RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: With the proven benefits of minimally invasive surgery, there is steady growth in robotic surgery use and interest in novel robotic platforms. A miniaturized Robotic-Assisted Surgery Device (mRASD) has been in clinical use under a multi-center, investigational device exemption (IDE) study for right and left colectomy. The goal of this work was to report the short-term and 12-month outcomes specifically for the cohort of colon cancer patients that underwent surgery using the mRASD. METHOD: From the IDE study that included both benign and malignant diseases, long-term follow-up was only conducted for patients with colon cancer. The main outcome measures were the oncologic quality metrics (Overall Survival, OS and Disease-free Survival, DFS). Secondary outcomes included incidence of intra-operative, device-related, and procedure-related adverse events. Frequency statistics were performed to assess the measures of central tendency and variability in short (within 30 days) and long-term (1-year) outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty total patients underwent a colectomy with mRASD; 17 (57%) were diagnosed with a malignancy and included in this analysis. The mean patient age was 59.9 ± 13.2 years. There were no intraoperative or device-related adverse events. In 100% of cases (n = 17), the primary dissection was completed and hemostasis maintained using the mRASD, and negative margins were achieved. At 30 days postoperatively, the major complication rate was 6%, and there was one unplanned reoperation for anastomotic leak. At one-year follow-up, the OS and DFS rates were 100 and 94%, respectively. In one patient, omental implants were discovered at the time of surgery, and the patient opted to not undergo additional therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The first experience with mRASD for colectomy in colon cancer demonstrated technical effectiveness and an acceptable surgical safety profile in line with other minimally invasive procedures. The study continues to monitor disease recurrence and survival outcomes in this cohort.

RESUMEN

Background: Robotic colorectal resections (RCR) have been gaining popularity recently due to several advantages in addition to oncological safety. The objective of this review is to evaluate the cost comparison of RCR versus laparoscopic colorectal resections (LCR). Methods: All types of comparative studies reporting the cost of RCR versus LCR were retrieved from the search of standard medical electronic databases and analysis was conducted by using the principles of meta-analysis on the statistical software RevMan version 5. Results: The search of medical databases yielded 13 studies (one randomised trial and 12 comparative studies) on 16,082 patients undergoing oncological and non-oncological colorectal resections. Eleven studies reported total cost whereas seven studies reported only operative cost. In the random effects model analysis, LCR was associated with the reduced total cost [standardised mean difference -62.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): -75.14 to -49.54, Z=9.55, P<0.001] as well as reduced operative cost (standardised mean difference -4.60, 95% CI: -5.90 to -3.31, Z=6.96, P<0.001) compared to RCR. However, there was significant heterogeneity [Tau2=346.74, Chi2=29,559.11, df =11 (P<0.001; I2=100%); Tau2=2.73, Chi2=832.21, df =6 (P<0.001; I2=99%)] among included studies. Conclusions: The LCR seems to be more economical as compared to the RCR in terms of operative cost as well as total cost (operative plus in-patient stay). However, due to statistically significant heterogeneity among included studies and paucity of the randomised trials, these findings should be taken cautiously.

RESUMEN

AIM: As multidisciplinary treatment strategies for colorectal cancer have improved, aggressive surgical resection has become commonplace. Multivisceral and extended resections offer curative-intent resection with significant survival benefit. However, limited data exist regarding the feasibility and oncological efficacy of performing extended resection via a minimally invasive approach. The aim of this study was to determine the perioperative and long-term outcomes following robotic extended resection for colorectal cancer. METHOD: We describe the population of patients undergoing robotic multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer at our single institution. We evaluated perioperative details and investigated short- and long-term outcomes, using the Kaplan-Meier method to analyse overall and recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: Among the 86 patients most tumours were T3 (47%) or T4 (47%) lesions in the rectum (78%). Most resections involved the anterior compartment (72%): bladder (n = 13), seminal vesicle/vas deferens (n = 27), ureter (n = 6), prostate (n = 15) and uterus/vagina/adnexa (n = 27). Three cases required conversion to open surgery; 10 patients had grade 3 complications. The median hospital stay was 4 days. Resections were R0 (>1 mm) in 78 and R1 (0 to ≤1 mm) in 8, with none being R2. The average nodal yield was 26 and 48 (55.8%) were pN0. Three-year overall survival was 88% and median progression-free survival was 19.4 months. Local recurrence was 6.1% and distant recurrence was 26.1% at 3 years. CONCLUSION: Performance of multivisceral and extended resection on the robotic platform allows patients the benefit of minimally invasive surgery while achieving oncologically sound resection of colorectal cancer.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The aim of the study was to compare the internal instrument and external surgeon hand positions to determine whether visual perception mismatch (VPM) is a factor during robotic colorectal surgery. Continuous video footage of 24 consecutive robotic colorectal surgery cases were analysed concurrently with sagittal video recordings of surgeon hand positions. Separated sagittal hand positions would indicate nonergonomic positioning without clutching of the robotic controls, either matching the on-screen up/down instrument tip positions (no VPM) or in the opposite direction (true VPM). Variables (30-min surgery time blocks, anatomic target, and task performed), which resulted in hand separation or VPM, were analysed. Operating with the presence of VPM for more than one duration occurred 51 times and nonergonomic sagittal hand positioning occurred 22 times. For an experienced robotic surgeon, ergonomic positioning of the hands is favoured over adjustment for VPM despite the potential higher mental workload.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: We introduced the robotic NICE procedure for left-sided colorectal resection in 2018 in which the entire procedure is performed without loss of pneumoperitoneum and without an abdominal wall incision by performing natural orifice-assisted transrectal extraction of the specimen and intracorporeal anastomosis. We compare the results of the NICE procedure versus conventional laparoscopic resection, which was our standard approach prior to 2018. METHODS: A matched pair case-control study compared patients following the NICE procedure versus those who underwent laparoscopic left-sided colorectal resection with conventional extracorporeal-assisted technique. Cases were performed at an Academic Medical Center and recorded in a prospective database to analyze perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: From a total cohort of 352 patients, 83 were matched in each group. When comparing the NICE procedure vs. the Extracorporeal-Assisted laparoscopic group, there were no significant differences in age (58.5 vs. 59.3 years old), sex (47 vs. 42 Female), body mass index (27.4 vs. 27.5 kg/m2), ASA, diagnosis, or type of surgery. Operative time (198.8 vs. 197.7 min), blood loss (56.0 vs. 53.3 ml), intraoperative complications (0.0% vs. 0.0%), and conversion rates (0.0% vs. 0.0%) were similar in both groups. The NICE procedure was associated with significantly earlier return of bowel function (40.7 vs. 23.6 h), shorter length of stay (3.1 vs. 2.2 days), and lower total opioid use (94.6 vs. 70.5 morphine milligram equivalents). Overall, there were no differences in postoperative abscess formation, complications, readmission, or reoperation rates. CONCLUSION: When compared to conventional laparoscopic resection, the NICE procedure is associated with short-term benefits including earlier recovery and less opioid use without increased operative time or increased risk of complications. Multicenter studies are recommended to validate benefits and limitations of this technique.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

As the adoption of robotic-assisted procedures expands across various surgical specialties, colorectal surgery stands out as a prominent beneficiary. This rise in usage can be traced back to the increased accessibility of robotic platforms and a growing institutional shift towards cutting-edge surgical methods. When compared with traditional laparoscopic methods, robotic techniques offer distinct advantages. Their true potential shines in surgeries involving complex anatomical regions, where the robot's enhanced dexterity and range of motion prove invaluable. The three-dimensional, magnified view provided by robotic systems further boosts surgical precision and clarity. These advantages render robotic assistance especially suitable for colorectal surgeries, notably in intricate areas such as the rectum and endoluminal spaces. As the medical world emphasizes minimally invasive surgical methods, there's a pressing need to evolve and optimize robotic techniques in colorectal surgery. This article traces the evolution of robotic interventions in colorectal surgeries, highlighting both its historical milestones and anticipated future trends. We'll also explore emerging robotic tools and systems set to reshape the colorectal surgical arena.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The aim of the study was to examine the factors which may influence suboptimal ergonomic surgeon hand positioning during robotic colorectal surgery (RCS). An observational study of 11 consecutive RCS cases from June 2022 to August 2022 was performed. Continuous video footage of RCS cases was analysed concurrently with video recordings of surgeon's hand positions at the console. The outcome studied was the frequency with which either hand remained in a suboptimal ergonomic position outside the predetermined double box outlines, as marked on the surgeon's video, for >1 min. Situations which resulted in poor upper limb ergonomics were dissection in the peripheral operating field location, left-hand use, use of the stapler, dissection of the main mesenteric blood vessels, and multi-quadrant surgery. Being aware of situations when suboptimal ergonomic positions occur can allow surgeons to consciously compensate by using the clutch or pausing to take a rest break. What does this paper add to the literature?: The study is important because it is the first to look at factors which may influence poor upper limb ergonomics during non-simulated RCS. By recognizing these factors and compensating for them, it may improve surgeon ergonomics with resultant better performance.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of Automated Performance Metrics (APMs) in assessing the learning curve. METHODS: A retrospective review of 85 consecutive patients who underwent total robotic colorectal surgery at a single institution between August 2020 and October 2022 was performed. Patient demographics, operation type, and APMs were collected and analysed. Cumulative summation technique (CUSUM) was used to construct learning curves of surgeon console time (SCT), use of the fourth arm, clutch activation, instrument off screen (number and duration), and cut electrocautery activation. RESULTS: Two phases with 50 and 35 cases were identified from the CUSUM graph for SCT. The SCT was significantly different between the two phases (176 and 251 min, p < 0.002). After adjustment for SCT, the APMs were not significantly different between the two phases. CONCLUSIONS: Most APMs do not offer additional learning curve information when compared with SCT analysis alone.

RESUMEN

Robot-assisted systems have been increasingly used in general surgery for several years. Accordingly, the number of systems installed in Germany has also rapidly increased. While around 100 robot-assisted systems were used in German hospitals in 2018, this figure had already risen to more than 200 by 2022. The aim of this article is to present the current state of development and trends in robotic surgery in Germany. For this purpose, data from the StuDoQ|Robotics register were analyzed. Furthermore, a descriptive analysis of concomitant diagnosis-related groups (DRG) data was carried out via the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), for a better assessment of the representativeness of the StuDoQ|Robotics register data. In both data sets, the annual number of robot-assisted visceral surgery procedures in Germany steadily increased. Compared to the DRG data, only 3.7% up to a maximum of 36.7% of all robot-assisted procedures performed were documented in the StuDoQ|Robotics register, depending on the type of procedure. Colorectal resections were the most frequent robot-assisted procedures (StuDoQ: 32.5% and 36.7% vs. DRG data: 24.2% and 29.7%) and had, for example, low mortality rates (StuDoQ: 1% and 1% vs. DRG data: 2.3% and 1.3%). Due to the low coverage rates of robot-assisted esophageal, gastric, pancreatic and liver interventions, no valid statements could be derived from the StuDoQ data for these areas. With the current coverage rates, the informative value of the StuDoQ|Robotics register is considerably limited for some types of intervention. In the future, measures should therefore be explored that lead to a significant increase in the coverage rates.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery offers improved short-term outcomes over open surgery but can be technically challenging. Robotic surgery has been increasingly used for IPAA surgery, but there is limited evidence supporting its use. This study aims to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic IPAA procedures. METHODS: All consecutive patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic IPAA surgery at 3 centres, from 3 countries, between 2008 and 2019 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for gender, previous abdominal surgery, ASA grade (I, II vs III, IV) and procedure performed (proctocolectomy vs completion proctectomy). Their short-term outcomes were examined. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were identified (73 laparoscopic, 16 robotic). The 16 patients that received robotic surgery were matched with 15 laparoscopic patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated short-term outcomes. Length of stay trend was higher for laparoscopic surgery (9 vs 7 days, p = 0.072) CONCLUSION: Robotic IPAA surgery is safe and feasible and offers similar short-term outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Length of stay may be lower for robotic IPAA surgery, but further larger scale studies are required in order to demonstrate this.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

A peripheral nerve compression injury associated with surgical positioning is an important complication that might compromise quality of life. We report a rare case of posterior interosseous nerve (PIN) palsy after robotic rectal cancer surgery. A 79-year-old male with rectal cancer underwent robotic low anterior resection in a modified lithotomy position with both arms tucked at his sides with bed sheets. Following surgery, he felt difficulty moving his right wrist and fingers. A neurological examination revealed muscle weakness in the area innervated by the PIN alone without sensory disturbance, and he was diagnosed with PIN palsy. The symptoms improved with conservative treatment in about a month. The PIN is a branch of the radial nerve and controls dorsiflexion of the fingers, and intraoperative continuous pressure on the upper arm by right lateral rotation position or by the robot arm was considered to be the cause.

RESUMEN

Background: Robotic surgery has been widely adopted for colorectal cancer (CRC). Many surgeons in China have completed structured training programs and have performed robotic colorectal surgeries. This multicenter study aimed to evaluate the training effects of structured training curricula in China for surgeons with different laparoscopic experiences during their initial implementation of robotic colorectal surgery. Methods: Ten surgeons from five high-volume centers participated in this retrospective study. The baseline characteristics, perioperative data, and pathological outcomes were compared between the first 15 robotic surgeries performed by five surgeons with extensive laparoscopic experience (group A) and the first 15 robotic surgeries performed by five surgeons with limited laparoscopic experience (group B) at each center. Results: Compared with group B, group A showed shorter operation time (200.9 vs. 254.2 min, P<0.001), less blood loss (100.0 vs. 150.0 mL, P=0.025), and a lower incidence of intraoperative complications (2.7% vs. 21.4%, P=0.015). The reoperation rate (1.3% vs. 5.3%, P=0.036) and postoperative complication rate (6.7% vs. 22.7%, P=0.025) were significantly lower in group A than in group B. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics (e.g., age, sex, and tumor location) and pathological information (e.g., tumor stage, lymph node count, and tumor size) between the two groups. Radical resection (R0) was performed in all cases. Conclusions: In China, structured training curricula can help surgeons with extensive laparoscopic experience make a smooth transition from laparoscopic to robotic surgery. However, the higher intraoperative and postoperative complication rates indicate that structured training curricula still require further refinement for surgeons with limited laparoscopic experience.

RESUMEN

The primary goal of this study is to assess current patient information available on the internet concerning robotic colorectal surgery. Acquiring this information will aid in patients understanding of robotic colorectal surgery. Data was acquired through a web-scraping algorithm. The algorithm used two Python packages: Beautiful Soup and Selenium. The long-chain keywords incorporated into Google, Bing and Yahoo search engines were 'Da Vinci Colon-Rectal Surgery', 'Colorectal Robotic Surgery' and 'Robotic Bowel Surgery'. 207 websites resulted, were sorted and evaluated according to the ensuring quality information for patients (EQIP) score. Of the 207 websites visited, 49 belonged to the subgroup of hospital websites (23.6%), 46 to medical centers (22.2%), 45 to practitioners (21.7%), 42 to health care systems (20,2%), 11 to news services (5.3%), 7 to web portals (3.3%), 5 to industry (2.4%), and 2 to patient groups (0.9%). Only 52 of the 207 websites received a high rating. The quality of available information on the internet concerning robotic colorectal surgery is low. The majority of information was inaccurate. Medical facilities involved in robotic colorectal surgery, robotic bowel surgery and related robotic procedures should develop websites with credible information to guide patient decisions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) is steadily increasing in popularity with an annual growth in the number of colorectal procedures undertaken robotically. Further upscaling of RACS requires structured and standardised robotic training to safeguard high-quality clinical outcomes. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the structure and assessment metrics of currently established RACS training programmes. A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines was performed. Searches were performed of the Ovid Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases between 2000 and 27th November 2021 to identify studies reporting on training curricula in RACS. Core components of training programmes and their relevant outcome assessment metrics were extracted. Thirteen studies were identified, with all training programmes designed for the da Vinci platform (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Common elements of multimodal programmes included theoretical knowledge (76.9%), case observation (53.8%), simulation (100%) and proctored training (76.9%). Robotic skills acquisition was assessed primarily during the simulation phase (n = 4, 30.1%) and proctoring phase (n = 10, 76.9%). Performance metrics, consisting of time or assessment scores for VR simulation were only mandated in four (30.1%) studies. Objective assessment following proctored training was variably reported and employed a range of assessment metrics, including direct feedback (n = 3, 23.1%) or video feedback (n = 8, 61.5%). Five (38.4%) training programmes used the Global Assessment Score (GAS) forms. There is a broad consensus on the core multimodal components across current RACS training programmes; however, validated objective assessment is limited and needs to be appropriately standardised to ensure reproducible progression criteria and competency-based metrics are produced to robustly assess progression and competence.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Complete mesocolic excision (CME) in right-sided colon cancers appears to confer oncological benefits compared to conventional colectomy. Identification of the superior mesenteric vein (SMV) remains challenging. We describe the novel use of intra-operative robotic ultrasound scan (rUSS) in obese patients (BMI ≥ 29). All consecutive patients having robotic CME for colon cancer between 2014 and 2017 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Data were recorded on an ethics approved prospective database and included patient demographics, clinical and oncological outcomes. Patients were divided into group 1 (BMI ≤ 28) and group 2 (BMI ≥ 29). SMV first approach was employed in all cases and SMV detection was aided using rUSS in group 2. Primary outcome was postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included conversion rate, operative time and length of stay (LOS). 41 (group 1, median 66 years) were compared to 32 patients (group 2, median 63 years). There were no conversions to laparoscopy or laparotomy. Median operative times for group 2 were 30 min longer (186 vs. 216 min, p = 0.05). Overall morbidity was similar (20% vs. 19% in group 1 and 2, p = 0.26). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to LOS (median 7 vs. 6 days, p = 0.48), readmissions (2 vs. 5, p = 0.13), R0 resection rate (98% vs. 94%, p = 0.43) and lymph node harvest (median 31 vs. 30, p = 0.28).CME can be technically more challenging than conventional colectomy in obese patients and is associated with longer operative times. The use of rUSS in obese patients can help to identify SMV and allow safer dissection.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resection for colorectal malignancy. We performed a systematic review using a comprehensive search strategy on several electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Medline, and Google Scholar) in April 2022. Postoperative outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer were compared using 12 end points. Observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and nonrandomized clinical trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer were included. The statistical analysis was performed using the risk ratio (RR) for categorical variables and the standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables. Sixteen studies involving 2,318 patients were included. The difference in length of hospital stay was significantly shorter with robotic access (SMD = -0.10, 95% CI = -0.19, -0.01, P = 0.04, I2 = 0%). Regarding intra-abdominal abscesses, the analysis showed an advantage in favor of the robotic group, but the result was not statically significant (RR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.28, 1.05, P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). Mechanical obstruction was found to be higher in robotic group, favoring laparoscopic access, but was not significant (RR = 1.91, 95% CI = 0.95, 3.83, P = 0.07, I2 = 0%). There was no difference in time to pass flatus and consume a soft diet. The rates of anastomotic leakage, ileus, wound infection, readmission, mortality, and incisional hernias were similar with both approaches. Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with a shorter hospital stay, with no differences in mortality and postoperative morbidity.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The mini invasive procedure in colorectal surgery is gaining ground as an alternative to conventional surgery. Colorectal surgery has significantly evolved since the advent of the automatic stapler devices and subsequently with the minimally invasive approach. The next logical step - the robotic assisted surgery was developed to satisfy surgeons' needs to the area of colorectal surgery and to offer a new and safer method to patients. The evidence for benefits of its use in this area appears to be promising.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes in elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years) undergoing robotic colorectal surgery (RCRS) in comparison with non-elderly patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was collected on elderly and non-elderly patients who underwent RCRS from a prospectively maintained database. RESULTS: A total of 89 elderly and 73 non-elderly patients were identified. No statistically significant differences in postoperative complication, reoperation, wound infection, anastomotic leak or mortality were observed. The median length of stay was 1 day longer in elderly patients (p = 0.007). Subgroup analysis of octogenarians demonstrated outcomes that compared favourably with younger patients. CONCLUSION: RCRS in elderly patients is safe and effective, with outcomes that do not differ significantly with younger patients. Older age should not be considered to be a specific exclusion criteria for RCRS. To our knowledge, this study represents the largest in the literature to examine outcomes specifically in elderly patients undergoing RCRS.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Objective: While interest in elective robotic surgery is growing, use in emergency setting remains limited due to challenges posed by sicker patients, advanced pathology and logistical issues. During the COVID-19 pandemic, robotic surgery could provide the benefit of having the surgeon away from the bedside and reducing the number of directly exposed medical staff. The objective of this study was to report patient outcomes and initial learning experience of emergency robotic colorectal surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A case series study was conducted, including patients undergoing emergency robotic colorectal surgery between February 2020 and February 2021 at Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth, UK. Patient data were collected from an ethics approved prospective database. Patient demographics, operative time, conversions and postoperative complications were recorded. In addition, readmissions, length of stay and short-term oncological outcomes were analyzed. Results: Ten patients with median age 64 y (range, 36-83 y) were included. Four patients had robotic complete mesocolic resection for obstructing cancers. Six had colorectal resections for benign disease in emergency setting. All were R0 with a mean lymph node harvest of 54 ± 13. Mean operative time was 249 ± 117 min, the median length of stay was 9.4 d (range, 5-22 d). Only one patient was given a temporary diverting ileostomy. There were no grade III/V complications and no 30-day mortality. Conclusions: Provided an experienced team and peri-operative planning, emergency robotic colorectal surgery can achieve favorable outcomes with benefits of radical lymph node dissection in oncological cases and avoidance of diverting stoma.