Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5193_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
65 Мб
Скачать
27 Left Hemicolectomy andTotal Colectomy
375
been associated with faster gastrointestinal recovery, shorter hospital stays, and lower postoperative hernia rates [33]. Although the long-term oncological benets remain a subject of ongoing research, these short-term advantages highlight the potential of robotic left hemicolectomy.
Total Colectomy
The technique for total abdominal colectomy incorporates the combination of right hemicolectomy into the previously described left hemicolectomy procedure. The process involves sequential division of branches originating from the superior mes­enteric artery, commencing with the ileocecal and right colic vessels, followed by the middle colic vessels. The IMA can be divided at its origin, or the superior rectal artery can be preserved depending on the nature of the operative indication.
Multiple quadrant access is usually necessary for this intricate procedure. For this purpose, the most commonly preferred approach for the patient cart is from the right or left side of the operating table. Rotation of the boom from right to left enables precise maneuvering of both sides of the abdomen (Fig.27.7a). The surgeon initially gains access to the right side, followed by access to the left side, which is achieved by turning the boom where the arms are anchored. Alternatively, the patient’s cart can be placed between the patient’s legs (Fig.27.7b), associated with a similar operative time [10]. A meticulous approach to docking is imperative, necessitating the accurate alignment of the patient cart and robotic arms. In total colectomy, the surgeon initiates the procedure by accessing the abdominal cavity using established techniques such as the Hasson technique, VisiPort™ Trocars (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA), or a Veress needle. This entry point allows a comprehensive examination of the abdominal anatomy, focusing on critical struc­tures such as the ileocolic artery and duodenum. Pre-docking intra-abdominal inspection is recommended to reveal anatomical details and avoid platform­positioning complications. Port placement, a critical consideration, involves strate­gic positioning of trocars to ensure effective access to all four quadrants of the abdomen. The typical conguration includes a 12mm robotic port in the right iliac fossa; 8mm robotic ports in the umbilical region, left iliac fossa, and right and left upper quadrants; and 5mm assistant ports in the right and left anks (Fig.27.8). Alternative port placements and patient cart positions can be considered based on the procedure and the surgeon’s preferences. As the authors of this chapter, we do not prefer a robotic approach for total colectomy. Consequently, we do not advocate a specic preferred patient cart position or port placement technique.
After port placement and docking, the operation starts with isolation and division of the ileocolic artery, with careful dissection to prevent harm to the duodenum and the right ureter. Mobilization of the right colon and hepatic exure ensues with medial-to-lateral and lateral-to-medial dissections performed sequentially to facili­tate smooth and safe mobilization. Next, the middle colic pedicle is tackled, skele­tonized, and ligated. Subsequently, the robotic system is docked using a multidocking approach to focus on the distal transverse colon and splenic exure. Final docking
376
a
K. Erozkan and E. Gorgun
Fig. 27.7 Room setup during total colectomy. (a) Lateral patient cart docking. (b) Docking between the legs
27 Left Hemicolectomy andTotal Colectomy
b
377
Fig. 27.7 (continued)
enables the dissection of the descending and rectosigmoid colon. The rectosigmoid junction is divided by using a robotic stapler mounted on arm #1 and docked in the right lower quadrant. The specimen is extracted through a Pfannenstiel incision, and the small bowel is transected. An anvil is placed at the proximal transection point. Ileorectal anastomosis is performed under direct visualization, using a circular sta­pler inserted through the anus. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is used to assess the integrity and level of anastomosis.
378
Fig. 27.8 Port placement for total colectomy
K. Erozkan and E. Gorgun
New-generation robotic platforms represent a notable advancement over previous- generation platforms and are associated with comparable operative times for total abdominal colectomy [10]. Utilizing the boom system and motion­activating table with newer-generation robotic platforms has proven advantageous in seamlessly performing anatomical dissection during total colectomy [32]. Additionally, robotic total colectomy offers a lower conversion rate and more num­ber of harvested lymph nodes than laparoscopic methods [32, 34]. It is worth noting that despite its advantages in terms of dissection, there are nancial considerations associated with robotic surgery. The total hospital charges are signicantly higher in robotic surgery than the laparoscopic approach [35].
Postoperative Care andComplication Management
Patients undergoing robotic colectomy typically recover seamlessly especially with the addition of enhanced recovery pathways [36]. Early ambulation is encouraged on the day of the surgery or next morning after surgery [7]. Minimizing postoperative
27 Left Hemicolectomy andTotal Colectomy
379
intravenous uids and advocating limited use of narcotics are highly recommended to reduce postoperative ileus [37]. Starting from the day of the surgery, all patients are placed on a liquid diet, progressing to regular diet as tolerated. Administration of IV antibiotics is limited only for perioperative use, and urinary catheter removal occurs on postoperative day number one to mitigate potential urinary tract infections and promote early mobilization [38]. Stoma care and education are prerequisites for patients undergoing ileostomy before discharge to their homes. Patients undergoing colorectal surgery benet from an enhanced recovery pathway, demonstrating a decreased length of hospital stay and cost without increased complications [39].
A systematic review comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted colectomies includes randomized and nonrandomized studies, indicating a lower morbidity in robotic surgery. However, it is noteworthy that extended operative times and increased costs may counterbalance this advantage compared to laparoscopic approach [40]. It is crucial to emphasize that these ndings are not reproduced in randomized con­trolled trials, as there are limited randomized controlled studies evaluating robotic colectomies. According to the ROLLAR Study, robotic-assisted laparoscopic sur­gery did not signicantly reduce the risk of conversion to open laparotomy compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery [41]. It’s important to note that our chapter differs from the ROLLAR Study, which focuses on rectal cancer patients.
Postoperative symptomatic impediments following total abdominal colectomy often manifest as chronic diarrhea, fecal urgency, and accidental bowel leakage [42]. The use of bulking agents, such as ber supplements, and antidiarrheal agents, such as loperamide and diphenoxylate/atropine, is benecial after excluding infec­tious, inammatory, and dietary causes [42]. Cholestyramine is particularly effec­tive for patients with a history of cholecystectomy. Endoscopic assessment of the rectum is imperative after total colectomy for inammatory bowel disease and pol­yposis syndromes, which dictates the necessity for completion proctectomy, either with end ileostomy or ileal pouch anastomosis [42]. The risk of rectal neoplasia in patients with polyposis syndrome after ileorectal anastomosis is a signicant con­cern, necessitating frequent endoscopic surveillance with biopsies and a multidisci­plinary discussion and approach.

Learning Curve

Publications on the learning curve usually concentrate on robotic proctectomy rather than on robotic colonic resection procedures. However, several comprehensive robotic colorectal learning curve studies have included both left hemicolectomy and total colectomy. The robotic colorectal surgery learning curve has three stages [43,
44]. Various studies have reported different numbers of cases in the initial phase of
the learning curve. Typically, this phase spans between 27 and 45 cases, with certain studies assuming that practitioners have prior experience in laparoscopic colorectal surgery [4548]. The learning curve has the potential to be expedited through the use of simulators and video-based education [49, 50]. The rapid adoption of robotic colorectal resections has led to a signicant proportion of procedures being
380
K. Erozkan and E. Gorgun
performed by surgeons in their initial phases. However, during this phase, they exhibit a higher incidence of iatrogenic complications [51]. Upon completing the initial phase, surgeons proceed to the competent and challenging phase, performing more intricate and demanding procedures [43]. After completing the learning, robot­assisted surgery can be effectively performed within diverse colorectal practices, demonstrating minimal conversion rates and postoperative complications [47].
Whether robotic surgery has shorter learning curve than laparoscopic colorectal surgery remains controversial. Various reports suggest that robotic technology shortens the learning curve for complex tasks compared to conventional laparos­copy [52]. Conversely, another study contended that the learning curves for both robotic and laparoscopic approaches were similar [44]. Nevertheless, additional research is required to further shed light to this topic and clarify the debated points regarding differences between robotic and laparoscopic colon resection.

Future Directions

Suprapubic Approach
The suprapubic surgical approach involves colonic resection with horizontally and linearly placed ports in the suprapubic region and is primarily utilized for robotic right hemicolectomy procedures. The trocars are placed horizontally below the line between the anterior superior iliac spines, with a 12mm trocar on the left and three trocars of 8mm spaced 4cm apart (Fig.27.9). Investigation of the optimization of the suprapubic method is clinically signicant. Suprapubic incision is known to
Fig. 27.9 Suprapubic approach port placement
27 Left Hemicolectomy andTotal Colectomy
381
provide better cosmesis, less pain, and a lower risk of incisional hernia than midline incision. A streamlined surgical approach can enhance the operational efciency and minimize collisions across the robotic arms.
A few studies have described a suprapubic approach for robotic total colectomy [53]. The patient cart is strategically positioned between the patient’s legs, initially targeting the mesentery and the upper abdominal region. Subsequently, the instru­ments and camera are reoriented to focus on the pelvic region. The surgical proce­dure commences in the upper rectal region by dissecting the rectosigmoid mesocolon. The sigmoid and left colon are mobilized, and the dissection is advanced toward the splenic exure. However, due to the substantial distance of the splenic exure from the suprapubic access point, rst mobilization of the transverse colon is performed to facilitate takedown of the exure. Subsequently, splenic exure mobilization is performed. Ultimately, the nal stages of dissection involve mobili­zation of the right colon in order to achieve tension-free anastomosis using the ileum. It is noteworthy that the procedure can hypothetically be performed also for the left colon resection up to the transverse colon; however, there are limited studies addressing this aspect in the existing literature. Yeo etal. tested the feasibility of a suprapubic approach for robotic left hemicolectomy in cadaveric models and adapted it for the rst clinical case [54].
A comparison between the suprapubic approach and traditional port placement revealed the advantages of the suprapubic approach, including reduced operation time, lower conversion rates, decreased complications, and shorter hospital stay [55,
56]. Other studies have proposed a suprapubic approach for robotic colectomy, inte-
grating complete mesocolic excision and D3 lymphadenectomy, demonstrating potential feasibility [57, 58]. Some case reports have demonstrated the feasibility and efciency of the suprapubic approach using the da Vinci Single-Port (SP®) sys­tem (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) [59].
The collective ndings suggest optimism for the future application of the supra­pubic surgical approach, pending further clarication of the application conditions and long-term efcacy.
Single-Site Robotic Surgery
As engineering and technology continue to advance, enhancements in surgical robots are aimed at overcoming the challenges encountered in traditional approaches. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) was introduced to mitigate port-related trauma and complications. However, technical challenges, particularly in complex operations requiring delicate tissue manipulation, have impeded the progress of SILS.Robotic surgery, characterized by increased articulation and reduced risk of instrument collision, presents a solution to these limitations [60]. Surgeons strive to minimize the number of robotic ports used in colonic resections to enhance cos­metic outcomes and expedite recovery. The integration of both surgical concepts holds the potential to achieve a relatively “scarless” operation with improved surgi­cal dynamics.
382
K. Erozkan and E. Gorgun
Single-site robotic surgery for total colectomy has been introduced in case reports, demonstrating its feasibility with comparable operative times [61]. The pro­cedure is also safe and feasible for left-sided colectomies and exhibits surgical and pathological outcomes similar to those of the laparoscopy [62]. Bae etal. introduced 23 cases of single-site robotic left colectomy with an additional assistant port, con­rming the feasibility and safety of this method [63]. A systematic review indicated that current studies support the safety and feasibility of single-port robotic colec­tomy, although the evidence is limited [64]. Concerns persist regarding whether surgeons can achieve surgical and oncological outcomes comparable to those of conventional multiport laparoscopic and robotic colonic resection. Challenges include limited mobilization and countertraction due to the single-site entrance, as well as the constrained range of motion of the robotic arms hindering multiquadrant abdominal surgery. Issues such as docking and repositioning of the robot, particu­larly in extended colectomies, limit the utility of robotic surgery. Despite advance­ments in single-access ports, robotic arm congurations, and surgical platforms for single-port robotic surgery in the colorectal eld, signicant improvements are still required such as the need for vessel sealing robotic tools and stapling [63, 64]. The development of novel robotic platforms specically designed for single-site surgery is essential to overcome the current limitations, and these efforts signify the poten­tial of robotic surgery to overcome the limitations of conventional approaches.
da Vinci SP® Surgical System
The da Vinci SP® surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is speci­cally designed for single-port surgery. It features a singular arm comprising a shaft with three multijointed, fully articulated instruments and a jointed high- resolution camera. The system is specically designed to operate in narrow, hard-to- reach areas, such as anorectal surgery, prostatectomy, and tonsillectomy, and is characterized by a 360-degree boom movement that facilitates full multiquadrant operations in colorec­tal surgery [27]. The shaft design, which consists of all the instruments, prevents robotic arm collisions during surgery. However, limitations include the inability to use surgical energy devices and robotic staplers as well as the absence of suction irriga­tion. Furthermore, the grasping and traction forces are comparatively weaker than those in previous models, constraining their use in major surgeries [65].
Pioneering studies have conrmed the feasibility and efciency of da Vinci SP® (dVSP) in colorectal surgery [66, 67]. Another study, comprising 43 robotic dVSP cases, incorporated six left hemicolectomies, demonstrating comparable short-term outcomes to conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery [68]. The overall ef­ciency and functionality of the dVSP for robotic colorectal procedures suggests a promising future for the widespread adoption of this technique. The growing inter­est in dVSP in colorectal surgery underscores its potential use in abdominal proce­dures and possibly other endoluminal approaches. However, a comprehensive analysis of procedural outcomes and further technological improvements is impera­tive to properly advance the eld.
27 Left Hemicolectomy andTotal Colectomy
383

Conclusion

A meticulous decision-making process based on the surgeon’s experience consider­ing patient-specic conditions is paramount, achieving optimal outcomes in colonic interventions.
Advances in preoperative planning and meticulous room setup have enhanced the success of these procedures. A comprehensive examination of the operative steps is essential for successful execution of robotic surgery. The efcacy of robotic platforms, particularly for left hemicolectomy, is underscored by their potential short-term advantages. Technological advancements are poised to augment the sig­nicance of robotic surgery in colonic intervention.

References

1. Sheetz KH, Clain J, Dimick JB.Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgi­cal procedures. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1918911.
2. Benlice C, Aytac E, Costedio M, Kessler H, Abbas MA, Remzi FH, etal. Robotic, laparo­scopic, and open colectomy: a case-matched comparison from the ACS-NSQIP.Int J Med Robot. 2017;13(3) https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1783.
3. Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC.Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg. 2004;239(1):14–21.
4. Uhrich ML, Underwood RA, Standeven JW, Soper NJ, Engsberg JR.Assessment of fatigue, monitor placement, and surgical experience during simulated laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2002;16(4):635–9.
5. Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, Blasco JA, Guerra M, Andradas E, etal. Efcacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2010;252(2):254–62.
6. Sheetz KH, Norton EC, Dimick JB, Regenbogen SE.Perioperative outcomes and trends in the use of robotic colectomy for medicare beneciaries from 2010 through 2016. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(1):41–9.
7. Quezada-Diaz F, Pappou EP.Robotic left colectomy. In: Kim J, Garcia-Aguilar J, editors. Minimally invasive surgical techniques for cancers of the gastrointestinal tract: a step-by-step approach. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020. p.193–200.
8. Rouffet F, Hay JM, Vacher B, Fingerhut A, Elhadad A, Flamant Y, et al. Curative resec­tion for left colonic carcinoma: hemicolectomy vs. segmental colectomy. A prospective, controlled, multicenter trial. French Association for Surgical Research. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994;37(7):651–9.
9. Lee BC, Yu CS, Kim J, Lee JL, Kim CW, Yoon YS, etal. Clinicopathological features and surgical options for synchronous colorectal cancer. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(9):e6224.
10. Jimenez-Rodriguez RM, Quezada-Diaz F, Tchack M, Pappou E, Wei IH, Smith JJ, etal. Use of the Xi robotic platform for total abdominal colectomy: a step forward in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(3):966–71.
11. Shussman N, Wexner SD.Colorectal polyps and polyposis syndromes. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxford). 2014;2(1):1–15.
12. Schlussel AT, Gagliano RA Jr, Seto-Donlon S, Eggerding F, Donlon T, Berenberg J, etal. The evolution of colorectal cancer genetics-Part 2: clinical implications and applications. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014;5(5):336–44.
13. Zimmern A, Prasad L, Desouza A, Marecik S, Park J, Abcarian H.Robotic colon and rectal surgery: a series of 131 cases. World J Surg. 2010;34(8):1954–8.
384
14. Delaney CP, Lynch AC, Senagore AJ, Fazio VW.Comparison of robotically performed and traditional laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46(12):1633–9.
15. Kilcoyne A, Kaplan JL, Gee MS.Inammatory bowel disease imaging: current practice and future directions. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(3):917–32.
16. Al-Jashaami LS, DuPont HL.Management of clostridium difcile infection. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2016;12(10):609–16.
17. Bokhari MB, Patel CB, Ramos-Valadez DI, Ragupathi M, Haas EM. Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(3):855–60.
18. Beck DE.Evaluation and management of constipation. Ochsner J. 2008;8(1):25–31.
19. Gorgun E, Ozben V, Costedio M, Stocchi L, Kalady M, Remzi F.Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients. Color Dis. 2016;18(11):1063–71.
20. Gorgun E, Rencuzogullari A, Ozben V, Stocchi L, Fraser T, Benlice C, etal. An effective bundled approach reduces surgical site infections in a high-outlier colorectal unit. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018;61(1):89–98.
21. Palmeri M, Gianardi D, Guadagni S, Di Franco G, Bastiani L, Furbetta N, etal. Robotic colorectal resection with and without the use of the new Da Vinci table motion: a case-matched study. Surg Innov. 2018;25(3):251–7.
22. Parra-Davila E, Diaz-Hernandez JJ. Totally robotic left colectomy. J Robot Surg. 2011;5(1):57–64.
23. ErÖZkan K, Vatansever S, Tamam S, Benk MŞ, Azili C, Bayar S, etal. Laparoscopic right hemi­colectomy: comparison of medial and lateral approach. Ege Tıp Dergisi. 2023;62(3):339–45.
24. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Navid A, Sarma DR, Eltair M, Mankotia R, etal. Meta-analysis of medial-to-lateral versus lateral-to-medial colorectal mobilisation during laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Int J Color Dis. 2019;34(5):787–99.
25. Ozben V, Cengiz TB, Atasoy D, Bayraktar O, Aghayeva A, Erguner I, etal. Is da Vinci Xi Better than da Vinci Si in robotic rectal cancer surgery? Comparison of the 2 generations of da Vinci systems. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26(5):417–23.
26. Protyniak B, Jorden J, Farmer R.Multiquadrant robotic colorectal surgery: the da Vinci Xi vs Si comparison. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(1):67–74.
27. Erozkan K, Gorgun E. Robotic colorectal surgery and future directions. Am J Surg. 2023;230:91.
28. Achilli P, Perry W, Grass F, Abd El Aziz MA, Kelley SR, Larson DW, etal. Completely intra­corporeal anastomosis in robotic left colonic and rectal surgery: technique and 30-day out­comes. Updat Surg. 2021;73(6):2137–43.
29. Alharthi S, Reilly M, Arishi A, Ahmed AM, Chulkov M, Qu W, etal. Robotic versus laparo­scopic sigmoid colectomy: Analysis of healthcare cost and utilization project database. Am Surg. 2020;86(3):256–60.
30. Bastawrous AL, Landmann RG, Liu Y, Liu E, Cleary RK.Incidence, associated risk factors, and impact of conversion to laparotomy in elective minimally invasive sigmoidectomy for diverticular disease. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(2):598–609.
31. Grass F, Crippa J, Mathis KL, Kelley SR, Larson DW.Feasibility and safety of robotic resec­tion of complicated diverticular disease. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(12):4171–6.
32. Kim JC, Lee JL, Yoon YS, Kim CW, Park IJ, Lim SB.Robotic left colectomy with complete mesocolectomy for splenic exure and descending colon cancer, compared with a laparo­scopic procedure. Int J Med Robot. 2018;14(5):e1918.
33. Al Natour RH, Obias V, Albright J, Wu J, Ferraro J, Akram WM, etal. A propensity score matched comparison of intracorporeal and extracorporeal techniques for robotic-assisted sig­moidectomy in an enhanced recovery pathway. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(5):649–56.
34. Ozben V, de Muijnck C, Karabork M, Ozoran E, Zenger S, Bilgin IA, etal. The da Vinci Xi system for robotic total/subtotal colectomy vs. conventional laparoscopy: short-term out­comes. Tech Coloproctol. 2019;23(9):861–8.
35. Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Hanna MH, Carmichael JC, Pigazzi A, Stamos MJ, Mills S.Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches for total abdominal colectomy. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(7):2792–8.
K. Erozkan and E. Gorgun