Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 27, 2025

12:45
Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer
Published on: February 12, 2022
5.6K
Robotic ambulatory colorectal resections: a systematic review
Joachim Cheng En Ho1, Aryan Raj Goel2, Adriel Heilong Fung3,4
1UCL Medical School, Faculty of Medical Sciences, London, UK. joachim.ho.19@ucl.ac.uk.
Journal of Robotic Surgery
|May 7, 2024
Summary
Robotic ambulatory colorectal resections (RACrR) are safe for select patients, enabling same-day discharge. Further research is needed to confirm these findings in larger patient groups.
Area of Science:
- Minimally Invasive Surgery
- Colorectal Surgery
- Surgical Outcomes
Background:
- Minimally invasive techniques like laparoscopic and robotic surgery have advanced colorectal procedures.
- Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols facilitate shorter hospital stays, including same-day discharges (SDD).
- Limited review exists on robotic ambulatory colorectal resections (RACrR) for SDD.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review existing literature on robotic ambulatory colorectal resections (RACrR) with same-day discharge (SDD).
- To assess the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of RACrR for SDD.
Main Methods:
- Systematic literature search across three databases and internet searches.
- Data extraction by two independent reviewers.
- Inclusion criteria: robotic colorectal resections with hospital stay < 24 hours.
Main Results:
- Four studies with 136 patients were analyzed.
- Common indications included colorectal cancer and diverticulitis; low anterior resection was frequent.
- Low postoperative complication rate (4%) and readmission rate (<1%) were observed.
Conclusions:
- Robotic ambulatory colorectal resections (RACrR) appear safe and feasible in a carefully selected patient cohort.
- Further high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are required to validate these findings.
- Limitations include small sample sizes and potential recall bias from retrospective studies.

