Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 12, pp 4171–4176 | Cite as

Feasibility and safety of robotic resection of complicated diverticular disease

  • Fabian Grass
  • Jacopo Crippa
  • Kellie L. Mathis
  • Scott R. Kelley
  • David W. LarsonEmail author


This study aimed to assess intra- and postoperative outcomes of robotic resection of left-sided complicated diverticular disease. Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained institutional database on consecutive patients undergoing elective robotic resection for diverticular disease (2014–2018). All procedures were performed within an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP). Demographic, surgical and ERP-related items were compared between patients with simple and complicated diverticular disease according to intra-operative presentation. Postoperative complications and length of stay were compared between the two groups. Out of 150 patients, 78 (52%) presented with complicated and the remaining 72 (48%) with uncomplicated disease. Both groups were comparable regarding demographic baseline characteristics and overall ERP compliance. Surgery for complicated disease was longer (288 ± 96 vs. 258 ± 72 min, p = 0.04) and more contaminated (≥ class 3: 57.7 vs. 23.6%, p < 0.001) with a trend to higher conversion rates (10.3 vs. 2.8%, p = 0.1). While postoperative overall complications tended to occur more often after resections for complicated disease (28.2 vs. 15.3%, p = 0.075), major, surgical and medical complications did not differ between the two groups, and median length of stay was 3 days in both settings (p = 0.19). Robotic resection of diverticular disease was feasible and safe regardless of disease presentation by the time of surgery.


Robotic Diverticular disease Complications Enhanced recovery 



Fabian Grass was supported by the Société Académique Vaudoise, Lausanne, Switzerland and by the SICPA foundation, Lausanne, Switzerland.


No funding sources to declare.

Compliance with ethical standards


Drs. Fabian Grass, Jacopo Crippa, Kellie L. Mathis, Scott R. Kelley, David W. Larson have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Munie ST, Nalamati SPM (2018) Epidemiology and pathophysiology of diverticular disease. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 31:209–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van de Wall BJM, Stam MAW, Draaisma WA, Stellato R, Bemelman WA, Boermeester MA, Broeders I, Belgers EJ, Toorenvliet BR, Prins HA, Consten ECJ (2017) Surgery versus conservative management for recurrent and ongoing left-sided diverticulitis (DIRECT trial): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Arendonk KJ, Tymitz KM, Gearhart SL, Stem M, Lidor AO (2013) Outcomes and costs of elective surgery for diverticular disease: a comparison with other diseases requiring colectomy. JAMA Surg 148:316–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halabi WJ, Kang CY, Jafari MD, Nguyen VQ, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ, Pigazzi A (2013) Robotic-assisted colorectal surgery in the United States: a nationwide analysis of trends and outcomes. World J Surg 37:2782–2790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jayne D, Pigazzi A, Marshall H, Croft J, Corrigan N, Copeland J, Quirke P, West N, Rautio T, Thomassen N, Tilney H, Gudgeon M, Bianchi PP, Edlin R, Hulme C, Brown J (2017) 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 318:1569–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lorenzon L, Bini F, Balducci G, Ferri M, Salvi PF, Marinozzi F (2016) Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted colectomy and rectal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 31:161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duchalais E, Machairas N, Kelley SR, Landmann RG, Merchea A, Colibaseanu DT, Mathis KL, Dozois EJ, Larson DW (2018) Does prolonged operative time impact postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing robotic-assisted rectal resection for cancer? Surg Endosc 32:3659–3666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kelley SR, Duchalais E, Larson DW (2018) Robotic right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis for malignancy. J Robot Surg 12:461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lightner AL, Kelley SR, Larson DW (2018) Robotic Platform for an IPAA. Dis Colon Rectum 61:869–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boostrom SY, Wolff BG, Cima RR, Merchea A, Dozois EJ, Larson DW (2012) Uncomplicated diverticulitis, more complicated than we thought. J Gastrointest Surg 16:1744–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Emori TG, Culver DH, Horan TC, Jarvis WR, White JW, Olson DR, Banerjee S, Edwards JR, Martone WJ, Gaynes RP et al (1991) National nosocomial infections surveillance system (NNIS): description of surveillance methods. Am J Infect Control 19:19–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Larson DW, Lovely JK, Cima RR, Dozois EJ, Chua H, Wolff BG, Pemberton JH, Devine RR, Huebner M (2014) Outcomes after implementation of a multimodal standard care pathway for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 101:1023–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khan RMA, Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S (2017) Early elective versus delayed elective surgery in acute recurrent diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 46:92–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abraha I, Binda GA, Montedori A, Arezzo A, Cirocchi R (2017) Laparoscopic versus open resection for sigmoid diverticulitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11::CD009277Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gralista P, Moris D, Vailas M, Angelou A, Petrou A, Felekouras E, Papalampros A (2017) Laparoscopic approach in colonic diverticulitis: dispelling myths and misperceptions. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 27:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cirocchi R, Arezzo A, Renzi C, Cochetti G, D’Andrea V, Fingerhut A, Mearini E, Binda GA (2015) Is laparoscopic surgery the best treatment in fistulas complicating diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon? A systematic review. Int J Surg 24:95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bhakta A, Tafen M, Glotzer O, Canete J, Chismark AD, Valerian BT, Stain SC, Lee EC (2016) Laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy for complicated diverticulitis is safe: review of 576 consecutive colectomies. Surg Endosc 30:1629–1634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pendlimari R, Touzios JG, Azodo IA, Chua HK, Dozois EJ, Cima RR, Larson DW (2011) Short-term outcomes after elective minimally invasive colectomy for diverticulitis. Br J Surg 98:431–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hassan I, Cima RR, Larson DW, Dozois EJ, O’Byrne MM, Larson DR, Pemberton JH (2007) The impact of uncomplicated and complicated diverticulitis on laparoscopic surgery conversion rates and patient outcomes. Surg Endosc 21:1690–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larson DW, Batdorf NJ, Touzios JG, Cima RR, Chua HK, Pemberton JH, Dozois EJ (2010) A fast-track recovery protocol improves outcomes in elective laparoscopic colectomy for diverticulitis. J Am Coll Surg 211:485–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maciel V, Lujan HJ, Plasencia G, Zeichen M, Mata W, Jorge I, Lee D, 3rd Viamonte M, Hartmann RF (2014) Diverticular disease complicated with colovesical fistula: laparoscopic versus robotic management. Int Surg 99:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ragupathi M, Ramos-Valadez DI, Patel CB, Haas EM (2011) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for recurrent diverticulitis: experience in consecutive cases and a review of the literature. Surg Endosc 25:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spinelli A, David G, Gidaro S, Carvello M, Sacchi M, Montorsi M, Montroni I (2017) First experience in colorectal surgery with a new robotic platform with haptic feedback. Colorectal Dis 20(3):228–235Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ben Salem MO, Mosbahi O, Khalgui M, Jlalia Z, Frey G, Smida M (2017) BROMETH: methodology to design safe reconfigurable medical robotic systems. Int J Med Robot 13Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huettner F, Pacheco PE, Doubet JL, Ryan MJ, Dynda DI, Crawford DL (2011) One hundred and two consecutive robotic-assisted minimally invasive colectomies—an outcome and technical update. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1195–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pache B, Grass F, Fournier N, Hubner M, Demartines N, Hahnloser D (2018) Surgical teaching does not increase the risk of intraoperative adverse events. Int J Colorectal DisGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Page AJ, Gani F, Crowley KT, Lee KH, Grant MC, Zavadsky TL, Hobson D, Wu C, Wick EC, Pawlik TM (2016) Patient outcomes and provider perceptions following implementation of a standardized perioperative care pathway for open liver resection. Br J Surg 103:564–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Collins D, Machairas N, Duchalais E, Landmann RG, Merchea A, Colibaseanu DT, Kelley SR, Mathis KL, Dozois EJ, Larson DW (2018) Participation of colon and rectal fellows in robotic rectal cancer surgery: effect on surgical outcomes. J Surg Educ 75:465–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gustafsson UO, Hausel J, Thorell A, Ljungqvist O, Soop M, Nygren J, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Study G (2011) Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Arch Surg 146:571–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jurt J, Slieker J, Frauche P, Addor V, Sola J, Demartines N, Hubner M (2017) Enhanced recovery after surgery: can we rely on the key factors or do we need the bel ensemble? World J Surg 41:2464–2470CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Colon and Rectal SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations