Introduction: In June 2023, our institution adopted the Medtronic Hugo RAS system for colorectal procedures. This system’s independent robotic arms enable personalized docking configurations. This study presents our refined multi-docking strategy for robotic low anterior resection (LAR) and deep pelvic procedures, designed to maximize the Hugo RAS system’s potential in rectal surgery, and evaluates the associated learning curve. Methods: This retrospective analysis included 31 robotic LAR procedures performed with the Hugo RAS system using our novel multi-docking strategy. Docking times were the primary outcome. The Mann–Kendall test, Spearman’s correlation, and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis were used to assess the learning curve and efficiency gains associated with the strategy. Results: Docking times showed a significant negative trend (p < 0.01), indicating improved efficiency with experience. CUSUM analysis confirmed a distinct learning curve, with proficiency achieved around the 15th procedure. The median docking time was 6 min, comparable to other robotic platforms after proficiency. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility and effectiveness of a multi-docking strategy in robotic LAR using the Hugo RAS system. Our personalized approach, capitalizing on the system’s unique features, resulted in efficient docking times and streamlined surgical workflow. This approach may be particularly beneficial for surgeons transitioning from laparoscopic to robotic surgery, facilitating a smoother adoption of the new technology. Further research is needed to validate the generalizability of these findings across different surgical settings and experience levels.

Purpose: The aim of the study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of patients affected by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who underwent surgery performed through laparoscopy or using the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS. Methods: This is a retrospective study from a prospectively maintained database comparing laparoscopic vs. robotic-assisted surgery for IBD from 01/11/2017 to 15/04/2024. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon robotic-naïve with a large experience in laparoscopic surgery for IBD. The robotic procedures were performed using the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS platform. Outcomes were 30-day postoperative complications, operative time, conversion rate, intraoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate. Results: Among 121 consecutive patients, 80 underwent laparoscopic (LG) and 41 robotic-assisted surgery (RG). Baseline, preoperative and disease-specific characteristics were comparable except for older age (50 [38–56] vs. 38 [28–54] years; p = 0.05) and higher albumin level (42 [40–44] vs. 40 [38–42] g/L, p = 0.006) in the RG. The intracorporeal anastomosis was more frequent in the RG (80% vs. 6%; p < 0.001) with longer operative time (240 vs. 205 min; p = 0.006), while the conversion rate was not different (5% vs. 10%, p = 0.49). Surgical procedure types were equally distributed between the two groups, and the rate of intra-abdominal septic complication (IASC) was comparable across the different procedures. Postoperative complications were similar, including the rate of IASC (5% vs. 5%, p = 1), postoperative ileus (5% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.71), bleeding (2% vs. 5%, p = 0.66), and Clavien-Dindo > 2 complications (7% vs. 6%; p = 1). Conclusion: IBD surgery performed using the Medtronic Hugo™ RAS is safe and feasible, with similar postoperative outcomes when compared to the laparoscopic approach.

BACKGROUND: Concerns persist regarding the effectiveness of robotic proctectomy compared with open proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer with a high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of surrogate cancer outcomes after robotic versus open proctectomy in this subpopulation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three academic hospitals (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Rochester) with data available through the Mayo Data Explorer platform. PATIENTS: Patients at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement were selected on the basis of the MRI-based definition from the MERCURY I and II trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (≤1 mm), mesorectal grading, and rate of distal margin involvement. RESULTS: Out of 413 patients, 125 (30%) underwent open and 288 (70%) underwent robotic proctectomy. Open proctectomy was significantly associated with a greater proportion of cT4 tumors (39.3% vs 24.8%, p = 0.021), multivisceral/concomitant resections (40.8% vs 18.4%, p < 0.001), and less frequent total neoadjuvant therapy use (17.1% vs 47.1%, p = 0.001). Robotic proctectomy was less commonly associated with pathologic circumferential resection margin involvement (7.3% vs 17.6%, p = 0.002), including after adjustment for cT stage, neoadjuvant therapy, and multivisceral resection (OR 0.326; 95% CI, 0.157–0.670, p = 0.002). Propensity score matching for 66 patients per group and related multivariable analysis no longer indicated any reduction of circumferential positive margin rate associated with robotic surgery (p = 0.86 and p = 0.18). Mesorectal grading was comparable (incomplete mesorectum in 6% robotic proctectomy patients vs 11.8% open proctectomy patients, p = 0.327). All cases had negative distal resection margins. LIMITATION: Retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer at high risk of circumferential resection margin involvement, robotic proctectomy is an effective approach and could be pursued when technically possible as an alternative to open proctectomy. See Video Abstract. RESULTADOS COMPARATIVOS ENTRE LA PROCTECTOMÍA ROBÓTICA Y LA PROCTECTOMÍA ABIERTA EN CASOS DE CÁNCER DE RECTO CON ALTO RIESGO DE MÁRGEN DE RESECCIÓN CIRCUNFERENCIAL POSITIVO: ANTECEDENTES: Persisten preocupaciones con respecto a la efectividad de la proctectomía robótica en comparación con la proctectomía abierta en casos de cáncer de recto localmente avanzado con un alto riesgo de margen de resección circunferencial positivo. OBJETIVO: Comparar los resultados en la subpoblación de portadores de cáncer luego de una proctectomía robótica versus una proctectomía abierta. DISEÑO: Estudio retrospectivo de cohortes. AJUSTE: Realizado en tres hospitales académicos (Mayo Clinic de Arizona, Florida y Rochester) a través de la plataforma Mayo Data Explorer. PACIENTES: Fueron seleccionados aquellos pacientes con alto riesgo de compromiso sobre el margen de resección circunferencial, según la definición de los Estudios Mercury I-II basada en la Imágen de Resonancia Magnética. MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO PRINCIPALES Y SECUNDARIAS: La tasa de compromiso patológico sobre el margen de resección circunferencial (≤1 mm), la clasificación mesorrectal y la tasa del compromiso del margen distal. RESULTADOS: De 413 pacientes, 125 (30%) fueron sometidos a una proctectomía abierta y 288 (70%) a proctectomía robótica. La proctectomía abierta se asoció significativamente con una mayor proporción de tumores cT4 (39,3% frente a 24,8%, p = 0,021), las resecciones multiviscerales/concomitantes fueron de 40,8% frente a 18,4%, p < 0,001 y una adminstración menos frecuente de terapia neoadyuvante total (17,1). % vs 47,1%, p = 0,001). La proctectomía robótica se asoció con menos frecuencia con la presencia de una lesión sobre el margen de resección circunferencial patológico (7,3% frente a 17,6%, p = 0,002), incluso después del ajuste por estadio cT, de la terapia neoadyuvante y de resección multivisceral (OR 0,326, IC 95% 0,157-0,670, p = 0,002). El apareado de propensión por puntuación en 66 pacientes por grupo y el análisis multivariable relacionado, no mostraron ninguna reducción en la tasa de margen positivo circunferencial asociado con la cirugía robótica (p = 0,86 y p = 0,18). La clasificación mesorrectal fue igualmente comparable (mesorrecto incompleto en el 6% de los pacientes con RP frente al 11,8% de los pacientes con OP, p = 0,327). Todos los casos tuvieron márgenes de resección distal negativos. LIMITACIÓN: Diseño retrospectivo. CONCLUSIÓN: En pacientes con cáncer de recto localmente avanzado con alto riesgo de compromiso del margen de resección circunferencial, la proctectomía robótica es un enfoque eficaz y podría realizarse cuando sea técnicamente posible como alternativa a la proctectomía abierta. (Traducción—Dr. Xavier Delgadillo)

The terminal ileum is the most frequent site of Crohn's Disease (CD) that necessitates surgery. Of the postoperative complications (POCs) associated with ileocaecal resection for CD, intra-abdominal septic complications (IASCs) include anastomotic leak, abscesses, and entero-cutaneous fistula. We aimed to identify predictors of IASCs and severe POCs (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) after primary ileocaecal resection for CD. This is a retrospective single-centre cohort study including all consecutive primary ileocaecal resection for CD in a tertiary IBD centre between 2004 and 2021. A total of 853 patients underwent primary ileocaecal resection for CD. 307 (36.6 %) patients were receiving antibiotics, 253 (29.8 %), systemic steroids, and 178 (21.0 %) oral budesonide at surgery. At 90 days, 260 (30.8 %) patients developed POCs, 62 (7.3 %) severe POCs, and 56 (6.6 %) IASCs. At multivariate analysis, severe POCs were associated with lower preoperative albumin levels (OR1.58, 95 %CI 1.02-2.50, p = 0.040) and a history of cardiovascular diseases (OR2.36, 95 %CI 1.08-7.84, p = 0.030). IASCs were associated with lower preoperative albumin levels (OR1.81, 95 %CI 1.15-2.94, p = 0.011) and oral budesonide (OR2.07, 95 %CI 1.12-3.83, p = 0.021) with a dose-dependent effect. The independent association, dose-dependent effect, and biological plausibility of budesonide and IASCs suggest a robust causal effect. Oral budesonide should be carefully assessed before primary ileocaecal resection for CD.