Journal List > Ann Surg Treat Res > v.98(1) > 1139968

TOOLS
Lee, Alsaleem, and Kim: Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives
Original Article

Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research 2020; 98(1): 31-43.

Published online: 30 December 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2020.98.1.31

Robotic surgery for colorectal disease: review of current port placement and future perspectives

Jong Lyul Lee, Hassan A. Alsaleem, Jin Cheon Kim

Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Jin Cheon Kim. Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu, Seoul 05505, Korea. Tel: +82-2-3010-3489, Fax: +82-2-474-9027, jckim@amc.seoul.kr

Received 13 August 2019       Revised 28 October 2019       Accepted 5 November 2019

Copyright © 2020, the Korean Surgical Society

The Korean Surgical Society

(open-access):

Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research is an Open Access Journal. All articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

As robotic surgery is increasingly performed in patients with colorectal diseases, understanding proper port placement for robotic colorectal surgery is necessary. This review summarizes current port placement during robotic surgery for colorectal diseases and provides future perspective on port placements.

Methods

PubMed were searched from January 2009 to December 2018 using a combination of the search terms “robotic” [MeSH], “colon” [MeSH], “rectum” [MeSH], “colorectal” [MeSH], and “colorectal surgery” [MeSH]. Studies related to port placement were identified and included in the current study if they used the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi robotic system and if they described port placement.

Results

This review included 77 studies including a total of 3,145 operations. Fifty studies described port placement for left-sided and mesorectal excision; 17, 3, and 7 studies assessed port placement for right-sided colectomy, rectopexy, transanal surgery, respectively; and one study assessed surgery with reduced port placement. Recent literatures show that the single-docking technique included mobilization of the second and third robotic arms for the different parts without movement of patient cart and similar to previous dual or triple-docking technique. Besides, use of the da Vinci Xi system allowed a more simplified port configuration.

Conclusion

Robot-assisted colorectal surgery can be efficiently achieved with successful port placement without movement of patient cart dependent on the type of surgery and the robotic system.

Keywords: Colon, Rectum, Robotics, Robotic surgical procedure, Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Robotic colorectal surgery was first performed in 2002, with studies describing robot-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery using the AESOP system (Computer Motion Inc., Goleta, CA, USA) for camera control and 2 patients who underwent da Vinci robot-assisted colonic mobilization [12]. Types of colorectal surgery performed robotically have included colectomy, total mesorectal excision (TME), perineal resection, total colectomy and rectopexy, with robotic colorectal surgery performed in patients with various disease, both benign and malignant [345]. Although several types of robotic systems were utilized previously, including the robotic Puma 560, PROBOT, ROBODOC, AESOP, DaVinci Robot, and Zeus systems [6], the da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) currently predominate.
Compared with laparoscopic instruments, the da Vinci surgical system provides 3-dimensional imaging, excellent ergonomics, and tremor or motion scaling [7]. Robotic arms have enabled solo laparoscopic surgery, eliminating the need for an assistant, providing greater stability of views and reducing surgeon fatigue [8]. However, it is not presently confirmative whether these theoretical benefits of robotic colorectal surgery translate into favorable patient outcomes. Registered randomized clinical trials, including the international robotic versus laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer trial (NCT01196000) and the South Korean trial to assess robot-assisted surgery and laparoscopy-assisted surgery in patients with middle or lower rectal cancer (NCT01423214), are currently comparing laparoscopic and robotic surgery in patients with rectal cancer. Early results of the international robotic versus laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer trial (NCT01196000) have reported a lower conversion rate to open surgery for robotic than for laparoscopic surgery in male and obese patients [9].
Robotic surgery, however, has several drawbacks, including the lack of haptic sense, high cost, a bulky robotic cart, and collision between robotic arms [10]. Although the learning curve appears to be shorter for robotic than for laparoscopic colorectal surgery [1011], understanding proper port placement for robotic colorectal surgery is necessary. Although the manufacturer of the da Vinci system recommends different pattern of port placements for right abdominal, left abdominal and pelvic surgery, they need to be modified according to diverse surgical approaches.
This systematic review evaluated and analyzed current patterns of port placement for robotic surgery in patients with colorectal diseases, as well as providing future perspectives on port placement.

METHODS

PubMed were searched from January 2009 to December 2018 using a combination of the search terms “robotic” [MeSH], “colon” [MeSH], “rectum” [MeSH], “colorectal” [MeSH], and “colorectal surgery” [MeSH]. Relevant studies were identified, and their reference lists were searched manually for additional relevant publications. Case series, retrospective and prospective studies, and randomized controlled trials with appropriate data were included if they used the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi robotic system and if they described port placement. Case reports, video vignettes, letters, editorials, review articles, articles describing robotic technologies, animal experiments, studies describing education about or simulation of robotic methods, studies with inappropriate data, non-English literatures, and studies that did not appropriately explain exactly about port placement were excluded (Fig. 1). Publications using the New Senhance Telerobotic and Soloassist systems were also excluded.
Data from the same type of operation performed during the same period at the same institution were considered duplicates, whether or not the corresponding authors were the same. If studies were identified as duplicates, only the study with the largest group of patients, the most parameters reported, or the most recent data was included.
Data collected from all included studies consisted of year of publication, first author, journal, robotic platform, operation type, number of ports, number of docks, docking time, total operation time, and number and rate of conversion. Variables were analyzed separately according to type of operation, including right-sided colectomy, left-sided colectomy, mesorectal excision, rectopexy, transanal approach, and surgery using a single-site platform.

RESULTS

Literature search

The literature search initially yielded 785 titles, with 560 remaining when only those dealing with actual robotic colorectal surgery were included. After excluding the reviews and meta-analyses (n = 109), editorials and letters (n = 77), video vignettes (n = 56), non-English language articles (n = 38), training programs (n = 37), case reports (n = 27), and studies using robotic systems other than the da Vinci system (n = 8), 208 studies were included. Of these, 131 studies were excluded, 108 articles that did not describe port placement and 23 duplicated data. Thus, 77 studies were systematically reviewed (Fig. 1).

Characteristics

The number of publications that include robotic colorectal surgery has been constantly increasing over time, from 16 titles in 2009 to 183 titles in 2018 among the total of 785 titles. The 77 included studies described a total of 3,145 operations. Forty-three studies included 2,425 patients who underwent mesorectal excision, including anterior, low anterior, intersphincteric, and abdominoperineal resection, and Hartmann's procedure. Sixteen studies included 468 patients who underwent right-sided colectomy, 6 studies described 155 patients who underwent left-sided colectomy, 4 studies included 90 patients who underwent mesh ventral rectopexy, 7 studies described 113 patients who underwent transanal surgery, 2 studies included 19 patients who underwent total colectomy or total proctocolectomy, 1 study included patients who underwent transverse colectomy, and 1 study described patients who underwent surgery using a single-site platform. The robotic platforms included the da Vinci S or Si system for 2,920 operations and the da Vinci Xi system for 225 operations.

Port placement for TME and left-sided colectomy

Although the da Vinci system has been used for colorectal surgery, more than 70% of these operations were robotic TME. Although no technique has become standardized for left colon dissection and low anterior resection, several procedures have been described for the da Vinci S and Si systems (Table 1). The hybrid approach, in which various types of ports are placed using laparoscopic approach, consisted of laparoscopic mobilization of the splenic flexure and left colon, followed by robotic docking for dissection of the pelvis and completion of the procedure (Fig. 2A). The double- or triple-docking technique included docking from the left upper or left hemi-abdomen for dissection of the splenic flexure, followed by docking to the left lower abdomen and placing an extra-port on the right side (Fig. 2B). The single-docking technique included mobilization of the second and third robotic arms for the different parts without movement of patient cart (Fig. 2C) [12].
Use of the da Vinci Xi system allowed a more simplified port configuration, with most studies using the configuration recommended by the manufacturer with minor variations (Fig. 2D). Basically, the left-sided colectomy incorporated mobilization of the splenic flexure. Four studies using the da Vinci S or Si system described the double docking or hybrid technique as port placement, and 2 studies involving the da Vinci Xi system used the procedure described by the manufacturer, along with instruction and universal port placement (Table 2).

Port placement for right-sided colectomy

Port placement of the da Vinci S or Si system for right-sided colectomy usually consisted of the reversed-“L”-shaped procedure, except 4 studies that used left lateral or vertically-straight port placement (Table 3, Fig. 2E). The da Vinci Xi system used the procedure described by the suprapubic port placement and manufacturer's recommendation (Fig. 2F, G). All right-sided colectomies were performed using the single-docking technique.

Port placement for mesh ventral rectopexy

Complete rectal prolapse was treated by mesh ventral rectopexy using the da Vinci S or Si system. All 4 studies reported transverse port placement with the single-docking technique (Table 4, Fig. 2H).

Port placement for transanal approach and reduced port placement

The transanal approach using a robotic system included robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) and transanal total mesorectal excision (TATME). Four studies reported robotic TAMIS, and 3 reported robotic TATME. Robotic TAMIS was usually performed using 3 robotic arms due to limitations of the transanal space, whereas, robotic TATME used all 4 robotic arms due to abdominal phase (Table 5). One study described port placement for reduced port anterior resection using the robotic single-site platform with an additional 12-mm port (Fig. 2I).

DISCUSSION

Robotic surgery is a major advance in colorectal surgery and is increasingly utilized for colorectal resection, irrespective of tumor locations [3]. However, beginning colorectal surgeons hesitate to perform robotic surgery because of its various drawbacks including the need for proper port placement, the absence of tactile sensations, and high cost. This review summarizes current pattern of port placement for colorectal surgery and provides information to easily overcome problems related to port placement during various types of robotic colorectal surgery.
Earlier published studies described the collision-related difficulties encountered during docking and port placement, especially when surgeons attempted to operate across other abdominal quadrants [13]. Reflecting the learning curve inherent to the adoption of robotic colorectal surgery, the use of standardized techniques and increased experience have resulted a shortening of port placement and docking time [11141516]. The present review described the simplified port placement associated with the da Vinci system and type of operative, findings that may be helpful for those learning robotic colorectal surgery. Improvements in the da Vinci system require robotic surgeons to review previous as well as recent studies.
Port placement for earlier da Vinci models, including the 3 arm-based S to Si system, generally involved scattered sites across the abdomen [17]. The Xi model, however, allows a more simplified port configuration and a reduced learning curve, resulting in shorter docking times [13]. Studies about TME or left-sided colectomy that were published during the early 2010s, reported more frequent use of hybrid techniques and increases in the number of ports. The hybrid approach and double docking technique allowed to overcome the limited range of motion of the robotic arm during splenic mobilization and pelvic dissection, however, those techniques had longer operation time, compared with the single-docking technique [1819]. The single-docking technique provides advantages in omitting the movement of the patient cart, resulting in shorter operative time, whereas, that technique might need to overcome the learning curve and to understand the port configuration and the proper distance between the ports [18]. Although the da Vinci S and Si systems are being replaced by the da Vinci Xi system, studies describing port placement have decreased over time, making port placement slightly problematic when using the Xi platform. Although the console experience and operative technique of the Xi system similar to those of the S and Si systems, the extra features of the Xi system, including collision avoidance mechanisms, automatic targeting, motion-censored table, and boom features, appear to reduce the stress associated with port placement [1320].
The reversed-“L”-shaped port placement for robotic right colectomy was used in almost all studies using the S or Si system, except that 22 studies published in 2010 involved diamond-shaped or vertically-straight port placement using the 3 arm-based S system and 2 studies with left lateral port placement. The reversed-“L”-shaped port placement for the S or Si system results in wider coverage of the right upper quadrant than diamond-shaped or left lateral port placement. A recent study described use of a suprapubic approach, with extension of the incision between the ports and the extra features of the Xi system providing a more cosmetic effect, and the longer arm and boom system resulting in wider and more flexible coverage than previous platforms [21]. Many of the reviewed studies described intracorporeal anastomosis during robotic right colectomy, with a rate of adoption higher than that of robotic TME. Although this intracorporeal technique required a longer operation time, it maximized the outcomes of robotic right colectomy, including better cosmetic results and easier suturing, compared with a laparoscopic approach, resulting in a completely minimally invasive procedure [222324].
Although the innovative transanal and transrectal techniques have been developed in recent years, the present review included only 7 studies describing port placement using these robotic methods. A pure TATME procedure for rectal cancer remains technically challenging, with almost 40% of patients requiring abdominal assistance [25]. Abdominal assistances also remained essential when robotic systems were utilized to overcome the limitations of the TATME [26272829]. The robotic abdominal approach requires appropriate port placement, whereas the optimal docking angle is required for the robotic transanal approach. One study suggested that the optimal docking angle for the robotic cart to avoid external collisions was an oblique approach from the left of the patient, at a 45° angle to the operating table [29]. The port configuration of the transanal area usually included 2 operative trocars at the base and a trocar for the 30° upward-looking endoscope at the apex [29], and the port placement sometimes changed 2 operative trocars in the apex according to the tumor location during TAMIS. The da Vinci SP model, which recently became available, may be more efficient in the transanal approach. Further experiences are needed to assess the outcomes of TATME using the SP model.
Apart from the ordinary robotic procedures, the reduced port placement with the intracorporeal anastomosis would allow it to maximize the cosmetic effect even this study included only 1 study. This reduced port placement with a sing-site platform or the SP model may have the possibility of an advance. Port placement using the Xi system may be optimal for single-stage totally robotic dissection of the entire abdomen [30], Universal port placement maximally utilized the advantages of the da Vinci Xi model, including the universal 8-mm da Vinci port that allowed insertion of the endoscope into any port, a rotatable boom that could cover all 4 quadrants of the abdomen, without any instrumental collisions (Fig. 2J) [30]. Universal port placement may be required for proper placement of the assistant port and for determining the axis of the linear port line.
In conclusion, recent studies show that the operation time and conversion rate of single-docking technique in the da Vinci Si system are similar to previous dual or triple-docking technique and use of da Vinci Xi system allows a more simplified linear port configuration. Although port placement using the robotic system varies by operation type and surgeon preference, development of port placement would allow to reduce the number of port and movement of cart and to realize more minimally invasive surgery.

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

A diagram of literature search and selection.

astr-98-31-g001
Fig. 2

Port placement for robotic total mesorectal excision (A–D) or left-sided colectomy (A, B) using the da Vinci S, Si, or Xi system. (A) Port placement for hybrid technique including laparoscopic splenic flexure or left colon mobilization. (B) Double docking port placement with movement of the patient cart according to the dissection area. (C) Single-docking port placement including the rotation of robotic arms without movement of patient cart. (D) Port placement recommended by the manufacturer using the da Vinci Xi system. Port placement for robotic right-sided colectomy (E–G) and ventral mesh rectopexy (H). (E) Reversed-L-shaped port placement with minor variation using the da Vinci S or Si system. (F) Suprapubic port placement with wound extension between the 2 suprapubic ports for the extraction of the specimen. (G) Port placement that was recommended by the manufacturer using the da Vinci Xi system. (H) Port placement with minor variations for robotic ventral mesh rectopexy that was focused on the pelvic dissection. Extraordinary port placement. (I) Reduced port placement for anterior resection using single-site platform with an additional port. (J) Universal port placement for all 4-quadrant colorectal surgery. R1, arm 1 for monopolar scissors or cautery hook; R2, arm 2 for Maryland or Fenestrated bipolar forceps; R3, arm 3 for tip-up fenestrated grasper or Cadiere forceps; A, assistant port; C, camera port; ASIS, anterior superior iliac supine; MCL, mid-clavicular line; SF, dissection for splenic flexure; P, dissection for pelvis; Docking, placement of the patient cart; S, single-site platform.

astr-98-31-g002
Table 1

Studies describing robotic total mesorectal excision

astr-98-31-i001

SF mobil, splenic flexure mobilization; Intracorporeal, intracorporeal anastomosis; H, hybrid; D, double; S, single; M, manufacturer; Lap, laparoscopic; Robot, robotic; Umbilical, periumbilical incision including umbilical port extension; LLQ, left lower quadrant; NOTES, natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery; RLQ, right lower quadrant.

a)Mean ± standard deviation or median (range).

Table 2

Studies describing robotic left-sided colectomy

astr-98-31-i002

SF mobil, splenic flexure mobilization; Intracorporeal, intracorporeal anastomosis; H, hybrid; D, double; M, manufacturer; U, universal; Lap, laparoscopic, Robot, robotic; LLQ, left lower quadrant; RLQ, right lower quadrant; Pubic, suprapubic area.

a)Mean ± standard deviation or median (range).

Table 3

Studies describing robotic right colectomy

astr-98-31-i003

Intracorporeal, intracorporeal anastomosis; Pfannen, Pfannenstiel incision; RLQ, right lower quadrant; RUQ, right upper quadrant; Pubic, suprapubic incision.

a)Mean ± standard deviation or median (range).

Table 4

Studies of robotic mesh ventral rectopexy

astr-98-31-i004

a)Mean ± standard deviation or median (range).

Table 5

Studies of robotic transanal surgery

astr-98-31-i005

TAMIS, transanal minimally invasive surgery; TATME, transanal total mesorectal excision.

a)Mean ± standard deviation or median (range).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by National Research Foundation (KRF) grant funded by the Korean Government, Ministry of Science and ICT (2016R1E1A1A02919844).

Notes

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

1. Merola S, Weber P, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH. Comparison of laparoscopic colectomy with and without the aid of a robotic camera holder. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2002; 12:46–51.
crossref pmid
2. Weber PA, Merola S, Wasielewski A, Ballantyne GH. Telerobotic-assisted laparoscopic right and sigmoid colectomies for benign disease. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002; 45:1689–1694.
crossref
3. Biffi R, Luca F, Bianchi PP, Cenciarelli S, Petz W, Monsellato I, et al. Dealing with robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: current status and perspectives. World J Gastroenterol. 2016; 22:546–556.
crossref pmid pmc
4. Isik O, Gorgun E. How has the robot contributed to colon cancer surgery? Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2015; 28:220–227.
crossref pmid pmc
5. Heemskerk J, de Hoog DE, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND. Robot-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007; 50:1825–1830.
pmid pmc
6. Tebala GD. History of colorectal surgery: a comprehensive historical review from the ancient Egyptians to the surgical robot. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015; 30:723–748.
pmid
7. Melich G, Pai A, Shoela R, Kochar K, Patel S, Park J, et al. Rectal dissection simulator for da vinci surgery: details of simulator manufacturing with evidence of construct, face, and content validity. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018; 61:514–519.
crossref pmid
8. Makin GB, Breen DJ, Monson JR. The impact of new technology on surgery for colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2001; 7:612–621.
crossref pmid pmc
9. Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, et al. Effect of robotic-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic surgery on risk of conversion to open laparotomy among patients undergoing resection for rectal cancer: the ROLARR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017; 318:1569–1580.
pmid pmc
10. Baik SH, Ko YT, Kang CM, Lee WJ, Kim NK, Sohn SK, et al. Robotic tumor-specific mesorectal excision of rectal cancer: short-term outcome of a pilot randomized trial. Surg Endosc. 2008; 22:1601–1608.
pmid
11. Melich G, Hong YK, Kim J, Hur H, Baik SH, Kim NK, et al. Simultaneous development of laparoscopy and robotics provides acceptable perioperative outcomes and shows robotics to have a faster learning curve and to be overall faster in rectal cancer surgery: analysis of novice MIS surgeon learning curves. Surg Endosc. 2015; 29:558–568.
crossref pmid
12. Choi DJ, Kim SH, Lee PJ, Kim J, Woo SU. Single-stage totally robotic dissection for rectal cancer surgery: technique and short-term outcome in 50 consecutive patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009; 52:1824–1830.
crossref pmid
13. Ngu JC, Sim S, Yusof S, Ng CY, Wong AS. Insight into the da Vinci® Xi - technical notes for single-docking left-sided colorectal procedures. Int J Med Robot. 2017; 13:e1798.
crossref
14. DeNoto G, Rubach E, Ravikumar TS. A standardized technique for robotically performed sigmoid colectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2006; 16:551–556.
crossref pmid
15. Bokhari MB, Patel CB, Ramos-Valadez DI, Ragupathi M, Haas EM. Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc. 2011; 25:855–860.
crossref pmid
16. Jimenez-Rodriguez RM, Diaz-Pavon JM, de la Portilla de Juan F, Prendes-Sillero E, Dussort HC, Padillo J. Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013; 28:815–821.
crossref pmid
17. Parra-Davila E, Diaz-Hernandez JJ. Totally robotic left colectomy. J Robot Surg. 2011; 5:57–64.
crossref
18. Protyniak B, Jorden J, Farmer R. Multiquadrant robotic colorectal surgery: the da Vinci Xi vs Si comparison. J Robot Surg. 2018; 12:67–74.
crossref pmid
19. Morelli L, Guadagni S, Di Franco G, Palmeri M, Caprili G, D'Isidoro C, et al. Use of the new da Vinci Xi® during robotic rectal resection for cancer: a pilot matched-case comparison with the da Vinci Si®. Int J Med Robot. 2017; 03. 13(13):[Epub]. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1728.
crossref
20. Leal Ghezzi T, Campos Corleta O. 30 Years of robotic surgery. World J Surg. 2016; 40:2550–2557.
crossref pmid
21. Lee HJ, Choi GS, Park JS, Park SY, Kim HJ, Woo IT, et al. A novel robotic right colectomy for colon cancer via the suprapubic approach using the da Vinci Xi system: initial clinical experience. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2018; 94:83–87.
crossref pmid pmc
22. Reitz ACW, Lin E, Rosen SA. A single surgeon's experience transitioning to robotic-assisted right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. Surg Endosc. 2018; 32:3525–3532.
crossref pmid
23. Trastulli S, Desiderio J, Farinacci F, Ricci F, Listorti C, Cirocchi R, et al. Robotic right colectomy for cancer with intracorporeal anastomosis: short-term outcomes from a single institution. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013; 28:807–814.
crossref pmid
24. Park SY, Choi GS, Park JS, Kim HJ, Choi WH, Ryuk JP. Robot-assisted right colectomy with lymphadenectomy and intracorporeal anastomosis for colon cancer: technical considerations. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012; 22:e271–e276.
25. Chouillard E, Chahine E, Khoury G, Vinson-Bonnet B, Gumbs A, Azoulay D, et al. NOTES total mesorectal excision (TME) for patients with rectal neoplasia: a preliminary experience. Surg Endosc. 2014; 28:3150–3157.
crossref pmid
26. Atallah S, Martin-Perez B, Albert M, deBeche-Adams T, Nassif G, Hunter L, et al. Transanal minimally invasive surgery for total mesorectal excision (TAMIS-TME): results and experience with the first 20 patients undergoing curative-intent rectal cancer surgery at a single institution. Tech Coloproctol. 2014; 18:473–480.
crossref pmid
27. Verheijen PM, Consten EC, Broeders IA. Robotic transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: experience with a first case. Int J Med Robot. 2014; 10:423–426.
crossref
28. Gomez Ruiz M, Parra IM, Palazuelos CM, Martin JA, Fernandez CC, Diego JC, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015; 58:145–153.
pmid
29. Kuo LJ, Ngu JC, Tong YS, Chen CC. Combined robotic transanal total mesorectal excision (R-taTME) and single-site plus one-port (R-SSPO) technique for ultra-low rectal surgery-initial experience with a new operation approach. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017; 32:249–254.
crossref pmid
30. Kim JC. A universal port design for the da Vinci Xi® system allowing access to the entire colon for colorectal cancer surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2016; 114:1029–1030.
crossref pmid
31. Ng KH, Lim YK, Ho KS, Ooi BS, Eu KW. Robotic-assisted surgery for low rectal dissection: from better views to better outcome. Singapore Med J. 2009; 50:763–767.
pmid
32. Prasad LM, deSouza AL, Marecik SJ, Park JJ, Abcarian H. Robotic pursestring technique in low anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010; 53:230–234.
crossref pmid
33. 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; 34:1954–1958.
crossref pmid
34. Patel CB, Ragupathi M, Ramos-Valadez DI, Haas EM. A three-arm (laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and robotic) matched-case analysis of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011; 54:144–150.
crossref pmid
35. Deutsch GB, Sathyanarayana SA, Gunabushanam V, Mishra N, Rubach E, Zemon H, et al. Robotic vs. laparoscopic colorectal surgery: an institutional experience. Surg Endosc. 2012; 26:956–963.
crossref
36. Park JS, Choi GS, Lim KH, Jang YS, Jun SH. S052: a comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2011; 25:240–248.
crossref pmid
37. Ragupathi M, Ramos-Valadez DI, Patel CB, Haas EM. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for recurrent diverticulitis: experience in consecutive cases and a review of the literature. Surg Endosc. 2011; 25:199–206.
crossref pmid
38. Koh DC, Tsang CB, Kim SH. A new application of the four-arm standard da Vinci® surgical system: totally robotic-assisted left-sided colon or rectal resection. Surg Endosc. 2011; 25:1945–1952.
crossref pmid
39. Kim JY, Kim NK, Lee KY, Hur H, Min BS, Kim JH. A comparative study of voiding and sexual function after total mesorectal excision with autonomic nerve preservation for rectal cancer: laparoscopic versus robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19:2485–2493.
crossref pmid
40. Shin JY. Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes between a robotic colectomy and a laparoscopic colectomy during early experience. J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2012; 28:19–26.
crossref pmid pmc
41. Park JA, Choi GS, Park JS, Park SY. Initial clinical experience with robotic lateral pelvic lymph node dissection for advanced rectal cancer. J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2012; 28:265–270.
crossref pmid pmc
42. Zawadzki M, Velchuru VR, Albalawi SA, Park JJ, Marecik S, Prasad LM. Is hybrid robotic laparoscopic assistance the ideal approach for restorative rectal cancer dissection? Colorectal Dis. 2013; 15:1026–1032.
crossref pmid
43. Kenawadekar RD, Dhange RZ, Pandit A, Bandawar MS, Joshi S, Agarwal G, et al. Robot-assisted low anterior resection in fifty-three consecutive patients: an Indian experience. J Robot Surg. 2013; 7:311–316.
crossref pmid
44. Parisi A, Desiderio J, Trastulli S, Cirocchi R, Ricci F, Farinacci F, et al. Robotic rectal resection for cancer: a prospective cohort study to analyze surgical, clinical and oncological outcomes. Int J Surg. 2014; 12:1456–1461.
crossref pmid
45. Kim HJ, Choi GS, Park JS, Park SY. Multidimensional analysis of the learning curve for robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: lessons from a single surgeon's experience. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014; 57:1066–1074.
pmid
46. Liang JT, Lai HS. Surgical technique of robotic D3 lymph node dissection around the inferior mesenteric artery with preservation of the left colic artery and autonomic nerves for the treatment of distal rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2014; 28:1727–1733.
crossref
47. Kuo LJ, Lin YK, Chang CC, Tai CJ, Chiou JF, Chang YJ. Clinical outcomes of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: comparison with conventional laparoscopy and multifactorial analysis of the learning curve for robotic surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014; 29:555–562.
crossref pmid
48. Sawada H, Egi H, Hattori M, Suzuki T, Shimomura M, Tanabe K, et al. Initial experiences of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer, focusing on short-term outcomes: a matched case-control study. World J Surg Oncol. 2015; 13:103.
crossref
49. Gorgun E, Aytac E, Gurland B, Costedio MM. Case-matched comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery: initial institutional experience. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2015; 25:e148–e151.
50. Bae SU, Min BS, Kim NK. Robotic low ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery for rectal cancer using the firefly technique. Yonsei Med J. 2015; 56:1028–1035.
crossref pmid pmc
51. Huang CW, Yeh YS, Ma CJ, Choy TK, Huang MY, Huang CM, et al. Robotic colorectal surgery for laparoscopic surgeons with limited experience: preliminary experiences for 40 consecutive cases at a single medical center. BMC Surg. 2015; 15:73.
crossref
52. Pai A, Marecik SJ, Park JJ, Melich G, Sulo S, Prasad LM. Oncologic and clinicopathologic outcomes of robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015; 58:659–667.
crossref pmid
53. Eftaiha SM, Pai A, Sulo S, Park JJ, Prasad LM, Marecik SJ. Robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection: clinical, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016; 59:607–614.
crossref pmid
54. Kim YS, Kim MJ, Park SC, Sohn DK, Kim DY, Chang HJ, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer after preoperative chemoradiotherapy: case-matched study of short-term outcomes. Cancer Res Treat. 2016; 48:225–231.
crossref pmid
55. Zaghloul AS, Mahmoud AM. Preliminary results of robotic colorectal surgery at the National Cancer Institute, Cairo University. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 2016; 28:169–174.
crossref pmid
56. Rencuzogullari A, Gorgun E, Costedio M, Aytac E, Kessler H, Abbas MA, et al. Case-matched comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic proctectomy for inflammatory bowel disease. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016; 26:e37–e40.
crossref
57. Luca F, Valvo M, Guerra-Cogorno M, Simo D, Blesa-Sierra E, Biffi R, et al. Functional results of robotic total intersphincteric resection with hand-sewn coloanal anastomosis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016; 42:841–847.
crossref pmid
58. Gorgun E, Ozben V, Costedio M, Stocchi L, Kalady M, Remzi F. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients. Colorectal Dis. 2016; 18:1063–1071.
crossref pmid
59. Gomez Ruiz M, Alonso Martin J, Cagigas Fernandez C, Martin Parra JI, Real Noval H, Martin Rivas B, et al. Short- and mid-term outcomes of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for the treatment of rectal cancer. Our experience after 198 consecutive cases. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016; 42:848–854.
pmid
60. Kim CN, Bae SU, Lee SG, Yang SH, Hyun IG, Jang JH, et al. Clinical and oncologic outcomes of totally robotic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: initial results in a center for minimally invasive surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2016; 31:843–852.
crossref pmid
61. Ahmed J, Siddiqi N, Khan L, Kuzu A, Parvaiz A. Standardized technique for single-docking robotic rectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2016; 18:O380–O384.
crossref
62. Huang YM, Huang YJ, Wei PL. Outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid and low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy and the effect of learning curve. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96:e8171.
crossref
63. Oldani A, Bellora P, Monni M, Amato B, Gentilli S. Colorectal surgery in elderly patients: our experience with DaVinci Xi® System. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2017; 29:Suppl 1. 91–99.
crossref pmid
64. Pesi B, Annecchiarico M, Amore Bonapasta S, Nerini A, Perna F, Bencini L, et al. Robotic rectal resection with a single-docking technique thanks to the rotation of the R3 arm. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2017; 27:e18–e21.
crossref
65. Huang CW, Tsai HL, Yeh YS, Su WC, Huang MY, Huang CM, et al. Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision with the single-docking technique for patients with rectal cancer. BMC Surg. 2017; 17:126.
crossref
66. Kuo LJ, Ngu JC, Huang YJ, Lin YK, Chen CC, Tong YS, et al. Anorectal complications after robotic intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2017; 31:4466–4471.
crossref pmid
67. Panteleimonitis S, Harper M, Hall S, Figueiredo N, Qureshi T, Parvaiz A. Precision in robotic rectal surgery using the da Vinci Xi system and integrated table motion, a technical note. J Robot Surg. 2018; 12:433–436.
crossref pmid
68. Nolan HR, Smith BE, Honaker MD. Operative time and length of stay is similar between robotic assisted and laparoscopic colon and rectal resections. J Robot Surg. 2018; 12:659–664.
crossref pmid
69. Aselmann H, Kersebaum JN, Bernsmeier A, Beckmann JH, Moller T, Egberts JH, et al. Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer results in a significantly higher quality of TME specimen compared to the laparoscopic approach-report of a single-center experience. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018; 33:1575–1581.
crossref pmid
70. Debakey Y, Zaghloul A, Farag A, Mahmoud A, Elattar I. Robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer surgery, first egyptian academic center experience, RCT. Minim Invasive Surg. 2018; 2018:5836562.
crossref
71. Cassini D, Depalma N, Grieco M, Cirocchi R, Manoochehri F, Baldazzi G. Robotic pelvic dissection as surgical treatment of complicated diverticulitis in elective settings: a comparative study with fully laparoscopic procedure. Surg Endosc. 2019; 33:2583–2590.
crossref pmid
72. Ishihara S, Kiyomatsu T, Kawai K, Tanaka T, Hata K, Kazama S, et al. The short-term outcomes of robotic sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer: comparison with open and laparoscopic surgery using a propensity score analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018; 33:1047–1055.
crossref pmid
73. Luca F, Cenciarelli S, Valvo M, Pozzi S, Faso FL, Ravizza D, et al. Full robotic left colon and rectal cancer resection: technique and early outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16:1274–1278.
crossref pmid
74. Bae SU, Baek SJ, Hur H, Baik SH, Kim NK, Min BS. Robotic left colon cancer resection: a dual docking technique that maximizes splenic flexure mobilization. Surg Endosc. 2015; 29:1303–1309.
crossref pmid
75. Maciel V, Lujan HJ, Plasencia G, Zeichen M, Mata W, Jorge I, et al. Diverticular disease complicated with colovesical fistula: laparoscopic versus robotic management. Int Surg. 2014; 99:203–210.
crossref pmid pmc
76. Kim JC, Lee JL, Yoon YS, Kim CW, Park IJ, Lim SB. Robotic left colectomy with complete mesocolectomy for splenic flexure and descending colon cancer, compared with a laparoscopic procedure. Int J Med Robot. 2018; 14:e1918.
crossref
77. deSouza AL, Prasad LM, Park JJ, Marecik SJ, Blumetti J, Abcarian H. Robotic assistance in right hemicolectomy: is there a role? Dis Colon Rectum. 2010; 53:1000–1006.
crossref pmid
78. D'Annibale A, Pernazza G, Morpurgo E, Monsellato I, Pende V, Lucandri G, et al. Robotic right colon resection: evaluation of first 50 consecutive cases for malignant disease. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17:2856–2862.
pmid
79. Huettner F, Pacheco PE, Doubet JL, Ryan MJ, Dynda DI, Crawford DL. One hundred and two consecutive robotic-assisted minimally invasive colectomies--an outcome and technical update. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011; 15:1195–1204.
crossref pmid
80. Luca F, Ghezzi TL, Valvo M, Cenciarelli S, Pozzi S, Radice D, et al. Surgical and pathological outcomes after right hemicolectomy: case-matched study comparing robotic and open surgery. Int J Med Robot. 2011; 7:298–303.
crossref pmid
81. Park JS, Choi GS, Park SY, Kim HJ, Ryuk JP. Randomized clinical trial of robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic right colectomy. Br J Surg. 2012; 99:1219–1226.
crossref
82. Lujan HJ, Maciel VH, Romero R, Plasencia G. Laparoscopic versus robotic right colectomy: a single surgeon's experience. J Robot Surg. 2013; 7:95–102.
crossref pmid
83. Zawadzki M, Rzaca M, Czarnecki R, Obuszko Z, Jacyna K, Stewart L, et al. Beginning robotic assisted colorectal surgery - it's harder than it looks! Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2014; 9:562–568.
crossref pmid pmc
84. Megevand JL, Amboldi M, Lillo E, Lenisa L, Ganio E, Ambrosi A, et al. Right colectomy: consecutive 100 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique for malignancy. Cumulative experience in a single centre. Updates Surg. 2019; 71:151–156.
crossref pmid
85. Buchs NC, Pugin F, Ris F, Volonte F, Morel P, Roche B. Early experience with robotic rectopexy. Int J Med Robot. 2013; 9:e61–e65.
crossref
86. Mantoo S, Podevin J, Regenet N, Rigaud J, Lehur PA, Meurette G. Is robotic-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy superior to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the management of obstructed defaecation? Colorectal Dis. 2013; 15:e469–e475.
crossref
87. Mehmood RK, Parker J, Bhuvimanian L, Qasem E, Mohammed AA, Zeeshan M, et al. Short-term outcome of laparoscopic versus robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse. Is robotic superior? Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014; 29:1113–1118.
crossref
88. Inaba CS, Sujatha-Bhaskar S, Koh CY, Jafari MD, Mills SD, Carmichael JC, et al. Robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a single-institution experience. Tech Coloproctol. 2017; 21:667–671.
crossref pmid
89. Hompes R, Rauh SM, Ris F, Tuynman JB, Mortensen NJ. Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery for local excision of rectal neoplasms. Br J Surg. 2014; 101:578–581.
crossref pmid
90. Ngu JC, Kuo LJ, Kung CH, Chen CL, Kuo CC, Chang SW, et al. Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer after clinical complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Int J Med Robot. 2018; 14:e1948.
crossref
91. Arnott S, Skancke M, Obias V. Robotic transanal microsurgery for high early rectal neoplasia (T0-T1, N0 lesions), case series of 10 patients. Int J Med Robot. 2018; 14:e1956.
crossref
92. Tomassi MJ, Taller J, Yuhan R, Ruan JH, Klaristenfeld DD. Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery for the excision of rectal neoplasia: clinical experience with 58 consecutive patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2019; 62:279–285.
crossref pmid
TOOLS
ORCID iDs

Jin Cheon Kim
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4823-8619

Similar articles