Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for mid-low rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy: comparison of oncologic outcomes

Surgical stress response after colorectal resection: a comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery

BACKGROUND

The perioperative immune status of colorectal robotic surgery (RS), laparoscopic surgery (LS), and open surgery (OS) patients has not been compared. Our aim was to evaluate perioperative stress and immune response after RS, LS and OS.

METHODS

This prospective study included 46 colorectal surgery patients from the Department of Surgical Oncology of the University of Tokyo Hospital. Peripheral venous blood samples were obtained preoperatively and on postoperative days 1, 3, and 6. We evaluated expression of HLA-DR (marker of immune competence), C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and lymphocyte subset counts (natural killers, cytotoxic T cells and helper T cells).

RESULTS

Fifteen, 23, and 8 patients underwent RS, LS and OS, respectively. HLA-DR expression was the lowest on day 1 and gradually increased on days 3 and 6 in all the groups. There was no significant difference in postoperative HLA-DR expression between the RS and LS group. However, on day 3, HLA-DR expression in the RS group was significantly higher than in the OS group (p = 0.04). On day 1, CRP levels in the LS group were significantly lower than in the RS group (p = 0.038). There were no significant perioperative changes in the lymphocyte subset cell count between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative surgical stress, as evaluated by immunological parameters, was comparable between robotic and laparoscopic surgery and higher with open surgery. Robotic surgery may be an alternative to laparoscopic surgery, as a minimally invasive surgery option for colorectal cancer.

Robotic right colectomy: A worthwhile procedure? Results of a meta-analysis of trials comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy

BACKGROUND:

Robotic right colectomy (RRC) is a complex procedure, offered to selected patients at institutions highly experienced with the procedure. It is still not clear if this approach is worthwhile in enhancing patient recovery and reducing post-operative complications, compared with laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC). Literature is still fragmented and no meta-analyses have been conducted to compare the two procedures. This work aims at reducing this gap in literature, in order to draw some preliminary conclusions on the differences and similarities between RRC and LRC, focusing on short-term outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing RRC and LRC, and meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Peri-operative outcomes (e.g., morbidity, mortality, anastomotic leakage rates, blood loss, operative time) constituted the study end points.

RESULTS:

Six studies, including 168 patients undergoing RRC and 348 patients undergoing LRC were considered as suitable. The patients in the two groups were similar with respect to sex, body mass index, presence of malignant disease, previous abdominal surgery, and different with respect to age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. There were no statistically significant differences between RRC and LRC regarding estimated blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, number of retrieved lymph nodes, development of anastomotic leakage and other complications, overall morbidity, rates of reoperation, overall mortality, hospital stays. RRC resulted in significantly longer operative time.

CONCLUSIONS:

The RRC procedure is feasible, safe, and effective in selected patients. However, operative times are longer comparing to LRC and no advantages in peri-operative and post-operative outcomes are demonstrated with the use of the robotic surgical system.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.