Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The rise of robotic colorectal surgery: better for patients and better for surgeons

  • Brief Report
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robotic colorectal surgery represents a major technological advancement in the treatment of patients with colorectal disease. Several recent randomized controlled trials comparing robotic colorectal surgery with laparoscopic surgery have demonstrated improved short-term patient outcomes in the robotic group. Whilst the primary focus of research in robotic surgery has been on patient outcomes, the robotic platform also provides unparalleled benefits for the surgeon, including improved ergonomics and surgeon comfort, with the potential to reduce occupational injuries and prolong career longevity. It is becoming clear that robotic surgical systems improve patient outcomes and may provide significant benefits to the surgical workforce.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data availability statement is not applicable in this paper.

References

  1. Feng Q, Yuan W, Li T, Tang B, Jia B, Zhou Y et al (2022) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for middle and low rectal cancer (REAL): short-term outcomes of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 7(11):991–1004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Park JS, Lee SM, Choi GS, Park SY, Kim HJ, Song SH et al (2023) Comparison of laparoscopic versus robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancers: the colrar randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 278(1):31–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Feng Q, Tang W, Zhang Z, Wei Y, Ren L, Chang W et al (2022) Robotic versus laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections for low rectal cancer: a single-center randomized controlled trial. J Surg Oncol 126(8):1481–1493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yang H, Zhou L (2023) The urinary and sexual outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Today. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-023-02671-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fleming CA, Cullinane C, Lynch N, Killeen S, Coffey JC, Peirce CB (2021) Urogenital function following robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: meta-analysis. Br J Surg 108(2):128–137

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schlussel AT, Maykel JA (2019) Ergonomics and musculoskeletal health of the surgeon. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 32(6):424–434

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Park A, Lee G, Seagull FJ, Meenaghan N, Dexter D (2010) Patients benefit while surgeons suffer: an impending epidemic. J Am Coll Surg 210(3):306–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Siddiqi N, Stefan S, Jootun R, Mykoniatis I, Flashman K, Beable R et al (2021) Robotic complete mesocolic excision (CME) is a safe and feasible option for right colonic cancers: short and midterm results from a single-centre experience. Surg Endosc 35(12):6873–6881

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bianchi PP, Salaj A, Giuliani G, Ferraro L, Formisano G (2021) Feasibility of robotic right colectomy with complete mesocolic excision and intracorporeal anastomosis: short-term outcomes of 161 consecutive patients. Updates Surg 73(3):1065–1072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. DeSouza A, Domajnko B, Park J, Marecik S, Prasad L, Abcarian H (2011) Incisional hernia, midline versus low transverse incision: what is the ideal incision for specimen extraction and hand-assisted laparoscopy? Surg Endosc 25(4):1031–1036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wong SW, Ang ZH, Yang PF, Crowe P (2022) Robotic colorectal surgery and ergonomics. J Robot Surg 16(2):241–246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wong SW, Crowe P (2023) Visualisation ergonomics and robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 17(5):1873–1878

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wee IJY, Kuo LJ, Ngu JC (2020) A systematic review of the true benefit of robotic surgery: ergonomics. Int J Med Robot 16(4):e2113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shugaba A, Lambert JE, Bampouras TM, Nuttall HE, Gaffney CJ, Subar DA (2022) Should all minimal access surgery be robot-assisted? A systematic review into the musculoskeletal and cognitive demands of laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 26(7):1520–1530

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K (2015) Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(2):234–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dalager T, Jensen PT, Eriksen JR, Jakobsen HL, Mogensen O, Søgaard K (2020) Surgeons’ posture and muscle strain during laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Br J Surg 107(6):756–766

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dalsgaard T, Jensen MD, Hartwell D, Mosgaard BJ, Jørgensen A, Jensen BR (2020) Robotic surgery is less physically demanding than laparoscopic surgery: paired cross sectional study. Ann Surg 271(1):106–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. O’Callaghan J, Mohan HM, Sharrock A, Gokani V, Fitzgerald JE, Williams AP et al (2017) Cross-sectional study of the financial cost of training to the surgical trainee in the UK and Ireland. BMJ Open 7(11):e018086

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Larkins KM, Mohan HM, Gray M, Costello DM, Costello AJ, Heriot AG et al (2023) Transferability of robotic console skills by early robotic surgeons: a multi-platform crossover trial of simulation training. J Robot Surg 17(3):859–867

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Harji D, Houston F, Burke J, Griffiths B, Tilney H, Miskovic D et al (2023) The current status of robotic colorectal surgery training programmes. J Robot Surg 17(2):251–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Flynn J, Larach JT, Kong JCH, Waters PS, Warrier SK, Heriot A (2021) The learning curve in robotic colorectal surgery compared with laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review. Colorectal Dis 23(11):2806–2820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gall TMH, Alrawashdeh W, Soomro N, White S, Jiao LR (2020) Shortening surgical training through robotics: randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus robotic surgical learning curves. BJS Open 4(6):1100–1108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Soliman MK, Tammany AJ (2021) Teaching and training surgeons in robotic colorectal surgery. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 34(5):280–285

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim YW, Lee HM, Kim NK, Min BS, Lee KY (2012) The learning curve for robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 22(5):400–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Harji D, Aldajani N, Cauvin T, Chauvet A, Denost Q (2023) Parallel, component training in robotic total mesorectal excision. J Robot Surg 17(3):1049–1055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Panico G, Mastrovito S, Campagna G, Monterossi G, Costantini B, Gioè A et al (2023) Robotic docking time with the Hugo™ RAS system in gynecologic surgery: a procedure independent learning curve using the cumulative summation analysis (CUSUM). J Robot Surg 17(5):2547–2554

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. van der Schans EM, Hiep MAJ, Consten ECJ, Broeders I (2020) From Da Vinci Si to Da Vinci Xi: realistic times in draping and docking the robot. J Robot Surg 14(6):835–839

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Baek SJ, Kim SH, Cho JS, Shin JW, Kim J (2012) Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a cost analysis from a single institute in Korea. World J Surg 36(11):2722–2729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Roy S, Evans C (2016) Overview of robotic colorectal surgery: current and future practical developments. World J Gastrointest Surg 8(2):143–150

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ielpo B, Duran H, Diaz E, Fabra I, Caruso R, Malavé L et al (2017) Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: a comparative study of clinical outcomes and costs. Int J Colorectal Dis 32(10):1423–1429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hancock KJ, Klimberg VS, Nunez-Lopez O, Gajjar AH, Gomez G, Tyler DS et al (2022) Optimizing outcomes in colorectal surgery: cost and clinical analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches to colon resection. J Robot Surg 16(1):107–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St., Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

    Trevor M. Yeung, Kirsten M. Larkins, Satish K. Warrier & Alexander G. Heriot

  2. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Trevor M. Yeung

Authors
  1. Trevor M. Yeung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kirsten M. Larkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Satish K. Warrier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander G. Heriot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by TY. The first draft of the manuscript was written by all authors and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Trevor M. Yeung.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human and animal rights

This manuscript does not involve primary research on human and animal subjects and as such no ethical approval is required, and no specific patient consent to participate in the study or consent for publication is required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yeung, T.M., Larkins, K.M., Warrier, S.K. et al. The rise of robotic colorectal surgery: better for patients and better for surgeons. J Robotic Surg 18, 69 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-01822-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-024-01822-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation