Search

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) performed by a team having limited expertise in robotic surgery with open colorectal surgery (OCS) performed by experienced colorectal surgeons. Methods: This was a prospective comparative nonrandomized study. Results: Between March 2013 and June 2015, 79 patients with colon and rectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled into the study. Of these, 41 patients underwent OCS and 38 underwent RCS. The groups were comparable in terms of demographics and type of procedure. The RCS took significantly longer in the operating room than the OCS (222 vs. 141 min, p < 0.001). The rate of major complications was similar for both RCS and OCS (5.3 vs. 9.8%, p = 0.454). Wound infections were less frequent in the RCS group (10.5 vs. 29.3%, p = 0.039). The mean hospital stay was 1 day shorter in the RCS group than in the OCS group (5.7 vs. 6.7 days, p = 0.176). The lymph nodes harvested was comparable (14.7 RCS vs. 15.5 OCS, p = 0.596). Conclusions: This study confirmed that the surgical team with limited expertise in minimally invasive surgery can still safely introduce robotic surgery into their colorectal practice. When compared to the open approach, the robotic approach reduces hospital stay, as well as the rate of surgical site infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Laparoscopy has been introduced into the field of colorectal surgery with the aim of reducing morbidity. One of the major barriers to overcome is the steep learning curve. Robotic surgery offers substantial advantages over traditional laparoscopy, which make the whole procedure more user friendly. Aim: To present our initial experiences with robotic assisted colorectal surgery. Material and methods: Thirty-five patients with colorectal cancer underwent robotic assisted procedures between 2011 and 2013. Results: In total we performed 16 low anterior resections, 14 right colectomies, 3 abdominosacral resections and 2 left colectomies. There were 22 males and 13 females. The mean operative time was 315 ±65 min for a low anterior resection. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.4 ±1 days. There were 4 conversions to open procedures, 2 anastomotic leaks, and 1 colovaginal fistula. The mean lymph node yield was 12.7 ±4.3. The resection margin was negative in all but 1 patient. Conclusions: We agree with the opinion that robotic surgery brings many advantages in pelvic dissections. In order to facilitate safe acquisition of robotic total mesorectal excision skills, surgeons should begin with female patients, and less advanced rectal cancer. In some instances robotic assistance can be helpful in right colectomies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the successful introduction of robotic surgery to the field of urology and gynecology, its use gained even more interest among those in the field of colorectal surgery. Rectal resection is believed to be among the best suited for robotic assistance. In particular, the right hemicolectomy procedure has been proposed as a training tool in order to gain clinical experience with the robot. This article and attached video demonstrates, in detail, the robot-assisted right hemicolectomy, including key landmarks of the procedure. The case presented involved a 58-year-old man with an advanced cecal adenocarcinoma. In our opinionrobot-assisted right colon resection is a procedure that offers particular value for the novice robotic team who is in the beginning stages of their colorectal surgery experience. Although no concrete advantages for use of the robot in this particular procedure have been demonstrated in the literature, because it is a relatively straightforward and simple procedure, it can serve as a valuable training tool for the novice robotic surgeon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]