Open vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic pouch excision: unveiling the best approach for optimal outcomes

Introduction Despite advantages for patients with ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, and familial adenomatous polyposis, restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis carries a risk of pouch failure, necessitating pouch excision. The traditional open approach is associated with potential complications. Robotic and laparoscopic techniques are emerging, but comparative outcome data are limited. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive adult patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open ileal pouch excision at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, between January 2015 and December 2023. We analyzed data on patient characteristics, perioperative variables, and postoperative outcomes, focusing on short-term complications. Statistical analysis included appropriate tests. Results The study included 123 patients: 23 underwent robotic-assisted pouch excision, 12 laparoscopic, and 82 open. The robotic approach had the longest median operative time (334 +/- 170 min, p = 0.03). However, it demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss than open (150 +/- 200 ml vs. 350 +/- 300 ml, p = 0.002) and laparoscopic surgery (250 +/- 250 ml, p = 0.005). Robotic and laparoscopic groups required fewer preoperative ureteral stents than the open group (p = 0.001). Additionally, the robotic approach utilized fewer pelvic drainages (p < 0.0001) and had a lower rate of lysis of adhesions > 60 min compared to open surgery (p = 0.003). Robotic procedures had significantly lower 30-day postoperative complications than the open approach (30.4% vs. 65.9%, p = 0.002) while also demonstrating fewer 30-day reoperations than the laparoscopic group (p = 0.04). Conclusions Robotic-assisted pouch excision offered significant benefits, including decreased EBL, reduced need for preoperative ureteral stents, and significantly fewer 30-day postoperative complications compared to open surgery.