Search

Introduction: In the past 30 years, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has made remarkable progress and has become the standard of care in colorectal cancer treatment. The implementation of new techniques or platforms is, therefore, a challenge for surgical teams. This study aims to analyze the experience in the implementation of minimally invasive surgery in the colorectal unit in a specialized colorectal cancer center. We will report and compare the clinical outcomes of the patients submitted to the different surgical approaches, reflecting the importance of surgical training in the laparoscopic and robotic field for the reduction of surgical complications and improve short-term outcomes., Methods: This study involved a retrospective analysis of data collected from a prospectively maintained database at the colorectal unit of Champalimaud Foundation between 2012 and 2023. Data were collected as part of routine clinical documentation and included variables on patient's demographics, staging, short-term outcomes, and follow-up., Results: A total of 661 patients treated at the Champalimaud Foundation between 2012 and 2023 were included, of which 389 (59%) had colon and 272 (41%) rectal cancer. Most of the patients underwent elective surgery, with a minimally invasive approach performed in 91% of cases. A complete resection (R0) was achieved in 95.1% (619) of the procedures with a pathology report staging 64.5% (409) of tumors as pT3-4. Eleven percent (70) of patients had complications classified as Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ 3., Conclusion: This study supports the safety of the implementation of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer care, with improvement in postoperative outcomes and surgical quality, supporting the importance of surgical training and specialized teams., Competing Interests: Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. Informed consent All patients included have signed an informed consent for the collection and use of biological samples, imaging files and medical information for clinical research projects in the Institution., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery implemented through a structured, standardized training pathway in five colorectal centres in the United Kingdom., Method: A multicentre retrospective observational study was conducted, involving 523 consecutive patients who underwent robotic colorectal resection between 2015 and 2019. All participating centres followed the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery training pathway. Patient data, including demographics, operative details, postoperative outcomes and pathology results, were collected and analysed., Results: The study included 447 rectal resections and 76 colonic operations. The median age of the patients was 64.7 years, with the majority of patients (70%) being men. The mean body mass index was 27.4 kg/m 2 , and 89.7% of the patients underwent surgery for malignancy. The overall conversion rate to open surgery was 4.2%. The median length of stay was 6 days and there was no 30-day mortality. The readmission and reoperation rates were 8.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The anastomotic leak rate was 4.1% for rectal resections and 3.9% for colonic resections. Pathological examination showed a positive circumferential resection margin rate of 2.6%., Conclusion: Through the implementation of a structured, standardized training pathway, the participating colorectal centres in the UK achieved safe and effective robotic colorectal surgery pathways with favourable short-term oncological and clinical outcomes. Further studies examining long-term and functional outcomes are needed to assess the broader impact of robotic surgery in colorectal procedures., (© 2024 The Author(s). Colorectal Disease published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Purpose: Laparoscopic ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) surgery offers improved short-term outcomes over open surgery but can be technically challenging. Robotic surgery has been increasingly used for IPAA surgery, but there is limited evidence supporting its use. This study aims to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic IPAA procedures., Methods: All consecutive patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic IPAA surgery at 3 centres, from 3 countries, between 2008 and 2019 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for gender, previous abdominal surgery, ASA grade (I, II vs III, IV) and procedure performed (proctocolectomy vs completion proctectomy). Their short-term outcomes were examined., Results: A total of 89 patients were identified (73 laparoscopic, 16 robotic). The 16 patients that received robotic surgery were matched with 15 laparoscopic patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated short-term outcomes. Length of stay trend was higher for laparoscopic surgery (9 vs 7 days, p = 0.072) CONCLUSION: Robotic IPAA surgery is safe and feasible and offers similar short-term outcomes to laparoscopic surgery. Length of stay may be lower for robotic IPAA surgery, but further larger scale studies are required in order to demonstrate this., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Despite there being a considerable amount of published studies on robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) over the last few years, there is a lack of evidence regarding RCS training pathways. This study examines the short-term clinical outcomes of an international RCS training programme (the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery-EARCS)., Methods: Consecutive cases from 26 European colorectal units who conducted RCS between 2014 and 2018 were included in this study. The baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes of cases performed by EARCS delegates during training were analysed and compared with cases performed by EARCS graduates and proctors., Results: Data from 1130 RCS procedures were collected and classified into three cohort groups (323 training, 626 graduates and 181 proctors). The training cases conversion rate was 2.2% and R1 resection rate was 1.5%. The three groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics with the exception of malignant cases and rectal resections performed. With the exception of operative time, blood loss and hospital stay (training vs. graduate vs. proctor: operative time 302, 265, 255 min, p < 0.001; blood loss 50, 50, 30 ml, p < 0.001; hospital stay 7, 6, 6 days, p = 0.003), all remaining short-term outcomes (conversion, 30-day reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, clinical anastomotic leak, complications, R1 resection and lymph node yield) were comparable between the three groups., Conclusions: Colorectal surgeons learning how to perform RCS under the EARCS-structured training pathway can safely achieve short-term clinical outcomes comparable to their trainers and overcome the learning process in a way that minimises patient harm., (© 2020. The Author(s).)

After their first introduction in the 1990s to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, especially in confined spaces such as the pelvis, telemanipulators (i.e., master-slave manipulators) have gained popularity and acceptance among gastrointestinal surgeons. These complex, interventional surgical devices use multiple technologies, such as 3-D advanced imaging, tremor reduction and 7-degree movement. Superior instrument dexterity, stable precise vision and accessibility to narrow confined spaces make these devices well suited for colorectal surgery. The drive for innovations in the field of surgical robotics will leverage novel robots driven by data, image integration, and artificial intelligence. However, if this vision is to be realized, lessons must be learned from the current literature and clinical trials. The feasibility and safety of robotic rectal surgery is now well established; increasing evidence suggests that when compared to laparoscopic rectal surgery, robotic approaches might offer superior peri-operative outcomes. Notably, the marginal gains achieved with the use of robotics in rectal cancer surgery are linked with structured training and standardization of operative techniques. With decreasing costs and wider availability of new systems, it is foreseeable that robotic surgical systems will be an integral part of colorectal practice.

Robotic surgery enhances the precision of minimally invasive surgery through improved three-dimensional views and articulated instruments. There has been increasing interest in adopting this technology to colorectal surgery and this has recently been introduced to the Irish health system. This paper gives an account of our early institutional experience with adoption of robotic colorectal surgery using structured training. Analysis was conducted of a prospectively maintained database of our first 55 consecutive robotic colorectal cases, performed by four colorectal surgeons, each at the beginning of his robotic surgery experience, using the Da Vinci Si ® system and undergoing training as per the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery (EARCS) programme. Overall surgical and oncological outcomes were interrogated. Fifty-five patients underwent robotic surgery between January 2017 and January 2018, M:F 34:21, median age (range) 60 (35-87) years. Thirty-three patients had colorectal cancer and 22 had benign pathologies. Eleven rectal cancer patients had neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. BMI was > 30 in 21.8% of patients and 56.4% of patients had previous abdominal surgery. Operative procedures performed were low anterior resection (n = 19), sigmoid colectomy (n = 9), right colectomy (n = 22), ventral mesh rectopexy (n = 3), abdominoperineal resection (n = 1) and reversal of Hartmann's procedure (n = 1). Median blood loss was 40 ml (range 0-400). Mean operative time (minutes) was 233 (SD 79) for right colectomy and 368 (SD 105) for anterior resection. Median length of hospital stay was 6 days (IQR 5-7). There was no 30-day mortality, intraoperative complications, conversion to laparoscopic or open, or anastomotic leakage. Median lymph nodes harvest was 15 in non-neoadjuvant cases (range 7-23) and 8 in neoadjuvant cases (2-14). Our early results demonstrate that colorectal robotic surgery can be adopted safely for both benign and neoplastic conditions using a structured training programme without compromising clinical or oncological outcomes. The early learning curve can be time intensive.

Robotic rectal surgery is becoming increasingly more popular among colorectal surgeons. However, time spent on robotic platform docking, arm clashing and undocking of the platform during the procedure are factors that surgeons often find cumbersome and time consuming. The newest surgical platform, the da Vinci Xi, coupled with integrated table motion can help to overcome these problems. This technical note aims to describe a standardised operative technique of single docking robotic rectal surgery using the da Vinci Xi system and integrated table motion. A stepwise approach of the da Vinci docking process and surgical technique is described accompanied by an intra-operative video that demonstrates this technique. We also present data collected from a prospectively maintained database. 33 consecutive rectal cancer patients (24 male, 9 female) received robotic rectal surgery with the da Vinci Xi during the preparation of this technical note. 29 (88%) patients had anterior resections, and four (12%) had abdominoperineal excisions. There were no conversions, no anastomotic leaks and no mortality. Median operation time was 331 (249-372) min, blood loss 20 (20-45) mls and length of stay 6.5 (4-8) days. 30-day readmission rate and re-operation rates were 3% (n = 1). This standardised technique of single docking robotic rectal surgery with the da Vinci Xi is safe, feasible and reproducible. The technological advances of the new robotic system facilitate the totally robotic single docking approach.

Purpose: A structured training programme is essential for the safe adoption of robotic rectal cancer surgery. The aim of this study is to describe the training pathway and short-term surgical outcomes of three surgeons in two centres (UK and Portugal) undertaking single-docking robotic rectal surgery with the da Vinci Xi and integrated table motion (ITM)., Methods: Prospectively, collected data for consecutive patients who underwent robotic rectal cancer resections with the da Vinci Xi and ITM between November 2015 and September 2017 was analysed. The short-term surgical outcomes of the first ten cases of each surgeon (supervised) were compared with the subsequent cases (independent). In addition, the Global Assessment Score (GAS) forms from the supervised cases were analysed and the GAS cumulative sum (CUSUM) charts constructed to investigate the training pathway of the participating surgeons., Results: Data from 82 patients was analysed. There were no conversions to open, no anastomotic leaks and no 30-day mortality. Mean operation time was 288 min (SD 63), median estimated blood loss 20 (IQR 20-20) ml and median length of stay 5 (IQR 4-8) days. Thirty-day readmission and reoperation rates were 4% (n = 3) and 6% (n = 5) respectively. When comparing the supervised cases with the subsequent solo cases, there were no statistically significant changes in any of the short-term outcomes with the exception of mean operative time, which was significantly shorter in the independent cases (311 vs 275 min, p = 0.038). GAS form analysis and GAS CUSUM charting revealed that ten proctoring cases were enough for trainee surgeons to independently perform robotic rectal resections with the da Vinci Xi., Conclusions: Our results show that by applying a structured training pathway and standardising the surgical technique, the single-docking procedure with the da Vinci Xi is a valid, reproducible technique that offers good short-term outcomes in our study population.

Purpose: Laparoscopic rectal surgery in obese patients is technically challenging. The technological advantages of robotic instruments can help overcome some of those challenges, but whether this translates to superior short-term outcomes is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of obese (BMI ≥ 30) robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery patients., Methods: All consecutive obese patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer resection surgery from three centres, two from the UK and one from Portugal, between 2006 and 2017 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for ASA grade, neoadjuvant radiotherapy and pathological T stage. Their short-term outcomes were examined., Results: A total of 222 patients were identified (63 robotic, 159 laparoscopic). The 63 patients who received robotic surgery were matched with 61 laparoscopic patients. Cohort characteristics were similar between the two groups. In the robotic group, operative time was longer (260 vs 215 min; p = 0.000), but length of stay was shorter (6 vs 8 days; p = 0.014), and thirty-day readmission rate was lower (6.3% vs 19.7%; p = 0.033)., Conclusions: In this study population, robotic rectal surgery in obese patients resulted in a shorter length of stay and lower 30-day readmission rate but longer operative time when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Robotic rectal surgery in the obese may be associated with a quicker post-operative recovery and reduced morbidity profile. Larger-scale multi-centre prospective observational studies are required to validate these results.

Background: The learning curve for robotic colorectal surgery is ill-defined. This study aimed to investigate the learning curve of experienced laparoscopic rectal surgeons when starting with robotic total mesorectal excision (TME) using cumulative sum (CUSUM) charts., Methods: This retrospective case series analysed patients who underwent curative and elective laparoscopic or robotic TMEs for rectal cancer performed by two surgeons. The first consecutive robotic TME cases of each surgeon were 1:1 propensity score matched to their laparoscopic TME cases using age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, T stage (AJCC) and tumour location height. The matched laparoscopic cases defined individual standards for the quality indicators: operating time, R stage, lymph node harvest, length of hospital stay and major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade 3-5). Deviation of more than a quarter of a standard deviation from the mean for the continuous indicators, or exceeding the observed risk for the binary indicators was defined as off-target with an upward inflection in the CUSUM curve., Results: From 2006 to 2015, 384 (294 laparoscopic; 90 robotic) TMEs met the inclusion criteria. Surgeon A performed 206 (70.1%) of the laparoscopic and 43 (47.8%) of the robotic cases. Surgeon B performed 88 (29.9%) of the laparoscopic and 47 (52.2%) of the robotic cases. After matching, no covariate exhibited an absolute standardised mean difference >0.25. For surgeon A, the CUSUM curves showed no apparent learning process compared to his laparoscopic standards. For surgeon B, a learning process for operation time, lymph node harvest and major complications was demonstrated by an initial upward inflection of the CUSUM curves; after 15 cases, all quality indicators were generally on target., Conclusions: For experienced laparoscopic colorectal surgeons, the formal learning process for robotic TME may be short to reach a similar performance level as obtained in conventional laparoscopy.

Background: A structured training is a key element for the learning of techniques with a high level of complexity, such as robotic colorectal surgery., Methods: This study reports the results of an expert consensus round table held during the 6th Clinical Robotic Surgery Association (CRSA) congress, focusing on recommendations in robotic colorectal surgery., Results: Three sequential steps are proposed for training: a basic module, to learn basic robotic skills and general competencies; an advanced module, to acquire skills to safely perform a colorectal resection, and tutored clinical practice providing procedures of increasing complexity. Each specific skill of the basic module and performance of each surgical step of a colorectal procedure was evaluated and rated from 1 to 3., Conclusions: Defining requirements to begin robotic colorectal activity, delineation of structured training programs and objectification of the acquired competences are key elements for a safe and efficient learning of robotic colorectal surgery. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)