Robotic Colorectal Surgery: Analysis of the First Three Years of Activity in a Hospital of the Portuguese National Health Service
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.20204Keywords:
Colorectal Surgery, Intraoperative Complications, Postoperative Complications, Robotic Surgical ProceduresAbstract
Introduction: Minimally invasive surgery has been increasingly accepted and used in colorectal surgery. Several studies report that robotic surgery may provide advantages over ‘conventional’ laparoscopy, namely in rectal surgery. This paper provides an account of the first three years of experience with robotic surgery in the Unidade de Patologia Colorretal of the Unidade Local de Saúde S. José.
Methods: Variables were defined to develop a prospective database containing the data of consecutive patients operated by three internationally certified colorectal surgeons using the Da Vinci Xi® system between November 2019 and October 2022. The database was converted into an anonymized version that was used for this study. The analysis was performed on the data of all the patients operated during this period.
Results: Eighty patients were included, 47 male, median age 70 years, and median BMI 26 kg/m2 . ASA score was II in 53.7% and III in 41.3% of pa- tients. Of the total, 97.6% had malignant or potentially malignant disease. Operative procedures consisted of 34 colectomies proximal to the splenic flexure, 20 distal colectomies and 26 anterior resections. There were two synchronous resections of liver metastases. Early perioperative outcomes and histopathological results were analyzed: median operative time: 300 minutes; median estimated blood loss: 50 mL; conversion rate: 2.5%; median days until first bowel movement: three days; median length of hospital stay: six days; complication rate: 20%, of which 5% were Clavien III and 0% Clavien IV/V; anastomotic leak rate: 2.5%; 30-day readmission rate: 1.3%; median lymph nodes resected: 20; R0 resection rate: 100%; mesorectal integrity rate: 95,8% complete/near complete.
Conclusion: Our results show that the adoption of robotic colorectal surgery in our center was safe and resulted in similar or improved short-term clinical outcomes and histopathological results when compared to those described in the literature.
Downloads
References
Blackmore AE, Wong MT, Tang CL. Evolution of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery: an evidence based review. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:4926-33.
Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, et al. Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1718-26.
Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F, Quirke P, Guillou P, Jayne DG, et al. Long-term follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100:75-82.
Gazala MA, Wexner SD. Re-appraisal and consideration of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterol Rep. 2017;5:1-10. 5. Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH. Telerobotic- assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:1689-96.
Tschann P, Szeverinski P, Weigl MP, Rauch S, Lechner D, Adler S, et al. Short-and long-term outcome of laparoscopic-versus robotic-assisted right colectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2022;11:238.
Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, et al. Effect of Robotic-Assisted vs Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery on Risk of Conversion to Open Laparotomy Among Patients Undergoing Resection for Rectal Cancer: The ROLARR Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017;318:1569-80.
Sheng S, Zhao T, Wang X. Comparison of robot-assisted surgery, laparoscopic-assisted surgery, and open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis. Medicine. 2018;97:e11817.
Phan K, Kahlaee HR, Kim SH, Toh JW. Laparoscopic vs. robotic rectal cancer surgery and the effect on conversion rates: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched studies. Tech Coloproctol. 2019;23:221-30.
Gómez Ruiz M, Lainez Escribano M, Cagigas Fernández C, Cristobal Poch L, Santarrufina Martínez S. Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer. Ann Gastroenterol Surg. 2020;4:646-51.
Ramji KM, Cleghorn MC, Josse JM, MacNeill A, O’Brien C, Urbach D, et al. Comparison of clinical and economic outcomes between robotic, laparoscopic, and open rectal cancer surgery: early experience at a tertiary care center. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:1337-43.
Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW, et al. Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST Study Group trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246:655-62.
Jayne DG, Thorpe HC, Copeland J, Quirke P, Brown JM, Guillou PJ. Five-year follow-up of the Medical Research Council CLASICC trial of laparoscopically assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1638-45.
Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY, Kim HJ, Ryuk JP. Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1219-26.
Creavin B, Balasubramanian I, Common M, McCarrick C, el Masry S, Carton E, et al. Intracorporeal vs extracorporeal anastomosis following neoplastic right hemicolectomy resection: a systematic review and meta- analysis of randomized control trials. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2021;36:645- 56.
Martínez-López E, Martínez-Pérez A, Navarro-Martínez S, Sebastián- Tomás JC, de’Angelis N, García-Granero E. Real-time fluorescence image-guided gastrointestinal oncologic surgery: towards a new era. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2021;13:1029-42.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Acta Médica Portuguesa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All the articles published in the AMP are open access and comply with the requirements of funding agencies or academic institutions. The AMP is governed by the terms of the Creative Commons ‘Attribution – Non-Commercial Use - (CC-BY-NC)’ license, regarding the use by third parties.
It is the author’s responsibility to obtain approval for the reproduction of figures, tables, etc. from other publications.
Upon acceptance of an article for publication, the authors will be asked to complete the ICMJE “Copyright Liability and Copyright Sharing Statement “(http://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com/info/AMP-NormasPublicacao.pdf) and the “Declaration of Potential Conflicts of Interest” (http:// www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest). An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author to acknowledge receipt of the manuscript.
After publication, the authors are authorised to make their articles available in repositories of their institutions of origin, as long as they always mention where they were published and according to the Creative Commons license.
