Search

This manuscript offers a detailed description of our successful tips for mastering transanal robotic surgery. It covers various aspects, including patient positioning, management of abdominal pressures to maintain a stable pneumorectum, platform positioning, camera alignment, trocar positioning to minimize collisions, instruments used, and approaches to tumor resection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Perineal hernia (PH) is a late complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) that may compromise a patient's quality of life. The frequency and risk factors for PH after robotic APR adopting recent rectal cancer treatment strategies remain unclear. Methods: Patients who underwent robotic APR for rectal cancer between December 2011 and June 2022 were retrospectively examined. From July 2020, pelvic reinforcement procedures, such as robotic closure of the pelvic peritoneum and levator ani muscles, were performed as prophylactic procedures for PH whenever feasible. PH was diagnosed in patients with or without symptoms using computed tomography 1 year after surgery. We examined the frequency of PH, compared characteristics between patients with PH (PH+) and without PH (PH-), and identified risk factors for PH. Results: We evaluated 142 patients, including 53 PH+ (37.3%) and 89 PH− (62.6%). PH+ had a significantly higher rate of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (26.4% versus 10.1%, p = 0.017) and a significantly lower rate of undergoing pelvic reinforcement procedures (1.9% versus 14.0%, p = 0.017). PH+ had a lower rate of lateral lymph node dissection (47.2% versus 61.8%, p = 0.115) and a shorter operative time (340 min versus 394 min, p = 0.110). According to multivariate analysis, the independent risk factors for PH were preoperative chemoradiotherapy, not undergoing lateral lymph node dissection, and not undergoing a pelvic reinforcement procedure. Conclusions: PH after robotic APR for rectal cancer is not a rare complication under the recent treatment strategies for rectal cancer, and performing prophylactic procedures for PH should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Presacral tumors are a rare entity typically treated with an open surgical approach. A limited number of minimally invasive resections have been described. The aim of the study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of roboticresection of presacral tumors. Methods: This is a retrospective single system analysis, conducted at a quaternary referral academic healthcare system, and included all patients who underwent a robotic excision of a presacral tumor between 2015 and 2023. Outcomes of interest were operative time, estimated blood loss, complications, length of stay, margin status, and recurrence rates. Results: Sixteen patients (11 females and 5 males) were included. The median age of the cohort was 51 years (range 25–69 years). The median operative time was 197 min (range 98–802 min). The median estimated blood loss was 40 ml, ranging from 0 to 1800 ml, with one patient experiencing conversion to open surgery after uncontrolled hemorrhage. Urinary retention was the only postoperative complication that occurred in three patients (19%) and was solved within 30 days in all cases. The median length of stay was one day (range 1–6 days). The median follow-up was 6.7 months (range 1–110 months). All tumors were excised with appropriate margins, but one benign and one malignant tumor recurred (12.5%). Ten tumors were classified as congenital (one was malignant), two were mesenchymal (both malignant), and five were miscellaneous (one malignant). Conclusions: Robotic resection of select presacral pathology is feasible and safe. Further studies must be conducted to determine complication rates, outcomes, and long-term safety profiles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The short-term outcomes of robotic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer have been extensively studied in comparison to conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. However, the long-term oncological outcomes of the two approaches have not been investigated, except in single-center retrospective studies. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to investigate the long-term oncological outcomes of robotic right hemicolectomy compared with those of laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing robotic right hemicolectomy with conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer from the date of database inception to August 2022. For survival data extraction, hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models from the Kaplan–Meier survival curves in the included studies. All calculations and statistical tests were performed using Review Manager software, version 5.4. Results: A total of 523 patients (robotic right hemicolectomy, 230; laparoscopic right hemicolectomy, 293) from five studies were included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. In terms of pathological characteristics, TNM stage was not different and revealed no differences in the number of harvested lymph nodes even though a larger number of lymph nodes were harvested in the robotic group in one study. Pooled analyses demonstrated no significant difference in disease-free survival (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46–1.13, p = 0.15) and overall survival (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.48–1.13, p = 0.16) between robotic and laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer. Conclusion: Robotic right hemicolectomy for right colon cancer is comparable with conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy in terms of long-term oncological survival. More prospective, multicenter, randomized trials are necessary to determine the oncologic safety of robotic right hemicolectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When working with patients who have locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) the ability to undertake minimally invasive procedures becomes more challenging but no less important for patient outcomes. We performed a minimally invasive approach to surgery for LARC invading the posterior vagina and sacrum. The patient was a 75-year-old lady who presented with a locally advanced rectal tumour staged T4N2 with invasion into the posterior wall of the vagina and coccyx/distal sacrum. We introduce a robotic abdominoperineal resection, posterior vaginectomy and abdomino-lithotomy sacrectomy using a purely perineal approach with no robotic adjuncts or intracorporal techniques. Final histology showed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma invading the vagina and sacrum, ypT4b N0 TRG2 R0 and the patient entered surgical follow-up with no immediate intra- or postoperative complications. A literature review shows the need for more minimally invasive techniques when relating to major pelvic surgery and the benefits of a purely perineal approach include less expensive resource use, fewer training requirements and the ability to utilise this technique in centres that are not robotically equipped. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of the present report wasto describe a novel technique of robotic abdominoperineal resection (APR) for the treatment of T4b low rectal cancer using the da Vinci® Single-Port (SP) system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Methods: A 3-cm transverse incision was made in the left lower quadrant of the abdomen, in the area designated for permanent colostomy. A Uniport® (Dalim Medical, Seoul, Korea) was introduced and a 25 mm multichannel SP trocar was inserted into the Uniport. A 5-mm laparoscopic assistant port was introduced on the upper midline. A video showing each step of the technique is attached. Results: Two consecutive female patients (70 and 74 years old) underwent SP robotic APR with partial resection of the vagina 8 weeks after preoperative chemoradiotherapy. In both cases, rectal cancer was located 1 cm above the anal verge and invaded the vagina (initial stage and ymrT stage T4b). Operative time was 150 and 180 min, respectively. Estimated blood loss was 10 and 25 ml, respectively. No postoperative complications occurred. The length of postoperative hospital stay was 5 days in both cases. The final pathological stage was ypT4bN0 and ypT3N0 respectively. Conclusions: In this first experience, SP robotic APR appears to be a safe and feasible procedure for locally advanced low rectal cancer. In addition, the invasiveness of the procedure is reduced by means of the SP system, which only requires a single incision in the area designated for colostomy. Prospective studies on a larger number of patients are necessary to confirm the outcomes of this technique compared to other minimally invasive approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since 2018, we have performed robotic rectal cancer surgery at our institution via the umbilical mini-laparotomy-first approach. In the present technical note, we introduce the advantages of this approach. Methods: In this approach, a 3-cm mini-laparotomy and the wound protector attachment are performed prior to port placement for the da Vinci® Xi system. During robotic surgery, the assistant can adjust the location of the camera port within the wound protector. Results: This approach is only different from the standard port placement in terms of the timing of minilaparotomy; therefore, there is no additional cost. This approach has several advantages. 1: Intraabdominal adhesion around the umbilicus can be dissected under direct vision. 2: Robot arm collision can be diminished. 3: The diverting stoma can be located just at the preoperative stoma-site marking. 4: The da Vinci® camera is less likely to be dirty. 5: Assistant ports can be added through the wound protector. However, sometimes interference between the wound protector extends inside the abdomen and other ports can be a problem, especially in small patients. A smaller-size wound protector is thus recommended in such cases. Conclusions: The umbilical minilaparotomy-first approach in robotic rectal cancer surgery is a simple and feasible technique with great advantages for not only ensuring successful robotic surgery but also reducing the stoma-associated complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a surgical technique called robotic ventral mesh rectopexy with anterior rectoplasty, which is used to treat obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) caused by rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, and rectocele. The authors propose a modification to the procedure that involves a longitudinal plication of the anterior wall of the rectum before fixing the mesh. They believe that this additional step can help correct the laxity of the anterior rectal wall and improve functional outcomes for patients. The article includes a video demonstration of the procedure and concludes that the modified technique may increase patient satisfaction. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Literature concerning surgical management of transverse colon cancer is scarce, since many key trials excluded transverse colon cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and oncological outcomes comparing open, laparoscopic and robotic transverse colon cancer resection. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent elective surgery for transverse colon cancer between December 2005 and July 2021 were included. Data were kept in a prospective database approved by the institutional ethics committee. Primary outcome was overall and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included complications, operative time, length of stay and lymph node harvest. Statistical analysis was corrected for age and tumour localisation. Results: Two hundred and forty-six (38 robotic, 71 open and 137 laparoscopic resections) were recruited in this study. There were five conversions during laparoscopic procedures. Operative time was significantly shorter in robotic vs laparoscopic procedures (195 vs 238 min, p = 0.005) and length of stay was shorter in robotic vs laparoscopic and open group (7 vs 9 vs 15 days, p < 0.001). There was no difference in overall complications. R0 resections were similar. Lymph node harvest was highest in the robotic group vs. laparoscopic or open (32 vs. 29 vs. 21, p < 0.001). Overall survival was 97%, 85% and 60% (p < 0.001) and disease-free survival was 91%, 78% and 56% (p < 0.001) for the robotic, laparoscopic and open groups, respectively. Conclusions: Minimally invasive surgery for transverse colon cancer is safe and offers good clinical and oncological outcomes. Robotic resection is associated with significantly shorter operating times, higher lymph node harvest, lower conversion rate and does not increase morbidity. Differences in disease-free and overall survival should be further explored in randomised controlled trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The present case-series describes the first full-robotic colorectal resections performed with the new CMR Versius platform (Cambridge Medical Robotics Surgical, 1 Evolution Business Park, Cambridge, United Kingdom) by an experienced robotic surgeon. Methods: In a period between July 2020 and December 2020, patients aged 18 years or older, who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer and were fit for minimally invasive surgery, underwent robotic colorectal resection with CMR Versius robotic platform at "Casa di Cura Cobellis" in Vallo della Lucania,Salerno, Italy. Three right colectomies, 2 sigmoid colectomies and 1 anterior rectal resection were performed. All the procedures were planned as fully robotic. Surgical data were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively collected database. Results: Four patients were male and 2 patients were female with a median (range) age of 66 (47–72) years. One covering ileostomy was created. Full robotic splenic flexure mobilization was performed. No additional laparoscopic gestures or procedures were performed in this series except for clipping and stapling which were performed by the assistant surgeon due to the absence of robotic dedicated instruments. Two ileocolic anastomoses, planned as robotic-sewn, were performed extracorporeally. One Clavien–Dindo II complication occurred due to a postoperative blood transfusion. Median total operative time was 160 (145–294) min for right colectomies, 246 (191–300) min for sigmoid colectomies and 250 min for the anterior rectal resection. Conclusions: The present series confirms the feasibility of full-robotic colorectal resections while highlighting the strengths and the limitations of the CMR Versius platform in colorectal surgery. New devices will need more clinical development to be comparable to the current standard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ileocolic anastomosis is performed via extracorporeal or intracorporeal techniques in robotic right hemicolectomy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term outcomes of intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) and extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) for robotic right colectomy. The EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically (from inception until March 1, 2020) for randomized and non-randomized control trials reporting the short-term outcomes of IA and EA for robotic right colectomy. Five observational cohort studies involving 585 participants were included in our meta-analysis. Compared to the EA group, the IA group showed significantly longer operation time [weighted mean difference (WMD): 28.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.88–43.89, p = 0.0002], lower rate of anastomotic leak (odds ratio: 0.26, 95% CI 0.08–0.85, p = 0.03), and shorter time to first flatus (WMD: − 0.57, 95% CI − 0.95 to 0.19, p = 0.003). However, pooled results revealed no difference in blood loss, complications, wound infection, incisional hernia, length of incision, and hospital stay between the IA and EA groups (p < 0.05). This meta-analysis indicated that IA was superior to EA in terms of anastomotic leak and time to first flatus, but inferior in terms of operation time. Large-scale, multicenter, randomized studies are needed to confirm our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is an article titled "Robotic TAMIS rectal neuroendocrine tumor excision" published in the journal Techniques in Coloproctology. The article discusses the use of robotic surgery for the excision of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). It explains that rectal NETs are rare tumors that can be treated through local excision, either endoscopically or transanally, for small, well-differentiated tumors. The article presents a case study of a successful robotic resection of a rectal NET that fell outside the size guidelines for local resection. The patient had no evidence of recurrence or distant metastasis 18 months post-surgery. [Extracted from the article]

This document is a video vignette published in the journal Techniques in Coloproctology. It describes a step-by-step technique for performing a full robotic right colectomy for colon cancer using the Da Vinci Xi surgical system. The technique, known as the suprapubic bottom-to-up approach with complete mesocolic excision (CME), aims to optimize lymphadenectomy and minimize complications. The video provides detailed instructions on patient positioning, access to the abdominal cavity, superior dissection, vascular control, and the overall procedure. The approach offers potential advantages in terms of surgical precision, reduced morbidity, and improved oncological outcomes. [Extracted from the article]

Background: The advantages and disadvantages of robotic technology compared with conventional surgery for low rectal cancer have been discussed extensively. However, a few studies on the efficacy of total mesorectal excision (TME) with different robotic technologies have been reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of two types of robot-assisted TME (R-TME) compared with laparoscopic TME (L-TME). Methods: A prospective comparative study was conducted comparing da Vinci R-TME, Micro Hand S R-TME, and L-TME for rectal cancer. This study was registered with "Clinicaltrials.gov" (ID: NCT02752698) and approved by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Program (AAHRPP) (Project number: T16007). Between January 2017 and May 2019, patients with rectal cancer (cT1-3NxM0) were prospectively registered in the Third Xiangya Hospital. The integrity of the TME sample served as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the involvement of the circumferential and distal resection margins (CRM and DRM), number of lymph nodes retrieved, blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, comprehensive complication index score, the International Prostate Symptom score, the International Index of Erectile Function, and the Female Sexual Function Index. Results: Of 134 patients with rectal cancer (74 males, mean age [SD] 59.1 ± 8.27 years), 46 patients underwent laparoscopic TME, 45 patients underwent da Vinci R-TME, and 43 patients underwent Micro Hand S R-TME. There were no differences in results between the two types of R-TME. Compared with laparoscopic TME, significant reductions in blood loss (median 65.50 ml da Vinci; median 66.54 ml Micro Hand S vs median 95.04 ml L-TME p = 0.037 and p = 0.041, respectively) and conversion rate (2.2% da Vinci; 2.3% Micro Hand S vs 6.8% L-TME p = 0,040 for the comparison daVinci L-TME and p = 0.038 for the comparison Micro Hand S vs. L-TME) with da Vinci Si and Micro Hand S R-TME were noted, and significant increases in operation time (230.05 min da Vinci; 235.03 min Micro Hand S vs. 205.53 min L-TME p = 0.045 and p = 0.043, respectively) was observed. Additionally, more patients underwent TME with sphincter-preserving methods in the two R-TME groups based on the type of operation (da Vinci 97.7%; Micro Hand S 97.9% vs. L-TME 82% resulting in p = 0.033 for the comparison daVinci L-TME and p = 0.035 for the comparison Micro Hand S vs. L-TME). In comparison with L-TME, there was a larger number of lymph nodes retrieved (da Vinci mean 17.54; Micro Hand S mean 17.32 vs. L-TME mean 14.96 p = 0.031 for the comparison daVinci L-TME and p = 0.033 for the comparison Micro Hand S vs L-TME) and less blood loss (da Vinci mean 65.50 ml; Micro Hand S mean 66.54 ml vs. L-TME mean 95.04 ml, p = 0.037 for the comparison daVinci L-TME and p = 0.041 for the comparison Micro Hand S vs. L-TME), and incidence of severe postoperative complications was similar among three TME groups except for the earlier recovery of urogenital function (mean IPSS score da Vinci 7.73±1.35; Micro Hand S7.75±1.47 vs L-TME 14.26±1.41 p<0.001 for the comparison da Vinci L-TME and p<0.001 for the comparison Microhand S vs L-TME) in the two R-TME groups. Conclusions: In our study, compared with laparoscopic surgery, da Vinci or Micro Hand R-TME exhibited similar superiority in the quality of oncologic resection, postoperative morbidity, and recovery of postoperative function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The EndoLuminal Surgical System (ELS) is an emerging non-linear robotic system specifically designed for transanal surgery that allows for excision of colorectal neoplasia and luminal defect closure. Methods: An evaluation of ELS was conducted by a single surgeon in a preclinical setting at the EndoSurgical Center of Florida in Orlando, between October 1st, 2020 and December 31st, 2020, using porcine colon as a model. Mock lesions measured 2.5 to 3.5 cm were excised partial-thickness. Specimen quality and excision time was assessed and evaluated. Results: Twenty consecutive robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) operations utilizing the ELS system were successfully performed without fragmentation. The mean and standard deviation procedure time for all 20 cases was 18.41 ± 14.15 min. The latter 10 cases were completed in substantially less time, suggesting that ELS requires at least 10 preclinical cases for a surgeon to become familiar with the technology. A second task, namely suture closure of the partial-thickness defect, was performed in 9 of the 20 cases. Mean time and standard deviation for this task measured 27.89 ± 10.07 min. There were no adverse events. Conclusions: ELS was successful in performing the tasks of partial-thickness disc excision and closure in a preclinical evaluation. Further study is necessary to determine its clinical applicability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1:STN:280:DC%2BC283gsVagsA%3D%3D. 10.1007/s10151-015-1358-6. 26351059 2 D'Hoore A, Penninckx F. Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients. Dear Sir, Rectal prolapse is a life-altering condition characterized by the eversion of the rectum through the anal sphincter. [Extracted from the article]

Dissection was continued along the SMV to identify and expose the ileocolic, right colic and middle colic vessels at their origin, if present. Step-1: dissection through the superior mesenteric vein (SMV) axis towards to the terminal il... After the ascending colon near the ileocecal junction was retracted anteriorly and laterally, the SMV was identified and dissection was started. Step-2: central vascular ligation of the ileocolic vessels and cranial dissection along with... After the dissection of the terminal ileum mesentery was completed, the retro-ileal area was reached and exposed and the direction of the dissection changed to caudo-cranial. [Extracted from the article]

Background: The da Vinci single-port (SP) system is designed to facilitate single-incision robotic surgery in a narrow space. We developed a new procedure of rectal resection using this system. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of SP robotic rectal resection for rectal cancer patients based on our initial experience. Methods: A study was conducted on consecutive patients with mid or low rectal cancer who had SP robotic resection at our institution between July and September 2020. The demographic characteristics, perioperative data, and pathology results of the patients were retrospectively analyzed. Results: There were 5 patients (3 males, 2 females, median age 57 years (range 36–73 years). The median tumor height from the anal verge was 4 cm (range 3−5 cm). Two patients received preoperative chemoradiotherapy for advanced rectal cancer. A single docking was conducted, and the median docking time was 4 min 20 s (range 3 min 30 s to 5 min). The median total operation time was 195 min (range 155−240 min), and the median time of pelvic dissection was 45 min (range 36−62 min). All patients had circumferential and distal tumor-free resection margins. One patient experienced an anastomosis-related complication. The median duration of hospital stay was 7 days (range 7−8 days). Conclusions: Our initial experience suggests that SP robotic rectal resection is safe and feasible. Further clinical trials comparing SP and multiport robotic rectal resection should be conducted to verify the superior aspects of this new system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The technical difficulty and steep learning curve of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) has limited widespread adoption. The single-port (SP) daVinci robot is designed to facilitate single-incision and natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). This paper describes the first clinical experience of single-port robotic taTME (SP rTaTME). Methods: This was a prospective study on consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent SP rTaTME proctosigmoidectomy with handsewn coloanal anastomosis in December 2018 and January 2019. The primary outcome was technical feasibility of the procedure. The secondary outcomes include blood loss, intraoperative complications, length of hospital stay, quality of the TME specimen, short- and long-term morbidity and mortality, as well as short-term oncologic follow -up. Results: There were two patients, a 48-year-old male and a 38-year-old female. Both operations were completed successfully without complications or conversion. Estimated blood loss was 200 mL and 130 mL. In both cases the TME was completed transanally using the SP robot. In the first patient, the abdominal portion was completed through an abdominal single-incision; in the second patient the operation was entirely performed transanally as a pure NOTES procedure. In both cases, the final pathology report showed a complete TME with negative margins. Patients were discharged on postoperative day 3 and 4,respectively. There was no long-term morbidity or mortality. Conclusions: SP rTaTME is feasible and can be safely performed. It provides excellent optics and dexterity to work in a limited space. Future studies are required to further define the safety profile and the ultimate utility of the SP robot for taTME. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The number of abdominal procedures performed via a robotic-assisted approach is increasing as potential advantages of the modality are recognised. We report the first in human case series of major colorectal resection performed using a new system, Versius®, and assess the feasibility of its use. Methods: The initial cases performed using Versius® at a single centre in the UK were included in the study. Anonymised data were prospectively collected including patient demographics, operative details and postoperative outcomes. Results: Twenty-three operations were performed, including left (n = 14) and right (n = 9)-sided colonic resections. Rectal mobilisation was performed in 13. Fifty-seven percent of the patients were male, with a malignant indication for surgery in 70% of cases. Overall mean age was 59.1 ± 15.3 (range 23–89) years. Overall mean body mass index was 28.9 ± 5.2 with a mean of 31.3 ± 4.5 for left-sided resections. The median console operating time was 166 min (range 75–320 min). All malignant cases had negative resection margins and the mean lymph node yield was 18 (SD 9.4). Only one operation (4%) was converted from robotic to open approach. Postoperative length of stay was a median of 5 days (range 3–34 days) and there were no readmissions within 30 days. Conclusions: These results compare favourably with the literature on existing robotic systems and also conventional laparoscopic surgery; hence, we believe that this series indicates the Versius® system is feasible for use in major colorectal resection. These early results from a robot-naïve centre show exciting promise for an expanding robotic market and highlight the need for further evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pelvic exenteration remains a viable and effective treatment option for the management of locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancy. The aim of this study was to present an early experience of robotic multivisceral resection of pelvic malignancy, and to compare this experience with similar series through a systematic review of the literature. Methods: A retrospective study was performed on patients who had robotic-assisted multi-visceral resection for pelvic malignancy at a single Colorectal Surgical unit based between two tertiary academic hospitals. Primary outcomes observed included operation type, operation time, perioperative complications, and hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes included R0 resection status, lymph node harvest, and rate of recurrence at clinical follow-up. Results: Eight cases of robotic multivisceral resection were performed for primary locally advanced pelvic malignancy involving a rectal resection as part of their operative management. The median age of patients undergoing resection was 56 years (range 29–83 years). The male:female ratio was 6:2. The mean total operating time was 8.3 h (range 6–10 h). Perioperative blood transfusion requirements were minimal. Mean hospital length of stay was 15 days (range 7–26 days). No patients experienced any serious postoperative morbidity or mortality. All patients had clear margins on histological assessment and no patients have recurrence at 12-month follow-up. Conclusions: Robotic multivisceral resection for malignant disease of the pelvis is a safe and feasible minimally invasive approach in highly selected cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In minimally invasive surgery, complete mesocolic excision (CME) for transverse colon cancer is challenging; thus, non-CME resections are commonly preferred when laparoscopy is used. Robotic technology has been developed to reduce the limitations of laparoscopy. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether robotic CME for transverse colon cancer can be performed with short-term outcomes similar to those of laparoscopic conventional colectomy (CC). Methods: A retrospective review of 118 consecutive patients having robotic CME or laparoscopic CC for transverse colon cancer in two specialized centers between May 2011 and September 2018 was performed. Perioperative 30-day outcomes of the two procedures were compared. Results: There were 38 and 80 patients in the robotic CME group and laparoscopic CC group, respectively. The groups were comparable regarding preoperative characteristics. Intraoperative results were similar, including blood loss (median 50 vs 25 ml), complications (5.3% vs 3.8%), and conversions (none vs 7.5%). The rate of intracorporeal anastomosis was significantly higher (86.8% vs 20.0%), mean operative time was longer (325.0 ± 123.2 vs 159.3 ± 56.1 min (p < 0.001), and the mean number of harvested lymph nodes was higher in the robotic CME group (46.1 ± 22.2 vs 39.1 ± 17.8, p = 0.047). There were only minor differences in length of hospital stay (7.2 ± 3.1 vs 7.9 ± 4.0 days), anastomotic leak (none vs 2.6%), bleeding (none vs 1.3%), surgical site infections (10.5% vs 12.5%), and reoperations (2.6% vs 6.3%). Conclusions: Robotic CME can be performed with a similar morbidity profile as laparoscopic CC for transverse colon cancer along with a higher rate of intracorporeal anastomosis, and higher number of lymph nodes retrieved, but longer operative times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The da Vinci Single-Port (SP) robot is a novel platform designed to facilitate single-incision robotic surgery (rSILS). The objective of this study was to describe our initial experience using this platform for SP robotic (SPr) right colectomy. Methods: Under a Food and Drug Administration-regulated feasibility study and Institutional Review Board approval, a patient with cecal adenocarcinoma underwent an SPr right colectomy. The primary endpoint was the safety and feasibility of the first SPr right colectomy performed in the USA. Secondary endpoints included perioperative metrics, morbidity and mortality. Results: An SPr Standard right colectomy was performed through a 4-cm single incision without the need for conversion or additional port placement. Estimated blood loss was 100 mL and there were no intraoperative complications. The robot was docked once with a docking time of 19 min. Total console time was 116 min and operative time was 219 min. The patient tolerated clear liquids on postoperative day (POD) 0 and a low-residue diet on POD 1. The patient had flatus and a bowel movement on POD 1. She was discharged home on POD 3. Final pathology showed pT3N0 cecal adenocarcinoma with negative margins and 0/24 lymph nodes positive for disease. Conclusions: Our initial experience demonstrates that an SPr right colectomy is feasible and can be safely completed. We completed an oncologic resection of a cecal adenocarcinoma without complications. The SP robot facilitates the utilization of robotic technology in a single-incision platform to perform colorectal procedures and offers promising benefits in the advancement of robotic surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Minimally invasive laparoscopic low or ultra-low anterior resection may present as a complex, technically difficult challenge to even the most experienced of colorectal surgeons. This is because, within the narrow confines of the pelvis, there is usually limited visibility, and difficult manoeuvrability of rigid laparoscopic instrumentation with resulting poor access. The utilisation of robotic technology makes sense within the narrow confines of the pelvis. Several studies including recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched cohorts have shown reduced rates of conversion to open. Some studies have also shown benefits including improved short-term outcomes and oncological benefits. However, robotic ultra-low anterior resection has a steep learning curve and many of the benefits of robotic surgery have not been fully realised, because the majority of surgeons are in the early phase of the learning curve. This 'How I do It' article provides a detailed description of the important technical points that may help in maximising success in performing robotically assisted laparoscopic ultra-low anterior resection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to demonstrate a proof-of-concept approach to rectopexy that would provide the durability of the transabdominal procedure through use of sacral rectopexy with the decreased morbidity of a perineal procedure. This was done by utilizing a transvaginal approach and developing the rectovaginal space to accommodate sacral rectopexy placement using the Flex® Colorectal Drive Robotic System by Medrobotics (Medrobotics Corp., Raynham, MA, USA). Methods: A fresh female cadaver was acquired and placed in the high lithotomy position. The rectovaginal space was developed to accommodate the trocar of the Flex robot using blunt and sharp dissection between the posterior vaginal wall and anterior rectum. A piece of mesh was introduced into the space and using an endoscopic tacker, which was secured to the sacral promontory. The mesh was secured to the anterior rectal wall using interrupted vicryl sutures. The purse string suture was removed and the rectovaginal orifice was closed using a running vicryl suture. At the completion of the procedure, a low midline laparotomy was conducted to verify anchoring of the mesh appropriately at the sacral promontory. Results: This proof-of-concept protocol is the first description of the Flex® Colorectal Drive being used successfully to perform a transvaginal rectopexy for rectal prolapse in a cadaver. This is also the first description of the Flex® Colorectal Drive robot being used transvaginally. Conclusions: This proof-of-concept approach demonstrates that transvaginal rectopexy using the Flex® Colorectal Drive is a potential surgical option to address rectal prolapse that could provide patients the durability of a transabdominal approach with the decreased morbidity of a perineal approach. While early results are promising, additional cadaveric studies are required before this procedure can be attempted in vivo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The differences between the costs of robotic rectal resection and of the laparoscopic approach are still not well known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. Methods: We conducted an observational, comparative, prospective, non-randomized study on patients having laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection between February 2014 and March 2018 at the Sanchinarro University Hospital, Madrid. Outcome parameters included surgical and post-operative costs, quality adjusted life years (QALY) and incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER). The primary endpoint was to compare cost effectiveness in the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. A willingness-to-pay of 20,000€ and 30,000€ per QALY was used as a threshold to determine the most cost-effective treatment. Results: A total of 81 RRR and 104 LRR were included. The mean operative costs were higher for RRR (4307.09€ versus 3834.58€; p = 0.04), although mean overall costs were similar (7272.03€ for RRR and 6968.63€ for the LLR; p = 0.44). Mean QALYs at 1 year for the RRR group (0.8482) was higher than that associated with LRR (0.6532) (p = 0.018). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000€ and 30,000€ there was a 95.54% and 97.18% probability, respectively, that RRR was more cost-effective than LRR. Conclusions: Our data regarding the cost-effectiveness of RRR versus LRR shows a benefit for RRR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

However, in consideration of retaining anorectal function for young patients with FAP, TC-IRA may be the first choice, although total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis may be eventually inevitable for such patients to prevent colorectal cancer [[1]]. The surgical procedure comprised initial mobilization of the right colon extending from the terminal ileum to the right half of the transverse colon mobilization (Video 1) and mobilization of the left colon extending from the left half of the transverse colon to the upper rectum (Video 2). The reported port-site herniation in laparoscopic surgery has been owing to old age, higher body mass index, pre-existing hernia, trocar design, trocar diameter, and increased duration of surgery. However, the retrieval of the specimen and the insertion of the cartridge for the upcoming stapling procedure will be more difficult, if the retained rectal stump is too long. Furthermore, throughout the entire surgical procedure, we used clips, instead of alternatives, such as Vessel Sealer Extend SP ® sp , because they are not cost-effective for the Xi Da Vinci SP ® sp system for colorectal surgery in our institution. [Extracted from the article]

Background: The single-port daVinci robot is a new platform designed to facilitate single-incision surgeries. The objective of this study was to describe the first clinical experience in colorectal surgery using a novel single-port robotic system and report its feasibility and safety. Methods: After Institutional Review Board approval was obtained and the study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, we performed single port robot-assisted left colectomy using the novel daVinci SP surgical system on two patients. The surgeries were completed through a single incision. The multichannel port accommodates a three-dimensional articulating camera and three double-jointed articulating instruments. The primary aim of this study was to report, for the first time in the USA, the technical feasibility of the procedure in the living human. The secondary aim was to report the outcomes including blood loss, number of incisions, number of dockings, docking time of the robot, incision length, operative time, console time, need for additional port and instrumentation, intraoperative complications, morbidity and mortality, time for tolerating diet, bowel function, and discharge. Results: Both surgeries were completed without conversion through a single incision, 4.0 and 4.5 cm in size. Estimated blood loss was less than 60 ml in both cases. The robot was docked two and three times. Mean time to dock was 13 min (range 3–33 min). There were no intraoperative complications, no morbidity or death. Discharges occurred on postoperative days 2 and 3. Conclusions: Single-port robotic colectomy using the new robot is feasible and can be safely completed. The overall utility and functionality of the SP robot portends wide utilization and expansion of this technique. Careful development and analysis of the procedure outcomes, training, and cost will be necessary to properly advance the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, published in Techniques in Coloproctology, discusses a case study of a patient with persistent squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal. The patient underwent a robotic abdominoperineal resection (APR) with en bloc resection of the posterior vagina and total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). The surgery involved a multidisciplinary approach, with contributions from colorectal surgery, gynecological oncology, and plastic and reconstructive surgery. The article highlights the rarity of robotic resections involving these specific anatomical structures. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a condition affecting up to 50% of multiparous postmenopausal women that is often associated with obstructed defecation syndrome and internal rectal prolapse. A 68-year-old Caucasian woman with symptomatic multicompartmental prolapse, rectocele, bladder neck obstruction, and obstructed defecation syndrome underwent nerve-sparing robotic sacrocolpopexy plus ventral rectopexy The prolapse was degree III according to the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP-Q) (POP-Q Aa 0 Ba + 1 Ap-1 Bp -2 tvl 9 D -3 gh 4 pb 2). [Extracted from the article]

Surgery remains the last choice for patients who are often exhausted by years of medical treatment that have only led to a partial or sometimes temporary improvement. Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from the patient(s) for their anonymized information to be published in this article. Suprapubic colectomy for right colon resections has been well described [[2]]. [Extracted from the article]

The 3rd arm gently grasps the mesentery upward, and 2nd arm pulls the retroperitoneum downward for countertraction; the dissection between the retroperitoneum and left-sided colonic mesentery, from medially to laterally, is performed. Counter traction, formed by the 2nd arm grasping the anterior wall of the rectum and the 3rd arm grasping the peritoneum of the pelvic wall, will enable linear dissection line visualization (Fig. Hence, sufficient Z axis traction should be confirmed first; then, the medial traction of the rectum by the 2nd arm and the lateral traction by the 3rd arm will allow visualization of the border between the mesorectum and the NVB (Fig. Our procedure allows dissection of the anterior and posterior antecedent to the lateral demanding field, which visualizes the sandwiched lateral dissection line. [Extracted from the article]

Highlights from the article: ICG is reconstituted in aqueous solution and 1-2 ml are injected into the submucosal plane in close proximity to the neoplasm, allowing ICG to be used as a target localizer (Fig. 1). Next, the now visible target is approached robotically, and omentum or other structures are mobilized to expose the target segment of bowel containing the neoplasm, which can be simultaneously viewed endoscopically at the surgeon console via TilePro (Fig. 3). Graph: Fig. 3The omentum has been swept cephalad to expose the distal transverse colon and the ICG tattooed lesion.

Background: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVR) is a treatment with promising results in external rectal prolapse, rectal intussusception, and rectocele. Because of the emergence of robotic-assisted surgery and the technical advantage it provides, we examined the potential role and place of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy. Methods: MEDLINE, PubMed, and other databases were searched, by two independent reviewers, to identify studies comparing robotic to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy. The primary outcome was the rate of unplanned conversion to open. The secondary outcomes were morbidity, length of hospital stay and recurrence rate. Results: Five studies (4% male, n = 259) met the inclusion criteria. All 5 studies reported on conversion rate and showed no significant difference between the conversion rate of robotic and laparoscopic groups [OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.09–3.77)]. Robotic surgery was also similar to laparoscopic surgery for both morbidity [OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.34–1.48)] and recurrence rate [OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.18–1.75)]. Operative time was longer in the robotic group with a MWD of 22.88 minutes (CI 5.73–40.04, p < 0.0007). There was a statistically significant reduction in length of stay with robotic surgery [mean difference − 0.36 days (95% CI − 0.66 to − 0.07)]. Conclusions: This systematic review shows that robotic-assisted ventral rectopexy requires longer operative time with no significant added benefit over laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. The conversion rate was low in both groups and the trends to benefit did not reach statistical significance. More studies are required to clarify whether the potential technical advantage of robotic surgery in ventral rectopexy translates to an improvement in clinical outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the Versius surgical robotic system for transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) in a preclinical setting. Methods: Dry laboratory and cadaveric sessions were first conducted for three experienced colorectal surgeons in order to gain familiarity with the modular surgical system and the robotic workstation. After introduction, the system was configured to allow for synchronous, totally robotic taTME in a cadaver. Results: Using the modular robotic system, one surgeon performed the abdominal portion of the operation, including colonic mobilization and vascular pedicle ligation while simultaneously a second surgeon performed the transanal portion of the operation to the point of rendezvous at the peritoneal reflection, where the operation was completed cooperatively. The operation was successfully completed in 195 min demonstrating preclinical feasibility of this unique approach with an emerging robotic system. Conclusions: This is the first preclinical assessment of the Versius surgical robotic system for taTME. The ability to work simultaneously carries the theoretical advantage of reducing surgical time and thereby reducing overall operative costs. It may also allow surgeons to maintain focus on critical parts of the operation by halving the fatigue associated with long, complex cases such as taTME. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimally invasive approaches have become the standard of care for ileal pouch-anal anastomoses (IPAA). There are few reports comparing outcomes following a laparoscopic versus robotic approach. Our aim was to determine if there were any differences in the 30-day postoperative outcomes following IPAA performed laparoscopically versus robotically. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic and robotic IPAA performed between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018 was carried out. Patients included were adult patients who underwent a proctectomy and IPAA utilizing either a laparoscopic or robotic approach. Data collected included patient demographics, operative variables, and 30-day postoperative outcomes. Results: A total of 132 patients had a minimally invasive IPAA; 58 were performed laparoscopically and 74 robotically. Less than half the patients were female (n = 55; 41.7%) with a median age of 37 years (range 18–68 years). The majority of patients had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (n = 103; 78.0%) with medically refractory disease (n = 87; 65.9%). A greater proportion of patients in the laparoscopic cohort had a prolonged length of stay (n = 27; 46.6% versus n = 18; 24.3%; p < 0.001) and a two-stage approach (n = 56; 96.6% versus n = 37; 50%; p < 0.001), but there were no differences in the rates between the laparoscopic versus robotic cohorts of superficial surgical site infection (6.9% versus 6.8%; p = 0.99), peripouch abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), anastomotic leak (6.9% versus 2.7%; p = 0.21), pelvic abscess (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), and pelvic sepsis (15.5% versus 6.8%; p = 0.11), readmission (24.1% versus 17.6%; p = 0.35) or reoperation (6.9% versus 5.4%; p = 0.72). On multivariable analysis, only male sex remained predictive of prolonged length of stay, and a robotic approach trended toward a decreased rate of prolonged length of stay. Conclusions: Laparoscopic and robotic IPAA have equivalent postoperative morbidity underscoring the safety of the continued expansion of the robotic platform for pouch surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. The aim of the present study was to determine if robotic surgery results in less conversion to an open operation than laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using Ovid Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score-matched (PSM) studies comparing a robotic vs. laparoscopic approach to rectal cancer surgery. The primary endpoint was conversion to open. All statistical analyses and data synthesis were conducted using STATA/IC version 14·2, Windows 64 bit (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) Results: Six hundred and twenty-one studies were identified through electronic database search. After application of selection criteria as per PRISMA and MOOSE criteria, six RCTs and five PSM articles were analyzed. From the six RCTs, 512 robotic and 519 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower rate of conversion for the robotic surgery arm (4.1% vs. 8.1%, OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.00–0.57). Of the five PSM studies, 2097 robotic and 3053 laparoscopic cases were evaluated. There was a significantly lower conversion to open rate found in the robotic surgery cohort (7.4% vs. 15.6%; OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.30–0.47). Pooled RCT and PSM data demonstrated significantly lower conversion rates for robotic surgery (6.7% vs. 14.5%; OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.30–0.46). Conclusions: Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with reduced conversion to open surgery compared to a laparoscopic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Performing a robotic modified Kono-S anastomosis after ileocecal resection in Crohn's disease appears to be safe and feasible. A wide mesenteric resection was performed unlike the limited mesenteric resection described in the original report on the Kono-S anastomosis. We present a short video in which a robotic modified Kono-S anastomosis is performed after an ileocecal resection for medically refractory Crohn's disease. [Extracted from the article]

In particular, total pelvic exenteration (TPE) is a complex procedure with I en bloc i multivisceral resection, which is associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality rates [[1]]. While there is growing interest in the application of robotic surgery for conventional rectal surgery, its role in extended rectal surgery with multivisceral resection is still controversial. Final pathology showed ypT4bN0M0, a tumor of 100 × 100-mm in size, and curative R0 resection with negative resection margins (circumferential resection margin: 12 mm). [Extracted from the article]

10.1007/s10151-021-02567-9. 35244806 2 Milone M, Manigrasso M, Elmore U, Maione F, Gennarelli N, Rondelli F. Short- and long-term outcomes after transverse versus extended colectomy for transverse colon cancer. Transverse colectomy was indicated over an extended right hemicolectomy following the mid-location, transverse colon redundancy, and early disease at staging. [Extracted from the article]

Highlights from the article: The analysis did not show any benefit for robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in patients with endometriosis stages 1 and 2, but they recommended the technique for stages 3 and 4. In 2014, Hassens et al. [[4]] evaluated the perioperative results of a multicentric trial including patients with deep infiltrating endometriosis who had robotic-assisted laparoscopy surgery. Surgeons experienced in conventional laparoscopy surgery can use robotic platform for performing complex surgical dissection and achieving the surgical goals in patients affected of deep infiltrating endometriosis. 2 Brudie L, Gaia G, Ahmad S, Finkler N, Bigsby G, Ghurani G. Perioperative outcomes of patients with stage IV endometriosis undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

Highlights from the article: Several procedures have been described to treat rectal prolapse. Robot-assisted rectal surgery is performed with the patient in the same position throughout the procedure, with no table tilting or rolling as done in open or laparoscopic surgery. Second, most of the comparative studies were performed at highly specialized laparoscopic centers for colorectal surgery by surgeons with considerable experience in performing laparoscopic rectal surgery with a relatively small number of robotic cases done before beginning the studies.

After identification and vertical section of the internal sphincter, the internal and external sphincters were sharply separated to the upper part of the anorectal ring along the space between the internal and external sphincter. Intersphincteric resection (ISR) is an advanced sphincter saving operation based on total mesorectal excision (TME) used in patients with ultra-low rectal cancer. After flushing the distal rectum and anal canal of the tumor with iodophor, the Lone Star Retractor System™ (Shinaide, Xiamen, China) was applied to retract the perianal skin at multiple points to fully expose the anal canal. [Extracted from the article]

With the use of the augmented reality platform, both surgeons could communicate during the case and the operating surgeon could see in real time the 3D model and the proctor's suggestions overlaying into her screen. We continued the dissection cranially and we expected and found the middle colic artery and vein trunks, which we took from their origins. Nevertheless, it is a technically very demanding operation, which requires experienced surgeons and deep understanding of the anatomy; probably this is one of the reasons that CME is still not widely used. [Extracted from the article]

Background: The introduction of transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) in 2009 allowed colorectal surgeons to approach transanal access with a different perspective. This has lead to the development of TAMIS for total mesorectal excision (TME). We have previously described robotic transanal TME and here report our initial experience with the first three human cases performed at a single institution. Methods: Three patients with distal rectal cancer were selective to undergo robotic transanal TME. All resections were carried out with intent to cure; they were performed by a single attending colorectal surgeon over an 11-month period. Results: Three patients underwent robotic transanal TME. The average age was 45 years (range 26-59) with mean BMI of 32 kg/m (range 21-38.5). The average tumor size was 2.5 cm. All lesions were located in the distal 5 cm of the rectum. In each case, the distal and circumferential resection margins were free of tumor. The resection quality of the mesorectal envelope was Grade I and Grade II. There was no major morbidity or mortality on short-term follow-up. Conclusions: Robotic transanal TME is a new modality for en bloc rectal cancer surgery, and the technique is feasible. Further study is necessary to assess the benefit of this novel approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]