» Articles » PMID: 37341877

Implementation of Totally Robotic Right Hemicolectomy: Lessons Learned from a Prospective Cohort

Overview
Journal J Robot Surg
Publisher Springer
Date 2023 Jun 21
PMID 37341877
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Robotics facilitates the realization of intra-corporeal anastomosis during right hemicolectomy and allows extracting the operative specimen through a C-section, offering potential benefits in terms of post-operative recovery and incidence of incisional hernia. Therefore, we progressively implemented robotic right hemicolectomy (robRHC) in our centre, and would like to report our initial experience with the technique. Consecutive patients who underwent robRHC within a single centre were prospectively included. Variables related to patients' demographics, surgical procedures, post-operative recovery and pathological outcomes were collected. Sixty patients underwent robRHC in our centre. Indications for robRHC were colon cancer in 58 patients (96.7%) and polyps not amenable to endoscopic resection in 2 patients (3.3%). Fifty-eight patients underwent robRHC with D2 lymphadenectomy and central vessel ligation (96.7%), and two patients (3.3%) had robRHC associated with another procedure. All patients had intra-corporeal anastomosis. The mean ± operative time was of 200.4 ± 114.9 min. Two conversions (3.3%) to open surgery were performed. The mean ± SD length of stay was of 5.4 ± 3.8 days. Seven patients (11.7%) experienced a post-operative complication with a Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 2. Two patients (3.5%) had an anastomotic leak. The mean ± SD number of harvested lymph nodes was of 22.4 ± 7.6. All patients had negative pathological margins (R0 resection). To conclude, robotic RHC is a safe procedure, which can be implemented with satisfying peri- and post-operative outcomes. The potential benefits of the technique remain to be demonstrated by randomized controlled trials.

Citing Articles

Comparison study of two anastomosis techniques in right hemicolectomy: a systematic review and pooling up analysis.

Zhang X, Tang R, Zhang C, Xia M, Shuai L, Tang H Int J Colorectal Dis. 2025; 40(1):50.

PMID: 39994012 PMC: 11850514. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-025-04835-8.


Robotic versus laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a systematic review of the evidence.

Meyer J, Meyer E, Meurette G, Liot E, Toso C, Ris F J Robot Surg. 2024; 18(1):116.

PMID: 38466445 PMC: 10927893. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01862-5.

References
1.
Kennedy R, Anne Francis E, Wharton R, Blazeby J, Quirke P, West N . Multicenter randomized controlled trial of conventional versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme: EnROL. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(17):1804-11. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.3694. View

2.
Jayne D, Guillou P, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith A . Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(21):3061-8. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.7758. View

3.
Deijen C, Vasmel J, de Lange-de Klerk E, Cuesta M, Coene P, Lange J . Ten-year outcomes of a randomised trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer. Surg Endosc. 2016; 31(6):2607-2615. PMC: 5443846. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5270-6. View

4.
Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop W, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Bonjer H . Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2005; 6(7):477-84. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(05)70221-7. View

5.
Lacy A, Garcia-Valdecasas J, Delgado S, Castells A, Taura P, Pique J . Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002; 359(9325):2224-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09290-5. View