, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery in emergency settings, focusing on specific pathologies. Previous studies on cholecystitis, abdominal hernias, and diverticulitis provide insights into the benefits and challenges of robotic approaches. It is necessary to identify patient populations that benefit most from robotic emergency surgery to optimize outcomes and justify costs.

Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excisions: A Propensity-Score Matched Cohort study of 5-year survival outcomes.

Objective: To compare long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excisions (TMEs) for rectal cancer in a tertiary center. Background: Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery has comparable long-term outcomes to the open approach, with several advantages in short-term outcomes. However, it has significant technical limitations, which the robotic approach aims to overcome. Methods: We included patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic TME surgery between 2013 and 2021. The groups were compared after propensity-score matching. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were local recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease-free survival (DFS), and short-term surgical and patient-related outcomes. Results: A total of 594 patients were included, and after propensity-score matching 215 patients remained in each group. There was a significant difference in 5-year OS (72.4% for laparoscopy vs 81.7% for robotic, P = 0.029), but no difference in 5-year LR (4.7% vs 5.2%, P = 0.850), DR (16.9% vs 13.5%, P = 0.390), or DFS (63.9% vs 74.4%, P = 0.086). The robotic group had significantly less conversion (3.7% vs 0.5%, P = 0.046), shorter length of stay [7.0 (6.0-13.0) vs 6.0 (4.0-8.0), P < 0.001), and less postoperative complications (63.5% vs 50.7%, P = 0.010). Conclusions: This study shows a correlation between higher 5-year OS and comparable long-term oncological outcomes for robotic TME surgery compared to the laparoscopic approach. Furthermore, lower conversion rates, a shorter length of stay, and a less minor postoperative complications were observed. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is a safe and favorable alternative to the traditional approaches.

Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with lateral lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Lateral pelvic node dissection (LPND) poses significant technical challenges. Despite the advent of robotic surgery, determining the optimal minimally invasive approach remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes between robotic total mesorectal excision with LPND (R-LPND) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with LPND (L-LPND). METHODS: This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 and AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) guidelines. Utilizing the RevMan 5.3.5 statistical package from the Cochrane Collaboration, a random-effects model was employed. RESULTS: Six eligible studies involving 652 patients (316 and 336 in the R-LPND and L-LPND groups, respectively) were retrieved. The robotic approach demonstrated favourable outcomes compared with the laparoscopic approach, manifesting in lower morbidity rates, reduced urinary complications, shorter hospital stays, and a higher number of harvested lateral pelvic lymph nodes. However, longer operative time was associated with the robotic approach. No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding major complications, anastomotic leak, intra-abdominal infection, neurological complications, LPND time, overall recurrence, and local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the robotic approach is a safe and feasible alternative for Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) with LPND in advanced rectal cancer. Notably, it is associated with lower morbidity, particularly a reduction in urinary complications, a shorter hospital stay and increased number of harvested lateral pelvic nodes. The trade-off for these benefits is a longer operative time.

Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (r-TAMIS): perioperative and short-term outcomes for local excision of rectal cancers.

BACKGROUND: Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) is an advanced technique for excision of early rectal cancers. Robotic TAMIS (r-TAMIS) has been introduced as technical improvement and potential alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME) in early rectal cancers and in frail patients. This study reports the perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes of r-TAMIS for local excision of early-stage rectal cancers. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected r-TAMIS database (July 2021-July 2023). Demographics, clinicopathological features, short-term outcomes, recurrences, and survival were investigated. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included. Median age and body mass index were 69.5 (62.0-77.7) years and 31.0 (21.0-36.5) kg/m2. Male sex was prevalent (n = 12, 60.0%). ASA III accounted for 66.7%. Median distance from anal verge was 7.5 (5.0-11.7) cm. Median operation time was 90.0 (60.0-112.5) minutes. Blood loss was minimal. There were no conversions. Median postoperative stay was 2.0 (1.0-3.0) days. Minor and major complication rates were 25.0% and 0%, respectively. Seventeen (85.0%) patients had an adenocarcinoma whilst three patients had an adenoma. R0 rate was 90.0%. Most tumours were pT1 (55.0%), followed by pT2 (25.0%). One patient (5.0%) had a pT3 tumour. Specimen and tumour maximal median diameter were 51.0 (41.0-62.0) mm and 21.5 (17.2-42.0) mm, respectively. Median specimen area was 193.1 (134.3-323.3) cm2. Median follow-up was 15.5 (10.0-24.0) months. One patient developed local recurrence (5.0%). CONCLUSIONS: r-TAMIS, with strict postoperative surveillance, is a safe and feasible approach for local excision of early rectal cancer and may have a role in surgically unfit and elderly patients who refuse or cannot undergo TME surgery. Future prospective multicentre large-scale studies are needed to report the long-term oncological outcomes.

Robotic approach to colonic resection: For some or for all patients?

The robotic approach is rapidly gaining momentum in colorectal surgery. Its benefits in pelvic surgery have been extensively discussed and are well established amongst those who perform minimally invasive surgery. However, the same cannot be said for the robotic approach for colonic resection, where its role is still debated. Here we aim to provide an extensive debate between selective and absolute use of the robotic approach for colonic resection by combining the thoughts of experts in the field of robotic and minimally invasive colorectal surgery, dissecting all key aspects for a critical view on this exciting new paradigm in colorectal surgery.

Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision for locally advanced rectal cancers: Perioperative and oncological outcomes from a multicentre case series.

BACKGROUND: Around 20% of rectal tumors are locally advanced with invasion into adjacent structures at presentation. These may require surgical resections beyond boundaries of total mesorectal excision (bTME) for radicality. Robotic bTME is under investigation. This study reports perioperative and oncological outcomes of robotic bTME for locally advanced rectal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicentre, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected robotic bTME resections (July 2015-November 2020). Demographics, clinicopathological features, short-term outcomes, recurrences, and survival were investigated. RESULTS: One-hundred-sixty-eight patients (eight centres) were included. Median age and BMI were 60.0 (50.0-68.7) years and 24.0 (24.4-27.7) kg/m2. Female sex was prevalent (n = 95, 56.8%). Fifty patients (29.6%) were ASA III-IV. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was given to 125 (74.4%) patients. Median operative time was 314.0 (260.0-450.0) minutes. Median estimated blood loss was 150.0 (27.5-500.0) ml. Conversion to laparotomy was seen in 4.8%. Postoperative complications occurred in 77 (45.8%) patients; 27.3% and 3.9% were Clavien-Dindo III and IV, respectively. Thirty-day mortality was 1.2% (n = 2). R0 rate was 92.9%. Adjuvant chemotherapy was offered to 72 (42.9%) patients. Median follow-up was 34.0 (10.0-65.7) months. Distant and local recurrences were seen in 35 (20.8%) and 15 patients (8.9%), respectively. Overall survival (OS) at 1, 3, and 5-years was 91.7, 82.1, and 76.8%. Disease-free survival (DFS) at 1, 3, and 5-years was 84.0, 74.5, and 69.2%. CONCLUSION: Robotic bTME is technically safe with relatively low conversion rate, good OS, and acceptable DFS in the hands of experienced surgeons in high volume centres. In selected cases robotic approach allows for high R0 rates during bTME.

Robotic Approach to Paediatric Gastrointestinal Diseases: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: The use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for paediatric surgery has been on the rise since the early 2000s and is complicated by factors unique to paediatric surgery. The rise of robotic surgery has presented an opportunity in MIS for children, and recent developments in the reductions in port sizes and single-port surgery offer promising prospects. This study aimed to present a systematic overview and analysis of the existing literature around the use of robotic platforms in the treatment of paediatric gastrointestinal diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In accordance with the PRISMA Statement, a systematic review on paediatric robotic gastrointestinal surgery was conducted on Pubmed, Cochrane, and Scopus. A critical appraisal of the study was performed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included, of which seven were on Hirschsprung's disease and eight on other indications. Included studies were heterogeneous in their populations, age, and sex, but all reported low incidences of intraoperative complications and conversions in their robotic cohorts. Only one study reported on a comparator cohort, with a longer operative time in the robotic cohort (180 vs. 152 and 156 min, p < 0.001), but no significant differences in blood loss, length of stay, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, or conversion. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery may play a role in the treatment of paediatric gastrointestinal diseases. There is limited data available on modern robotic platforms and almost no comparative data between any robotic platforms and conventional minimally invasive approaches. Further technological developments and research are needed to enhance our understanding of the potential that robotics may hold for the field of paediatric surgery.

Stapled Anastomosis Versus Hand-Sewn Anastomosis With Mucosectomy for Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Postoperative Outcomes, Functional Outcomes, and Oncological Safety.

PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare outcomes between stapled ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) and hand-sewn IPAA with mucosectomy in cases of ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis) guidelines 2020 and AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) guidelines. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Subgroup analysis was performed according to the indication for surgery. RESULTS: The bibliographic research yielded 31 trials: 3 RCTs, 5 prospective clinical trials, and 24 CCTs including 8872 patients: 4871 patients in the stapled group and 4038 in the hand-sewn group. Regarding postoperative outcomes, the stapled group had a lower rate of anastomotic stricture, small bowel obstruction, and ileal pouch failure. There were no differences between the 2 groups in terms of operative time, anastomotic leak, pelvic sepsis, pouchitis, or hospital stay. For functional outcomes, the stapled group was associated with greater outcomes in terms of seepage per day and by night, pad use, night incontinence, resting pressure, and squeeze pressure. There were no differences in stool Frequency per 24h, stool frequency at night, antidiarrheal medication, sexual impotence, or length of the high-pressure zone. There was no difference between the 2 groups in terms of dysplasia and neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to hand-sewn anastomosis, stapled ileoanal anastomosis leads to a large reduction in anastomotic stricture, small bowel obstruction, ileal pouch failure, seepage by day and night, pad use, and night incontinence. This may ensure a higher resting pressure and squeeze pressure in manometry evaluation. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO under CRD 42022379880.

Laparoscopic versus Open Emergency Surgery for Right Colon Cancers.

BACKGROUND: A laparoscopic approach to right colectomies for emergency right colon cancers is under investigation. This study compares perioperative and oncological long-term outcomes of right colon cancers undergoing laparoscopic or open emergency resections and identifies risk factors for survival. METHODS: Patients were identified from a prospectively maintained institutional database between 2009 and 2019. Demographics, clinicopathological features, recurrence, and survival were investigated. Cox regression analysis was performed for risk factor analysis. RESULTS: A total of 202 right colectomies (114 open and 88 laparoscopic) were included. ASA III-IV was higher in the open group. The conversion rate was 14.8%. Laparoscopic surgery was significantly longer (156 vs. 203 min, p < 0.001); pTNM staging did not differ. Laparoscopy was associated with higher lymph node yield, and showed better resection clearance (R0, 78.9 vs. 87.5%, p = 0.049) and shorter postoperative stay (12.5 vs. 8.0 days, p < 0.001). Complication rates and grade were similar. The median length of follow-up was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group (20.5 vs. 33.5 months, p < 0.001). Recurrences were similar (34.2 vs. 36.4%). Open surgery had lower five-year overall survival (OS, 27.1 vs. 51.7%, p = 0.001). Five-year disease-free survival was similar (DFS, 55.8 vs. 56.5%). Surgical approach, pN, pM, retrieved LNs, R stage, and complication severity were risk factors for OS upon multivariate analysis. Pathological N stage and R stage were risk factors for DFS upon multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A laparoscopic approach to right colon cancers in an emergency setting is safe in terms of perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes. Randomized control trials are required to further investigate these results.

Robotic beyond total mesorectal excision (TME) for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The surgical treatment for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer requires oncological clearance with a pelvic exenteration or a beyond total mesorectal excision (TME). The aim of this systematic review is to explore the safety and feasibility of robotic surgery in locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer by evaluating perioperative outcomes, oncological clearance rates, and survival and recurrence rates postrobotic beyond TME surgery. METHODS: The systematic review will include studies published until the end of December 2023. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus databases will be searched. The screening process, study selection, data extraction, quality assessment and analysis will be performed by two independent reviewers. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus with a third independent reviewer. The risk of bias will be assessed with validated scores. The primary outcomes will be oncological clearance, overall and disease-free survival, and local and systemic recurrence rates post robotic or robot-assisted beyond TME surgery for locally advanced or recurrent rectal cancer. Secondary outcomes will include perioperative outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required for this systematic review as no individual patient cases are studied requiring access to individual medical records. The results of the systematic review will be disseminated with conference presentations and peer-reviewed paper publications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION OF THE STUDY: CRD42023408098.

2023 WSES guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of iatrogenic urinary tract injuries (IUTIs) during emergency digestive surgery.

Iatrogenic urinary tract injury (IUTI) is a severe complication of emergency digestive surgery. It can lead to increased postoperative morbidity and mortality and have a long-term impact on the quality of life. The reported incidence of IUTIs varies greatly among the studies, ranging from 0.3 to 1.5%. Given the high volume of emergency digestive surgery performed worldwide, there is a need for well-defined and effective strategies to prevent and manage IUTIs. Currently, there is a lack of consensus regarding the prevention, detection, and management of IUTIs in the emergency setting. The present guidelines, promoted by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), were developed following a systematic review of the literature and an international expert panel discussion. The primary aim of these WSES guidelines is to provide evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians and surgeons in the prevention, detection, and management of IUTIs during emergency digestive surgery. The following key aspects were considered: (1) effectiveness of preventive interventions for IUTIs during emergency digestive surgery; (2) intra-operative detection of IUTIs and appropriate management strategies; (3) postoperative detection of IUTIs and appropriate management strategies and timing; and (4) effectiveness of antibiotic therapy (including type and duration) in case of IUTIs.

International standardization and optimization group for intersphincteric resection (ISOG-ISR): modified Delphi consensus on anatomy, definition, indication, surgical technique, specimen description and functional outcome.

AIM: Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an oncologically complex operation for very low-lying rectal cancers. Yet, definition, anatomical description, operative indications and operative approaches to ISR are not standardized. The aim of this study was to standardize the definition of ISR by reaching international consensus from the experts in the field. This standardization will allow meaningful comparison in the literature in the future. METHOD: A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol. RESULTS: Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements. CONCLUSION: This study provides an international expert consensus-based definition and standardization of ISR. This is the first study standardizing terminology and definition of deep pelvis/anal canal anatomy from a surgical point of view. Intersphincteric dissection, ISR and uLAR were specifically defined for precise surgical description. Indication for ISR was determined by the rectal tumour's maximal radial infiltration (T stage) below the levator ani. A new surgical definition of T3isp was reached by consensus to define T3 low rectal tumours infiltrating the intersphincteric plane. A practical flowchart for surgical indication for uLAR/ISR/abdominoperineal resection was developed. A standardized ISR surgical technique and functional outcome assessment protocol was defined.

Local Excision Versus Total Mesorectal Excision After Favourable Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Low Rectal Cancer: a Multi-centre Experience.

The gold standard surgical management of curable rectal cancer is proctectomy with total mesorectal excision. Adding preoperative radiotherapy improved local control. The promising results of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy raised the hopes for conservative, yet oncologically safe management, probably using local excision technique. This study is a prospective comparative phase III study, where 46 rectal cancer patients were recruited from patients attending Oncology Centre of Mansoura University and Queen Alexandra Hospital Portsmouth University Hospital NHS with a median follow-up 36 months. The two recruited groups were as follows: group (A), 18 patients who underwent conventional radical surgery by TME; and group (B), 28 patients who underwent trans-anal endoscopic local excision. Patients of resectable low rectal cancer (below 10 cms from anal verge) with sphincter saving procedures were included: cT1-T3N0. The median operative time for LE was 120 min versus 300 in TME (p < 0.001), and median blood loss was 20 ml versus 100 ml in LE and TME, respectively (p < 0.001). Median hospital stay was 3.5 days versus 6.5 days (p = 0.009). No statistically significant difference in median DFS (64.2 months for LE versus 63.2 months for TME, p = 0.85) and median OS (72.9 months for LE versus 76.3 months for TME, p = 0.43). No statistically significant difference in LARS scores and QoL was observed between LE and TME (p = 0.798, p = 0.799). LE seems a good alternative to radical rectal resection in carefully selected responders to neoadjuvant therapy after thorough pre-operative evaluation, planning and patient counselling.

Best practice considerations on the assessment of robotic assisted surgical systems: results from an international consensus expert panel.

BACKGROUND: Health technology assessments (HTAs) of robotic assisted surgery (RAS) face several challenges in assessing the value of robotic surgical platforms. As a result of using different assessment methods, previous HTAs have reached different conclusions when evaluating RAS. While the number of available systems and surgical procedures is rapidly growing, existing frameworks for assessing MedTech provide a starting point, but specific considerations are needed for HTAs of RAS to ensure consistent results. This work aimed to discuss different approaches and produce guidance on evaluating RAS. METHODS: A consensus conference research methodology was adopted. A panel of 14 experts was assembled with international experience and representing relevant stakeholders: clinicians, health economists, HTA practitioners, policy makers, and industry. A review of previous HTAs was performed and seven key themes were extracted from the literature for consideration. Over five meetings, the panel discussed the key themes and formulated consensus statements. RESULTS: A total of ninety-eight previous HTAs were identified from twenty-five total countries. The seven key themes were evidence inclusion and exclusion, patient- and clinician-reported outcomes, the learning curve, allocation of costs, appropriate time horizons, economic analysis methods, and robotic ecosystem/wider benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgical platforms are tools, not therapies. Their value varies according to context and should be considered across therapeutic areas and stakeholders. The principles set out in this paper should help HTA bodies at all levels to evaluate RAS. This work may serve as a case study for rapidly developing areas in MedTech that require particular consideration for HTAs.

WSES consensus guidelines on sigmoid volvulus management.

Sigmoid volvulus is a common surgical emergency, especially in elderly patients. Patients can present with a wide range of clinical states: from asymptomatic, to frank peritonitis secondary to colonic perforation. These patients generally need urgent treatment, be it endoscopic decompression of the colon or an upfront colectomy. The World Society of Emergency Surgery united a worldwide group of international experts to review the current evidence and propose a consensus guidelines on the management of sigmoid volvulus.

Ambulatory laparoscopic colectomies: a systematic review.

AIM: Ambulatory laparoscopic colectomy (ALC), meaning discharge within 24 h of surgical colonic resection, has recently been proposed in a few, selected patients. This systematic review was performed with the aim of reviewing protocols for ALC and assessing feasibility, safety and outcomes after ALC. METHOD: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and pooled analysis was performed searching all English studies published until October 2022 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (PROSPERO, CRD42022334463). Inclusion criteria were original articles including patients undergoing ALC, specifying at least one outcome of interest. Exclusion criteria were articles reporting a robotic-assisted procedure; unable to retrieve patient data from articles; the same patient series included in different studies. Primary outcomes were success, overall complications and readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included mortality and specific complications such us surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, ileus, bleeding, rate of ALC acceptance, and unscheduled consultation and reoperation rate. RESULTS: Among 1087 studies imported for screening, 11 were included (1296 patients). The success rate was 47% with an overall morbidity of 14%. Readmission and reoperation rates were 5% and 1%, respectively. No mortality was recorded. Protocols of ALC differ significantly among published studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ALC appears to be safe and feasible in selected cases with an acceptable success rate and a low risk of readmission after hospital discharge. Future studies should evaluate patients' benefits and discharge criteria, as well as uniformity and standardization of eligibility criteria. This systematic review may help inform on ALC adoption in clinical practice.

Trends in emergency colorectal surgery: a 7-year retrospective single-centre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency colorectal resections carry a higher morbidity and mortality than elective surgery. The use of minimally invasive surgery has now become widespread in elective colorectal surgery, with improved patient outcomes. Laparoscopy is being increasingly used for emergency colorectal resections, but its role is still being defined. Our aim was to observe the uptake of laparoscopy for emergency colorectal surgery in our centre. METHOD: A retrospective single-centre cohort study was performed using local National Emergency Laparotomy Audit data from January 2014-December 2020. All patients who had a colorectal resection were included. Trends in the number and type of resections were recorded. Primary outcome was the proportion of cases started and completed laparoscopically. Secondary outcomes included rate of conversion to open, length of stay and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total 523 colorectal resections were performed. The number of cases attempted and completed laparoscopically steadily increased over the study period (28.3% to 63.3% and 16.3% to 35.4%, respectively). The mean rate of conversion to open was 43.8%. The greatest expansion in laparoscopy was for cases of intestinal obstruction, perforation and peritonitis, and for those undergoing Hartmann's procedure and right hemicolectomy. 30­day mortality for cases completed laparoscopically was much lower than those converted or started with open surgery (2.1% vs 11.7% and 17.5%, respectively). Laparoscopic approach was independently associated with reduced length of stay. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy has been successfully adopted for emergency colorectal resections in our centre, with half of cases felt to be suitable for minimally invasive surgery.