Search

Background: Studies to date show contrasting conclusions when comparing intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses for minimally invasive right colectomy. Large multi-center prospective studies comparing perioperative outcomes between these two techniques are needed. The purpose of this study was to compare intracorporeal and extracorporeal anastomoses outcomes for robotic assisted and laparoscopic right colectomy., Methods: Multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients with malignant or benign disease scheduled for laparoscopic or robotic-assisted right colectomy. Outcomes included conversion rate, gastrointestinal recovery, and complication rates., Results: There were 280 patients: 156 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) group and 124 in the robotic assisted and laparoscopic extracorporeal anastomosis (EA) group. The EA group was older (mean age 67 vs. 65 years, p = 0.05) and had fewer white (81% vs. 90%, p = 0.05) and Hispanic (2% vs. 12%, p = 0.003) patients. The EA group had more patients with comorbidities (82% vs. 72%, p = 0.04) while there was no significant difference in individual comorbidities between groups. IA was associated with fewer conversions to open and hand-assisted laparoscopic approaches (p = 0.007), shorter extraction site incision length (4.9 vs. 6.2 cm; p ≤ 0.0001), and longer operative time (156.9 vs. 118.2 min). Postoperatively, patients with IA had shorter time to first flatus, (1.5 vs. 1.8 days; p ≤ 0.0001), time to first bowel movement (1.6 vs. 2.0 days; p = 0.0005), time to resume soft/regular diet (29.0 vs. 37.5 h; p = 0.0014), and shorter length of hospital stay (median, 3 vs. 4 days; p ≤ 0.0001). Postoperative complication rates were comparable between groups., Conclusion: In this prospective, multi-center study of minimally invasive right colectomy across 20 institutions, IA was associated with significant improvements in conversion rates, return of bowel function, and shorter hospital stay, as well as significantly longer operative times compared to EA. These data validate current efforts to increase training and adoption of the IA technique for minimally invasive right colectomy., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Minimally invasive resection of colon cancer at the splenic flexure can be technically challenging with concerns for a suboptimal oncologic outcome. We aimed to compare open and minimally invasive approaches following curative resection., Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with non-metastatic colon adenocarcinoma at the splenic flexure who underwent resection from 2010 to 2016. Cohorts were separated into open and minimally invasive approaches, and demographic and clinicopathologic variables were compared. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was utilized to balance potential confounding covariates between cohorts to elucidate the independent association between surgical approach and outcomes. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze survival. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression or Mann-Whitney U test., Results: After matching, 842 patients were compared between approaches. Patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery had no significant difference in regional nodes ≥ 12 examined, positive margins, negative circumferential margins, unplanned 30-day readmission, or time from surgery to initiation of chemotherapy when compared to patients who underwent open surgery. Minimally invasive surgery was significantly associated with decreased odds of 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, and decreased mortality hazard for 5-year overall survival compared to open surgery., Conclusion: The optimal approach for surgical management of splenic flexure colon cancer has not been standardized given its rarity and exclusion from randomized controlled trials. Our retrospective review suggests that minimally invasive resection of splenic flexure colon cancers in carefully selected patients is associated with equivalent oncologic outcomes as well as improved short and long-term survival compared to an open approach., (© 2021. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Historically, T4 tumors of the colon have been a contraindication to minimally invasive resection. The purpose of this study was to conduct a National Cancer Database analysis to compare the outcomes after curative treatment for T4 colon cancer between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches. The US National Cancer Database was queried for patients with T4 adenocarcinoma of the colon who underwent curative resection. Groups were separated based on approach (open, laparoscopic, robotic). One to one nearest neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) ± 1% caliper was performed across surgical approach cohorts to balance potential confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze primary outcome of survival. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression. Inclusion criteria and PSM identified 876 cases per treatment approach (n = 2628). PSM provided adequate discrimination between treatment cohorts (0.6 < AUC < 0.8) and potential confounding covariates did not significantly differ between cohorts (all respective P > 0.05). Patients who underwent a robotic approach had lower odds of conversion to laparotomy compared to the laparoscopic cohort (P < 0.0001). Laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with increased odds of > 12 lymph nodes examined, decreased odds of positive margins, and decreased odds of 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality compared to the open approach. Cox-proportional hazards regression showed that both robotic and laparoscopic approaches were significantly associated with decreased mortality hazards relative to open. Both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries achieved improved oncologic outcomes and survival compared to open resection of T4 cancers. A robotic-assisted approach was significantly associated with a lower conversion rate compared to the laparoscopic approach. This case-matched study demonstrates safety of using minimally invasive techniques in T4 cancers., (© 2020. Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Robotic surgery has increased in recent years for the treatment of colorectal cancer; however, it is not yet the standard of care. This study aims to compare the 30-day outcomes after robotic colectomy for right-sided colon cancer from our institution with those from a national dataset, the targeted colectomy American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database., Methods: Patients undergoing elective, robotic, right colon resection for stage I, II, and III colon cancer were identified within the targeted colectomy ACS-NSQIP database from 2012 to 2014. Patients meeting the same criteria were identified within a prospectively maintained institutional database from 2009 to 2015. Univariate analyses using chi-square tests and Student's t-tests were done where appropriate to compare baseline characteristics and outcomes between the two groups., Results: Patients at our institution had a significantly higher average number of lymph nodes retrieved (24.4 versus 20.1, P = .046). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of wound infections, anastomotic leaks, blood transfusions, unplanned return to the operating room, or prolonged length of hospital stay. There were no 30-day mortalities at our institution and only one in the ACS-NSQIP database., Conclusions: Our institutional experience with robotic right colon resection is equivalent to that of a national sample. This study demonstrates the safety of performing robotic right hemicolectomy for the treatment of colon cancer.

Background: Surgical resection with curative intent remains the standard of care for colon cancer. This study aims to compare the 30-day outcomes and oncologic results following open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted right colon resection for colon cancer using the Targeted Colectomy American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database., Materials and Methods: All patients undergoing elective, right colon resection with primary anastomosis were identified within the targeted colectomy ACS-NSQIP database. Only patients with stage I, II, or III colon cancer were included. The association of surgical approach with oncologic results and 30-day morbidity and mortality outcomes was investigated using a variety of statistical tests., Results: A total of 3518 patients met inclusion criteria; 1024 (29.1%) underwent open surgery (OS), 2405 (63.4%) underwent laparoscopic surgery, and 89 (2.5%) underwent robotic surgery. Patients undergoing OS were significantly more likely to have positive resection margins (P < .001). Patients undergoing OS were significantly more likely to experience prolonged intubation (P = .02), deep wound infections (P = .001), wound dehiscence (P = .005), deep venous thrombosis (P = .04), bleeding requiring a blood transfusion (P < .001), a prolonged postoperative ileus (P < .001), and longer length of hospital stay (P < .001), and were more likely to die (P = .02)., Conclusion: The laparoscopic approach to colon resection for colon cancer has lower 30-day morbidity compared to OS. The robotic approach is equivalent to the laparoscopic approach, and its utilization may increase in the future.

By combining laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) techniques with the da Vinci robotic platform, single-incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) aims to further minimize incision-related complications and improve cosmetic outcomes from the current standard of care, laparoscopic colectomy. While there is limited literature on SIRC, all available reports suggest SIRC to be a safe and feasible procedure in terms of perioperative outcomes. Future research should focus on further clarification of proposed benefits of SIRC such as cosmetics, ergonomics, incidence of incision-related complications, and long-term oncologic outcomes., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Voltage-gated Na(+) channels (VGSC) have been implicated in the metastatic potential of human breast, prostate, and lung cancer cells. Specifically, the SCN5A gene encoding the VGSC isotype Na(v)1.5 has been defined as a key driver of human cancer cell invasion. In this study, we examined the expression and function of VGSCs in a panel of colon cancer cell lines by electrophysiologic recordings. Na(+) channel activity and invasive potential were inhibited pharmacologically by tetrodotoxin or genetically by small interfering RNAs (siRNA) specifically targeting SCN5A. Clinical relevance was established by immunohistochemistry of patient biopsies, with strong Na(v)1.5 protein staining found in colon cancer specimens but little to no staining in matched-paired normal colon tissues. We explored the mechanism of VGSC-mediated invasive potential on the basis of reported links between VGSC activity and gene expression in excitable cells. Probabilistic modeling of loss-of-function screens and microarray data established an unequivocal role of VGSC SCN5A as a high level regulator of a colon cancer invasion network, involving genes that encompass Wnt signaling, cell migration, ectoderm development, response to biotic stimulus, steroid metabolic process, and cell cycle control. siRNA-mediated knockdown of predicted downstream network components caused a loss of invasive behavior, demonstrating network connectivity and its function in driving colon cancer invasion.