Robotic Colorectal Surgery Research Articles

Robotic colorectal surgery in Australia: evolution over a decade.

Despite reports of increasing adoption of robotics in colorectal surgery worldwide, data regarding its uptake in Australasia are lacking. This study examines the trends of robotic colorectal surgery in Australia during the last 10 years. Data from patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery with the da Vinci robotic platform between 2010 and 2019 were obtained. Overall, numbers of specific colorectal procedures across Australia were obtained from the Medicare Benefit Schedule data over the same period. Pearson's correlation analysis was used to determine the statistical trends of overall and specific robotic colorectal procedures over time. A total of 6110 robotic general surgery procedures were performed across Australia during the study period. Of these, 3522 (57.6%) were robotic colorectal procedures. An increasing trend of overall robotic colorectal procedures was seen over 10 years (Pearson's coefficient of 0.875; P= 0.001). While this applied to both the public and private sectors, 90.7% of the procedures were undertaken in the private sector. Restorative rectal resections, rectopexies, and right hemicolectomies accounted for 82.6% of the robotic colorectal procedures performed during this period with an increasing trend seen over time for each intervention. Moreover, a robotic approach was utilized in 12.5%, 41.0% and 9.0% of all restorative rectal resections, rectopexies and right hemicolectomies undertaken in Australia during 2019, respectively. Robotic colorectal surgery has increased dramatically in Australia over the last 10 years, especially in the private sector. Penetration of robotic colorectal surgery in the public healthcare system will require focussed cost-benefit evaluations and governmental investment.

Technical essential aspects in robotic colorectal surgery: mastering the Da Vinci Si and Xi platforms.

laparoscopy surgery has many proven clinical advantages over conventional surgery and more recently, robotic surgery has been the emerging platform in the minimally invasive era. In the colorectal field, although overcoming limitations of standard laparoscopy, robotic surgery still faces challenging situations even by the most experienced colorectal surgeons. This study reports essentials technical aspects and comparison between Da Vincis Si and Xi platforms aiming to master and maximize efficiency whenever performing robotic colorectal surgery. this study overviews the most structured concepts and practical applications in robotic colorectal surgery in both Si and Xi Da Vinci platforms. Possible pitfalls are emphasized and step-wise approach is described from port placement and docking process to surgical technique. We also present data collected from a prospectively maintained database. our early experience includes forty-four patients following a standardized total robotic left-colon and rectal resection. Guided information and practical applications for a safe and efficient robotic colorectal surgery are described. We also present illustrations and describe technical aspects of a standardized procedure. performing robotic colorectal surgery is feasible and safe in experienced surgeons hands. Although the Da Vinci Xi platform demonstrates greater versatility in a more user-friendly design with technological advances, the correct mastery of technology by the surgical team is an essential condition for its fully robotic execution in a single docking approach.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgeries

In recent times, there has been a logarithmic rise in the use of robotics in colorectal surgery. The latest systematic review comparing intraoperative and postoperative prognostic factors influencing outcomes between laparoscopic and robotic surgery is lacking. The meta-analysis was done using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and searching Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science published from January 2014 to May 2020. All statistical analysis and data synthesis were conducted using STATA/IC version 14.2 WINDOWS 64 bit (Stata Corp LP College Station, TX, USA). Sixty-four studies published in last 5 years from January 2014 to May 2020 consisting of 74,281 participants comparing laparoscopic versus robot-assisted colorectal surgery were analyzed. Robotic-assisted surgery reported lower conversion to open surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.0001) with a narrow (95% confidence interval: 0.35–0.62). We did not find any significant difference between the two approaches for anastomotic leak (P = 0.599). The mortality rate was significantly higher in laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.002). Postoperative ileus was comparable significantly in robotic surgery (P < 0.577). Length of hospital stay (HS) was similar in both groups (P = 0.058), with lower trends in robotic surgery. Harvested lymph nodes and intraoperative blood loss were similar in both groups. Descriptive cost analysis favored laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgeries. Intraoperative time was significantly longer for robot-assisted colorectal surgery (P = 0.001). Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery is oncologically safe with less requirement of conversion of open, reduced mortality rate, while anastomotic leak, blood loss, HS, postoperative ileus, and harvested nodes were comparable with laparoscopically assisted colorectal surgery.

Emergency robotic colorectal surgery – the new frontier; a case series study

Introduction: Robotic colorectal surgery is rapidly evolving as it addresses many of the technical and ergonomic limitations of laparoscopic surgery. The precision of robotic surgery results in smaller incisions, shortened hospital stay, much quicker return to normal, thus significantly improving patient experience. However, the application of robotic surgery in the emergency setting remains very limited due to logistical and organisational challenges and reluctance in adoption by clinical teams.

Short-term clinical outcomes of a European training programme for robotic colorectal surgery

BackgroundDespite there being a considerable amount of published studies on robotic colorectal surgery (RCS) over the last few years, there is a lack of evidence regarding RCS training pathways. This study examines the short-term clinical outcomes of an international RCS training programme (the European Academy of Robotic Colorectal Surgery—EARCS).MethodsConsecutive cases from 26 European colorectal units who conducted RCS between 2014 and 2018 were included in this study. The baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes of cases performed by EARCS delegates during training were analysed and compared with cases performed by EARCS graduates and proctors.ResultsData from 1130 RCS procedures were collected and classified into three cohort groups (323 training, 626 graduates and 181 proctors). The training cases conversion rate was 2.2% and R1 resection rate was 1.5%. The three groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics with the exception of malignant cases and rectal resections performed. With the exception of operative time, blood loss and hospital stay (training vs. graduate vs. proctor: operative time 302, 265, 255 min, p < 0.001; blood loss 50, 50, 30 ml, p < 0.001; hospital stay 7, 6, 6 days, p = 0.003), all remaining short-term outcomes (conversion, 30-day reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, clinical anastomotic leak, complications, R1 resection and lymph node yield) were comparable between the three groups.ConclusionsColorectal surgeons learning how to perform RCS under the EARCS-structured training pathway can safely achieve short-term clinical outcomes comparable to their trainers and overcome the learning process in a way that minimises patient harm.

Evaluating Non-operative Robotic Skills in Colorectal Surgical Training

BackgroundRobotic-assisted surgery has become a common platform for performing colorectal procedures. Educators must determine how best to teach and train residents to use the technology safely. There is a paucity of literature on how non-operative skills are being taught and integrated into colorectal training. Herein we describe the implementation and assessment of a pilot simulation-based Robotic Colorectal Surgery Non-Technical Skills curriculum. Materials and methodsSince 2017 six colon and rectal surgery residents participated in two scenarios: pelvic bleeding and CO2 embolism. The scenarios were administered in a simulated operating room twice during the academic year (fall and spring), and audio-video recorded. In addition to self-assessment, videos were evaluated by faculty utilizing the validated Interpersonal and Cognitive Assessment for Robotic Surgery system. To understand the role of scenario difficulty with respect to perceived cognitive workload and performance residents completed a NASA-Task Load Index assessment form. ResultsBetween the fall and spring sessions residents significantly improved in intraoperative leadership skills for both the CO2 embolism and bleeding scenarios, and decision-making and situational awareness for the embolism case. Assessment between resident (self) and expert (faculty) did not correlate (P < 0.05) for either scenario during the fall session. A correlation for both scenarios was appreciated following the spring session revealing resident non-technical skills improved over time. Other than for physical demand, NASA-Task Load Index scores were similar for both scenarios. ConclusionsWe were able to successfully develop and implement a pilot Robotic Colorectal Surgery Non-Technical Skills curriculum in a risk-free simulated environment. Non-technical skill curriculums should be considered for both training and assessment in robotic surgery.

Robotic colorectal cancer surgery in China: a nationwide retrospective observational study.

Robotic colorectal cancer surgery is widely accepted and applied. However, there is still no objective and comprehensive assessment on the data of nationwide multicenter series. A total of 28 medical centers in Mainland China participated in this nationwide retrospective observational study. From the first case performed in each center to the last until December 2017, patients with robotic resection for primary tumor and pathologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma were consecutively enrolled. Clinical, pathological and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. A total of 5389 eligible patients were finally enrolled in this study, composing 72.2% of the total robotic colorectal surgery volume of Mainland China in the same period. For resections of one bowel segment of primary tumor, the postoperative mortality rate was 0.08% (4/5063 cases), and the postoperative complication rate (Clavien-Dindo grade II or higher) was 8.6% (434/5063 cases). For multiple resections, the postoperative mortality rate was 0.6% (2/326 cases), and the postoperative complication rate was 16.3% (53/326 cases). Out of 2956 patients receiving sphincter-preserving surgery in only primary resection, 130 (4.4%) patients had anastomotic leakage. Traditional low anterior resection (tumor at middle rectum) (OR 2.384, P < 0.001), traditional low anterior resection (tumor at low rectum) (OR 1.968, P = 0.017) and intersphincteric resection (OR 5.468, P = 0.006) were significant independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage. Female gender (OR 0.557, P = 0.005), age ≥ 60years (OR 0.684, P = 0.040), and preventive stoma (OR 0.496, P = 0.043) were significant independent protective factors. Body mass index, preoperative chemotherapy/radiotherapy, tumor size, and TNM stage did not independently affect the occurrence of anastomotic leakage. Robotic colorectal cancer surgery was safe and reliable and might have advantages in patients at high risk of anastomotic leakage.

The robotic colorectal experience: an outcomes and learning curve analysis of 502 patients.

This study aimed to present our experience with robotic colorectal surgery since its establishment at our institution in 2009. By examining the outcomes of over 500 patients, our experience provides a basis for assessing the introduction of a robotic platform in a colorectal practice. Specific measures investigated include intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes for all operations using the robotic platform. In addition, for our most commonly performed operations we wished to analyse the learning curve to improve operative proficiency. This is the largest single-surgeon robotic database analysed to date. A prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery by a single surgeon at the George Washington University Hospital was retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data and perioperative outcomes were assessed. Additionally, an operating time learning curve analysis was performed. Inclusion criteria identified 502 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery between October 2009 and December 2018. The most common indications for surgery were diverticulitis (22.9%), colon adenocarcinoma (22.1%) and rectal adenocarcinoma (19.5%). The most common operations were anterior/low anterior resection (33.9%), right hemicolectomy/ileocaecectomy (24.9%) and left hemicolectomy/sigmoidectomy (21.9%). The rate of conversion to open surgery was 4.8%. The most common postoperative complications were wound infection (5.0%), anastomotic leakage (4.0%) and abscess formation (2.8%). The operating time learning curve plateaued at 55-65 cases for anterior and low anterior resection and 35-45 cases for left hemicolectomy and sigmoidectomy. A clear learning curve was not seen in right hemicolectomy. Robotic-assisted surgery can be performed in a diverse colorectal practice with low rates of conversion and postoperative complications. Plateau performance was achieved after 65 anterior/low anterior resections and 45 left and sigmoid colectomies.

Effective implementation and adaptation of structured robotic colorectal programme in a busy tertiary unit

BackgroundSafety and feasibility of robotic colorectal surgery has been reported as increasing over the last decade. However safe implementation and adaptation of such a programme with comparable morbidities and acceptable oncological outcomes remains a challenge in a busy tertiary unit. We present our experience of implementation and adaptation of a structured robotic colorectal programme in a high-volume center in the United Kingdom.MethodsTwo colorectal surgeons underwent a structured robotic colorectal training programme consisting of time on simulation console, dry and wet laboratory courses, case observation, and initial mentoring. Data were collected on consecutive robotic colorectal cancer resections over a period of 12 months and compared with colorectal cancer resections data of the same surgeons’ record prior to the adaptation of the new technique. Patient demographics including age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist score (ASA), Clavien–Dindo grading, previous abdominal surgeries, and BMI were included. Short-term outcomes including conversion to open, length of stay, return to theatre, 30- and 90-days mortality, blood loss, and post-operative analgesia were recorded. Tumour site, TNM staging, diverting stoma, neo-adjuvant therapy, total mesorectal excision (TME) grading and positive resection margins (R1) were compared. p values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered statistically significant.ResultsNinety colorectal cancer resections were performed with curative intent from June 2018 to June 2020. Thirty robotic colorectal cancer resections (RCcR) were performed after adaption of programme and were compared with 60 non-robotic colorectal cancer resections (N-RCcR) prior to implementation of technique. There was no conversion in the RCcR group; however, in N-RCcR group, five had open resection from start and the rest had laparoscopic surgery. In laparoscopic group, there were six (10.9%) conversions to open (two adhesions, three multi-visceral involvements, one intra-operative bleed). Male-to-female ratio was 20:09 in RCcR group and 33:20 in N-RCcR groups. No significant differences in gender (p = 0.5), median age (p = 0.47), BMI (p = 0.64) and ASA scores (p = 0.72) were present in either groups. Patient characteristics between the two groups were comparable aside from an increased proportion of rectal and sigmoid cancers in RCcR group. Mean operating time, and returns to theaters were comparable in both groups. Complications were fewer in RCcR group as compared to N-RCcR (16.6% vs 25%). RCcR group patients have reduced length of stay (5 days vs 7 days) but this is not statistically significant. Estimated blood loss and conversion to open surgery was significantly lesser in the robotic group (p < 0.01). The oncological outcomes from surgery including TNM, resection margin status, lymph node yield and circumferential resection margin (for rectal cancers) were all comparable. There was no 30-day mortality in either group.ConclusionImplementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery is safe and effective in a busy tertiary center through a structured training programme with comparable short-term survival and oncological outcomes during learning curve.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer.

Minimally invasive surgery has demonstrated many benefits in general surgery, particularly in colon and rectal procedures. On the other hand, it has some limitations that must be taken into account, especially technical drawback. Robotic surgery has incorporated many improvements to overcome this disadvantage, such as 3D visualization, articulating instruments assisting complex and precise movements. As a result, robotic colorectal surgery shows less intraoperative blood loss, shorter time to oral tolerance and initial flatus (particularly associated with “Enhanced Recovery After Surgery” protocol), less conversion rate to open surgery, shortened hospital stay, and longer distal margins compared to laparoscopic and open surgery. This approach also shows a shorter learning curve. Some studies suggest that it could decrease perioperatively or 30 days after the intervention's mortality, raise overall survival, reduce wound infection, and improve functional results, while others show no significant difference. However, it lengthens surgical time. Otherwise, the studies included do not show statistically significant changes in the number of resected lymph nodes and anastomotic leaks. Economic costs remain one of the major concerns, although to date there are no large‐scale studies that have evaluated this aspect from a global point of view. Robotic surgery represents a qualitative leap in surgical instruments and, although there is no strong evidence in favor of the use of robotic surgery over laparoscopic or open surgery, there is enough evidence to support its use in colorectal surgery, with potential advantages for patients.

Disparities in Robotic Colorectal Surgery: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Study

Jochum, Sarah B. MD; King-Mullins, Erin M. MD, FACS; Matthew Ritz, Ethan MS; Govekar, Henry R. MD, FACS; Bhama, Anuradha R. MD, FACS; John Saclarides, Theodore MD, FACS; Michelle Hayden, Dana MD, FACS Author Information

Obese patients and robotic colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundObesity is a major health problem, demonstrated to double the risk of colorectal cancer. The benefits of robotic colorectal surgery in obese patients remain largely unknown. This meta‐analysis evaluated the clinical and pathological outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery in obese and non‐obese patients.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and Midwives Information and Resources Service (MIDIRS) databases were searched on 1 August 2018 with no language restriction. Meta‐analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Obese patients (BMI 30 kg/m2 or above) undergoing robotic colorectal cancer resections were compared with non‐obese patients. Included outcome measures were: operative outcomes (duration of surgery, conversion to laparotomy, blood loss), postoperative complications, hospital length of stay and pathological outcomes (number of retrieved lymph nodes, positive circumferential resection margins and length of distal margin in rectal surgery).ResultsA total of 131 full‐text articles were reviewed, of which 12 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. There were 3166 non‐obese and 1420 obese patients. A longer duration of surgery was documented in obese compared with non‐obese patients (weighted mean difference −21·99 (95 per cent c.i. −31·52 to −12·46) min; P < 0·001). Obese patients had a higher rate of conversion to laparotomy than non‐obese patients (odds ratio 1·99, 95 per cent c.i. 1·54 to 2·56; P < 0·001). Blood loss, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and pathological outcomes were not significantly different in obese and non‐obese patients.ConclusionRobotic surgery in obese patients results in a significantly longer duration of surgery and higher conversion rates than in non‐obese patients. Further studies should focus on better stratification of the obese population with colorectal disease as candidates for robotic procedures.

European Society of Coloproctology Colorectal Robotic Surgery Training for the Trainers Course - the first pilot experience.

Currently, there is no established colorectal specific robotic surgery Train the Trainer (TTT) course. The aim was to develop and evaluate such a course which can then be further developed to be incorporated within the planned European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP)/European School of Coloproctology (ESC) robotic colorectal surgery training curriculum. After identifying the need for such a course within a training programme, the course was developed by a subgroup of the ESCP/ESC. A scoping literature review was performed and the content and materials for the course were developed by a team consisting of two gastroenterologists with a combined experience of 30years of facilitating TTT courses, a robotic surgeon and proctor with laparoscopic TTT faculty experience and experienced robotic and laparoscopic colorectal trainers. The course was evaluated by asking delegates to complete pre- and post-course questionnaires. There were eight delegates on the course from across Europe. Delegates increased their knowledge of each of the course learning objectives and identified learning points in order to change practice. The feedback from the delegates of the course was positive across several areas and all felt that they had achieved their own personal objectives in attending the course. This pilot robotic colorectal TTT course has achieved its aim and demonstrated many positives. There is a need for such a course and the evaluation processes have provided opportunities for reflection, which will allow the development/tailoring of future robotic colorectal TTT courses to help develop robotic training further.

Learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery.

With the rapid adoption of robotics in colorectal surgery, there has been growing interest in the pace at which surgeons gain competency, as it may aid in self-assessment or credentialing. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the learning curve of an expert laparoscopic colorectal surgeon who performed a variety of colorectal procedures robotically. This is a retrospective review of a prospective database of 111 subsequent colorectal procedures performed by a single colorectal surgeon. The cumulative summation technique (CUSUM) was used to construct a learning curve for robotic proficiency by analyzing total operative and console times. Postoperative outcomes including length of stay, 30-day complications, and 30-day readmission rates were evaluated. Chi-square and one-way ANOVA (including Kruskal-Wallis) tests were used to evaluate categorical and continuous variables. Our patient cohort had a mean age of 62.4, mean BMI of 26.9, and mean ASA score of 2.41. There were two conversions to open surgery. The CUSUM graph for console time indicated an initial decrease at case 13 and another decrease at case 83, generating 3 distinct performance phases: learning (n = 13), competence (n = 70), and mastery (n = 28). An interphase comparison revealed no significant differences in age, gender, BMI, ASA score, types of procedures, or indications for surgery between the three phases. Over the course of the study, both mean surgeon console time and median length of stay decreased significantly (p = 0.00017 and p = 0.016, respectively). Although statistically insignificant, there was a downward trend in total operative time and postoperative complication rates. Learning curves for robotic colorectal surgery are commonly divided into three performance phases. Our findings contribute to the construction of a reliable learning curve for the transition of colorectal surgeons to robotics. Furthermore, they may help guide the stepwise training and credentialing of new robotic surgeons.

Whither robotic colorectal surgery?

Whither robotic colorectal surgery?

A prospective study of real-time identification of line of transection in robotic colorectal cancer surgery by ICG

Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer in women and the third most common cancer in men in the world. Surgical resection is the gold standard treatment and minimally invasive surgery remains the standard of care. Anastomotic leakage is one of the most feared postoperative complications in colorectal surgery. Although several factors have been identified as possible causes of anastomotic leakage (i.e., surgical techniques, patient risk factors, suture material or devices), the complete pathogenesis is still unclear. The reported leak rate ranges from 1 to 30% and increases as the anastomosis is more distal. To date the most widely used methods to assess tissue perfusion includes the surgeon intraoperative visual judgement based on the colour; bleeding edges of resected margins; pulsation and temperature, thereby resulting in either excess or insufficient colonic resection. Earlier studies in colorectal surgery have suggested that assessment of tissue perfusion by the clinical judgment of the operating surgeon underestimated the risk of anastomotic leakage. Indocyanine green (ICG) is a intravenous dye which has shown promise in identifying the bowel vascularity real time. Earlier studies on colorectal cancer have shown that ICG based detection of bowel vascularity is technically possible and has reduced the anastomotic leak rates in 16.7% of patients. We conducted a prospective study on patients with ICG guided bowel perfusion during robotic colorectal cancer surgery. The method is technically easy, reproducible and safe. This technique has changed the intraoperative decision in 88% of patients. Larger studies are needed before this can become the standard of care.

Cirugía Robótica Colorectal, en un Hospital de Comunidad Cerrada. Experiencia Inicial

Introducción: La introducción del sistema Da Vinci, ha revolucionado el campo de la cirugía mínima invasiva en el cual el cirujano tiene control de la cámara 3D y los instrumentos son de gran destreza y confort ergonómico, acortando la curva de aprendizaje quirúrgica.Objetivo: Describir nuestra experiencia inicial de cirugía robótica colorectal en un hospital de comunidad cerrada de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires.Materiales y Método: Estudio retrospectivo descriptivo sobre una base prospectiva de cirugías colorectales robóticas realizadas por el mismo equipo quirúrgico desde mayo de 2016 a abril de 2019.Resultados: Se operaron 41 pacientes. Trece de ellos fueron colectomías derechas, 17 colectomías izquierdas y 11 cirugías de recto. El tiempo quirúrgico promedio fue de 170 minutos (90-330), la estadía hospitalaria de 4 días (3-30), la tasa de conversión de 7,31% (3/41 pacientes) y la tasa de dehiscencia anastomótica del 9,75% (4/41 pacientes). Morbilidad global del 19.5% (8/41 pacientes).Conclusión: Hemos repasado los resultados iniciales de nuestra experiencia en cirugía robótica colorectal en un número reducido de casos, pero suficiente para evaluar la seguridad y reproducibilidad del método al comienzo de una curva de aprendizaje.

The Use of Enhanced Technologies in Robotic Surgery and Its Impact on Outcomes in Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review.

The main advantage of the robotic approach is the surgical precision that the technology offers. It is particularly useful in rectal cancer as this is a technically challenging procedure. The technological advantage of the robot leads to better postoperative outcomes. Apart from the 3D vision and endowrist instrumentation in comparison to laparoscopy, the options of using fluorescence imaging, endowrist stapler, and table motion have revolutionised the way of performing an anterior resection. Thus, the true benefit of these advances will be the quality of the surgery, which leads to better postoperative outcomes. This article focuses on the current status of applications of new modalities and technology development in robotic rectal surgery. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and cochrane database. The studies included were considered based on the following (1) articles written in English, (2) full text is available, (3) whether the topic is related to the use of novel technologies during robotic rectal surgery, and (4) sample: adult patients and malignant rectal disease. The primary end point was to analyse the current use of technological advances in robotic rectal surgery. Only a few studies are currently available on the use of these different technologies in robotic colorectal surgery. Many of these reports describe promising results, although with short-term outcomes. The use of technologies in robotic colorectal surgery is safe and feasible and can be used together to improve short-term outcomes. Intraoperative fluorescence angiography has demonstrated to reduce the rate of anastomotic leak, whereas the robotic stapler and the table motion simplify anatomic resection.

Robotic rectal cancer surgery with single side-docking technique: experience of a tertiary care university hospital.

Robotics in colorectal surgery has been in the market for 17years now, and continuously gaining popularity; three-dimensional steady views, great range of motion, tremor filtration, augmented dexterity, and articulated instruments, help surgeons to overcome some of the difficulties of laparoscopy and enables them to reach very low into the pelvis. The objective of our study is to present our experience with robotic, total and partial mesorectal excision and evaluate the efficiency of robotic surgery in the group of patients with rectal tumours. This is a prospective, observational study. The procedures were undertaken in a Teaching hospital in United Kingdom, for 4years period (11/2014-02/2019). The SI Davinci system was used. Technical and oncological outcomes were assessed. The analysis included 85 patients (49 male) who underwent rectal resections. 80 patients (94%) had cancer. Davinci total mesorectal excision (61) and partial mesorectal excision (24) with single side-docking technique. We reviewed the efficiency of the robotic platform in patients with rectal tumours. Median age was 65 (37-89) years and BMI was 27kg/m2 (19-37.7). 61 patients had tumours within 10cm from anal verge. There were no deaths and no intraoperative complications. One patient was converted to open, due to system failure. Five patients returned to theatre and two had radiologic drain of a pelvic collection. Median length of hospital stay was 6 days and total operative time was 285min; after 46 cases, the operative time reduced statistically significant. We removed 35 lymph nodes on average (6-119). R0 resection achieved in 83 patients (97.6%). 75 patients had their sphincters preserved (88.2%). The limitation is that it is a single-institution observational study. Robotic rectal cancer surgery is safe and effective with high rate of sphincter preservation. Our data for short-term outcomes are favourable against previously published data.

Current status and consideration of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer in China

Since its inception, the surgical robot system with technical advantages has quickly become a new trend in surgery, and has been widely used at home and abroad. A large number of retrospective studies and a small number of randomized controlled studies have shown that compared with traditional laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery presented some improvements, such as lower conversion rate, less urinary and sexual dysfunction, and less intraoperative blood loss, though more convincing evidence is needed. Robotic colorectal cancer surgery started late in China, but developed rapidly. Not only the number of surgeries has increased rapidly, but also many new surgeries have been innovated. Meanwhile, many problems emerged, such as lack of unified technical specifications, and excessive dependence on imported surgical robot equipment. Through high-quality clinical researches and big data analyses, the formulation of standardization, the establishment of training system, and the combination of medicine, research and production, robotic surgery will continue to lead the development trend of surgery in the new era.