Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 589–600 | Cite as

Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: case-matched comparison of short-term surgical and functional outcomes between the da Vinci Xi and Si

  • Luca MorelliEmail author
  • Gregorio Di Franco
  • Simone Guadagni
  • Leonardo Rossi
  • Matteo Palmeri
  • Niccolò Furbetta
  • Desirée Gianardi
  • Matteo Bianchini
  • Giovanni Caprili
  • Cristiano D’Isidoro
  • Franco Mosca
  • Andrea Moglia
  • Alfred Cuschieri
Article

Abstract

Background

Robotic rectal resection with da Vinci Si has some technical limitations, which could be overcome by the new da Vinci Xi. We compare short-term surgical and functional outcomes following robotic rectal resection with total mesorectal excision for cancer, with the da Vinci Xi (Xi-RobTME group) and the da Vinci Si (Si-RobTME group).

Methods

The first consecutive 30 Xi-RobTME were compared with a Si-RobTME control group of 30 patients, selected using a one-to-one case-matched methodology from our prospectively collected Institutional database, comprising all cases performed between April 2010 and September 2016 by a single surgeon. Perioperative outcomes were compared. The impact of minimally invasive TME on autonomic function and quality of life was analyzed with specific questionnaires.

Results

The docking and overall operative time were shorter in the Xi-RobTME group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05 respectively). The mean differences of overall operative time and docking time were −33.8 min (95% CI −5.1 to −64.5) and −6 min (95% CI −4.1 to −7.9), respectively. A fully-robotic approach with complete splenic flexure mobilization was used in 30/30 (100%) of the Xi-RobTME cases and in 7/30 (23%) of the Si-RobTME group (p < 0.001). The hybrid approach in males and patients with BMI > 25 kg/m2 was necessary in ten patients (45 vs. 0%, p < 0.001) and in six patients (37 vs. 0%, p < 0.05), in the Si-RobTME and Xi-RobTME groups, respectively. There were no differences in conversion rate, mean hospital stay, pathological data, and in functional outcomes between the two groups before and at 1 year after surgery.

Conclusion

The technical advantages offered by the da Vinci Xi seem to be mainly associated with a shorter docking and operative time and with superior ability to perform a fully-robotic approach. Clinical and functional outcomes seem not to be improved, with the introduction of the new Xi platform.

Keywords

Rectal cancer Robotic rectal anterior resection TME Robotic surgery Functional results 

Notes

Funding

The authors declare that no funding support was received for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Luca Morelli, Gregorio Di Franco, Simone Guadagni, Leonardo Rossi, Matteo Palmeri, Niccolò Furbetta, Desirèe Gianardi, Mattero Bianchini, Giovanni Caprili, Cristiano D’Isidoro, Franco Mosca, Andra Moglia, and Alfred Cuschieri have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH, Delaney CP (2002) Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum 45(12):1689–1696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim CW, Kim CH, Baik SH (2014) Outcomes of robotic-assisted colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic and open surgery: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Surg 18(4):816–830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ozben V, Cengiz TB, Atasoy D, Bayraktar O, Aghayeva A, Erguner I, Baca B, Hamzaoglu I, Karahasanoglu T (2016) Is da Vinci Xi better than da Vinci Si in robotic rectal cancer surgery? Comparison of the 2 generations of da Vinci systems. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26(5):417–423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morelli L, Guadagni S, Di Franco G, Palmeri M, Caprili G, D’Isidoro C, Cobuccio L, Marciano E, Di Candio G, Mosca F (2017) Use of the new da vinci Xi® during robotic rectal resection for cancer: a pilot matched-case comparison with the da vinci Si®. Int J Med Robot. doi: 10.1002/rcs.1728 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morelli L, Guadagni S, Di Franco G, Palmeri M, Caprili G, D’Isidoro C, Pisano R, Moglia A, Ferrari V, Di Candio G, Mosca F (2015) Use of the new Da Vinci Xi during robotic rectal resection for cancer: technical considerations and early experience. Int J Colorectal Dis 30(9):1281–1283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hagen ME, Jung MK, Ris F, Fakhro J, Buchs NC, Buehler L, Morel P (2016) Early clinical experience with the da Vinci Xi Surgical System in general surgery. J Robot Surg. doi: 10.1007/s11701-016-0662-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Protyniak B, Jorden J, Farmer R (2017) Multiquadrant robotic colorectal surgery: the da Vinci Xi vs Si comparison. J Robot Surg. doi: 10.1007/s11701-017-0689-x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aalbers AG, Doeksen A, Van Berge Henegouwen MI, Bemelman WA (2010) Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open approach in colorectal surgery: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 12(4):287–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A (1997) The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 49:822–830CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abrams P, Avery K, Gardener N, Donovan J (2006) The international consultation on incontinence modular questionnaire: www.iciq.met. J Urol 175:1063–1066CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morelli L, Di Franco G, Guadagni S, Palmeri M, Gianardi D, Bianchini M, Moglia A, Ferrari V, Caprili G, D’Isidoro C, Melfi F, Di Candio F, Mosca F (2016) Full robotic colorectal resections for cancer combined with other major surgical procedures: early experience with the da Vinci Xi. Surg Innov 401(7):999–1006Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hellan M, Anderson C, Ellenhorn JD, Paz B, Pigazzi A (2007) Short-term outcomes after robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 14(11):3168–3173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pigazzi A, Ellenhorn JD, Ballantyne GH, Paz IB (2006) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 20(10):1521–1525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luca F, Valvo M, Ghezzi TL, Zuccaro M, Cenciarelli S, Trovato C, Sonzogni A, Biffi R (2013) Impact of robotic surgery on sexual and urinary functions after fully robotic nerve-sparing total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Ann Surg 257(4):672–678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D’Annibale A, Morpurgo E, Fiscon V, Trevisan P, Sovernigo G, Orsini C, Guidolin D (2004) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery for treatment of colorectal diseases. Dis Colon Rectum 47(12):2162–2168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morelli L, Guadagni S, Di Franco G, Palmeri M, Caprili G, D’Isidoro C, Pisano R, Marciano E, Moglia A, Di Candio G, Mosca F (2016) Short-term clinical outcomes of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection and low rectal resection with double-stapling technique for cancer: a case-matched study. Int J Colorectal Dis 31(3):737–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morelli L, Ceccarelli C, Di Franco G, Guadagni S, Palmeri M, Caprili G, D’Isidoro C, Marciano E, Pollina L, Campani D, Massimetti G, Di Candio G, Mosca F (2016) Sexual and urinary functions after robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 31(4):913–915CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Delacroix SE Jr, Winters JC (2010) Voiding dysfunction after pelvic colorectal surgery. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 23(2):119–127CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Young M, Pigazzi A (2014) Total mesorectal excision: open, laparoscopic or robotic. Recent Results Cancer Res 203:47–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bianchi PP, Ceriani C, Locatelli A, Spinoglio G, Zampino MG, Sonzogni A, Crosta C, Andreoni B (2010) Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of oncological safety and short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 24(11):2888–2894CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baek JH, Pastor C, Pigazzi A (2011) Robotic and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc 25:521–525CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    D’Annibale A, Pernazza G, Monsellato I, Pende V, Lucandri G, Mazzocchi P, Alfano G (2013) Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Surg Endosc 27(6):1887–1895CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Panteleimonitis Sofoklis, Ahmed Jamil, Ramachandra Meghana, Farooq Muhammad, Harper Mick, Parvaiz Amjad (2017) Urogenital function in robotic vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a comparative study. Int J Colorectal Dis 32(2):241–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bianchi PP, Pigazzi A, Choi GS (2014) Clinical Robotic Surgery Association Fifth Worldwide Congress, Washington DC, 3-5 October 2013: robotic Colorectal Surgery. Ecancer Med Sci 13(8):385Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pucci MJ, Beekley AC (2013) Use of robotics in colon and rectal surgery. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 26(1):39–46CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Staderini F, Foppa C, Minuzzo A, Badii B, Qirici E, Trallori G, Mallardi B, Lami G, Macrì G, Bonanomi A, Bagnoli S, Perigli G, Cianchi F (2016) Robotic rectal surgery: state of the art. World J Gastrointest Oncol 8(11):757–771CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Morelli
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  • Gregorio Di Franco
    • 1
  • Simone Guadagni
    • 1
  • Leonardo Rossi
    • 1
  • Matteo Palmeri
    • 1
  • Niccolò Furbetta
    • 1
  • Desirée Gianardi
    • 1
  • Matteo Bianchini
    • 1
  • Giovanni Caprili
    • 1
  • Cristiano D’Isidoro
    • 1
  • Franco Mosca
    • 2
  • Andrea Moglia
    • 2
  • Alfred Cuschieri
    • 3
  1. 1.General Surgery UnitUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.EndoCAS (Center for Computer Assisted Surgery)University of PisaPisaItaly
  3. 3.Institute for Medical Science and TechnologyUniversity of DundeeDundeeScotland, UK
  4. 4.General Surgery UnitUniversity of PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations