Search

The Association of Program Directors for Colon and Rectal Surgery (APDCRS) has sponsored a standardized robotics course for colorectal and minimally invasive surgery fellows since 2011. The study objective was to assess the impact of the APDCRS-sponsored course on surgical approaches adopted by young colorectal surgeons before, during, and after fellowship. An internet-based survey was administered to 2014-2022 ACGME-accredited colorectal surgery program graduates. Study variables were summarized using frequencies and proportions. Survey response rate was 43.2%. Laparoscopic and robotic volumes were consistently higher than open and hand-assist laparoscopic volumes over the study period. About 70.0% of fellows performed ≥ 20 laparoscopic cases before 2017, and over 80% had experience with ≥ 20 laparoscopic cases during/after 2017. An increasing trend of performing ≥ 20 robotic colorectal cases during fellowship was observed (before 2017: 75.0%, 2018-2019: 76.9%, and 2021-2022: 84.8%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that higher robotic volume (≥ 25 colorectal cases) during general surgery residency increased odds of performing ≥ 50 robotic cases during fellowship (OR: 4.38, 95% CI 0.88, 26.1). Higher robotic volumes during fellowship correlated with higher robotic volumes in the first year of post-fellowship practice. 88.6% of respondents agree (21.0%) or strongly agree (67.6%) that the APDCRS robotics training course met expectations, and 83.8% agree or strongly agree that the course prepared them for post-graduate robotics practice. The APDCRS-sponsored robotics training course met expectations and prepared colorectal surgery fellows for adopting the robotic approach after graduation, with the majority of respondents reporting that they utilize robotics in their post-graduation colorectal practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Robotic colectomy has been associated with comparable or improved short-term morbidity and mortality when compared to laparoscopic colectomy, including shorter length of stay. In this study, we sought to understand oncologic advantages for robotic as compared to laparoscopic colectomy in colon cancer. We analyzed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) participant user files for all elective colon cancer cases from 1/2016 through 12/2021 performed with minimally invasive surgical techniques (robotic and laparoscopic). We calculated relative risks (RR) through Poisson Regression models and treatment effect coefficients by propensity-score match, after adjusting for age, BMI, ASA scores, mechanical and antibiotic bowel preparation, emergency surgery, race, gender, smoking status, hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Analyzed outcomes included rate of chemotherapy initiation within 90 days of surgery, number of harvested lymph nodes, any occurrence of intraoperative or postoperative blood transfusion, and the need for ostomy. During the study period, 44,745 patients underwent minimally invasive colectomy for colon cancer; 39,614 in the laparoscopic cohort and 7,831 in the robotic cohort. After adjusting for confounders, robotic colectomy was associated with a significant increase in the likelihood for initating chemotherapy within 90 days (RR 1.98, 95% CI {1.86-2.10}, p < 0.001). The robotic-treated patients had a significantly more lymph nodes harvested, a significant decrease in the need for intraperative or postoperative blood transfusion (RR 0.64, 95% CI {0.57-0.71}, p < 0.001) and a significant reduction in the need for ostomy formation (RR 0.26, 95% CI {0.22-0.30}, p < 0.001). As a retrospective and non-randomized study, residual bias and confouding variables are likely to exist. The study is also subject to coding incompleteness and inaccuracies. We also do not have additional context on potential factors that might influence time to chemotherapy. In addition, there is no information on surgeon or hospital volume, which can be associated with outcomes. Robotic colectomy for colon cancer was associated with significant improvement in the rate of chemotherapy initiation within 90 days, a significant reduction in need for blood transfusions, and a lower likelihood of receiving an ostomy when compared to laparoscopic colectomy procedures. The data reveal substantial short-term gains in oncologic outcomes for colon cancer performed with robotic techniques., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Despite widespread adoption of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in rectal cancer resection, there remains limited knowledge of its clinical advantage over laparoscopic (Lap) and open (OS) surgery. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of RAS with Lap and OS for rectal cancer., Methods: We identified all patients aged ≥ 18 years who had elective rectal cancer resection requiring temporary or permanent stoma formation from 1/2013 to 12/2020 from the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database. We completed multivariable logistic regression analysis accounting for hospital clustering to compare ileostomy formation between surgical approaches. Next, we built inverse probability of treatment-weighted analyses to compare outcomes for ileostomy and permanent colostomy separately. Outcomes included postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, discharge to home, reoperation, and 30-day readmission., Results: A total of 12,787 patients (OS: 5599 [43.8%]; Lap: 2872 [22.5%]; RAS: 4316 [33.7%]) underwent elective rectal cancer resection. Compared to OS, patients who had Lap (OR 1.29, p < 0.001) or RAS (OR 1.53, p < 0.001) were more likely to have an ileostomy rather than permanent colostomy. In those with ileostomy, RAS was associated with fewer ileus (OR 0.71, p < 0.001) and less bleeding (OR 0.50, p < 0.001) compared to Lap. In addition, RAS was associated with lower anastomotic leak (OR 0.25, p < 0.001), less bleeding (OR 0.51, p < 0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (OR 0.70, p = 0.022) when compared to OS. In those patients who had permanent colostomy formation, RAS was associated with fewer ileus (OR 0.72, p < 0.001), less bleeding (OR 0.78, p = 0.021), lower 30-day reoperation (OR 0.49, p < 0.001), and higher discharge to home (OR 1.26, p = 0.013) than Lap, as well as OS., Conclusion: Rectal cancer patients treated with RAS were more likely to have an ileostomy rather than a permanent colostomy and more enhanced recovery compared to Lap and OS., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Robotic cholecystectomy is being increasingly used for patients with acute gallbladder disease who present to the emergency department, but clinical evidence is limited. We aimed to compare the outcomes of emergent laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomies in a large real-world database., Methods: Patients who received emergent laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomies from 2020 to 2022 were identified from the Intuitive Custom Hospital Analytics database, based on deidentified extraction of electronic health record data from US hospitals. Conversion to open or subtotal cholecystectomy and complications were defined using ICD10 and/or CPT codes. Multivariate logistic regression with inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to compare clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic approach after balancing covariates. Cost analysis was performed with activity-based costing and adjustment for inflation., Results: Of 26,786 laparoscopic and 3,151 robotic emergent cholecystectomy patients being included, 64% were female, 60% were ≥45 years, and 24% were obese. Approximately 5.5% patients presented with pancreatitis, and 4% each presenting with sepsis and biliary obstruction. After IPTW, distributions of all baseline covariates were balanced. Robotic cholecystectomy decreased odds of conversion to open (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.93; p = 0.035), but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.60; p = 0.037). Surgical site infection, readmission, length of stay, hospital acquired conditions, bile duct injury or leak, and hospital mortality were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in hospital cost., Conclusion: Robotic cholecystectomy has reduced odds of conversion to open and comparable complications, but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute gallbladder diseases. Further work is required to assess the long-term implications of these differences., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence regarding the outcomes benefits of robotic approach, when compared to a laparoscopic approach, in colectomy remain limited., Objective: This study aimed to analyze the value of robotic approach compared to laparoscopic approach in minimally invasive colectomy., Design: Cohort study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP)., Setting: This study included data from the NSQIP from 1/2016 to 12/2021., Patient: Adult patients undergoing minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery., Intervention: Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy., Outcome Measures: Risk ratios for the incidence of medical and surgical morbidity and overall mortality., Results: Compared to laparoscopic, robotic colectomy was associated with a significant decrease in postoperative morbidity [RR 0.84 (95%CI 0.72-0.96), P < 0.001], a significant reduction in postoperative mortality [RR 0.83 (95%CI 0.79-0.90), P 0.010)], and in post operative ileus [RR: 0.80 (95%CI 0.75-0.84), P < 0.001]. Yet, robotic approach was associated with a significant increase in total operative time despite a significant decrease in total length of stay. No benefit was observed regarding anastomotic leak., Limitations: Observational nature of the study cannot exclude residual bias., Conclusions: In this prospective cohort from the NSQIP, robotic colectomy was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative ileus, unplanned conversion to open surgery, morbidity, and overall mortality when compared to laparoscopic colectomy., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)