Search

Background and Objectives: Robotic surgery has been widely adopted in general surgery worldwide but access to this technology is still limited to a few hospitals. With the recent introduction of new robotic platforms, several studies reported the feasibility of different surgical procedures. The aim of this systematic review is to highlight the current clinical practice with the new robotic platforms in general surgery. Materials and Methods: A grey literature search was performed on the Internet to identify the available robotic systems. A PRISMA compliant systematic review was conducted for all English articles up to 10 February 2023 searching the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Clinical outcomes, training process, operating surgeon background, cost-analysis, and specific registries were evaluated. Results: A total of 103 studies were included for qualitative synthesis after the full-text screening. Of the fifteen robotic platforms identified, only seven were adopted in a clinical environment. Out of 4053 patients, 2819 were operated on with a new robotic device. Hepatopancreatobiliary surgery specialty performed the majority of procedures, and the most performed procedure was cholecystectomy. Globally, 109 emergency surgeries were reported. Concerning the training process, only 45 papers reported the background of the operating surgeon, and only 28 papers described the training process on the surgical platform. Only one cost-analysis compared a new robot to the existing reference. Two manufacturers promoted a specific registry to collect clinical outcomes. Conclusions: This systematic review highlights the feasibility of most surgical procedures in general surgery using the new robotic platforms. Adoption of these new devices in general surgery is constantly growing with the extension of regulatory approvals. Standardization of the training process and the assessment of skills' transferability is still lacking. Further studies are required to better understand the real clinical and economical benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The given document is a response to a comment on the "Early outcomes from the Minimally Invasive Right Colectomy Anastomosis study (MIRCAST)." The authors acknowledge the relevance of the comment and state that the topics raised are being explored in the MIRCAST study. The study aims to evaluate the impact of lymph node yield and the use of robotic surgery on oncological outcomes. The authors mention that all participating centers used enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, but some aspects of compliance could not be controlled. The authors hope that future publications will address the questions raised in the comment. Additionally, the document includes a list of names and affiliations of medical professionals who participated in the MIRCAST study, highlighting the international collaboration in this research. [Extracted from the article]

While total mesorectal excision is the gold standard for rectal cancer, the optimal surgical approach to achieve adequate oncological outcomes remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the histopathological outcomes of robotic (R-RR), transanal (Ta-RR), laparoscopic (L-RR), and open (O-RR) resections for rectal cancer. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were screened from inception to June 2024. Of the 4186 articles screened, 27 RCTs were selected. Pairwise comparisons and Bayesian network meta-analyses applying random effects models were performed. The 27 RCTs included a total of 8696 patients. Bayesian pairwise meta-analysis revealed significantly lower odds of non-complete mesorectal excision with Ta-RR (Odds Ratio, OR, 0.60; 95%CI, 0.33, 0.92; P =.02; I2:11.7 %) and R-RR (OR, 0.68; 95%CI, 0.46, 0.94; P =.02; I2:41.7 %) compared with laparoscopy. Moreover, lower odds of positive CRMs were observed in the Ta-RR group than in the L-RR group (OR, 0.36; 95%CI, 0.13, 0.91; P =.02; I2:43.9 %). The R-RR was associated with more lymph nodes harvested compared with L-RR (Mean Difference, MD, 1.24; 95%CI, 0.10, 2.52; P =.03; I2:77.3 %). Conversely, Ta-RR was associated with a significantly lower number of lymph nodes harvested compared with all other approaches. SUCRA plots revealed that Ta-RR had the highest probability of being the best approach to achieve a complete mesorectal excision and negative CRM, followed by R-RR, which ranked the best in lymph nodes retrieved. When comparing the effectiveness of the available surgical approaches for rectal cancer resection, Ta-RR and R-RR are associated with better histopathological outcomes than L-RR. • Laparoscopy was linked to higher rates of non-complete mesorectal excision compared with robotic and transanal surgery. • Robotic surgery yielded a greater number of retrieved lymph nodes compared with both transanal and laparoscopic surgery. • Robotic and transanal surgery yielded the highest probability of best oncological outcomes compared with laparoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: CME is a radical resection for colon cancer, but the procedure is technically demanding with significant variation in its practice. A standardised approach to the optimal technique and training is, therefore, desirable to minimise technical hazards and facilitate safe dissemination. The aim is to develop an expert consensus on the optimal technique for Complete Mesocolic Excision (CME) for right-sided and transverse colon cancer to guide safe implementation and training pathways.Methods: Guidance was developed following a modified Delphi process to draw consensus from 55 international experts in CME and surgical education representing 18 countries. Domain topics were formulated and subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of CME practice. A three-round Delphi voting on 25 statements based on the specific questions and 70% agreement was considered as consensus.Results: Twenty-three recommendations for CME procedure were agreed on, describing the technique and optimal training pathway. CME is recommended as the standard of care resection for locally advanced colon cancer. The essential components are central vascular ligation, exposure of the superior mesenteric vein and excision of an intact mesocolon. Key anatomical landmarks to perform a safe CME dissection include identification of the ileocolic pedicle, superior mesenteric vein and root of the mesocolon. A proficiency-based multimodal training curriculum for CME was proposed including a formal proctorship programme.Conclusions: Consensus on standardisation of technique and training framework for complete mesocolic excision was agreed upon by a panel of experts to guide current practice and provide a quality control framework for future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of transverse colon cancer is still controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the advantages of a totally laparoscopic technique comparing open versus laparoscopic/robotic approach. Three hundred and eighty-eight patients with transverse colon cancer, treated with a segmental colon resection, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, tumor stage, operative time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and recovery outcomes were recorded. Recurrences and death were also evaluated during the follow-up. No differences were found between conventional and minimally invasive surgery, both for oncological long-term outcomes (recurrence rate p = 0.28; mortality p = 0.62) and postoperative complications (overall rate p = 0.43; anemia p = 0.78; nausea p = 0.68; infections p = 0.91; bleeding p = 0.62; anastomotic leak p = 0.55; ileus p = 0.75). Nevertheless, recovery outcomes showed statistically significant differences in favor of minimally invasive surgery in terms of time to first flatus (p = 0.001), tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.017), time to first mobilization (p = 0.001) and hospital stay (p = 0.004). Compared with laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.005) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001). Finally, anastomosis evaluation confirmed the superiority of intracorporeal approach which showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.003) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001); moreover, we recorded a statistical difference in favor of intracorporeal approach for infection rate (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.001) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03). Minimally invasive approach is safe and effective as the conventional open surgery, with comparable oncological results but not negligible advantages in terms of recovery outcomes. Moreover, we demonstrated that robotic approach may be considered a valid option and an intracorporeal anastomosis should always be preferred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anastomotic leakage is one of the most feared complications of rectal resections. The role of drains in limiting this occurrence or facilitating its early recognition is still poorly defined. We aimed to study whether the presence of prophylactic pelvic drains affects the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing rectal surgery with extraperitoneal anastomosis. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing drained with undrained anastomoses following rectal surgery. We evaluated possible differences on the relative incidences of anastomotic leakage, pelvic collection or sepsis, bowel obstruction, reoperation rate, and overall mortality. A meta-analysis of relevant studies was performed with RevMan 5.3. Results: A total of 760 patients from 4 randomized controlled studies were considered eligible for data extraction. The use of drains did not show any advantage in terms of anastomotic leak (OR 0.99), pelvic complications (OR 0.87), reintervention (OR 0.84) and mortality. Contrariwise, the incidence of postoperative bowel obstruction was significantly higher in the drained group (OR 1.61). Conclusions: The routine utilization of pelvic drains does not confer any significant advantage in the prevention of postoperative complications after rectal surgery with extraperitoneal anastomosis. Moreover, a higher risk of postoperative bowel obstruction can be of concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]