Robotic colorectal surgery in the emergent diverticulitis setting: is it safe? A review of large national database

被引:10
|
作者
Curfman, Karleigh R. R. [1 ]
Jones, Ian F. F. [2 ]
Conner, Jeffrey R. R. [2 ]
Neighorn, Christopher C. C. [3 ]
Wilson, Ryan K. K. [3 ]
Rashidi, Laila [1 ]
机构
[1] MultiCare Hlth Network, Tacoma, WA 98405 USA
[2] Madigan Army Med Ctr, Tacoma, WA 98431 USA
[3] Intuit Surg, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
关键词
Robotic surgery; Diverticulitis; Colectomy; Emergency surgery;
D O I
10.1007/s00384-023-04436-3
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundAs robotic colorectal surgery continues to advance in conjunction with improved recovery protocols, we began implementing robotic surgery (RS) as an option for emergent diverticulitis surgery. Our hospital system utilizes the Da Vinci Xi system, and staff are required to undergo training, making emergent colorectal surgery a feasible option. However, it is essential to determine the safety with reproducibility of our experiences.MethodsA de-identified retrospective review was performed of Intuitive's national database which obtained data from 262 facilities from January 2018 through December 2021. This identified over 22,000 emergent colorectal surgeries. Of those, over 2500 were performed for diverticulitis in which 126 were RS, 446 laparoscopic surgery (LS), and 1952 open surgery (OS). Clinical outcome metrics including conversion rates, anastomotic leaks, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of stay, mortality, and readmissions were obtained. The cohort was defined by patients who were seen in the emergency department (ED) with diverticulitis and proceeded to have a sigmoid colectomy within 24 h of ED arrival.ResultsRS was associated with increased operating time (RS 262, LS 207, OS 182 min), but data has shown many benefits of emergent RS compared to OS. We identified significant decreases in ICU admission rates (OS 19.0%, RS 9.5%, p = 0.01) and anastomotic leak rates (OS 4.4%, RS 0.8%, p = 0.04), with borderline improvement in overall length of stay (OS 9.9, RS 8.9 days, p = 0.05). When compared with LS, RS showed many comparable results. However, RS witnessed a statistically significant improvement in anastomotic leak rates (LS 4.5%, RS 0.8%, p = 0.04). Importantly, there was a striking difference in conversion rates to OS. LS converted over 28.7% of cases to OS, whereas RS only converted 7.9%, p = 0.000005.ConclusionGiven these findings, RS is another MIS tool that could be a safe and feasible option for the acute management of emergent diverticulitis.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Safe adoption of robotic colorectal surgery using structured training: early Irish experience
    Mohammed Aradaib
    Paul Neary
    Adnan Hafeez
    Reza Kalbassi
    Amjad Parvaiz
    Diarmuid O’Riordain
    Journal of Robotic Surgery, 2019, 13 : 657 - 662
  • [42] Trans-oral robotic surgery: a safe and effective tool in head and neck surgery in an Australian rural setting
    Huang, Johnson
    Phillips, Nicholas
    Nightingale, James
    Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan, Srinivas
    Grigg, Roger
    Mahendran, Suresh
    ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2021, 91 (11) : 2345 - 2351
  • [43] Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for recurrent diverticulitis: experience in consecutive cases and a review of the literature
    Madhu Ragupathi
    Diego I. Ramos-Valadez
    Chirag B. Patel
    Eric M. Haas
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2011, 25 : 199 - 206
  • [44] Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review
    Anyomih, Theophilus T. K.
    Mehta, Alok
    Sackey, Dorcas
    Woo, Caroline A.
    Gyabaah, Emmanuel Y.
    Askari, Alan
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2024, 111
  • [45] Robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery in the emergency setting: a systematic review
    Anyomih, Theophilus T. K.
    Mehta, Alok
    Sackey, Dorcas
    Woo, Caroline A.
    Gyabaah, Emmanuel Y.
    Jabulo, Marigold
    Askari, Alan
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2024, 18 (01)
  • [46] Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for recurrent diverticulitis: experience in consecutive cases and a review of the literature
    Ragupathi, Madhu
    Ramos-Valadez, Diego I.
    Patel, Chirag B.
    Haas, Eric M.
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2011, 25 (01): : 199 - 206
  • [47] Fellowship training in robotic colorectal surgery within the current hospital setting: an achievable goal?
    Waters, Peadar S.
    Flynn, Julie
    Larach, Jose T.
    Fernando, Diharah
    Peacock, Oliver
    Foster, Jake D.
    Flood, Michael
    McCormick, Jacob J.
    Warrier, Satish K.
    Heriot, Alexander G.
    ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2021, 91 (11) : 2337 - 2344
  • [48] Preliminary results of robotic colorectal surgery at the National Cancer Institute, Cairo University
    Zaghloul, Ashraf Saad
    Mahmoud, Ahmed Mostafa
    JOURNAL OF THE EGYPTIAN NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2016, 28 (03) : 169 - 174
  • [49] ROBOTIC ASSISTED SURGERY FOR COLORECTAL PROCEDURES IN A GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLIGIC SETTING: ANALYSIS OF INITIAL OUTCOMES
    Feuer, G.
    Catherine, A.
    Lakhi, L.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2016, 26 : 913 - 913
  • [50] Disparities in Robotic Colorectal Surgery: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Study
    Jochum, Sarah B.
    King-Mullins, Erin M.
    Ritz, Ethan Matthew
    Govekar, Henry R.
    Bhama, Anuradha R.
    Saclarides, Theodore John
    Hayden, Dana Michelle
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2020, 231 (04) : E97 - E97