Control Comparison of the New EndoWrist and Traditional Laparoscopic Staplers for Anterior Rectal Resection with the Da Vinci Xi: A Case Study.

BACKGROUND A new robotic stapler for the da Vinci Xi® is directly controlled by the surgeon at the console and equipped with EndoWrist® technology. We evaluated operative and short-term results of the first patients who underwent anterior rectal resection for cancer with the da Vinci Xi and new staplers, and compared the results with those of a comparable group treated with traditional laparoscopic staplers. METHODS From December 2015 to December 2017, 25 patients underwent anterior rectal resection for cancer with robotic EndoWrist staplers (EndoWrist group). Using a case-control method, we compared the results with those of a similar group of patients treated with the same system and a traditional laparoscopic endostapler, controlled by a bedside assistant (Control group). RESULTS No conversions to laparoscopy or laparotomy were observed, in either group. The mean number of charges was 2.1 ± 0.2 in the EndoWrist group versus 2.7 ± 0.7 in the Control group (P = .0004). The other perioperative results were comparable. During follow-up, the incidence of anastomotic fistula in a contrast enema study was higher in the Control group, although the difference was not statistically significant (two leaks versus two leaks in EndoWrist group; P = .8). The interval between rectal resection and stoma closure was shorter in the EndoWrist group (3.4 ± 2.5 versus 4.2 ± 2.9 months in the Control group; P = .2), although the difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS Our experience suggests that the new robotic staplers simplify transection, which could reduce the average number of stapler firings used during rectal resection and could decrease the incidence of anastomotic leakage. These findings require confirmation in larger studies.

[1]  V. Ozben,et al.  Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Stapler Use for Rectal Transection in Robotic Surgery for Cancer. , 2018, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[2]  L. Morelli,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® , 2017, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[3]  R. Amdur,et al.  The Use of Robotic and Laparoscopic Surgical Stapling Devices During Minimally Invasive Colon and Rectal Surgery: A Comparison. , 2017, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A.

[4]  Y. Sakai,et al.  Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection with double stapling technique anastomosis. , 2016, World journal of gastroenterology.

[5]  V. Ferrari,et al.  Use of a new integrated table motion for the da Vinci Xi in colorectal surgery , 2016, International Journal of Colorectal Disease.

[6]  V. Ferrari,et al.  Use of the new Da Vinci Xi® during robotic rectal resection for cancer: technical considerations and early experience , 2015, International Journal of Colorectal Disease.

[7]  N. Kim,et al.  Robotic surgery for rectal cancer can overcome difficulties associated with pelvic anatomy , 2015, Surgical Endoscopy.

[8]  Yao Liu,et al.  Clinical risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2015, Surgical Endoscopy.

[9]  S. Wexner,et al.  Current status of laparoscopy for the treatment of rectal cancer. , 2014, World journal of gastroenterology.

[10]  S. Nagayama,et al.  Erratum to: Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after laparoscopic low anterior resection with DST anastomosis , 2014, Surgical Endoscopy.

[11]  S. Ng,et al.  Robotic surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review of current practice. , 2014, World journal of gastrointestinal oncology.

[12]  I. Mizrahi,et al.  Role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer: a review. , 2014, World journal of gastroenterology.

[13]  Seung Hyuk Baik,et al.  Outcomes of Robotic-Assisted Colorectal Surgery Compared with Laparoscopic and Open Surgery: a Systematic Review , 2014, Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.

[14]  Giuseppe Spinoglio,et al.  The influence of fluorescence imaging on the location of bowel transection during robotic left-sided colorectal surgery , 2014, Surgical Endoscopy.

[15]  J. Kim,et al.  The Role of Diverting Stoma After an Ultra-low Anterior Resection for Rectal Cancer , 2013, Annals of coloproctology.

[16]  E. Haas,et al.  Laparoscopic and Robotic Colorectal Surgery: A Comparison and Contrast , 2013 .

[17]  Steven D. Mills,et al.  The use of indocyanine green fluorescence to assess anastomotic perfusion during robotic assisted laparoscopic rectal surgery , 2013, Surgical Endoscopy.

[18]  A. D’Annibale,et al.  Total mesorectal excision: a comparison of oncological and functional outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer , 2013, Surgical Endoscopy.

[19]  Y. Park,et al.  Risk Factor Analysis of Postoperative Complications After Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery , 2011, World Journal of Surgery.

[20]  S. Baek,et al.  Robot-assisted intersphincteric resection for low rectal cancer: technique and short-term outcome for 29 consecutive patients , 2011, Surgical Endoscopy.

[21]  P. Quirke,et al.  Reporting colorectal cancer , 2007, Histopathology.

[22]  G. Ballantyne,et al.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer , 2006, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[23]  G. Branagan,et al.  Prognosis After Anastomotic Leakage in Colorectal Surgery , 2005, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[24]  R. Sjödahl,et al.  Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection of the rectum , 2004, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[25]  J. Whitaker,et al.  The double stapling technique for low anterior resection. Results, modifications, and observations. , 1990, Annals of surgery.