Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Sep;39(9):5654-5668.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-025-11918-8. Epub 2025 Jul 14.

Trends in operative time and patient outcomes in robotic colostomy reversal: surgeons' short-term pain for patients' long-term gain

Michael H Froehlich  1 , Isabelle Van Roy  2 , Aleksandr Krichmar  2 , Christopher M Mazis  2 , David A Roberts  2 , Suresh B Yelika  2   3 , Nicholas J Ahn  2   3 , Paula I Denoya  2   3 , Deborah A Nagle  2   3
Affiliations

Trends in operative time and patient outcomes in robotic colostomy reversal: surgeons' short-term pain for patients' long-term gain

Michael H Froehlich et al. Surg Endosc. 2025 Sep.

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to assess robotic console time and total operative time, as well as post-operative outcomes, in patients undergoing robotic-assisted colostomy reversal.

Methods: This was a single institution retrospective review of patients undergoing robotic colostomy reversal from January 2020 to February 2024. Demographics, pre-, intra-, and post-operative data were collected and analyzed to evaluate factors associated with prolonged console and operative times, as well as assess post-operative outcomes.

Results: 37 patients underwent robotic-assisted colostomy reversal. 21 patients were male. Mean age was 57.1 years and 87.5% were Caucasian. 40.5% had hypertension, 5.4% had DMII, 2.7% had CHF, 5.4% had CKD, and 5.4% had COPD. 24 (64.9%) had colostomies secondary to perforated diverticulitis, 8.1% due to diverticulitis without frank perforation, 8.1% due to perforated or obstructing colon malignancies, and 5.4% following traumatic colon injuries. 97.3% had fully independent functional statuses. Two cases (5.4%) were converted to open. Mean console time for all cases was 174 min. Mean console time in those who did not undergo pre-operative ureteral stenting or ICG instillation was significantly less (161 min) than those who did (203 min) (p = 0.020). Over the study period, there was no statistically significant decrease in robotic console time (p = 0.982) or total operative time (p = 0.977). Two patients (5.4%) had post-operative rectal bleeding, one of which required transfusion. No patients had post-operative anastomotic leaks. Mean return of bowel function was 2.1 days. Mean length of stay was 3.7 days and 85.3% of patients were discharged within 4 days. One (2.7%) patient was readmitted within 90 days.

Conclusion: Robotic colostomy reversal appears to be a safe and feasible option with a low incidence of complications. Operative time remains long, primarily due to the need for minimally invasive lysis of adhesions. Use of ureteral stenting also contributes to longer console and operative times.

Keywords: Colostomy; Colostomy reversal; Console time; Operative time; Robotic; Robotic-assisted.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Disclosures: Dr. Michael Froehlich, Dr. Isabelle Van Roy, Dr. Aleksandr Krichmar, Dr. Christopher Mazis, Dr. David Roberts, Dr. Suresh Yelika, and Dr. Paula Denoya have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Nicholas Ahn has received consulting fees from Virtual Incision as a product evaluator and trial participant. Dr. Deborah Nagle has received consulting fees from Virtual Incision as a product evaluator and trial participant, has received payment or honoraria from Intuitive Surgical as a proctor, has participated on the Data Safety Monitoring Board at Stony Brook as an investigator, and serves a subject editor for the journal, Surgical Endoscopy.

References

    1. Athanasiou CD, Robinson J, Yiasemidou M, Lockwood S, Markides GA (2017) Laparoscopic vs open approach for transverse colon cancer. a systematic review and meta-analysis of short and long term outcomes. Int J Surg 41:78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.03.050 - DOI - PubMed
    1. de Angelis N, Vitali GC, Brunetti F, Wassmer CH, Gagniere C, Puppa G, Tournigand C, Ris F (2016) Laparoscopic vs open surgery for t4 colon cancer: a propensity score analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 31(11):1785–1797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2646-y - DOI
    1. Madiedo A, Hall J (2021) Minimally invasive management of diverticular disease. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 34(2):113–120. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716703 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Tochigi T, Kosugi C, Shuto K, Mori M, Hirano A, Koda K (2017) Management of complicated diverticulitis of the colon. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2(1):22–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/ags3.12035 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Guerra F, Coletta D, Del Basso C, Giuliani G, Patriti A (2019) Conventional versus minimally invasive hartmann takedown: a meta-analysis of the literature. World J Surg 43(7):1820–1828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-04962-8 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources