Robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of eight studies

How robotics is changing and will change the field of colorectal surgery

During the last decade there has been a significant upward trend in colon and rectal minimally invasive surgery which can be attributed largely to the acceptance of robotic surgery platforms such as the da Vinci^® robotic system. The fourth generation da Vinci^® system, introduced in 2014, includes integrated table motion, intelligent laser targeted docking and more sophisticated instrumentation and imaging. These developments have enabled more surgeons to efficiently and safely perform multi-quadrant operations. Firefly^® technology allows assessment of colon perfusion and identification of ureters, and has shown potential in detecting occult recurrence or metastasis using molecular-labelled tumor markers. Wristed instrumentation has increased the technical ease of intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) for many surgeons, leading to more common use of ICA during right colectomy. Advanced imaging has shown potential to decrease the incidence of presacral nerve injury and improve urogenital outcomes after pelvic surgery, as has been the case in robotic urologic procedures. Finally, the robotic platform lends itself to surgical simulation for surgical trainees, as a pre-operative tool for mock operations and as an ongoing assessment tool for established colorectal surgeons. Given these advantages, surgeons should anticipate continued and increased utilization of this beneficial technology.

Oncological Outcomes and Quality of Life After Rectal Cancer Surgery

Surgery for rectal cancer has been completely revolutionized thanks to the adoption of new technologies and up-to-date surgical procedures that have been applied to the traditional milestone represented by Total Mesorectal Excision (TME).

The multimodal and multidisciplinary approach, with new technologies increased the patients’ life expectancies; nevertheless, they have placed the surgeon in front of newer issues, represented by both oncological outcomes and the patients’ need of a less destructive surgery and improved quality of life.

In this review we will go through laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME surgery, to show how the correct choice of the most appropriate technique, together with a deep knowledge of oncological principles and pelvic anatomy, is crucial to pursue an optimal cancer treatment. Novel technologies might also help to decrease the patients’ fear of surgery and address important issues such as cosmesis and improved preservation of postoperative functionality.

Standardised approach to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective multi-centre analysis

PURPOSE

Two non-inferiority randomised control trials have questioned the utility of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer by failing to prove that pathological markers of high-quality surgery are equivalent to those achieved by open technique. We present short- and long-term post-operative outcomes from the largest single surgeon series of consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic TME for rectal cancer. We describe the standardised laparoscopic technique developed by the principal surgeon, and the short-term outcomes from three surgeons who were trained in and subsequently adopted the same approach.

METHODS

Prospectively acquired data from consecutive patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer by the principal surgeon at the minimally invasive colorectal unit in Portsmouth between 2006 and 2014 were analysed along with data acquired between 2010 and 2017 from surgeons at three further international centres. Endpoints were overall and disease-free survival at 5 years, and early post-operative clinical and pathological outcomes.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-three consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic TME surgery by the principal surgeon. At 5 years, overall survival was 82.9% (Dukes' A = 94.4%; B = 81.6%; C = 73.7%); disease-free survival was 84.0% (Dukes' A = 93.3%; B = 86.8%; C = 72.6%). Post-operative length of stay, lymph node harvest, mean operating time, rate of conversion, major morbidity and 30-day mortality were not significantly different between the principal surgeon and those he had trained when subsequently in independent practices.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic TME produces excellent long-term survival outcomes for patients with rectal cancer. A standardised approach has the potential to improve outcomes by setting benchmarks for surgical quality, and providing a step-by-step method for surgical training.

Completeness of total mesorectum excision of laparoscopic versus robotic surgery: a review with a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

TME has revolutionized the surgical management of rectal cancer, and since the introduction of robotic TME (RTME), many reports have shown the feasibility and the safety of this approach. However, concerns persist regarding the advantages of robotic in surgery for the completeness of TME. The aim of this review is to compare robotic versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in rectal cancer, focusing on the completeness of TME.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in the electronic databases for all available studies comparing RTME versus conventional laparoscopic LTME with declared grade of mesorectum excision. Data regarding sample size, clinical and demographic characteristics, number of complete, nearly complete, and incomplete TME were extracted. Primary outcome was the number of complete TME in robotic and laparoscopic procedures. Secondary outcomes were the numbers of nearly complete and incomplete TME in robotic and laparoscopic rectal resections.

RESULTS

Twelve articles were included in the final analysis. Complete TME was reported by all authors, involving 1510 procedures, showing a significant difference in favor of robotic surgery (OR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.08-3.10, p = 0.03). Nearly complete and incomplete TME showed no significant difference between the procedures. Meta-regression analysis showed that none of patients' and tumors' characteristics significantly impacted on complete TME.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results underline that the robotic approach to rectal resection is the better way to obtain a complete TME. However, it is mandatory that randomized clinical trials should be performed to assess definitively if robotic minimally invasive surgery is better than a laparoscopic resection.

[Standardized access options for colorectal surgery with the da Vinci Xi system]

BACKGROUND

Performing colorectal surgery with previous da Vinci system generations presented some limitations that caused uncertainty for surgeons as they began to apply robotic technologies. The da Vinci Xi system is designed to overcome these limitations and to enable multiquadrant colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The design concept of the da Vinci Xi system and the standardized access for colorectal surgery are explained.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The da Vinci Xi system applies an overhead boom that maximizes the arm workspace, minimizes interference and makes the port placement universal for standardized access. Colorectal approaches have been validated in numerous cadaver models confirming the reproducibility of the standardized access.

RESULTS

Standardized access with a straight-line port placement is possible in all colorectal applications. For right-sided hemicolectomy, a transverse abdominal approach as well as a suprapubic port placement are possible. Utilizing the same principles, left-sided colectomy, sigmoid colectomy and low anterior resections can be performed. Proctocolectomy is enabled through boom rotation and a second docking. Only minor arm-to-arm interferences occurred and were easily manageable by the bedside assistant. None of the approaches required rearrangement of the patient cart or swapping arms to different port locations.

CONCLUSION

The da Vinci Xi system enables a standardized access for colorectal surgery through a universal straight-line port placement. Learning this standard principle once enables the surgeon to apply it to all colorectal surgeries and shorten the learning curve as well as minimizing stress for both novices and experienced robotic surgeons learning a new surgical robotic platform.

TME for rectal cancer: consecutive 70 patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic technique-cumulative experience in a single centre

From January 2011 to December 2015, 70 consecutive patients underwent either laparoscopic surgery (LS) or robotic surgery (RS) total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy. Data were prospectically recorded in a dedicated local database including ASA score, age, operative time, conversion rate, re-operation rate, early complications, length of stay, and pathological results. We enrolled 70 consecutive patients, 35 treated with LS (18 M, 17 F), 35 treated with RS (23 M, 12 F). Median total operative time was 225 min in LS group (IQR 194-255) and 252.5 min for RS group (IQR 214-300). Median first flatus time was 2 days for LS group (IQR 1-3) and 1 day for RS group (IQR 1-2). Stool discharge time (median) was 4 days for LS group (IQR 2-5) and 2 days for RS group (IQR 1-3). Length of stay (median) was 8 days in LS group (IQR 7-10) and 7 days in RS group (IQR 5-8). It was not found any statistically significant difference between the two groups when we analyzed the number nodes harvested the postoperative complications. The 30 day mortality was 0% in both two groups. The conversion rate for LS group was 23% (8/35 pts) and that for RS group was 0% (0/35). The RS may overcome technical limitations of LS. In our experience, it is a feasible and safe technique, it achieves better clinical outcomes due to the lower conversion rate compared to LS, although with higher costs.

Open versus minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center cohort study on 237 consecutive patients

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is gaining popularity in rectal tumor treatment. However, contrasting data are available regarding its safety and efficacy. Our aim is to compare the open and MIS approaches for rectal cancer treatment. Two-hundred-thirty-seven patients were included: 113 open and 124 MIS rectal resections. After the propensity score matching analysis (PS), the cases were matched into 42 open and 42 MIS. Short- and long-term outcomes, and pathological findings were analyzed before and after PS. A further comparison of the same outcomes and costs was conducted between the laparoscopic and the robotic approaches. As a whole, a sphincter-preserving procedure was more frequently performed in the MIS group (110 vs 75 cases; p < 0.0001). The estimated blood loss during MIS was significantly lower than during open surgery [127 (± 92) vs 242 (± 122) mL; p < 0.0001], with clear advantages for the robotic approach over laparoscopy [113 (± 87) vs 147 (± 93) mL; p 0.01]. Complication rate was comparable between the two groups. A higher rate of CRM positivity was evidenced after open surgery (12.4% vs 1.7%; p 0.004). A higher number of lymph nodes was harvested in the MIS group [12.5 (± 6.4) vs 11 (± 5.6); p 0.04]. After PS, no difference in terms of perioperative outcomes was noted, with the only exception of a higher blood loss in the open approach [242 (± 122) vs 127 (± 92) mL; p < 0.0001]. For the matched cases, no difference in 5-year overall and disease-free survival was evidenced (p 0.50 and 0.88, respectively). Mean costs were higher for robotics as compared to laparoscopy [9812 (±1974)€ vs 9045 (± 1893)€; p 0.02]. MIS could be considered as a treatment option for rectal cancer. The PS study evidenced clear advantages in terms of estimated blood loss over the open surgery. Costs still remain the main limit for robotics.

The Current Role of Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the growth in laparoscopic surgery, comparable oncological outcomes, and reduced complication rates, the majority of colorectal surgery is still performed via an open approach. Reasons for this may include technical difficulties associated with operating in narrow spaces such as in the pelvis and inadequate experience. Robotic surgery provides potential solutions to some of these challenges. This review will summarize the state of the literature regarding robotic colorectal surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The most consistent benefit of robotic surgery is decreasing operative conversions, specifically in rectal cancer. In partial colectomies, there is evidence to support quicker return to bowel function. Oncologic outcomes compared to the laparoscopic approach are equivalent. Robotic surgery provides solutions to the challenges posed by laparoscopy, including wristed instruments, ease of intracorporeal suturing, and ergonomic advantages. Randomized trials to evaluate peri-operative outcomes will be important. If robotics is able to facilitate conversion of open colectomies to their minimally invasive equivalent, robotics may end up proving to be advantageous in the peri-operative and post-operative period. Continued studies are warranted.

Robotic vs laparoscopic rectal tumour surgery: a cohort study

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare robotic and laparoscopic rectal surgery in terms of perioperative data, short-term outcome and compliance to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol.

METHOD

In this cohort study, 224 patients scheduled for rectal resection for cancer or adenoma between January 2011 and January 2017 were evaluated. In the first time period (12 January 2011 to 23 April 2014), 47 (46%) of 102 patients had laparoscopic surgery. In the second time period (24 April 2014 to 30 January 2017), 72 (59%) of 122 patients had robotic surgery. Perioperative data and short-term outcome were collected from the ERAS database and patient charts. Data obtained from laparoscopic and robotic surgery in the two time periods studied were compared. Primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes were compliance to the ERAS protocol, difference in postoperative complications and conversion to open surgery.

RESULTS

Compliance to the ERAS protocol was 81.1% in the robotic group and 83.4% in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.890). Robotic surgery was associated with shorter median LOS (3 days vs 7 days, P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (11.1% vs 34.0%, P = 0.002), lower rate of postoperative complications (25% vs 49%, P < 0.01) and longer duration of surgery (5.8 h vs 4.5 h, P < 0.001). The differences remained after multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery was associated with shorter LOS, lower conversion rates and fewer postoperative complications compared with laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery may add benefits to the ERAS protocol.

Right hemicolectomy: a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic-assisted, total laparoscopic, and robotic approach

BACKGROUND

There are a variety of surgical approaches for the management of right-sided colonic neoplasms. To date, no method has been shown superior in terms of surgical and perioperative outcomes. This meta-analysis compared open (ORH), laparoscopic-assisted (LRH), total laparoscopic (TLRH), and robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH) to assess surgical outcomes and perioperative morbidity and mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted an electronic systematic search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science that compared RRH, TLRH, LRH, and ORH. Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria: 5 randomized controlled trials, 25 retrospective, and 18 prospective studies totalling 5652 patients were included.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate was similar between RRH and TLRH (RR 1.0; Crl 0.66-1.5). The anastomotic leak rate was higher in LRH and ORH compared to RRH (RR 1.9; Crl 0.99-3.6 and RR 1.2; Crl 0.55-2.6, respectively), whereas it was lower in TLRH compared to RRH (RR 0.88 Crl 0.41-1.9). The risk of reoperation was significantly higher in ORH compared to TLRH (RR 3.3; Crl 1.3-8.0). Operative time was similar in RRH compared to LRH (RR - 27.0; Crl - 61.0 to 5.9), and to TLRH (RR - 24.0; Crl - 70.0 to 21.0). The hospital stay was significantly longer in LRH compared to RRH (RR 3.7; Crl 0.7-6.7).

CONCLUSION

The surgical management of right-sided colonic disease is evolving. This network meta-analysis observed that short-term outcomes following RRH and TLRH were superior to standard LRH and ORH. The adoption of more advanced minimally invasive techniques can be costly and have associated learning phases, but will ultimately improve patient outcomes.

Robotic total meso-rectal excision for rectal cancer: A systematic review following the publication of the ROLARR trial

AIM

To compare outcomes in patients undergoing rectal resection by robotic total meso-rectal excision (RTME) vs laparoscopic total meso-rectal excision (LTME).

METHODS

Standard medical electronic databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus were searched to find relevant articles. The data retrieved from all types of included published comparative trials in patients undergoing RTME vs LTME was analysed using the principles of meta-analysis. The operative, post-operative and oncological outcomes were evaluated to assess the effectiveness of both techniques of TME. The summated outcome of continuous variables was expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) and dichotomous data was presented in odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

One RCT (ROLARR trial) and 27 other comparative studies reporting the non-oncological and oncological outcomes following RTME vs LTME were included in this review. In the random effects model analysis using the statistical software Review Manager 5.3, the RTME was associated with longer operation time (SMD, 0.46; 95%CI: 0.25, 0.67; z = 4.33; P = 0.0001), early passage of first flatus (P = 0.002), lower risk of conversion (P = 0.00001) and shorter hospitalization (P = 0.01). The statistical equivalence was seen between RTME and LTME for non-oncological variables like blood loss, morbidity, mortality and re-operation risk. The oncological variables such as recurrence (P = 0.96), number of harvested nodes (P = 0.49) and positive circumferential resection margin risk (P = 0.53) were also comparable in both groups. The length of distal resection margins was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

RTME is feasible and oncologically safe but failed to demonstrate any superiority over LTME for many surgical outcomes except early passage of flatus, lower risk of conversion and shorter hospitalization.

Robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer results in a significantly higher quality of TME specimen compared to the laparoscopic approach-report of a single-center experience

AIM

Robotic surgery allows for a better visualization and more precise dissection especially in the narrow male pelvis and mid and lower third of the rectum. However, superiority to laparoscopic TME has yet to be proven. We therefore analyzed short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic low anterior rectal resection for rectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2011 to 2016, 44 robotic (RTME) and 41 laparoscopic (LTME) low anterior rectal resection with total mesorectal excision were performed at a single institution. Specimen quality was assessed and reported by an independent pathologist following international guidelines.

RESULTS

The groups did not differ significantly regarding gender, age, ASA stage, BMI, and distance of the lower tumor margin from the anal verge. More patients in the RTME group underwent preoperative chemoradiation (43.2 vs. 19.5%, p = 0.019). The quality of the TME specimen was significantly better in the RTME group (complete/nearly complete/incomplete for RTME 97/0/3% and for LTME 78/17/5%, p = 0.03). The conversion rate tended to be lower in the RTME group (7 vs. 17%, p = 0.143). There was no difference in CRM positivity between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery is safe and can improve the quality of TME for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopy. Any effect on long-term survival remains to be established.

Short-Term Outcomes with Robotic Right Colectomy

Few series have reported on the impact of robotic right colectomy compared with conventional laparoscopy. Even fewer have reported on the outcomes of intracorporeal anastomoses. The aim of our study was to determine the impact of robotic surgery on short-term operative outcomes in patients undergoing right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis. One hundred and fourteen consecutive patients who underwent a right colectomy by two colorectal surgeons between 2012 and 2017 were included. Patients were separated into two groups: laparoscopic technique with extracorporeal anastomosis (n = 87) and robotic technique with intracorporeal anastomosis (n = 27). Univariate analysis was performed to determine differences in outcomes. Differences between cohorts were only identified with regard to gender (62 vs 37%, P = 0.022) and year of surgery. In comparison with laparoscopy, robotic colectomy resulted in a shorter time of GI recovery (1.3 ± 0.6 vs 3 ± 1.1, P < 0.0001), lower rates of postoperative ileus (4 vs 28%, P = 0.007), lower overall morbidity (26 vs 52%, P = 0.019), less blood loss ( P = 0.001), 50 per cent lower narcotic use, and longer operative time (255 ± 66 vs 139 ± 49, P < 0.001). Despite longer operative time, robotic surgery improved GI recovery, significantly lowered oral morphine equivalent usage, and decreased short-term complications.

Robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer: Current state and future perspective

Interest in minimally invasive surgery has increased in recent decades. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) was introduced as the latest advance in minimally invasive surgery. RALS has the potential to provide better clinical outcomes in rectal cancer surgery, allowing for precise dissection in the narrow pelvic space. In addition, RALS represents an important advancement in surgical education with respect to use of the dual-console robotic surgery system. Because the public health insurance systems in Japan have covered the cost of RALS for rectal cancer since April 2018, RALS has been attracting increasingly more attention. Although no overall robust evidence has yet shown that RALS is superior to laparoscopic or open surgery, the current evidence supports the notion that technically demanding subgroups (patients with obesity, male patients, and patients treated by extended procedures) may benefit from RALS. Technological innovation is a constantly evolving field. Several companies have been developing new robotic systems that incorporate new technology. This competition among companies in the development of such systems is anticipated to lead to further improvements in patient outcomes as well as drive down the cost of RALS, which is one main concern of this new technique.

Robotic rectal cancer surgery in obese patients may lead to better short-term outcomes when compared to laparoscopy: a comparative propensity scored match study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic rectal surgery in obese patients is technically challenging. The technological advantages of robotic instruments can help overcome some of those challenges, but whether this translates to superior short-term outcomes is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to compare the short-term surgical outcomes of obese (BMI ≥ 30) robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery patients.

METHODS

All consecutive obese patients receiving laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer resection surgery from three centres, two from the UK and one from Portugal, between 2006 and 2017 were identified from prospectively collated databases. Robotic surgery patients were propensity score matched with laparoscopic patients for ASA grade, neoadjuvant radiotherapy and pathological T stage. Their short-term outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were identified (63 robotic, 159 laparoscopic). The 63 patients who received robotic surgery were matched with 61 laparoscopic patients. Cohort characteristics were similar between the two groups. In the robotic group, operative time was longer (260 vs 215 min; p = 0.000), but length of stay was shorter (6 vs 8 days; p = 0.014), and thirty-day readmission rate was lower (6.3% vs 19.7%; p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study population, robotic rectal surgery in obese patients resulted in a shorter length of stay and lower 30-day readmission rate but longer operative time when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Robotic rectal surgery in the obese may be associated with a quicker post-operative recovery and reduced morbidity profile. Larger-scale multi-centre prospective observational studies are required to validate these results.

Does obesity impact postoperative outcomes following robotic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer?

INTRODUCTION

Obesity has been identified as a risk factor for both conversion and severe postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal resection. Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is proposed to overcome some of the technical limitations associated with laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of our study was to determine if obesity remains a risk factor for severe morbidity in patients undergoing robotic-assisted rectal resection.

PATIENTS

This study was a retrospective review of a prospective database. A total of 183 patients undergoing restorative RAS for rectal cancer between 2007 and 2016 were divided into 2 groups: control (BMI < 30 kg/m²; n = 125) and obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²; n = 58). Clinicopathologic data, 30-day postoperative morbidity, and perioperative outcomes were compared between groups. The main outcome was severe postoperative morbidity defined as any complication graded Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3.

RESULTS

Control and obese groups had similar clinicopathologic characteristics. Severe complications were observed in 9 (7%) and 4 (7%) patients, respectively (p > 0.99). Obesity did not impact conversion, anastomotic leak rate, length of stay, or readmission but was significantly associated with increased postoperative morbidity (29 vs. 45%; p = 0.04) and especially more postoperative ileus (11 vs. 26%; p = 0.01). Obesity and male gender were the two independent risk factors for postoperative overall morbidity (OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.02-3.94; p = 0.04 and OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.10-4.76; p = 0.03, respectively).

CONCLUSION

‎Obesity did not impact severe morbidity or conversion rate following RAS for rectal cancer but remained a risk factor for overall morbidity and especially postoperative ileus.

Evolution of transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: From top to bottom

The gold standard for curative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer involves radical resection with a total mesorectal excision (TME). TME is the most effective treatment strategy to reduce local recurrence and improve survival outcomes regardless of the surgical platform used. However, there are associated morbidities, functional consequences, and quality of life (QoL) issues associated with TME; these risks must be considered during the modern-day multidisciplinary treatment for rectal cancer. This has led to the development of new surgical techniques to improve patient, oncologic, and QoL outcomes. In this work, we review the evolution of TME to the transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) through more traditional minimally invasive platforms. The review the development, safety and feasibility, proposed benefits and risks of the procedure, implementation and education models, and future direction for research and implementation of the TaTME in colorectal surgery. While satisfactory short-term results have been reported, the procedure is in its infancy, and long term outcomes and definitive results from controlled trials are pending. As evidence for safety and feasibility accumulates, structured training programs to standardize teaching, training, and safe expansion will aid the safe spread of the TaTME.

Single-Docking Full Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer: A Single-Center Experience

Purpose. Robotic surgery has gradually gained importance in the treatment of rectal cancer. However, recent studies have not shown any advantages when compared with laparoscopy. The objective of this study is to report a single surgeon’s experience in robotic rectal surgery focusing on short-term and long-term outcomes. Methods. Sixty consecutive robotic rectal resections for adenocarcinoma, over a 4-year period, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients’ characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Oncological outcomes and surgical resection quality as well as overall and disease-free survival were also assessed. Results. Thirty patients out of 60 (50%) underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Anterior rectal resection was performed in 52 cases (86.7%), and abdominoperineal resection was done in 8 cases (13.3%). Mean operative time was 283 (±68.6) minutes. The conversion rate was 5% (3 patients). Postoperative complications occurred in 10 cases (16.7%), and reoperation was required in 1 case (1.7%). Mean hospital stay was 9 days, while 30-day mortality was 1.7% (1 patients). The histopathological analysis reported a negative circumferential radial margin and distal margins in 100% of cases with a complete or near complete total mesorectal excision in 98.3% of patients. Mean follow-up was 32.8 months with a recurrence rate of 3.4% (2 patients). Overall survival and disease-free survival were 94% and 87%, respectively. Conclusions. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer proves to be safe and feasible when performed by highly skilled surgeons. It offers acceptable perioperative outcomes with a conversion rate notably lower than with the laparoscopic approach. Adequate pathological results and long-term oncological outcomes were also obtained.

Robotic colorectal surgery: more than a fantastic toy?

There has been a rapid rise in the number of robotic colorectal procedures worldwide since the da Vinci Surgical System robotic technology was approved for surgical procedures in the year 2000. Several recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews have shown a significant difference in outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. However, these results from pooled data have not been supported by the initial results reported from the Robotic assisted versus laparoscopic assisted resection for rectal cancer trial. In this article, we examine the current evidence for robotic colorectal surgery, assess its features and functionality, evaluate its learning curve and provide our perspective on its future.

Comparison of outcome and cost among open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgical treatments for rectal cancer: A propensity score matched analysis of nationwide inpatient sample data

BACKGROUND

Population-based studies evaluating outcomes of different approaches for rectal cancer are scarce.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database between 2008 and 2012. We compared the outcomes and costs among rectal cancer patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, or open surgeries using propensity scores for adjusted and matched analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 194 957 rectal cancer patients. Over the 5-year period, the annual admission number decreased by 13.9%, the in-hospital mortality rate decreased by 32.2%, while the total hospitalization cost increased by 13.6%. Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery had significantly lower length of stay (LOS) (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.57-0.84), comparable wound complications (OR 1.08, 95%CI 0.70-1.65) and higher cost (OR 1.42, 95%CI 1.13-1.79), while open surgery had significantly longer LOS (OR 1.38, 95%CI 1.19-1.59), more wound complications (OR 1.49, 95%CI 1.08-1.79), and comparable cost (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.79-1.07). There were no difference in in-hospital mortality among three approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery was associated with better outcomes than open surgery. Robotic surgery was associated with higher cost, but no advantage over laparoscopic surgery in terms of mortality and complications. Studies on cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery may be warranted.

The da Vinci Xi: a review of its capabilities, versatility, and potential role in robotic colorectal surgery

The Xi is the latest da Vinci surgical system approved for use in colorectal surgery. With its novel overhead architecture, slimmer boom-mounted arms, extended instrument reach, guided targeting, and integrated auxiliary technology, the Xi manages to address several limitations of earlier models. The versatility of this new system allows it to be implemented in a wide range of colorectal procedures - from complex multiquadrant colectomies to challenging mesorectal dissections in the pelvis. While commonly criticized for its cost and prolonged operative time, robotic colorectal surgery holds the potential for enhanced ergonomics, superior precision, and a reduction in the learning curve involved in training an expert surgeon. This review appraises the existing literature on robotic colorectal surgery while elaborating how the improved capabilities of the Xi serve to usher in a new era of minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

The safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic TME in patients with rectal cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of science, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database up to July 2016 to identify case-controlled studies that compared robotic TME (RTME) with laparoscopic TME (LTME) for rectal cancer. GRADE was used to interpret the primary outcomes of this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included 17 case-control studies (3601 participants: 1726 underwent RTME and 1875 LTME for rectal cancer) that compared RTME with LTME for rectal cancer. We found no statistically significant differences between techniques for local recurrence [odds ratio (OR) = 0.68, P = .216] and overall survival at 3 years (OR = 0.71, P = 1.140), complications (OR = 1.02, P = .883), positive circumferential resection margin (PCRM) (OR = 0.80, P = .256), the first passing flatus [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.11, P = .130], reoperation (OR = 0.66, P = .080), estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD = -12.45, P = .500), and length of stay in hospital (LOS) (WMD = -0.69, P = .089). Compared with LTME, RTME was associated with lower rate of conversion (OR = 0.35, P < .001), urinary retention (OR = 0.41, P = .025), and longer operative time (WMD = 57.43, P < .001). The overall quality of evidence was poor in all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

RTME in patients with rectal cancer was associated with a lower rate of conversion and less incidence of urinary retention. Generally, operative time in RTME was significantly longer than in LTME. The long-term oncological and function outcomes of RTME seem to be equivalent with LTME. Therefore, analysis of current studies to date did not indicate a major benefit of RTME over LTME.

Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection for sphincter-saving surgery: pathological and short-term outcomes in a single-center analysis of 130 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive sphincter-saving rectal resection represents a challenging procedure. Robotic surgery for rectal cancer has several advantages over conventional surgery in performing precise dissection and was proved to be safe and effective in previous studies. However, comparison between laparoscopic and robotic rectal resection has drawn contradictory results. The aim of the present study was to compare robotic and laparoscopic sphincter-saving rectal resections for short-term and pathological outcomes.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and May 2016, we performed a total of 258 robotic surgeries, including 146 colorectal resections (56%). For this study, we included the first 65 sphincter-saving robotic resections and compared them to the last 65 consecutive laparoscopic resections. The laparoscopic group was constituted by the last 65 consecutively operated patients who matched the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in both the groups. Conversion rate was greater in the laparoscopic group (17 vs. 5%, p=0.044). Reoperation rate, overall and severe morbidity, and median hospital stay were similar in both the groups. Quality of mesorectal excision specimen was considered complete or near complete in 97 and 96% in the laparoscopic and robotic groups, respectively. There was no difference in the rates of negative circumferential radial margin, distal margin, and surgical success measured by composite criteria.

CONCLUSION

The main finding of this study was that robotic proctectomy for sphincter-saving procedures offers similar quality of TME with a statistically significant lower rate of conversion when compared to laparoscopic proctectomy.

Management of rectal cancer: the 2016 French guidelines

AIM

Rectal cancer is a malignant disease requiring multidisciplinary management. In view of the increasing number of studies published over the past decade, a comprehensive update is required to draw recommendations for clinical practice mandated by the French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery and the French National Coloproctology Society.

METHOD

Seven questions summarizing the treatment of rectal cancer were selected. A search for evidence in the literature from January 2004 to December 2015 was performed. A drafting committee and a large group of expert reviewers contributed to validate the statements.

RESULTS

Recommendations include the indications for neoadjuvant therapy, the quality criteria for surgical resection, the management of postoperative disordered function, the role of local excision in early rectal cancer, the place of conservative strategies after neoadjuvant treatment, the management of synchronous liver metastases and the indications for adjuvant therapy. A level of evidence was assigned to each statement.

CONCLUSION

The current clinical practice guidelines are useful for the treatment of rectal cancer. Some statements require a higher level of evidence due to a lack of studies.

Universal suprapubic approach for complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation using the da Vinci Xi® system: from cadaveric models to clinical cases

There has been little enthusiasm for performing robotic colectomy for colon cancer in recent years due to multiple factors, one being that the previous robotic systems such as the da Vinci Si^® (dVSi) were poorly designed for multi-quadrant surgery. The new da Vinci Xi^® (dVXi) system enables colectomy with central mesocolic excision to be performed easily in a single docking procedure. We developed a universal port placement strategy to allow right and left hemicolectomies to be performed via a suprapubic approach and a Pfannensteil extraction site. This proof of concept paper describes the development and subsequent clinical application of this setup. After extensive training on the dVXi system concepts in collaboration with clinical development engineers, we developed a port placement strategy which was tested and adapted after performing experimental surgery in three cadaveric models. Subsequently our port placement was used for two clinical cases of suprapubic right and left hemicolectomy. With some modifications of port placements after the initial cadaveric colectomies, we have developed a potentially universal suprapubic port placement strategy for robotic colectomy with complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation using the dVXi robotic system. This port placement strategy was applied successfully in our first two clinical cases. Based on our cadaveric laboratory as well as our initial clinical application, the suprapubic port placement strategy for the dVXi system with its improved features over the dVSi can feasibly perform right and left hemicolectomy with complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation. Further studies will be required to establish efficacy as well as safety profile of these procedures.

[Robotics in the operating room : Out of the niche into widespread application]

In the last few years robotic surgery has progressed from being confined to a small niche to a widespread application in routine visceral surgery; however, evidence for superiority of robotic surgery compared to laparoscopy from randomized studies with a sufficient number of patients is still lacking in most fields of visceral surgery. For complex operations that necessitate an extensive reconstruction phase, such as pancreatectomy, gastrectomy and esophagectomy, there is a potential benefit for the permanent and justified use of robotic surgery. Even in operations where delicate nerve preparation and radical surgical resection are simultaneously necessary, such as rectal resection, robotic surgery may provide certain benefits. In the long term there is a great potential for the integration of innovative techniques, such as navigation or other medical imaging procedures into robotic surgery, which can currently only partially be estimated. Care must be taken to avoid premature euphoria; however, due to the assumed great potential there is an urgent need for randomized studies to evaluate the possible benefits of robotic surgical techniques in visceral surgery in order to generate evidence for the welfare of patients.

Robotic-Assisted Surgery Improves the Quality of Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer Compared to Laparoscopy: Results of a Case-Controlled Analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of a robotic surgical system is claimed to allow precise traction and counter-traction, especially in a narrow pelvis. Whether this translates to improvement of the quality of the resected specimen is not yet clear. The aim of the study was to compare the quality of the TME and the short-term oncological outcome between robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer resections.

METHODS

20 consecutive robotic TME performed in a single institution for rectal cancer (Rob group) were matched 1:2 to 40 laparoscopic resections (Lap group) for gender, body mass index (BMI), and distance from anal verge on rigid proctoscopy. The quality of TME was assessed by 2 blinded and independent pathologists and reported according to international standardized guidelines.

RESULTS

Both samples were well matched for gender, BMI (median 25.9 vs. 24.2 kg/m(2), p = 0.24), and level of the tumor (4.1 vs. 4.8 cm, p = 0.20). The quality of the TME was better in the Robotic group (complete TME: 95 vs. 55 %; p = 0.0003, nearly complete TME 5 vs. 37 %; p = 0.04, incomplete TME 0 vs. 8 %, p = 0.09). A trend for lower positive circumferential margin was observed in the Robotic group (10 vs. 25 %, p = 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that robotic-assisted surgery improves the quality of TME for rectal cancer. Whether this translates to better oncological outcome needs to be further investigated.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Resection for Mid and Low Rectal Cancers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The current study was conducted to determine whether robotic low anterior resection (RLAR) has real benefit over laparoscopic low anterior resection (LLAR) in terms of surgical and early oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from 35 RLARs and 28 LLARs, performed for mid and low rectal cancers, from January 2013 through June 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients were included in the study. All surgeries were performed successfully. The clinicopathologic characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Compared with the laparoscopic group, the robotic group had less intraoperative blood loss (165 vs. 120 mL; P < .05) and higher mean operative time (252 vs. 208 min; P < .05). No significant differences were observed in the time to flatus passage, length of hospital stay, and postoperative morbidity. Pathological examination of total mesorectal excision (TME) specimens showed that both circumferential resection margin and transverse (proximal and distal) margins were negative in the RLAR group. However, 1 patient each had positive circumferential resection margin and positive distal transverse margin in the LLAR group. The mean number of harvested lymph nodes was 27 in the RLAR group and 23 in the LLAR group.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, short-term outcomes of robotic surgery for mid and low rectal cancers were similar to those of laparoscopic surgery. The quality of TME specimens was better in the patients who underwent robotic surgery. However, the longer operative time was a limitation of robotic surgery.

Robotics in Colorectal Surgery

Over the past few decades, robotic surgery has developed from a futuristic dream to a real, widely used technology. Today, robotic platforms are used for a range of procedures and have added a new facet to the development and implementation of minimally invasive surgeries. The potential advantages are enormous, but the current progress is impeded by high costs and limited technology. However, recent advances in haptic feedback systems and single-port surgical techniques demonstrate a clear role for robotics and are likely to improve surgical outcomes. Although robotic surgeries have become the gold standard for a number of procedures, the research in colorectal surgery is not definitive and more work needs to be done to prove its safety and efficacy to both surgeons and patients.

Future of Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery

Minimally invasive surgery is slowly taking over as the preferred operative approach for colorectal diseases. However, many of the procedures remain technically difficult. This article will give an overview of the state of minimally invasive surgery and the many advances that have been made over the last two decades. Specifically, we discuss the introduction of the robotic platform and some of its benefits and limitations. We also describe some newer techniques related to robotics.

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resections with respect to 30-day perioperative morbidity

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to traditional laparoscopy. Robotic surgery addresses many of the technical and ergonomic limitations of laparoscopic surgery, but the literature regarding clinical outcomes in colorectal surgery is limited. We sought to compare robotic and laparoscopic colorectal resections with respect to 30-day perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify all patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic colorectal surgery in 2013. We performed a logistic regression analysis to compare intraoperative variables and 30-day outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 8392 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery and 472 patients who underwent robotic colorectal surgery. The robotic cohort had a lower incidence of unplanned intraoperative conversion (9.5% v. 13.7%, p = 0.008). There were no significant differences between robotic and laparoscopic surgery with respect to other intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, such as operative duration, length of stay, postoperative ileus, anastomotic leak, venous thromboembolism, wound infection, cardiac complications and pulmonary complications. On multivariable analysis, robotic surgery was protective for unplanned conversion, while male sex, malignancy, Crohn disease and diverticular disease were all associated with open conversion.

CONCLUSION

Robotic colorectal surgery has comparable 30-day perioperative morbidity to laparoscopic surgery and may decrease the rate of intraoperative conversion in select patients.

Comparative health technology assessment of robotic-assisted, direct manual laparoscopic and open surgery: a prospective study

Background

Despite many publications reporting on the increased hospital cost of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) compared to direct manual laparoscopic surgery (DMLS) and open surgery (OS), the reported health economic studies lack details on clinical outcome, precluding valid health technology assessment (HTA).

Methods

The present prospective study reports total cost analysis on 699 patients undergoing general surgical, gynecological and thoracic operations between 2011 and 2014 in the Italian Public Health Service, during which period eight major teaching hospitals treated the patients. The study compared total healthcare costs of RAS, DMLS and OS based on prospectively collected data on patient outcome in addition to healthcare costs incurred by the three approaches.

Results

The cost of RAS operations was significantly higher than that of OS and DMLS for both gynecological and thoracic operations (p < 0.001). The study showed no significant difference in total costs between OS and DMLS. Total costs of general surgery RAS were significantly higher than those of OS (p < 0.001), but not against DMLS general surgery. Indirect costs were significantly lower in RAS compared to both DMLS general surgery and OS gynecological surgery due to the shorter length of hospital stay of RAS approach (p < 0.001). Additionally, in all specialties compared to OS, patients treated by RAS experienced a quicker recovery and significantly less pain during the hospitalization and after discharge.

Conclusions

The present HTA while confirming higher total healthcare costs for RAS operations identified significant clinical benefits which may justify the increased expenditure incurred by this approach.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-016-4991-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Reoperative Abdomen or Pelvis

Laparoscopy has become widely accepted as the preferred surgical approach in the management of benign and malignant colorectal diseases. Once considered a relative contraindication in patients with prior abdominal surgery (PAS), as surgeons have continued to gain expertise in advanced laparoscopy, minimally invasive approaches have been increasingly incorporated in the reoperative abdomen and pelvis. Although earlier studies have described conversion rates, most contemporary series evaluating the impact of PAS in laparoscopic colorectal resection have reported equivalent conversion and morbidity rates between reoperative and non-reoperative cases, and series evaluating the impact of laparoscopy in reoperative cases have demonstrated improved short-term outcomes with laparoscopy. The data overall highlight the importance of case selection, careful preoperative preparation and planning, and the critical role of surgeons' expertise in advanced laparoscopic techniques. Challenges to the widespread adoption of minimally invasive techniques in reoperative colorectal cases include the longer learning curve and longer operative time. However, with the steady increase in adoption of minimally invasive techniques worldwide, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is likely to continue to be applied in the management of increasingly complex reoperative colorectal cases in an effort to improve patient outcomes. In the hands of experienced MIS surgeons and in carefully selected cases, laparoscopy is both safe and efficacious for reoperative procedures in the abdomen and pelvis, with measurable short-term benefits.

Current Status of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Cancer

Recent randomized controlled data have shown possible limitations to laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer. The retrospective data, used as the basis for designing the trials, and which showed no problems with the technique, are discussed. The design of the randomized trials is discussed relative to the future meta-analysis of the recent data. The implications of the current findings on practice are discussed as surgeons try to adjust their practice to the new findings. The possible next steps for clinical and research innovations are put into perspective as new technology is considered to compensate for newly identified limitations in the laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer.

The circumferential resection margins status: A comparison of robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision for mid and low rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer (RC) is now widely performed via the laparoscopic approach, but robotic-assisted surgery may overcome some limitations of laparoscopy in RC treatment. We compared the rate of positive circumferential margins between robotic, laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision (TME) for RC in our institution.

METHODS

Mid and low rectal adenocarcinoma patients consecutively submitted to robotic surgery were compared to laparoscopic and open approach. From our prospective database, 59 patients underwent robotic-assisted rectal surgery from 2012 to 2015 (RTME group) were compared to our historical control group comprising 200 open TME (OTME group) and 41 laparoscopic TME (LTME group) approaches from July 2008 to February 2012. Primary endpoint was to compare the rate of involved circumferential resection margins (CRM) and the mean CRM between the three groups. Secondary endpoint was to compare the mean number of resected lymph nodes between the three groups.

RESULTS

CRM involvement was demonstrated in 20 patients (15.5%) in OTME, 4 (16%) in LTME and 9 (16.4%) in the RTME (p = 0.988). The mean CRM in OTME, LTME and RTME were respectively 0.6 cm (0-2.7), 0.7 cm (0-2.0) and 0.6 cm (0-2.0) (p = 0.960). Overall mean LN harvest was 14 (0-56); 16 (0-52) in OTME, 13 (1-56) in LTME and 10 (0-45) in RTME (p = 0.156).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that robotic TME has the same oncological short-term results when compared to the open and laparoscopic technique, and it could be safely offered for the treatment of mid and low rectal cancer.

Does robotics improve minimally invasive rectal surgery? Functional and oncological implications

OBJECTIVE

Robot-assisted surgery has been reported to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional laparoscopy for the treatment of rectal cancer in a minimally invasive manner. Nevertheless, substantial data concerning functional outcomes and long-term oncological adequacy is still lacking. We aimed to assess the current role of robotics in rectal surgery focusing on patients' functional and oncological outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive review was conducted to search articles published in English up to 11 September 2015 concerning functional and/or oncological outcomes of patients who received robot-assisted rectal surgery. All relevant papers were evaluated on functional implications such as postoperative sexual and urinary dysfunction and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Robotics showed a general trend towards lower rates of sexual and urinary postoperative dysfunction and earlier recovery compared with laparoscopy. The rates of 3-year local recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival of robotic-assisted rectal surgery compared favourably with those of laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study fails to provide solid evidence to draw definitive conclusions on whether robotic systems could be useful in ameliorating the outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. However, the available data suggest potential advantages over conventional laparoscopy with reference to functional outcomes.