Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Robotic Surgery
Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery 3/2023

06-11-2022 | Incision | Original Article

A propensity score matching study of totally robotic right hemicolectomy versus robot-assisted right hemicolectomy

Authors: Qianqian Jin, Dongju Long, Chao Liu, Yuhong Jiang, Weihan Zhou, Hongliang Yao, Kuijie Liu

Published in: Journal of Robotic Surgery | Issue 3/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

To compare and analyze the differences in safety, feasibility and short-term efficacy between robot-assisted right hemicolectomy (RARH) and totally robotic right hemicolectomy (TRRH). We collected the information of 184 patients who underwent right hemicolectomy in the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from July 2016 to December 2021. We matched 148 patients (74 with robot-assisted right hemicolectomy and 74 with totally robotic right hemicolectomy) to conduct a retrospective analysis of their clinical outcomes. The incision lengths were 5.14 ± 0.60 cm in the RARH group and 4.74 ± 0.55 cm in the TRRH (p < 0.001). The blood losses were 86.28 ± 52.57 mL in the RARH group and 69.19 ± 44.78 mL in the TRRH (p = 0.035). The operative times were 197.50 min (171.25–242.25) in the RARH group and 160.00 min (145.00–188.75) in the TRRH (p < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stays were 11.18 ± 4.32 days in the RARH group and 9.53 ± 4.42 days in the TRRH (p = 0.023). The NRS pain scores were 3.05 ± 0.23 in the RARH group and 2.96 ± 0.26 in the TRRH (p = 0.019). The abdominal drainage extraction times were 7.54 ± 1.44 days in the RARH group and 7.00 ± 1.25 days in the TRRH (p = 0.016). Postoperative complications in the RARH group are fewer than TRRH (p = 0.033). TRRH is safe and feasible. Compared with RARHs, the TRRHs resulted in shorter incision lengths, operative times, intraoperative blood losses, postoperative hospital stays, first flatus times, first liquid diet times, and drainage tube removal times, and they improved NRS pain scores and postoperative complication frequencies.
Literature
1.
Wang X (2019) The colorectal cancer epidemiology characteristics comparison and the analysis of prevention and control strategy. Chin J Colorectal Dis (Electronic Edition) 8(1):1–5
2.
3.
Addison P, Agnew JL, Martz J (2020) Robotic Colorectal Surgery. Surg Clin North Am 100(2):337–360PubMedCrossRef
4.
5.
Liu H et al (2021) The art of robotic colonic resection: a review of progress in the past 5 years. Updat Surg 73(3):1037–1048CrossRef
6.
7.
Solaini L et al (2018) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 32(3):1104–1110PubMedCrossRef
8.
Rondelli F et al (2015) Is robot-assisted laparoscopic right colectomy more effective than the conventional laparoscopic procedure? A meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. Int J Surg 18:75–82PubMedCrossRef
9.
Gerbaud F et al (2014) Experience With Transitioning From Laparoscopic to Robotic Right Colectomy. JSLS J Soc Laparoendoscopic Surg 23:4
10.
11.
Larach JT et al (2022) Robotic complete mesocolic excision versus conventional robotic right colectomy for right-sided colon cancer: a comparative study of perioperative outcomes. Surg Endosc 36(3):2113–2120PubMedCrossRef
12.
Wanqing Chen KS, Zheng R, Zeng H, Zhang S, Xia C, Yang Z, Li H, Zou X, He J (2018) Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2014. Chin J Cancer Res 30:1–12PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
14.
Ahmed K et al (2009) Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments. Int J Surg 7(5):431–440PubMedCrossRef
15.
Park JS et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg 99(9):1219–1226PubMedCrossRef
16.
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 A 23(5):414–417PubMedCrossRef
17.
Formisano G et al (2016) Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy: technique and outcomes. Updates Surg 68(1):63–69PubMedCrossRef
18.
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):1512–1521PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Polat F et al (2019) The oncological and surgical safety of robot-assisted surgery in colorectal cancer: outcomes of a longitudinal prospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 33(11):3644–3655PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
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):497–502PubMedCrossRef
22.
Scotton G et al (2018) From laparoscopic right colectomy with extracorporeal anastomosis to robot-assisted intracorporeal anastomosis to totally robotic right colectomy for cancer: the evolution of robotic multiquadrant abdominal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 28(10):1216–1222PubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
Widmar M et al (2020) Intracorporeal anastomoses in minimally invasive right colectomies are associated with fewer incisional hernias and shorter length of stay. Dis Colon Rectum 63(5):685–692PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
van Oostendorp S et al (2017) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 31(1):64–77PubMedCrossRef
26.
Trastulli S et al (2013) Robotic right colectomy for cancer with intracorporeal anastomosis: short-term outcomes from a single institution. Int J Colorectal Dis 28(6):807–814PubMedCrossRef
27.
Lujan HJ et al (2015) Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis: experience with 52 consecutive cases. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 25(2):117–122PubMedCrossRef
28.
29.
Ioannidis A et al (2018) Short-term outcomes in patients with colon cancer treated with robotic right colectomy. J BUON 23(2):317–321 (Official journal of the Balkan Union of Oncology)PubMed
30.
Feroci F et al (2013) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis after laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 28(9):1177–1186PubMedCrossRef
31.
Spinoglio G 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(12):3580–3586PubMedCrossRef
32.
Bollo J et al (2020) Randomized clinical trial of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right colectomy (IEA trial). Br J Surg 107(4):364–372PubMedCrossRef
33.
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):2596–2600PubMedCrossRef
34.
Lee KH et al (2013) Short- and long-term outcomes of intracorporeal versus extracorporeal ileocolic anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 27(6):1986–1990PubMedCrossRef
35.
Milone M et al (2015) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis. Results from a multicentre comparative study on 512 right-sided colorectal cancers. Surg Endosc 29(8):2314–2320PubMedCrossRef
36.
Cirocchi R et al (2013) Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis during laparoscopic right hemicolectomy - systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Oncol 22(1):1–13PubMedCrossRef
37.
Lujan HJ et al (2018) Advantages of robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 28(1):36–41PubMedCrossRef
38.
Bergamaschi R et al (2008) Standardized laparoscopic intracorporeal right colectomy for cancer: short-term outcome in 111 unselected patients. Dis Colon Rectum 51(9):1350–1355PubMedCrossRef
39.
Khorgami Z et al (2019) The cost of robotics: an analysis of the added costs of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery using the national inpatient sample. Surg Endosc 33(7):2217–2221PubMedCrossRef
40.
Merola G et al (2020) Is robotic right colectomy economically sustainable? a multicentre retrospective comparative study and cost analysis. Surg Endosc 34(9):4041–4047PubMedCrossRef
41.
Bertani E et al (2013) Robotic colectomy: is it necessary? Minerva Chir 68(5):445–456PubMed
42.
Wormer BA et al (2014) The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start. Surg Endosc 28(3):767–776PubMedCrossRef
43.
Villamere J et al (2015) Utilization and outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic general and bariatric surgical procedures at academic medical centers. Surg Endosc 29(7):1729–1736PubMedCrossRef
44.
Simianu VV et al (2020) Cost-effectiveness evaluation of laparoscopic versus robotic minimally invasive colectomy. Ann Surg 272(2):334–341PubMedCrossRef
45.
Choi HK, Law WL, Poon JT (2010) The optimal number of lymph nodes examined in stage II colorectal cancer and its impact of on outcomes. BMC Cancer 10:267PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
Chang GJ et al (2007) Lymph node evaluation and survival after curative resection of colon cancer: systematic review. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 99(6):433–441PubMedCrossRef
47.
Benson AB et al (2018) NCCN Guidelines Insights: Colon Cancer, Version 2.2018. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 16(4):359–369CrossRef
48.
O’Boyle S, Stephenson K (2017) More is better: Lymph node harvesting in colorectal cancer. Am J Surg 213(5):926–930PubMedCrossRef
49.
D’Annibale A et al (2012) Robotic right colon resection: evaluation of first 50 consecutive cases for malignant disease. Indian J Surg Oncol 3(4):279–285PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
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):1898–1902PubMedCrossRef
51.
Trinh BB et al (2014) Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery. JSLS 18:4
52.
Widmar M et al (2017) Lymph node yield in right colectomy for cancer: a comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Colorectal Dis 19(10):888–894PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
de’Angelis N et al (2016) Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy for colon cancer: analysis of the initial simultaneous learning curve of a surgical fellow. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 26(11):882–892PubMedCrossRef
54.
Flynn J et al (2021) The learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery compared to laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctol Great Br Irel 23(11):2806–2820
Metadata
Title
A propensity score matching study of totally robotic right hemicolectomy versus robot-assisted right hemicolectomy
Authors
Qianqian Jin
Dongju Long
Chao Liu
Yuhong Jiang
Weihan Zhou
Hongliang Yao
Kuijie Liu
Publication date
06-11-2022
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
Journal of Robotic Surgery / Issue 3/2023
Print ISSN: 1863-2483
Electronic ISSN: 1863-2491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01472-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2023

Journal of Robotic Surgery 3/2023 Go to the issue

Research

Safe implementation of robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis

Original Article

Robotic-assisted spine surgery allows for increased pedicle screw sizes while still improving safety as indicated by elevated triggered electromyographic thresholds

Research

Simple and reliable predictive factor for early recovery of urinary continence after non-nerve-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Original Article

Analysis of fixed and variable operating room (or) time point efficiency in partial nephrectomies: open versus robotic-assisted

Review

Robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of cesarean scar defect: a systematic review of clinical evidence

Research

Seniority of the assistant surgeon and perioperative outcomes in robotic-assisted proctectomy for rectal cancer