Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Safe implementation of robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis

  • Research
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The robotic platform can overcome technical difficulties associated with laparoscopic colon surgery. Transitioning from laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) to robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) is associated with a learning phase. This study aimed at determining the length of this learning phase and its associated morbidity. We retrospectively analyzed all laparoscopic right colectomies with ECA (n = 38) and robotic right colectomies with ICA (n = 67) for (pre)malignant lesions performed by a single surgeon between January 2014 and December 2020. CUSUM-plot analysis of total procedure time was used for learning curve determination of robotic colectomies. Non-parametric tests were used for statistical analysis. Compared to laparoscopy, the learning phase robotic right colectomies (n = 35) had longer procedure times (p < 0.001) but no differences in anastomotic leakage rate, length of stay or 30-day morbidity. Conversion rate was reduced from 16 to 3 percent in the robotic group. This study provides evidence that robotic right colectomy with ICA can be safely implemented without increasing morbidity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H et al (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66545-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Green BL, Marshall HC, Collinson F et al (2013) Long-term follow-up of the medical research council CLASICC trial of conventional versus laparoscopically assisted resection in colorectal cancer. Brit J Surg 100:75–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8945

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop W et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(05)70221-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fleshman J, Sargent DJ, Green E et al (2007) Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer is not inferior to open surgery based on 5-year data from the COST study group trial. Trans Meet Am Surg Assoc 125:312–321. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e318155a762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Waters PS, Cheung FP, Peacock O et al (2020) Successful patient-oriented surgical outcomes in robotic vs laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer – a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 22:488–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Emile SH, Elfeki H, Shalaby M et al (2019) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in minimally invasive right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 23:1023–1035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02079-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Raimondi P, Marchegiani F, Cieri M et al (2018) Is right colectomy a complete learning procedure for a robotic surgical program? J Robotic Surg 12:147–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0711-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 240:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wohl H (1977) The Cusum plot: its utility in the analysis of clinical data. New Engl J Med 296:1044–1045. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm197705052961806

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Leersum NJV, Snijders HS, Henneman D et al (2013) The Dutch surgical colorectal audit. European J Surg Oncol Ejso 39:1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2013.05.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Al-Taher M, Okamoto N, Mutter D et al (2022) International survey among surgeons on laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: the gap between guidelines and reality. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09044-w

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Spinoglio G, Bianchi PP, Marano A et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision for the treatment of colon cancer: perioperative outcomes and 5-year survival in a consecutive series of 202 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 25:3580–3586. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6752-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Siddiqi N, Stefan S, Jootun R et al (2021) Robotic complete mesocolic excision (CME) is a safe and feasible option for right colonic cancers: short and midterm results from a single-centre experience. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08194-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Pernar LIM, Robertson FC, Tavakkoli A et al (2017) An appraisal of the learning curve in robotic general surgery. Surg Endosc 31:4583–4596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5520-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yamaguchi T, Kinugasa Y, Shiomi A et al (2015) Learning curve for robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: use of the cumulative sum method. Surg Endosc 29:1679–1685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3855-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Parascandola SA, Horsey ML, Hota S et al (2021) The robotic colorectal experience: an outcomes and learning curve analysis of 502 patients. Colorectal Dis 23:226–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tang B, Liang Y, Shi J, Li T (2022) Learning curve of robotic right hemicolectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 26:2215–2217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-022-05343-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Parisi A, Scrucca L, Desiderio J et al (2017) Robotic right hemicolectomy: analysis of 108 consecutive procedures and multidimensional assessment of the learning curve. Surg Oncol 26:28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2016.12.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wong SW, Crowe P (2022) Factors affecting the learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery. J Robotic Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01373-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Saleh NB, Voron T, De’Angelis N, et al (2020) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: results from the CLIMHET study group. Tech Coloproctol 24:585–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02202-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ruiz MG, Bianchi PP, Chaudhri S et al (2020) Minimally invasive right colectomy anastomosis study (MIRCAST): protocol for an observational cohort study of surgical complications using four surgical techniques for anastomosis in patients with a right colon tumor. Bmc Surg 20:151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00803-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bianchi PP, Salaj A, Giuliani G et al (2021) Feasibility of robotic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision and intracorporeal anastomosis: short-term outcomes of 161 consecutive patients. Updat Surg 73:1065–1072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-01001-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gerbaud F, Valverde A, Danoussou D et al (2019) Experience with transitioning from laparoscopic to robotic right colectomy. JSLS J Soc Laparoendosc Surg. https://doi.org/10.4293/jsls.2019.00044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Blumberg D (2019) Robotic colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis is feasible with no operative conversions during the learning curve for an experienced laparoscopic surgeon developing a robotics program. J Robotic Surg 13:545–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0895-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bhama AR, Wafa AM, Ferraro J et al (2016) Comparison of risk factors for unplanned conversion from laparoscopic and robotic to open colorectal surgery using the Michigan surgical quality collaborative (MSQC) database. J Gastrointest Surg 20:1223–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-016-3090-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study did not benefit from any external funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. E. Van Eetvelde and S. Violon contributed equally to this study.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Laarbeeklaan 101, 1090, Brussels, Belgium

    E. Van Eetvelde, S. Violon, N. Poortmans, J. Stijns, M. Duinslaeger, M. Vanhoeij & D. Jacobs-Tulleneers-Thevissen

  2. Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Laarbeeklaan 103, 1090, Brussels, Belgium

    R. Buyl

Authors
  1. E. Van Eetvelde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Violon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. Poortmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Stijns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Duinslaeger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Vanhoeij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R. Buyl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. D. Jacobs-Tulleneers-Thevissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: EVE and DJ-T-T; Methodology: EVE and RB; Formal analysis and investigation: SV and RB; Writing—original draft preparation: SV, NP and JS; Writing—review and editing: EVE, MV and MD; Supervision: DJ-T-T. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Van Eetvelde.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

E. Van Eetvelde performs proctoring and consulting activities for Intuitive Surgical, Inc., a private company, and received a research grant from the same company. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Clinical trial registration

A clinical trial registration is not applicable for this retrospective study.

Ethics approval

The study was evaluated and approved by the committee for medical ethics of the UZ Brussel and VUB (B.U.N. 143201837797).

Patient consent

Retrospective studies are exempted from obtaining written informed consent. Use of collected data was approved by the medical ethics committee of UZ Brussel and VUB.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Eetvelde, E., Violon, S., Poortmans, N. et al. Safe implementation of robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. J Robotic Surg 17, 1071–1076 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01514-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01514-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation