Robotic-Assisted vs. Standard Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 19,731 Patients

Robotic-assisted surgery is expected to have advantages over standard laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to November 10th, 2021, for both RCTs and observational studies comparing robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Forty-Two were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% for RG and 98.8% for LG (OR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.43; p = 0.05). Time to first flatus in the RG group was2.5 ± 1.4 days and was statistically significantly shorter than in LG group (2.9 ± 2.0 days; MD=-0.34; 95%CI: −0.65 to 0.03; p = 0.03). In the case of time to a liquid diet, solid diet and bowel movement, the analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Length of hospital stay in the RG vs LG group varied and amounted to 8.0 ± 5.3 vs 9.5 ± 10.0 days (MD = −2.01; 95%CI: −2.90 to −1.11; p < 0.001). Overall, 30-days complications in the RG and LG groups were 27.2% and 19.0% (OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.55; p = 0.53), respectively. In summary, robotic-assisted techniques provide several advantages over laparoscopic techniques in reducing operative time, significantly lowering conversion of the procedure to open surgery, shortening the duration of hospital stay, lowering the risk of urinary retention, improving survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate.

Review on Perioperative and Oncological Outcomes of Robotic Gastrectomy for Cancer

Background. Minimally invasive gastrectomy is currently considered a valid option to treat gastric cancer and is gaining increasing acceptance. Recent reports have suggested that the application of robots may confer some advantages over conventional laparoscopy, but the role of robotic surgery in clinical practice is still uncertain. We aimed to critically review the relevant evidence comparing robotic to standard laparoscopic surgery in performing radical gastrectomy. Methods. The Pubmed/Medline electronic databases were searched through February 2021. Paper conference and the English language was the only restriction applied to our search strategy. Results. According to the existing data, robotic gastrectomy seems to provide some benefits in terms of blood loss, rate of conversion, procedure-specific postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay. Robotic gastrectomy is also associated with a longer duration of surgery and a higher economic burden as compared to its laparoscopic counterpart. No significant differences have been disclosed in terms of long-term survivals, while the number of lymph nodes retrieved with robotic gastrectomy is generally higher than that of laparoscopy. Conclusions. The current literature suggests that robotic radical gastrectomy appears as competent as the conventional laparoscopic procedure and may provide some clinical advantages. However, due to the relative paucity of high-level evidence, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions.

Two-Arm Robotic-Assisted High Anterior Resection: a Cost-Effective Way to Perform Robotic Surgery

In the era where laparoscopic colorectal surgery is well established, robotic- assisted colorectal surgery is gaining increasing popularity and acceptability. Stable camera platform, superior 3D views, and articulating instruments help to overcome difficulties associated with standard laparoscopic surgery. However, a significant drawback of robotic surgery is the cost of the robotic system and relevant disposable equipment compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. This image series depicts a novel method to perform laparoscopic high anterior resection in a more cost-effective way.

Minimal Open Access Ileocolic Resection in Complicated Crohn’s Disease of the Terminal Ileum

The objective of this study was to evaluate the possibility to undertake an ileocolic resection in complex Crohn’s disease using a minimal open abdominal access using standard laparoscopic instruments. The incision was carried out over the previous McBurney scar, with a mean length of 6 cm. Seventy-two patients with complicated Crohn’s disease underwent IC resection in the considered period; 12 patients had a McBurney scar due to a previous appendectomy and represented the group of study. Feasibility and safety of the procedure were evaluated. Clinical data and outcome were compared with a control arm of 15 patients who had a standard laparoscopic IC resection, pooled out from our database among those who had a McBurney incision as service incision. Mean operative time and postoperative stay were significantly shorter in the study group. Blood loss and operative costs were also lower in the study group but did not reach statistical significance. Minimal open access ileocolic resection (MOAIR) through a small McBurney incision seems safe and feasible in complex Crohn’s disease. Some advantages over standard laparoscopic surgery could be found in surgical outcomes and costs.