Search

A modular, combined use of robotic and laparoscopic platforms has been suggested to address challenges in optimal workspace utilization. The 3-arm on-demand open Dexter Robotic System was developed to combine the advantages of robot-assisted precision surgery in narrow spaces with the laparoscopic approach for frequent position changes in larger spaces. The system integrates 2 patient carts, a fully controllable endoscope arm, and a sterile surgeon open console, allowing for a rapid switch between robot-assisted surgery and laparoscopy. When switching, the robotic arms may be folded into a laparoscopic home position at any time during a procedure, allowing unrestricted access to the patient. Switches take 15-30 seconds, occurring seamlessly without redocking or recalibrating upon returning to the robotic mode. During oncologic colorectal resections, some procedure steps (eg, central vessel ligation and lymphadenectomy) are best suited for the robotic approach, providing advantages related to 3-dimensional vision, improved ergonomics, and improved dexterity within confined spaces. In contrast, the laparoscopic platform is better suited for procedure steps requiring frequent movements within a large workspace (eg, lateral to medial mobilization of the colon). The Dexter system provides a portfolio of 7 robotic instruments with monopolar and bipolar function operating with any existing available generator. Furthermore, existing operating room equipment, including insufflating devices, optics, and trocars can be used with the Dexter robotic platform. Recently, the first published clinical experience from the authors' institution, involving 12 pilot cases, demonstrated the safety and feasibility for right colonic resections for benign and malignant indications and ventral mesh rectopexies., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Disclosure Dieter Hahnloser and Fabian Grass are consultants for Distalmotion. Dexter, Dexter System, and Dexter Robotic System are registered trademarks of Distalmotion in the United States and European Union as well as certain other jurisdictions., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The key benefits of robotics are improved precision and control, thanks to fully articulated robotic instruments and enhanced, stable endoscope control. However, colorectal procedures also require large movements such as medialization of the colon where a robotic platform is not always needed. We present the world's first experience in colorectal surgery with a new open platform of on-demand robotics., Methods and Procedures: Standard laparoscopic 3-D camera, insufflator, trocars and energy devices, available in all hospitals performing laparoscopic surgery, are used in combination with the Dexter System™ from Distalmotion SA, which includes two robotic instrument arms, one robotic endoscope arm and a sterile surgeon console. We present the first 12 colorectal cases of robotic assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (n = 2), oncologic right colectomies (n = 8), transverse colectomy (n = 1) and ileocecal resection (n = 1) using the Dexter System., Results: The two ventral mesh rectopexies were fully robotic, requiring no switching from standard laparoscopy to robotic assistance. The robotic platform was used for central vascular ligation (CVL) in all 8 oncologic colectomies, whereas medialization of the colon and transection was performed with standard laparoscopy. The switch from laparoscopy to robotics and back was performed in 15-30 s. Intracorporal anastomosis was performed in 4 patients (stapling by standard laparoscopy and suturing of the defect with robotic assistance). Conversion or permanent switch to standard laparoscopy was required in two patients due to visceral obesity. No robotic platform-related intraoperative adverse event occurred. No major morbidity occurred at 60 days., Conclusions: On-demand robotics is feasible and combines the best of two worlds: Robotics where precision and enhanced dexterity are required and standard laparoscopy where it is at its best. The surgeon remains scrubbed-in at all times, allowing a switch between robotics and laparoscopy within seconds., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

During 2022 a lot of efforts were developed to reduce health-costs by reducing complications and length of hospital stay. Same-day surgery is becoming the standard for all patients scheduled for elective surgery in CHUV. Outpatient colectomy also become a new standard. During 2022, endoscopic bariatric surgery became increasingly used. Not widely performed yet in Switzerland, these treatments deserve to be recognized and considered in various situations. Finally, 2022 saw a promising development of robotic surgery with the acquisition of Da Vinci and Dexter robots after allowing various high-precision surgical procedures., Competing Interests: Les auteurs n’ont déclaré aucun conflit d’intérêts en relation avec cet article.

Background: Although the overall adoption of minimally invasive surgery in the nonemergent management of ulcerative colitis is established, little is known about its utilization in emergency settings., Objective: The goal of this study was to assess rates of urgent and emergent surgery over time in the era of emerging biologic therapies and to highlight the current practice in the United States regarding the utilization of minimally invasive surgery for urgent and emergent indications for ulcerative colitis., Design: This was a retrospective analysis study., Settings: Data were collected from the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program database., Patients: All adult patients who underwent emergent or urgent colectomy for ulcerative colitis were included., Main Outcome Measures: Rates of emergency operations over time and utilization trends of minimally invasive surgery in urgent and emergent settings were assessed. Unadjusted and adjusted overall, surgical, and medical 30-day complication rates were compared between open and minimally invasive surgery., Results: A total of 2219 patients were identified. Of those, 1515 patients (68.3%) underwent surgery in an urgent setting and 704 (31.7%) as an emergency. Emergent cases decreased over time (21% in 2006 to 8% in 2018; p < 0.0001). However, the rate of urgent surgeries has not significantly changed (42% in 2011 to 46% in 2018; p = 0.44). Minimally invasive surgery was offered to 70% of patients in the urgent group (1058/1515) and 22.6% of emergent indications (159/704). Overall, minimally invasive surgery was increasingly utilized over the study period in urgent (38% in 2011 to 71% in 2018; p < 0.0001) and emergent (0% in 2005 to 42% in 2018; p < 0.0001) groups. Compared to minimally invasive surgery, open surgery was associated with a higher risk of surgical, septic, and overall complications, and prolonged hospitalization., Limitations: This study was limited by its retrospective nature of the analysis., Conclusion: Based on a nationwide analysis from the United States, minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly and safely implemented for emergent and urgent indications for ulcerative colitis. Although the sum of emergent and urgent cases remained the same over the study period, emergency cases decreased significantly over the study period, which may be related to improved medical treatment options and a collaborative, specialized team approach. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B847 ., Ciruga De Urgencia Y Emergencia Para La Colitis Ulcerosa En Los Estados Unidos En La Era Mnimamente Invasiva Y De Terapia Biolgica: ANTECEDENTES:Si bien se ha establecido la adopción generalizada de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva en el tratamiento electivo de la colitis ulcerosa, se sabe poco sobre su utilización en situaciones de emergencia.OBJETIVO:Evaluar las tasas de cirugía de urgencia a lo largo del tiempo en la era de las terapias biológicas emergentes y destacar la práctica actual en los Estados Unidos con respecto a la utilización de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva para las indicaciones de urgencia y emergencia de la colitis ulcerosa.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Base de datos del Programa Nacional de Mejoramiento de la Calidad del Colegio Americano de Cirujanos.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes adultos que se sometieron a colectomía de emergencia o urgencia por colitis ulcerosa.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se evaluaron las tasas de operaciones de emergencia a lo largo del tiempo y las tendencias de utilización de la cirugía mínimamente invasiva en entornos de urgencia y emergencia. Se compararon las tasas de complicaciones generales, quirúrgicas y médicas de 30 días no ajustadas y ajustadas entre la cirugía abierta y la mínimamente invasiva.RESULTADOS:Se identificaron un total de 2.219 pacientes. De ellos, 1.515 pacientes (68,3%) fueron intervenidos de urgencia y 704 (31,7%) de emergencia. Los casos emergentes disminuyeron con el tiempo (21% en 2006 a 8% en 2018; p <0,0001). Sin embargo, la tasa de cirugías urgentes no ha cambiado significativamente (42% en 2011 a 46% en 2018, p = 0,44). Se ofreció cirugía mínimamente invasiva al 70% de los pacientes del grupo urgente (1.058 / 1.515) y al 22,6% de las emergencias (159/704). En general, la cirugía mínimamente invasiva se utilizó cada vez más durante el período de estudio en grupos urgentes (38% en 2011 a 71% en 2018; p <0,0001) y emergentes (0% en 2005 a 42% en 2018; p <0,0001). En comparación con la cirugía mínimamente invasiva, la cirugía abierta se asoció con un mayor riesgo de complicaciones generales, quirúrgicas, sépticas y hospitalización prolongada.LIMITACIONES:Carácter retrospectivo del análisis.CONCLUSIÓNES:Basado en un análisis nacional de los Estados Unidos, la cirugía mínimamente invasiva se ha implementado de manera creciente y segura para las indicaciones emergentes y urgentes de la colitis ulcerosa. Si bien la suma de casos emergentes y urgentes permaneció igual durante el período de estudio, los casos de emergencia disminuyeron significativamente, lo que puede estar relacionado con mejores opciones de tratamiento médico y un enfoque de equipo colaborativo y especializado. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B847 . (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio )., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2021.)

Background: The aim of this study was to identify national utilization trends of robotic surgery for elective colectomy, conversion rates over time, and the specific impact of conversion on postoperative morbidity. Conversion to open represents a hard endpoint for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and is associated with worse outcomes when compared to MIS or even traditional open procedures., Methods: All adult patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic elective colectomy from 2013 to 2018 as reported in the American College of Surgeons Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database were included. National trends of both robotic utilization and conversion rates were analyzed, overall and according to underlying disease (benign disease, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), cancer), or the presence of obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m 2 ). Demographic and surgical risk factors for surgical conversion to open were identified through multivariable regression analysis. Further assessed were overall and specific postoperative 30-day complications, which were risk adjusted and compared between converted patients and the remaining cohort., Results: Of 66,652 included procedures, 5353 (8.0%) were converted to open. Conversion rates were 8.5% for laparoscopic and 4.9% for robotic surgery (p < 0.0001). A decline in conversion rates over the 6-year inclusion period was observed overall and for patients with obesity. This trend paralleled an increased utilization of the robotic platform. Several surrogates for advanced disease stages for cancer, diverticulitis, and IBD and prolonged surgical duration were identified as independent risk factors for unplanned conversion, while robotic approach was an independent protective factor (OR 0.44, p < 0.0001). Patients who had unplanned conversion were more likely to experience postoperative complications (OR 2.36; 95% CI [2.21-2.51]), length of hospital stay ≥ 6 days (OR 2.86; 95% CI [2.67-3.05], and 30-day mortality (OR 2.28; 95% CI [1.72-3.02])., Conclusion: This nationwide study identified a decreasing trend in conversion rates over the 6-year inclusion period, both overall and in patients with obesity, paralleling increased utilization of the robotic platform. Unplanned conversion to open was associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To compare short term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic rectal cancer surgery., Background: Significant benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over laparoscopy have yet to be demonstrated. Operative time and direct institutional cost seem in favor of the laparoscopic approach., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients operated on for rectal cancer with a mini-invasive approach at Mayo Clinic from 2005 to 2018. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the difference in postoperative morbidity between the laparoscopic and robotic approach. Multivariable models for odds to complications and prolonged (≥6 days) length of stay were built., Results: A total of 600 patients were included in the analysis. The number of patients undergoing robotic surgery was 317 (52.8%). The 2 groups were similar in respect to age, sex, and body mass index. Laparoscopic surgery was correlated to shorter operative time (214 vs 324 minutes; P < 0.001). Patients undergoing robotic surgery had a lower overall complications rate (37.2% vs 51.2%; P < 0.001). Robotic surgery was found to be the most protective factor [odds ratio (OR) 0.485; P = 0.006] for odds to complications. The event of a complication (OR 9.33; P < 0.001) and conversion to open surgery (OR 3.095; P = 0.002) were identified as risk factors for prolonged length of stay whereas robotic surgery (OR 0.62; P = 0.027) was the only independent protective factor., Conclusions: Robotic rectal cancer surgery is strongly associated with better short-term outcomes over laparoscopic surgery., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

As robotic surgery continues to disseminate into the field of colon and rectal surgery, there is a growing interest in the utilization of intracorporeal anastomosis to potentially improve surgical outcomes. The purpoe of this study was to compare feasibility, safety, and short-term outcomes of robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections performed with completely intracorporeal anastomosis (CICA) technique to the traditional extracorporeal assisted anastomosis (ECAA) technique. Consecutive series of patients who underwent elective robotic sigmoid or low anterior resections for benign or malignant disease utilizes either CICA or ECAA between August 2017 and November 2019. Surgical complications were assessed until 30 postoperative days and compared between the two groups. A total of 160 patients were identified; 73 (45.6%) in the CICA group and 87 (54.4%) in the ECAA group. Most of the procedures were performed for malignancy (76%). Estimated blood loss was lower in the CICA group (80.7 mL vs. 110.2 mL; p = 0.048), while operative times were longer (5.9 ± SD hours vs. 4.9 ± SD hours; p =  < 0.001). Overall conversion rate was 1.9%, with no conversions in the CICA group. Overall complications occurred in 54 patients (33.8%) with 13 (8.3%) representing major complications. There were no significant differences in 30 day outcomes between the two groups. This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections with CICA. Outcomes for robotic sigmoid and low anterior resections are encouraging regardless of anastomotic technique (CICA vs ECAA)., (© 2021. Italian Society of Surgery (SIC).)

Despite an increasing trend towards utilization of minimally invasive approaches (MIS), results regarding their safety profile are contradictory. All patients who underwent elective colectomy for any underlying disease with an identifiable operative approach available from the targeted colectomy files of the ACS-NSQIP PUFs 2013 to 2018 were included. The trend of utilization and complication rates of the different operative approaches (open, laparoscopic, robotic) were assessed during the inclusion period. Furthermore, overall, surgical, and medical complications were compared between the three approaches. The study cohort included 78,987 patients. Of them, 12,335 (15.6%) patients underwent open, 57,874 (73.3%) laparoscopic, and 8,778 (11.1%) robotic surgery. There was an increasing trend towards the utilization of robotic surgery (2.5% increase per year) at the expense of the other approaches. With the increasing trend toward the utilization of the robotic approach, a decreasing trend in overall and surgical complications and length of stay was observed. After adjusting for the baseline confounders, robotic surgery was associated with shorter length of stay, lower rate of overall (OR 0.397; p < 0.05 compared to open and OR: 0.763; p < 0.05 compared to laparoscopy) and surgical complications (OR: 0.464; p < 0.05 compared to open and OR: 0.734; p < 0.05 compared to laparoscopy). This study revealed an increasing trend toward the utilization of MIS for elective colectomy in the US. Robotic surgery was associated with a decreasing trend in overall and surgical morbidity and length of stay.

Laparoscopy in colorectal surgery reduces the rate of postoperative complications, shortens the length of stay in hospital, and improves the quality of patient care. Despite these established benefits, the technical challenges of rectal resection for cancer have resulted in most operations being performed through open surgery in the USA. Moreover, controversy in the current literature questions the oncologic safety of a laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer. How then can surgeons innovate to overcome the technical challenges while preserving the critical oncological outcomes of high-quality rectal cancer surgery? Robotics may be a platform that allows us to overcome the technical challenges in the pelvis while maintaining both oncological outcomes and the benefits of a minimally invasive technique. Current evidence suggests that the quality of total mesorectal excision, the rates of circumferential margin involvement, and postoperative outcomes are comparable between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. While a robotic approach demonstrates lower conversion rates and reduced surgeon workload, the operative time is longer and initial costs are higher; however, time and future science will determine its true benefits. We review the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on rectal cancer surgery.

Background: While minimally invasive surgery contributed to improved outcomes in bariatric surgery, less is known about current utilization trends and outcomes related to surgical technique for colorectal resections in super-obese patients (body mass index ≥50 kg/m 2 )., Objective: The aim of this study was to compare surgical modalities and short-term outcomes of patients with super obesity who underwent elective colectomy in the United States., Setting: A retrospective review was performed of patients with super obesity who underwent elective colectomy between 2012 to 2018 using the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program data pool., Methods: Patients were categorized into an open, laparoscopic, or robotic group. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes including 30-day complications and length of stay were compared between the 3 groups. Furthermore, utilization trends of surgical modalities were assessed., Results: Of 1199 patients, 338 (28.2%) had open, 735 (61.3%) laparoscopic, and 126 (10.5%) robotic colectomy during the study period, primarily for colon cancer (50.8%). Patients in the open group tended to have more baseline co-morbidities. Laparoscopic approach showed better risk-adjusted outcomes compared with open for postoperative ileus (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: .6, 95% confidence interval [CI; .383-.965]), overall medical complications (aOR: .4, 95%CI [.3-.8]), and length of stay (OR .6, 95% CI [.394-.968]). Trend utilization showed increasing utilization of the robotic platform over the study period, which was associated with less unplanned conversion to open (aOR .417, 95%CI [.199-.872])., Conclusion: Laparoscopic colectomy provides advantageous outcomes over open surgery for colectomy in super-obese patients. The robotic platform has been increasingly used over time, and potential benefits need to be further studied., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Bariatric Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to review risk factors for conversion in a cohort of patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive abdominal surgery., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive patients operated on from February 2005 to April 2018. Adult patients undergoing low anterior resection or abdominoperineal resection for primary rectal adenocarcinoma by a minimally invasive approach were included. Exclusion criteria were lack of research authorization, stage IV or recurrent rectal cancer, and emergency surgery. Risk factors for conversion were investigated using logistic regression. A subgroup analysis of obese patients (BMI 30 kg/m 2 or more) was performed., Results: A total of 600 patients were included in the analysis. The overall conversion rate was 9·2 per cent. Multivariable analysis showed a 72 per cent lower risk of conversion when patients had robotic surgery (odds ratio (OR) 0·28, 95 per cent c.i. 0·15 to 0·52). Obese patients experienced a threefold higher risk of conversion compared with non-obese patients (47 versus 24·4 per cent respectively; P < 0·001). Robotic surgery was associated with a reduced risk of conversion in obese patients (OR 0·22, 0·07 to 0·71)., Conclusion: Robotic surgery was associated with a lower risk of conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery, in both obese and non-obese patients., (© 2020 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This study aimed to assess intra- and postoperative outcomes of robotic resection of left-sided complicated diverticular disease. Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained institutional database on consecutive patients undergoing elective robotic resection for diverticular disease (2014-2018). All procedures were performed within an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP). Demographic, surgical and ERP-related items were compared between patients with simple and complicated diverticular disease according to intra-operative presentation. Postoperative complications and length of stay were compared between the two groups. Out of 150 patients, 78 (52%) presented with complicated and the remaining 72 (48%) with uncomplicated disease. Both groups were comparable regarding demographic baseline characteristics and overall ERP compliance. Surgery for complicated disease was longer (288 ± 96 vs. 258 ± 72 min, p = 0.04) and more contaminated (≥ class 3: 57.7 vs. 23.6%, p < 0.001) with a trend to higher conversion rates (10.3 vs. 2.8%, p = 0.1). While postoperative overall complications tended to occur more often after resections for complicated disease (28.2 vs. 15.3%, p = 0.075), major, surgical and medical complications did not differ between the two groups, and median length of stay was 3 days in both settings (p = 0.19). Robotic resection of diverticular disease was feasible and safe regardless of disease presentation by the time of surgery.

Background: Oncological outcomes of locally advanced rectal cancer depend on the quality of surgical and oncological management. Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) have yet to be assessed for their oncological impact when used in combination with minimally invasive surgery. This study assessed outcomes with or without an ERP in patients with rectal cancer., Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of all consecutive adult patients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for primary rectal adenocarcinoma with curative intent between February 2005 and April 2018. Both laparoscopic and robotic procedures were included. Short-term morbidity and overall survival were compared between patients treated according to the institutional ERP and those who received conventional care., Results: A total of 600 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery, of whom 320 (53·3 per cent) were treated according to the ERP and 280 (46·7 per cent) received conventional care. ERP was associated with less overall morbidity (34·7 versus 54·3 per cent; P < 0·001). Patients in the ERP group had improved overall survival on univariable (91·4 versus 81·7 per cent at 5 years; hazard ratio (HR) 0·53, 95 per cent c.i. 0·28 to 0·99) but not multivariable (HR 0·78, 0·41 to 1·50) analysis. Multivariable analysis revealed age (HR 1·46, 1·17 to 1·82), male sex (HR 1·98, 1·05 to 3·70) and complications (HR 2·23, 1·30 to 3·83) as independent risk factors for compromised overall survival. Disease-free survival was comparable for patients who had ERP or conventional treatment (80·5 versus 84·6 per cent at 5 years respectively; P = 0·272)., Conclusion: Treatment within an ERP was associated with a lower morbidity risk that may have had a subtle impact on overall but not disease-specific survival., (© 2019 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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.