Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 3/2020

01-06-2020 | Hemicolectomy | Original Article

Totally robotic right hemicolectomy: a multicentre case-matched technical and peri-operative comparison of port placements and da Vinci models

Authors: Auerilius E. R. Hamilton, Mark D. Chatfield, Craig S. Johnson, Andrew R. L. Stevenson

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

The objective of the study was to review the technical and peri-operative outcomes using the da Vinci Xi (dVXi) and da Vinci Si (dVSi) models with suprapubic port placement (SPPP) or traditional port placements (TPP) during a robotic right hemicolectomy (RRHC). A retrospective review was undertaken of prospectively maintained databases of RRHC performed by two senior colorectal surgeons in the USA and Australia. Data were prospectively collected for patient demographics, intra-operative technical outcomes and peri-operative clinical outcomes. A cohort of 138 patients underwent RRHC between 2013 and 2017: 134 (97%) had intra-corporeal anastomoses (ICA), 50% for polyp disease and 38% for cancer. 16 (12%) patients had post-operative complications, 11 (8%) of whom had only one complication. There were five (4%) anaemias requiring transfusion; five (4%) anastomotic bleeds; one (1%) leucocytosis/sepsis; two (1%) paralytic ileus; and two (1%) delayed readmissions. There were no conversions to open operations, anastomotic leaks, 30-day readmissions, or 30-day mortalities. With dVSi compared to dVXi, median (IQR) total operation time (TOT) reduced by 16% [134 (118–169) min versus 113 (90–132), p < 0.001]. dVXi had shorter console times (CST) [75 (62–97) min vs 94 (77–108), p = 0.004]. SPPP seemed more advantageous than TPP with less CST [75 (60–98) min versus 85 (70–106), p = 0.02]; less TOT [110 (90–130) min versus 130 (108–167), p < 0.001]; and shorter LOS [2 (2–3) days versus 3(2–3), p = 0.03]. There are operative technical improvements and peri-operative patient clinical benefits during RRHC with ICA using either da Vinci models or port placement configurations. It appears more advantageous to use dVXi with SPPP configuration as our preferred setup for RHHC. Many gastrointestinal surgeons foresee potential benefits of robotic surgery (RS) over conventional laparoscopic surgery, hence evaluation of RS in both routine and more complex operations is needed (Kwak and Kim in J Robot Surg 5:65–72, 2011).
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kwak JM, Kim SH (2011) Current status of robotic colorectal surgery. J Robot Surg 5(1):65–72CrossRef Kwak JM, Kim SH (2011) Current status of robotic colorectal surgery. J Robot Surg 5(1):65–72CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Petrucciani N et al (2015) Robotic right colectomy: a worthwhile procedure? Results of a meta-analysis of trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy. J Minim Access Surg 11(1):22–28CrossRef Petrucciani N et al (2015) Robotic right colectomy: a worthwhile procedure? Results of a meta-analysis of trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy. J Minim Access Surg 11(1):22–28CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Parisi A et al (2017) Robotic right hemicolectomy: analysis of 108 consecutive procedures and multidimensional assessment of the learning curve. Surg Oncol 26(1):28–36CrossRef Parisi A et al (2017) Robotic right hemicolectomy: analysis of 108 consecutive procedures and multidimensional assessment of the learning curve. Surg Oncol 26(1):28–36CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Vignali A et al (2018) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomoses following laparoscopic right colectomy in obese patients: a case-matched study. Dig Surg 35(3):236–242CrossRef Vignali A et al (2018) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomoses following laparoscopic right colectomy in obese patients: a case-matched study. Dig Surg 35(3):236–242CrossRef
5.
go back to reference DeSouza A et al (2011) Incisional hernia, midline versus low transverse incision: what is the ideal incision for specimen extraction and hand-assisted laparoscopy? Surg Endosc 25(4):1031–1036CrossRef DeSouza A et al (2011) Incisional hernia, midline versus low transverse incision: what is the ideal incision for specimen extraction and hand-assisted laparoscopy? Surg Endosc 25(4):1031–1036CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Biondi A et al (2017) Totally laparoscopic right colectomy versus laparoscopically assisted right colectomy: a propensity score analysis. Surg Endosc 31(12):5275–5282CrossRef Biondi A et al (2017) Totally laparoscopic right colectomy versus laparoscopically assisted right colectomy: a propensity score analysis. Surg Endosc 31(12):5275–5282CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Senagore AJ et al (2004) Standardized approach to laparoscopic right colectomy: outcomes in 70 consecutive cases. J Am Coll Surg 199(5):675–679CrossRef Senagore AJ et al (2004) Standardized approach to laparoscopic right colectomy: outcomes in 70 consecutive cases. J Am Coll Surg 199(5):675–679CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Trastulli S et al (2015) Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis compared with laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis: a retrospective multicentre study. Surg Endosc 29(6):1512–1521CrossRef Trastulli S et al (2015) Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis compared with laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal and intracorporeal anastomosis: a retrospective multicentre study. Surg Endosc 29(6):1512–1521CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lujan HJ et al (2015) Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: experience with 52 consecutive cases. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 25(2):117–122CrossRef Lujan HJ et al (2015) Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: experience with 52 consecutive cases. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 25(2):117–122CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kang J et al (2016) A comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery in the treatment of right-sided colon cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26(6):497–502CrossRef Kang J et al (2016) A comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery in the treatment of right-sided colon cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 26(6):497–502CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Lee L et al (2012) High incidence of symptomatic incisional hernia after midline extraction in laparoscopic colon resection. Surg Endosc 26(11):3180–3185CrossRef Lee L et al (2012) High incidence of symptomatic incisional hernia after midline extraction in laparoscopic colon resection. Surg Endosc 26(11):3180–3185CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Singh R et al (2008) Does the extraction-site location in laparoscopic colorectal surgery have an impact on incisional hernia rates? Surg Endosc 22(12):2596–2600CrossRef Singh R et al (2008) Does the extraction-site location in laparoscopic colorectal surgery have an impact on incisional hernia rates? Surg Endosc 22(12):2596–2600CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Yeo SA et al (2017) Universal suprapubic approach for complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation using the da Vinci Xi(R) system: from cadaveric models to clinical cases. J Robot Surg 11(4):399–407CrossRef Yeo SA et al (2017) Universal suprapubic approach for complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation using the da Vinci Xi(R) system: from cadaveric models to clinical cases. J Robot Surg 11(4):399–407CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Al-Mazrou AM, Chiuzan C, Kiran RP (2017) The robotic approach significantly reduces length of stay after colectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 32(10):1415–1421CrossRef Al-Mazrou AM, Chiuzan C, Kiran RP (2017) The robotic approach significantly reduces length of stay after colectomy: a propensity score-matched analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 32(10):1415–1421CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Raimondi P et al (2018) Is right colectomy a complete learning procedure for a robotic surgical program? J Robot Surg 12(1):147–155CrossRef Raimondi P et al (2018) Is right colectomy a complete learning procedure for a robotic surgical program? J Robot Surg 12(1):147–155CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Park JS et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99(9):1219–1226CrossRef Park JS et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99(9):1219–1226CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Rawlings AL et al (2007) Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 21(10):1701–1708CrossRef Rawlings AL et al (2007) Robotic versus laparoscopic colectomy. Surg Endosc 21(10):1701–1708CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Morpurgo E et al (2013) Robotic-assisted intracorporeal anastomosis versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer: a case control study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 23(5):414–417CrossRef Morpurgo E et al (2013) Robotic-assisted intracorporeal anastomosis versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer: a case control study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 23(5):414–417CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Solaini L et al (2019) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a multicenter comparative analysis on short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 33(6):1898–1902CrossRef Solaini L et al (2019) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: a multicenter comparative analysis on short-term outcomes. Surg Endosc 33(6):1898–1902CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Morelli L et al (2019) Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon’s experience. Surg Endosc 33(6):1858–1869CrossRef Morelli L et al (2019) Structured cost analysis of robotic TME resection for rectal cancer: a comparison between the da Vinci Si and Xi in a single surgeon’s experience. Surg Endosc 33(6):1858–1869CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Totally robotic right hemicolectomy: a multicentre case-matched technical and peri-operative comparison of port placements and da Vinci models
Authors
Auerilius E. R. Hamilton
Mark D. Chatfield
Craig S. Johnson
Andrew R. L. Stevenson
Publication date
01-06-2020
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-01014-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Journal of Robotic Surgery 3/2020 Go to the issue