Search

Background: Evidence for the routine use of robotic technology and its impact on short-term outcomes in colon cancer surgery is lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the surgically induced systemic stress response and clinical and patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing robot-assisted or laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. Methods: In this double-blinded superiority RCT completed between August 2021 and March 2023, patients with stage 1–3 colon cancer were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to undergo either robot-assisted or laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. The primary outcome was changes in the systemic stress response, characterized by C-reactive protein expression in the first three postoperative days. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complications and patient-reported outcomes. The latter included quality of recovery-15 and pain intensity using a visual analogue scale. Results: In total, 128 patients were screened for potential inclusion in this study; 50 patients (25 in the robot-assisted group and 25 in the laparoscopic group) were included in the final follow-up and analysis. The postoperative C-reactive protein response was higher on the first postoperative day in the laparoscopic group (mean difference = 19.88 mg/l, 95% c.i. 3.89–35.86; P = 0.045). No statistically significant differences were noted for C-reactive protein expression on the second and third postoperative days. Conclusion: Adopting robot-assisted surgery for stage 1–3 colon cancer is associated with a reduction in the surgical stress response. Registration number: NCT04687384 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov). The aim of this RCT was to investigate the perioperatively induced systemic stress response and clinical and patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing robot-assisted or laparoscopic colon cancer surgery. Adopting RCS resulted in a lower stress response. However, it did not cause an improvement in recovery rates or patient-reported outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Complete mesocolic excision (CME) surgery is increasingly implemented for the resection of right-sided colonic cancer, possibly resulting in improved 5-year overall and disease-free survival compared to non-CME surgery. However, it is not clear what surgical platform should be used. The aim of this study was to compare the following outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic CME-surgery for right-sided colonic cancer: (i) short-term clinical outcomes, (ii) pathological specimen quality, and (iii) long-term oncological outcomes. Methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception until August 2021. Pooled proportions were calculated by applying the inverse variance method. Heterogeneity was explored by I-square and supplemented by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. The risk of bias was evaluated by either MINORS or Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). Results: Fifty-five studies with 5.357 patients (740 robot-assisted and 4617 laparoscopic) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall postoperative morbidity was 17% [95% CI (14–20%)] in the robot-assisted group and 13% [95%CI (12–13%)] in the laparoscopic group. Robot-assisted CME was associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower intraoperative blood loss, a higher amount of harvested lymph nodes, and better 3-year oerall and disease-free survival. MINORS and RoB2 indicated a serious risk of bias across studies included. Conclusions: This review which includes predominantly non-randomized studies suggests a possible advantage of the robot-assisted CME compared with a laparoscopic technique for several short-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) technique possibly results in enhanced recovery and reduced morbidity rates compared to the extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) technique. This study compared the short-term morbidity rates of IA versus EA in segmental resections for colon cancer. Method: We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients from 2015 to 2020 using the IA or EA technique at a single Danish colorectal center. Comparative outcomes of interest were surgical efficacy and short-term morbidity rates. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis of clinically relevant outcomes was conducted to explore potential baseline confounding. Results: We included 328 patients, 129 in the EA and 199 in the IA groups. There was no significant difference in preoperative baseline characteristics between the two groups. The rate of overall surgical (16% in both groups, p = 1.000) and medical complications (EA: 25 (19%) vs. IA: 27 (14%), p = 0.167) was comparable for both groups. The IA technique did not cause a reduction in operative time (EA: 127.0 min [103.0–171.0] vs. IA: 134.0 min [110.0–164.0], p = 0.547). The IPTW analysis indicated that having an IA caused a reduction in the rate of major surgical complications (RRRadjusted = 0.45, 95%CI [0.29–0.69], p = 0.000). Conclusion: Adopting IA for colon cancer resulted in similar overall morbidity rates without increasing the duration of the surgical procedure compared to EA. The IA technique had a probable protective effect against developing severe surgical complications. However, this must be interpreted cautiously, limited by the retrospective study design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS). Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2, and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE. Results: Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD = − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE. Conclusion: RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robot-assisted surgery is being increasingly adopted in treating colorectal cancer, and the transition from laparoscopic surgery to robot-assisted surgery is a trend. The evidence of the benefits of robot-assisted surgery is sparse. However, findings are associated with improved patient-related outcomes and overall morbidity rates compared to laparoscopic surgery. This induction is unclear, considering both surgical modalities are characterized as minimally invasive. This study aims to evaluate the systemic and peritoneal inflammatory stress response induced by robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery for elective colon cancer resections in a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial.Methods: This study is a single-centre randomized controlled superiority trial with 50 colon cancer participants. The primary endpoint is the level of systemic inflammatory response expressed as serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels between postoperative days one and three. Secondary endpoints include (i) levels of systemic inflammation in serum expressed by a panel of inflammatory and pro-inflammatory cytokines measured during the first three postoperative days, (ii) postoperative surgical and medical complications (30 days) according to Clavien-Dindo classification and Comprehensive Complication Index, (iii) intraoperative blood loss, (iv) conversion rate to open surgery, (v) length of surgery, (vi) operative time, (vii) the number of harvested lymph nodes, and (viii) length of hospital stay. The exploratory endpoints are (i) levels of peritoneal inflammatory response in peritoneal fluid expressed by inflammatory and pro-inflammatory cytokines between postoperative day one and three, (ii) patient-reported health-related quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15), (iii) 30 days mortality rate, (iv) heart rate variability and (v) gene transcript (mRNA) analysis.Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first clinical randomized controlled trial to clarify the inflammatory stress response induced by robot-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer resections. Trial registration This trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04687384) on December, 29, 2020, Regional committee on health research ethics, Region of Southern Denmark (N75709) and Data Protection Agency, Hospital Sønderjylland, University Hospital of Southern Denmark (N20/46179). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly implemented for the resection of colorectal cancer, although the scientific evidence for adopting this technique is still limited. This study's main objective was to compare short-term complication rates, oncological outcomes, and the inflammatory stress response after colorectal resection for cancer performed laparoscopic or robot-assisted. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the robot-assisted approach to laparoscopic surgery for elective malignant colorectal neoplasm. Certified colorectal and da Vinci ® robotic surgeons performed resections at a Danish tertiary colorectal high volume center from May 2017 to March 2019. We analyzed the two surgical groups using uni- and multivariate regression analyses to detect differences in intra- and postoperative clinical outcomes and the inflammatory stress response. Results: Two hundred and ninety-eight patients were enrolled in the study. Significant differences favoring robot-assisted surgery was demonstrated for; length of hospital stay (4 days, interquartile range (4, 5) versus 5 days, interquartile range (4–7), p < 0.001), and intraoperative blood loss (50 mL, interquartile range (20–100) versus 100 mL, interquartile range (50–150), p < 0.001) compared to laparoscopic surgery. The inflammatory stress response was significantly higher after laparoscopic compared to robot-assisted surgery reflected by an increase in C-reactive protein concentration (exponentiated coefficient = 1.23, 95% confidence interval (1.06–1.46), p = 0.008). No differences between the two groups were found concerning mortality, microradical resection rate, conversion to open surgery, and surgical or medical short-term complication rates. Conclusion: Robot-assisted surgery is feasible and can be safely implemented for colorectal resections. The robot-assisted approach, when compared to laparoscopic surgery, was associated with improved intra- and postoperative outcomes. Extensive prospective studies are needed to determine the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]