Risk factors for conversion in laparoscopic and robotic rectal cancer surgery

An artificial intelligence-designed predictive calculator of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy in colon cancer

Minimally invasive surgery is safe and effective in colorectal cancer. Conversion to open surgery may be associated with adverse effects on treatment outcomes. This study aimed to assess risk factors of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy for colon cancer and impact of conversion on short-term and survival outcomes. This case-control study included colon cancer patients undergoing minimally invasive colectomy from the National Cancer Database (2015-2019). Logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine independent predictors of conversion from laparoscopic and robotic colectomy to open surgery. 26,546 patients (mean age: 66.9 ± 13.1 years) were included. Laparoscopic and robotic colectomies were performed in 79.1% and 20.9% of patients, respectively, with a 10.6% conversion rate. Independent predictors of conversion were male sex (OR: 1.19, p = 0.014), left-sided cancer (OR: 1.35, p < 0.001), tumor size (OR: 1, p = 0.047), stage II (OR: 1.25, p = 0.007) and stage III (OR: 1.47, p < 0.001) disease, undifferentiated carcinomas (OR: 1.93, p = 0.002), subtotal (OR: 1.25, p = 0.011) and total (OR: 2.06, p < 0.001) colectomy, resection of contiguous organs (OR: 1.9, p < 0.001), and robotic colectomy (OR: 0.501, p < 0.001). Conversion was associated with higher 30- and 90-day mortality and unplanned readmission, longer hospital stay, and shorter overall survival (59.8 vs 65.3 months, p < 0.001). Male patients, patients with bulky, high-grade, advanced-stage, and left-sided colon cancers, and patients undergoing extended resections are at increased risk of conversion from minimally invasive to open colectomy. The robotic platform was associated with reduced odds of conversion. However, surgeons' technical skills and criteria for conversion could not be assessed.

Conversion rate to open surgery during transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) for rectal cancer: a single-center experience

Minimally invasive techniques for rectal cancer have demonstrated considerable advantages in terms of faster recovery and less post-operative complications. However, due to the complex anatomy and a limited surgical field, conversion to open surgery is still sometimes required, with a negative impact on the short-and long-term outcomes. The purpose of this study was to analyse the conversion rate to open abdominal surgery during laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) procedures performed at a high-volume Italian referral center. All consecutive TaTME performed for mid-to-low rectal cancer between 2015 and 2023 were reviewed, independently if treated with a primary anastomosis (with/without a diverting ostomy) or an end stoma. All procedures were performed using a standardized approach by the same surgical team. Patients with benign diagnosis that underwent different-from rectal resection procedures and cases pre-operatively scheduled for open surgery were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of conversion, defined as an un-planned intraoperative switch to open surgery using a midline laparotomy. Secondary aims included the comparison of patients who had a longer vs shorter operative time. Out of 220 patients, 210 were selected. In 187 cases, a primary anastomosis was performed, while 23 patients received a terminal colostomy (1 in the converted group; 22 in the full MIS- TaTME group, 10.6%). A surgical approach modification occurred in two cases, with a conversion rate of 0.95%. Median operative time was 281 min. Reasons for conversions included intra-operative difficulties impairing the mini-invasive procedure without intra-operative complications in one case, and difficulties in the laparoscopic control of an intraoperative bleeding due to a splenic lesion in another patient. Male sex and a higher BMI were found to be statistically significantly associated to longer operative time (respectively: p = 0.001 and p = 0.0025). In a high-volume center, a standardized TaTME is associated to a low conversion rate to open abdominal surgery.

Impact of the endoscopic surgical skill qualification system on conversion to laparotomy after low anterior resection for rectal cancer in Japan (a secondary analysis of the EnSSURE study)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conversion to laparotomy is among the serious intraoperative complications and carries an increased risk of postoperative complications. In this cohort study, we investigated whether or not the Endoscopic Surgical Skill Qualification System (ESSQS) affects the conversion rate among patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective secondary analysis of data collected from patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for cStage II and III rectal cancer from 2014 to 2016 across 56 institutions affiliated with the Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Data from the original EnSSURE study were analyzed to investigate risk factors for conversion to laparotomy by performing univariate and multivariate analyses based on the reason for conversion.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 3,168 cases, including 65 (2.1%) involving conversion to laparotomy. Indicated conversion accounted for 27 cases (0.9%), while technical conversion accounted for 35 cases (1.1%). The multivariate analysis identified the following independent risk factors for indicated conversion to laparotomy: tumor diameter [mm] (odds ratio [OR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05, p = 0.0002), combined resection of adjacent organs [+/-] (OR 7.92, 95% CI 3.14-19.97, p < 0.0001), and surgical participation of an ESSQS-certified physician [-/+] (OR 4.46, 95% CI 2.01-9.90, p = 0.0002). The multivariate analysis identified the following risk factors for technical conversion to laparotomy: registered case number of institution (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.0029), institution type [non-university/university hospital] (OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.54-8.04, p = 0.0028), combined resection of adjacent organs [+/-] (OR 5.96, 95% CI 2.15-16.53, p = 0.0006), and surgical participation of an ESSQS-certified physician [-/+] (OR 6.26, 95% CI 3.01-13.05, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Participation of ESSQS-certified physicians may reduce the risk of both indicated and technical conversion. Referral to specialized institutions, such as high-volume centers and university hospitals, especially for patients exhibiting relevant background risk factors, may reduce the risk of conversion to laparotomy and lead to better outcomes for patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with the Japanese Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000040645.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes comparing the efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery in obese patients

This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate and contrast the effectiveness of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the treatment of obese patients. In February 2024, we carried out an exhaustive search of key global databases including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, limiting our focus to studies published in English and Chinese. We excluded reviews, protocols lacking published results, articles derived solely from conference abstracts, and studies not relevant to our research objectives. To analyze categorical variables, we utilized the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method along with random-effects models, calculating inverse variances and presenting the outcomes as odds ratios (ORs) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical significance was determined when p values were less than 0.05. In our final meta-analysis, we included eight cohort studies, encompassing a total of 5,004 patients. When comparing the robotic surgery group to the laparoscopic group, the findings revealed that the robotic group experienced a longer operative time (weighted mean difference (WMD) = 37.53 min, 95% (CI) 15.58-59.47; p = 0.0008), a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -0.68 days, 95% CI -1.25 to -0.10; p = 0.02), and reduced blood loss (WMD = -49.23 mL, 95% CI -64.31 to -34.14; p < 0.00001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding overall complications, conversion rates, surgical site infections, readmission rates, lymph node yield, anastomotic leakage, and intestinal obstruction. The results of our study indicate that robot-assisted colorectal surgery offers benefits for obese patients by shortening the length of hospital stay and minimizing blood loss when compared to laparoscopic surgery. Nonetheless, it is associated with longer operation times and shows no significant difference in terms of overall complications, conversion rates, rehospitalization rates, and other similar metrics.

Short-term results after robot-assisted surgery for primary rectal cancers requiring beyond total mesorectal excision in multiple compartments

AIM

Rectal cancers requiring beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) are traditionally operated using an open approach, but the use of minimally invasive robot-assisted procedures is increasing. Introduction of minimal invasive surgery for complex cancer cases could be associated with compromised surgical margins or increased complication rates. Therefore, reporting results both clinical and oncological in large series is important. Since bTME procedure reports are heterogeneous, comparing results is often difficult. In this study, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) classification system was used to describe the bTME surgery according to pelvic compartments.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with primary rectal cancer operated with laparoscopic robot-assisted bTME were prospectively included for 2 years. All patients had tumors that threatened the mesorectal fascia, invaded adjacent organs, and/or involved metastatic pelvic lateral lymph nodes. Short-term clinical outcomes and oncological specimen quality were registered. Surgery was classified according to pelvic compartments resected.

RESULTS

Clear resection margins (R0 resection) were achieved in 95 out of 105 patients (90.5%). About 26% had Accordion Severity Grading System of Surgical Complications grade 3-4 complications and 15% required re-operations. About 7% were converted to open surgery. The number of compartments resected ranged from one to the maximum seven, with 83% having two or three compartments resected. All 10 R1 resections occurred in the lateral and posterior compartments.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term clinical outcomes and oncological specimen quality after robot-assisted bTME surgery were comparable to previously published open bTME surgery. The description of surgical procedures using the Royal Marsden MRI compartment classification was feasible.

Outcomes of transanal total mesorectal excision compared to laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Transanal dissection is increasingly used in laparoscopic surgery for total mesorectal excision of lower rectal cancers. Several studies compared outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection, yet there is a paucity of high-quality evidence. This meta-analysis aimed to provide a pooled comparative analysis of outcomes of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection based on evidence from randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

This Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2022-compliant systematic review of randomized controlled trials compared laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with and without transanal dissection. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched through March 2023. The Medical Subject Headings terms used in the search were Rectal neoplasms, Proctectomy, Laparoscopy, and Transanal. The main outcomes included operative and pathologic outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias version 2 tool, and certainty of the evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary study outcome was conversion to open surgery.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials (1,339 patients; median age 61.2 years) were included; 671 patients underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection, and 668 underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision without transanal dissection. Both groups were similar in age, body mass index, and disease stage, but the laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection group had a higher male-to-female ratio, received neoadjuvant therapy and had a hand-sewn anastomosis more often. Patients who underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection had lower conversion rates (odds ratio = 0.179; P = .001), a higher likelihood of achieving complete total mesorectal excision (odds ratio = 1.435; P = .025), and fewer harvested lymph nodes (weighted mean difference = -1.926; P = .035). The groups had similar operative times (weighted mean difference = -3.476; P = .398), total complications (odds ratio = 0.94; P = .665), major complications (odds ratio = 1.112; P = .66), anastomotic leak (odds ratio = 0.67; P = .432), positive circumferential resection margin (odds ratio = 0.549; P = .155), and positive distal margins (odds ratio = 0.559; P = .171).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision with transanal dissection was associated with lower odds of conversion to open surgery, greater likelihood of achieving complete total mesorectal excision, and fewer harvested lymph nodes than laparoscopic total mesorectal excision without transanal dissection.

Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection yields comparable clinical and oncological results with shorter hospital stay compared to open access: a 5-year national cohort

PURPOSE

Although widely applied, the results following laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) compared to open rectal resection (ORR) are still debated. The aim of this study was to assess clinical short- and long-term results as well as oncological resection quality following LRR or ORR for cancer in a 5-year national cohort.

METHODS

Data from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry were retrieved from January 2014 to December 2018 for patients who underwent elective resection for rectal cancer. Primary end point was 5-year overall survival. Secondary end points were local recurrence rates within 5 years, oncological resection quality, and short-term outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 1796 patients were included, of whom 1284 had undergone LRR and 512 ORR. There was no difference in 5-year survival rates between the groups after adjusting for relevant covariates with Cox regression analyses. Crude 5-year survival was 77.1% following LRR compared to 74.8% following ORR (p = 0.015). The 5-year local recurrence rates were 3.1% following LRR and 4.1% following ORR (p = 0.249). Length of hospital stay was median 8.0 days (quartiles 7.0-13.0) after ORR compared to 6.0 (quartiles 4.0-8.0) days after LRR. After adjusting for relevant covariates, estimated additional length of stay after ORR was 3.1 days (p < 0.001, 95% CI 2.3-3.9). Rates of positive resection margins and number of harvested lymph nodes were similar. There were no other significant differences in short-term outcomes between the groups.

CONCLUSION

LRR was performed with clinical and oncological outcomes similar to ORR, but with shorter hospital stay.

Impact of obesity on patients undergoing surgery for rectal cancer in Australia and New Zealand

PURPOSE

Patients with obesity undergoing rectal cancer surgery may have an increased risk of developing complications, though evidence is inconclusive. The aim of this study was to determine the direct impact of obesity on postoperative outcomes using data from a large clinical registry.

METHOD

The Binational Colorectal Cancer Audit registry was used to identify patients who underwent rectal cancer surgery in Australia and New Zealand from 2007-2021. Primary outcomes were inpatient surgical and medical complications. Logistic regression models were developed to describe the association between body-mass index (BMI) and outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 3,708 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 56.75-75], 65.0% male), 2.0% had a BMI < 18.5 kg/m2, 35.4% had a BMI of 18.5-24.9 kg/m2, 37.6% had a BMI of 25.0-29.9 kg/m2, 16.7% had a BMI of 30.0-34.9 kg/m2, and 8.2% had a BMI ≥ 35.0 kg/m2. Surgical complications occurred in 27.7% of patients with a BMI of 18.5-24.9 kg/m2, 26.6% of patients with a BMI of 25.0-29.9 kg/m2 (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76-1.10), 28.5% with a BMI of 30.0-34.9 kg/m2 (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76-1.21), and 33.2% with a BMI ≥ 35.0 kg/m2 (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.94-1.71). Modelling BMI as a continuous variable confirmed a J-shaped relationship. The association between BMI and medical complications was more linear.

CONCLUSION

Risk of postoperative complications is increased in patients with obesity undergoing rectal cancer surgery.

Impact of the approach on conversion to open surgery during minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to explore the impact of the approach on conversion in patients undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision within a single unit.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with rectal cancer undergoing minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision between January 2006 and June 2020 were included. Subjects were classified according to the presence or absence of conversion. Baseline variables and short-term outcomes were compared. Regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between the approach and conversion.

RESULTS

During the study period, 318 patients underwent a restorative proctectomy. Of these, 240 met the inclusion criteria. Robotic and laparoscopic approaches were undertaken in 147 (61.3%) and 93 (38.8%) cases, respectively. A transanal approach was utilised in 62 (25.8%) cases (58.1% in combination with a robotic transabdominal approach). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 30 cases (12.5%). Conversion was associated with an increased overall complication rate (P = 0.003), surgical complications (P = 0.009), superficial surgical site infections (P = 0.02) and an increased length of hospital stay (P = 0.006). Robotic and transanal approaches were both associated with decreased conversion rates. The multiple logistic regression analysis, however, showed that only a transanal approach was independently associated with a lower risk of conversion (OR 0.147, 0.023-0.532; P = 0.01), whilst obesity was an independent risk factor for conversion (OR 4.388, 1.852-10.56; P < 0.00).

CONCLUSIONS

A transanal component is associated with a reduced conversion rate in minimally invasive restorative total mesorectal excision, regardless of the transabdominal approach utilised. Larger studies will be required to confirm these findings and define which subgroup of patients could benefit from transanal component when a robotic approach is undertaken.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients: ACS-NSQIP analysis

Laparoscopic rectal surgery within the confines of a narrow pelvis may be associated with a high rate of open conversion. In the obese and morbidly obese patient, the complexity of laparoscopic surgery increases substantially. Robotic technology is known to reduce the risk of conversion, but it is unclear if it can overcome the technical challenges associated with obesity. The ACS NSQIP database was used to identify obese patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic-assisted rectal resection from 2015 to 2016. Obesity was defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m². Morbid obesity was defined as a BMI greater than or equal to 35 kg/m². The primary outcome was unplanned conversions to open. Other outcomes measures assessed included anastomotic leak, operative time, surgical site infections, length of hospital stay, readmissions and mortality. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 (IBM SPSS, USA). 1490 patients had robotic-assisted and 4967 patients had laparoscopic rectal resections between 2015 and 2016. Of those patients, 561 obese patients had robotic-assisted rectal resections and 1824 patients underwent laparoscopic rectal surgery. In the obese cohort, the rate of unplanned conversion to open in the robotic group was 14% compared to 24% in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.0001). Median operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group (248 min vs. 215 min, P < 0.0001). There was no difference in anastomotic leak or systemic sepsis between the laparoscopic and robotic rectal surgery groups. In morbidly obese patients (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m²), the rate of unplanned conversion to open in the robotic group was 19% compared to 26% in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.027). There was no difference in anastomotic leak, systemic sepsis or surgical site infection rates between robotic and laparoscopic rectal resection. Multivariate analysis showed that robotic-assisted surgery was associated with fewer unplanned conversions to open (OR 0.28, P < 0.0001). Robotic-assisted surgery is associated with a decreased risk of conversion to open in obese and morbidly obese patients when compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, robotic surgery was associated with longer operative time and despite improvement in the rate of conversion to open, there was no difference in complications or length of stay. Our findings are limited by the retrospective non-randomised nature of the study, demographic differences between the two groups, and the likely difference in surgeon experience between the two groups. Large randomised controlled studies are needed to further explore the role of robotic rectal surgery in obese and morbidly obese patients.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

Simple Summary

Robotic liver surgery is being applied with increasing frequency. Comparable, and in specific settings superior, perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic liver surgery have been reported. In its current form, the most commonly mentioned advantage of robotic surgery is improved dexterity. Important obstacles to its wider implementation in daily clinical practice are the associated costs, technical difficulties, and a scarce amount of evidence. Robotic liver surgery will likely continue to evolve in parallel with technological developments that enhance the robots’ abilities.

Abstract

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots’ abilities.

Conversions in pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

New technology attracts necessary concerns regarding safety and effectiveness, including the risk and circumstances of conversions. This study analyses our 11-year experience of conversions from a dedicated pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery service.

METHODS

Consecutive patients were evaluated from a prospective database for the period March 2006 to May 2017. Descriptive and quantitative data for conversions were analysed. Variables were investigated including year of surgery, patient age, operation type, surgeon, and experience.

RESULTS

A total of 539 children underwent 601 procedures. There were 45 different types of procedures. Mean (± SD) age was 7.0 ± 5.2 years, and youngest 4 weeks old. There were 31 conversions (5.8%). Conversion rates were significantly higher in younger children, with rates of 10.0%, 6.1% and 4.2% for age groups 0-2, 2-6, and 6-18 years respectively (p = 0.01). There was a significant difference in conversion rates amongst procedures (p<0.001). Intravesical (9/26, 34.6%), liver cyst (2/8, 25.0%) and choledochal cyst (8/60, 13.3%) procedures were the highest. The most frequent reason for conversion was anesthetic related issues caused by dilated intestine and/or inadequate muscle relaxation (16/31, 52%). Three conversions were attributable to mechanical failures, none attributed to intraoperative complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion rates are low even in the learning phase and comparable favourably to conventional laparoscopy, supporting the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted technology for advanced laparoscopy in children. The importance of optimization of surgical conditions cannot be overemphasised.

Learning Curve of Robotic-Assisted Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

Background

Although some studies have assessed the learning curve of robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, most studies included limited sample sizes, no study used postoperative complications as an independent variable to analyze the learning curve of robotic rectal surgery, and no study evaluated the influence of the learning curve on long-term oncologic outcomes.

Methods

Clinical data on consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer by a single surgeon between January 2015 and December 2018 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were retrospectively collected. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) and risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) were used to visualize the learning curve of operation time and postoperative complications (CD ≥ grade II). Comparisons of clinical outcomes at different learning phases analyzed by RA-CUSUM were performed after propensity score matching.

Results

A total of 389 consecutive patients were included in the analysis. The numbers of patients needed to overcome the learning curves of operation time and postoperative complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer were 34 and 36, respectively. The learning process was divided into two phases based on RA-CUSUM: the learning phase (1st-36th cases) and the mastery phase (37th-389th cases). Before matching, the mastery phase had more patients with older age, lower tumor location, and neoadjuvant therapy. After matching, the two phases exhibited similar characteristics. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative complications in the mastery phase were reduced compared with the learning phase, with a median follow-up of 35 months, and the long-term oncologic outcomes were not significantly different between the two phases.

Conclusions

An experienced laparoscopic surgeon initially implements robotic-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer, surgical outcomes improved after 36 cases, and the learning curve seemingly did not have an obvious impact on long-term oncologic outcomes.

Quantitative Evaluation of Extramural Vascular Invasion of Rectal Cancer by Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging

This study was carried out to explore the preoperative predictive value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in extramural vascular invasion (EMVI) in patients with rectal cancer. 124 patients with rectal cancer were randomly divided into two groups, with 62 groups in each group. One group used conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and was recorded as the control group. The other group used DCE-MRI and was recorded as the experimental group. The diagnostic value was evaluated by comparing the MRI quantitative parameters of EMVI positive and EMVI negative patients, as well as the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), diagnostic sensitivity, and specificity of the two groups. The results showed that the Ktrans and Ve values of EMVI positive patients in the experimental group and the control group were 1.08 ± 0.97 and 1.03 ± 0.93, and 0.68 ± 0.29 and 0.65 ± 0.31, respectively, which were significantly higher than those in EMVI negative patients (P < 0.05). The AUC of EMVI diagnosis in the experimental group and the control group were 0.732 and 0.534 (P < 0.05), the sensitivity was 0.913 and 0.765 (P < 0.05), and the specificity was 0.798 and 0.756 (P > 0.05), respectively. In conclusion, DCE-MRI has a higher diagnostic value than conventional MRI in predicting EMVI in patients with rectal cancer, which was worthy of further clinical promotion.

Male urogenital function after robot-assisted and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective cohort study

Background

Urogenital dysfunction is recognized as a serious complication affecting patient quality of life after rectal cancer surgery to treat rectal cancer; however, the studies focus on the urogenital function after robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery are limited.

Methods

Male patients undergoing robotic total mesorectal excision (R-TME) or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (L-TME) were prospectively enrolled. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scale were used to compare the urogenital function of the two groups preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.

Results

Eighty-nine patients who planned to undergo R-TME and L-TME were prospectively enrolled; 77 patients of these patients (86.5%) completed all questionnaires at all time points and were thus included in the final analysis. Of the included patients, 38 underwent R-TME and 39 underwent L-TME. There was no significant difference in age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, tumor location, neoadjuvant therapy, operation method, postoperative pathological results and adjuvant therapy between the two groups. Preoperative urogenital function was similar in both groups; however, the IPSS was significantly lower in R-TME patients than that in T-TME patients at 6 months and 12 months [(7.82 ± 2.25 vs. 9.95 ± 3.01, P = 0.006; 7.62 ± 2.5 vs. 9.12 ± 2.64, P = 0.012)]. IIEF-5 scores decreased 3 months after R-TME and L-TME surgery (14.87 ± 3.27 vs. 13.92 ± 3.62, p = 0.231) and then gradually increased; at 12 months, IIEF-5 scores were comparable to those at baseline in both groups. IIEF-5 scores were higher in R-TME patients than those in L-TME patients at 6 months (18.55 ± 3.45 vs. 16.75 ± 3.26, P = 0.021), but there was no significant difference between the two groups at 12 months (21.22 ± 3.06 vs. 19.95 ± 3.03, P = 0.071).

Conclusions

The robotic approach for TME was associated with more rapid restoration of male urogenital function than the laparoscopic approach.

Available prediction scores of conversion for laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery seem to be unsuitable for nowadays rectal cancer management

Introduction

This study aimed to externally evaluate the accuracy of four predictive scores for conversion to open surgery after rectal laparoscopic resection. None of the four scores achieved external validation previously.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of two prospectively maintained databases from two academic centers in France and Morocco. All consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic resection for rectal adenocarcinoma between 2005 and 2020 were included. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between the factors present in the four scores and conversion. The accuracy of each score was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC). Observed and predicted conversion rates were compared for each score using the Chi-square goodness-of-fit test.

Results

Four hundred patients were included. There were 264 men (66%) with a mean age of 65.95 years (standard deviation 12.2). The median tumor height was 7 cm (quartiles 4–11) and 29% of patients had low rectal tumors. Conversion rate was 21.75%. The accuracy to predict conversion was low with an AUC lower than 0,62 for the four models. The observed conversion rates were significantly different from the predicted rates, except for one score.

Conclusions

The four models had low accuracy in predicting the conversion to open surgery for laparoscopic rectal resection. There is a need for new well-designed studies, analyzing more specific variables, in a multicentric design to ensure generalizability of the results for daily surgical practice.

The Role of Robotic Visceral Surgery in Patients with Adhesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abdominal adhesions are a risk factor for conversion to open surgery. An advantage of robotic surgery is the lower rate of unplanned conversions. A systematic review was conducted using the terms “laparoscopic” and “robotic”. Inclusion criteria were: comparative studies evaluating patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic surgery; reporting data on conversion to open surgery for each group due to adhesions and studies including at least five patients in each group. The main outcomes were the conversion rates due to adhesions and surgeons’ expertise (novice vs. expert). The meta-analysis included 70 studies from different surgical specialities with 14,329 procedures (6472 robotic and 7857 laparoscopic). The robotic approach was associated with a reduced risk of conversion (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12–2.10, p = 0.007). The analysis of the procedures performed by “expert surgeons” showed a statistically significant difference in favour of robotic surgery (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03–2.12, p = 0.03). A reduced conversion rate due to adhesions with the robotic approach was observed in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.20–5.72, p = 0.02). The robotic approach could be a valid option in patients with abdominal adhesions, especially in the subgroup of those undergoing colorectal cancer resection performed by expert surgeons.

Implementation of robot-assisted curative resection for rare anorectal tumours on the basis of individualised treatment

PURPOSE

To evaluate the validity of robot-assisted curative operation for rare anorectal tumours, characterised by biological heterogeneity and anatomical complexity.

METHODS

The present study evaluated 16 consecutive patients including three with anorectal squamous cell carcinoma (ARSCC), four with anorectal mucosal melanoma (ARMM), seven with anorectal neuroendocrine tumour (ARNET), and two with other types of anorectal tumours.

RESULTS

Of the three patients with ARSCC after chemoradiotherapy, two underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR), and one underwent ultralow anterior resection (uLAR)/total intersphincteric resection (ISR), surviving 56-76 months without recurrence. Of the four ARMM patients, APR and uLAR/total ISR were conducted in two patients, respectively, with variable survival outcomes. All seven patients with ARNET were treated with uLAR/ISR and LAR, surviving for 5-106 months to date.

CONCLUSIONS

Because most anorectal tumours are confined to the dermal and submucosal layers, robotic anorectal function preserving ISR is expected to achieve R0 resection.

Update on Robotic Total Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer

The minimally invasive treatment of rectal cancer with Total Mesorectal Excision is a complex and challenging procedure due to technical and anatomical issues which could impair postoperative, oncological and functional outcomes, especially in a defined subgroup of patients. The results from recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic versus open surgery are still conflicting and trans-anal bottom-up approaches have recently been developed. Robotic surgery represents the latest consistent innovation in the field of minimally invasive surgery that may potentially overcome the technical limitations of conventional laparoscopy thanks to an enhanced dexterity, especially in deep narrow operative fields such as the pelvis. Results from population-based multicenter studies have shown the potential advantages of robotic surgery when compared to its laparoscopic counterpart in terms of reduced conversions, complication rates and length of stay. Costs, often advocated as one of the main drawbacks of robotic surgery, should be thoroughly evaluated including both the direct and indirect costs, with the latter having the potential of counterbalancing the excess of expenditure directly related to the purchase and maintenance of robotic equipment. Further prospectively maintained or randomized data are still required to better delineate the advantages of the robotic platform, especially in the subset of most complex and technically challenging patients from both an anatomical and oncological standpoint.

Outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer: propensity-matched analysis of the National Clinical Database in Japan

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has several advantages over conventional laparoscopy. However, population-based comparative studies for low anterior resection are limited. This article aimed to compare peri-operative results of robot-assisted low anterior resection (RALAR) and laparoscopy.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from patients treated with RALAR or conventional laparoscopic low anterior resection (CLLAR) between October 2018 and December 2019, as recorded in the Japanese National Clinical Database, a data set registering clinical information, perioperative outcomes, and mortality. Of note, the registry does not include information on the tumour location (centimetres from the anal verge) and diverting stoma creation. Perioperative outcomes, including rate of conversion to open surgery, were compared between RALAR and CLLAR groups. Confounding factors were adjusted for using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of 21 415 patients treated during the study interval, 20 220 were reviewed. Two homogeneous groups of 2843 patients were created by propensity score matching. The conversion rate to open surgery was significantly lower in the RALAR group than in the CLLAR group (0.7 versus 2.0 per cent; P < 0.001). The RALAR group had a longer operating time (median: 352 versus 283 min; P < 0.001), less intraoperative blood loss (15 versus 20 ml; P < 0.001), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (0.1 versus 0.5 per cent; P = 0.007), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median: 13 versus 14 days; P < 0.001) compared with the CLLAR group. The CLLAR group had a lower rate of readmission within 30 days (2.4 versus 3.3 per cent; P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

These data highlight the reduced conversion rate, in-hospital mortality rate, intraoperative blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay for rectal cancer surgery in patients treated using robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared with laparoscopic low anterior resection.

Lower conversion rate with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy; a national cohort study

Background

Conversion from laparoscopic to open access colorectal surgery is associated with a poorer postoperative outcome. The aim of this study was to assess conversion rates and outcomes after standard laparoscopic rectal resection (LR) and robotic laparoscopic rectal resection (RR).

Methods

A national 5-year cohort study utilizing prospectively recorded data on patients who underwent elective major laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. Data were retrieved from the Norwegian Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery and from the Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry. Primary end point was conversion rate. Secondary end points were postoperative complications within 30 days and histopathological results. Chi-square test, two-sided T test, and Mann–Whitney U test were used for univariable analyses. Both univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the relations between different predictors and outcomes, and propensity score matching was performed to address potential treatment assignment bias.

Results

A total of 1284 patients were included, of whom 375 underwent RR and 909 LR. Conversion rate was 8 out of 375 (2.1%) for RR compared with 87 out of 909 (9.6%) for LR (p < 0.001). RR was associated with reduced risk for conversion compared with LR (aOR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10–0.46). There were no other outcome differences between RR and LR. Factors associated with increased risk for conversion were male gender, severe cardiac disease and BMI > 30. Conversion was associated with higher rates of major complications (20 out of 95 (21.2%) vs 135 out of 1189 (11.4%) p = 0.005), reoperations (13 out of 95 (13.7%) vs 93 out of 1189 (7.1%) p = 0.020), and longer hospital stay (median 8 days vs 6 days, p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Conversion rate was lower with robotic assisted rectal resections compared with conventional laparoscopy. Conversions were associated with higher rates of postoperative complications.

Does conversion during minimally invasive rectal surgery for cancer have an impact on short-term and oncologic outcomes? Results of a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive rectal surgery (MIRS) for cancer provides better recovery for similar oncologic outcomes over open approach, conversion is still required in 10% and its impact on short-term and long-term outcomes remains unclear. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of conversion on postoperative and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing MIRS for cancer.

METHODS

From June 2011 to March 2020, we reviewed 257 minimally invasive rectal resections for cancer recorded in a prospectively maintained database, with 192 robotic and 65 laparoscopic approaches. Patients who required conversion to open (Conversion group) were compared to those who did not have conversion (No conversion group) in terms of short-term, histologic, and oncologic outcomes. Univariate and multivariate analyses of the risk factors for postoperative morbidity were performed.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients (7%) required conversion. The conversion rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopic approach than in the robotic approach (16.9% vs 3.6%, p < 0.01). Among the 4 reactive conversions, 3 (75%) were required during robotic resections. Patients in the Conversion group had a higher morbidity rate (83.3% vs 43.1%, p = 0.01) and more severe complications (38.9%, vs 18.8%, p = 0.041). Male sex [HR = 2.46, 95%CI (1.41-4.26)], total mesorectal excision [HR = 2.89, 95%CI (1.57-5.320)], and conversion (HR = 4.87, 95%CI [1.34-17.73]) were independently associated with a higher risk of overall 30-day morbidity. R1 resections were more frequent in the Conversion group (22.2% vs 5.4%, p = 0.023) without differences in the overall (82.7 ± 7.0 months vs 79.4 ± 3.3 months, p = 0.448) and disease-free survivals (49.0 ± 8.6 months vs 70.2 ± 4.1 months, p = 0.362).

CONCLUSION

Conversion to laparotomy during MIRS for cancer was associated with poorer postoperative results without impairing oncologic outcomes. The high frequency of reactive conversion due to intraoperative complications in robotic resections confirmed that MIRS for cancer is a technically challenging procedure.

Urogenital function following robotic and laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mixed results are reported on clinical and cancer outcomes in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery (LRCS) compared with robotic rectal cancer surgery (RRCS). However, more favourable functional outcomes are reported following RRCS. This study compared urinary and sexual function following RRCS and LRCS in male and female patients.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of urinary and sexual function after RRCS and LRCS was performed following PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines, and registered prospectively with PROSPERO (ID:CRD42020164285). The functional outcome reporting tools most commonly included: the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Mean scores and changes in mean scores from baseline were analysed using RevMan version 5.3.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included reporting on 1286 patients. Some 672 patients underwent LRCS, of whom 380 (56.5 per cent) were men and 116 (17.3 per cent) were women (gender not specified in 176 patients, 26.2 per cent). A total of 614 patients underwent RRCS, of whom 356 (58.0 per cent) were men and 83 (13.5 per cent) were women (gender not specified in 175 patients, 28.5 per cent). Regarding urinary function in men at 6 months after surgery, IPSS scores were significantly better in the RRCS group than in the LRCS group (mean difference (MD) -1.36, 95 per cent c.i. -2.31 to -0.40; P = 0.005), a trend that persisted at 12 months (MD -1.08, -1.85 to -0.30; P = 0.007). ΔIIEF scores significantly favoured RRCS at 6 months [MD -3.11 (95%CI -5.77, -0.44) P <0.021] and 12 months [MD -2.76 (95%CI -3.63, -1.88) P <0.001] post-operatively. Mixed urinary and sexual function outcomes were reported for women.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis identified more favourable urinary and erectile function in men who undergo robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Outcomes in women did not identify a consistently more favourable outcome in either group. As robotic rectal cancer surgery may offer more favourable functional outcomes it should be considered and discussed with patients.

Transanal mesorectal excision: early outcomes in Australia and New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) aims to overcome some of the technical challenges faced when operating on mid and low rectal cancers. Specimen quality has been confirmed previously, but recent concerns have been raised about oncological safety. This multicentre prospective study aimed to evaluate the safety of taTME among early adopters in Australia and New Zealand.

METHODS

Data from all consecutive patients who had taTME for rectal cancer from July 2014 to February 2020 at six tertiary referral centres in Australasia were recorded and analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 308 patients of median age of 64 years underwent taTME. Some 75.6 per cent of patients were men, and the median BMI was 26.8 kg/m2. The median distance of tumour from anal verge was 7 cm. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was administered to 57.8 per cent of patients. The anastomotic leak rate was 8.1 per cent and there was no mortality within 30 days of surgery. Pathological examination found a complete mesorectum in 295 patients (95.8 per cent), a near-complete mesorectum in seven patients (2.3 per cent), and an incomplete mesorectum in six patients (1.9 per cent). The circumferential resection margin and distal resection margin was involved in nine patients (2.9 per cent), and two patients (0.6 per cent) respectively. Over a median follow-up of 22 months, the local recurrence rate was 1.9 per cent and median time to local recurrence was 30.5 months.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that, with appropriate training and supervision, skilled minimally invasive rectal cancer surgeons can perform taTME with similar pathological and oncological results to open and laparoscopic surgery.

The risk of conversion in minimally invasive oncological abdominal surgery. Meta-analysis of randomized evidence comparing traditional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted techniques

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to investigate the risk of conversion associated with conventional laparoscopic surgery (LAP) versus robot-assisted surgery (ROB) in patients undergoing abdominal oncological surgery. Possible differences between ROB and LAP on postoperative overall and major morbidity, operative time, and length of hospitalization were also assessed.

METHODS

We included randomized controlled trials of LAP versus ROB surgery in patients with abdominal malignancy. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Central registries through September 2020. Risk of bias was estimated concerning randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases.

RESULTS

A total of 1867 patients from 12 trials were included in this review. The rate of conversion was significantly higher for LAP than for ROB patients (10 trials, 1447 participants, p = 0.03, OR = 0.56 [0.33, 0.95]). There was a nonsignificant advantage of ROB over LAP on the rate of overall postoperative morbidity (12 trials, 1867 participants, p = 0.32, OR = 0.83) and major morbidity (7 trials, 792 participants, p = 0.87, OR= 0.93). ROB was also associated with prolonged operative time and abbreviated postoperative hospitalization as compared to LAP (p = 0.002, MD = 27.87, and p = 0.04, MD = -0.57, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the available highest level of evidence, the application of ROB decreases the incidence of unplanned conversion into an open procedure as compared to standard LAP in the setting of oncological minimally invasive surgery.

Trends and consequences of surgical conversion in the United States

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to identify national utilization trends of robotic surgery for elective colectomy, conversion rates over time, and the specific impact of conversion on postoperative morbidity. Conversion to open represents a hard endpoint for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and is associated with worse outcomes when compared to MIS or even traditional open procedures.

METHODS

All adult patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic elective colectomy from 2013 to 2018 as reported in the American College of Surgeons Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database were included. National trends of both robotic utilization and conversion rates were analyzed, overall and according to underlying disease (benign disease, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), cancer), or the presence of obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m²). Demographic and surgical risk factors for surgical conversion to open were identified through multivariable regression analysis. Further assessed were overall and specific postoperative 30-day complications, which were risk adjusted and compared between converted patients and the remaining cohort.

RESULTS

Of 66,652 included procedures, 5353 (8.0%) were converted to open. Conversion rates were 8.5% for laparoscopic and 4.9% for robotic surgery (p < 0.0001). A decline in conversion rates over the 6-year inclusion period was observed overall and for patients with obesity. This trend paralleled an increased utilization of the robotic platform. Several surrogates for advanced disease stages for cancer, diverticulitis, and IBD and prolonged surgical duration were identified as independent risk factors for unplanned conversion, while robotic approach was an independent protective factor (OR 0.44, p < 0.0001). Patients who had unplanned conversion were more likely to experience postoperative complications (OR 2.36; 95% CI [2.21-2.51]), length of hospital stay ≥ 6 days (OR 2.86; 95% CI [2.67-3.05], and 30-day mortality (OR 2.28; 95% CI [1.72-3.02]).

CONCLUSION

This nationwide study identified a decreasing trend in conversion rates over the 6-year inclusion period, both overall and in patients with obesity, paralleling increased utilization of the robotic platform. Unplanned conversion to open was associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications.

Inequalities in access to minimally invasive general surgery: a comprehensive nationwide analysis across 20 years

Background

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has profoundly changed standards of care and lowered perioperative morbidity, but its temporal implementation and factors favoring MIS access remain elusive. We aimed to comprehensibly investigate MIS adoption across different surgical procedures over 20 years, identify predictors for MIS amenability and compare propensity score-matched outcomes among MIS and open surgery.

Methods

Nationwide retrospective analysis of all hospitalizations in Switzerland between 1998 and 2017. Appendectomies (n = 186,929), cholecystectomies (n = 57,788), oncological right (n = 9138) and left hemicolectomies (n = 21,580), rectal resections (n = 13,989) and gastrectomies for carcinoma (n = 6606) were included. Endpoints were assessment of temporal MIS implementation, identification of predictors for MIS access and comparison of propensity score-matched outcomes among MIS and open surgery.

Results

The rates of MIS increased for all procedures during the study period (p ≤ 0.001). While half of all appendectomies were performed laparoscopically by 2005, minimally invasive oncological colorectal resections reached 50% only by 2016. Multivariate analyses identified older age (p ≤ 0.02, except gastrectomy), higher comorbidities (p ≤ 0.001, except rectal resections), lack of private insurance (p ≤ 0.01) as well as rural residence (p ≤ 0.01) with impaired access to MIS. Rural residence correlated with low income regions (p ≤ 0.001), which themselves were associated with decreased MIS access. Geographical mapping confirmed strong disparities for rural and low-income areas in MIS access. Matched outcome analyses revealed benefits of MIS for length of stay, decreased surgical site infection rates for MIS appendectomies and cholecystectomies and higher mortality for open cholecystectomies. No consistent morbidity or mortality benefit for MIS compared to open colorectal resections was observed.

Conclusion

Unequal access to MIS exists in disfavor of older and more comorbid patients and those lacking private insurance, living in rural areas, and having lower income. Efforts should be made to ensure equal MIS access regardless of socioeconomic or geographical factors.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-08123-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Conversions related to adhesions in abdominal surgery. Robotic versus laparoscopic approach: A multicentre experience

BACKGROUND

An advantage of robotic surgery over laparoscopy is the lower rate of unplanned conversion. One of the implicated reasons for conversion is adhesions from previous abdominal surgeries (PASs).

METHODS

A comparative analysis of 98 patients with history of open PAS treated by laparoscopic or robotic surgery was performed. Primary endpoint was the rate of conversion to open surgery related to adhesiolysis. Secondary endpoints were short-term outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

Conversion rate specifically related to adhesiolysis was significantly lower in robotic group (13 for laparoscopic group vs. 2 for robotic group; p = 0.046). Conversions occurred during adhesiolysis were significantly related to severity of adhesions expressed by peritoneal adhesion index (PAI) score (p < 0.001), number of abdominal areas involved by adhesions (p < 0.001) and severity of PAI into the target area of surgical intervention (p = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

Benefits of robotic surgery are more noticeable in performing procedures with increasing technical difficulties.

Surgical resection of T4 colon cancers: an NCDB propensity score-matched analysis of open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches

Historically, T4 tumors of the colon have been a contraindication to minimally invasive resection. The purpose of this study was to conduct a National Cancer Database analysis to compare the outcomes after curative treatment for T4 colon cancer between robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches. The US National Cancer Database was queried for patients with T4 adenocarcinoma of the colon who underwent curative resection. Groups were separated based on approach (open, laparoscopic, robotic). One to one nearest neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) ± 1% caliper was performed across surgical approach cohorts to balance potential confounding covariates. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox-proportional hazards regression were used to analyze primary outcome of survival. Secondary outcomes were analyzed by way of logistic regression. Inclusion criteria and PSM identified 876 cases per treatment approach (n = 2628). PSM provided adequate discrimination between treatment cohorts (0.6 < AUC < 0.8) and potential confounding covariates did not significantly differ between cohorts (all respective P > 0.05). Patients who underwent a robotic approach had lower odds of conversion to laparotomy compared to the laparoscopic cohort (P < 0.0001). Laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with increased odds of > 12 lymph nodes examined, decreased odds of positive margins, and decreased odds of 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality compared to the open approach. Cox-proportional hazards regression showed that both robotic and laparoscopic approaches were significantly associated with decreased mortality hazards relative to open. Both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries achieved improved oncologic outcomes and survival compared to open resection of T4 cancers. A robotic-assisted approach was significantly associated with a lower conversion rate compared to the laparoscopic approach. This case-matched study demonstrates safety of using minimally invasive techniques in T4 cancers.

Trends of complications and innovative techniques' utilization for colectomies in the United States

Despite an increasing trend towards utilization of minimally invasive approaches (MIS), results regarding their safety profile are contradictory. All patients who underwent elective colectomy for any underlying disease with an identifiable operative approach available from the targeted colectomy files of the ACS-NSQIP PUFs 2013 to 2018 were included. The trend of utilization and complication rates of the different operative approaches (open, laparoscopic, robotic) were assessed during the inclusion period. Furthermore, overall, surgical, and medical complications were compared between the three approaches. The study cohort included 78,987 patients. Of them, 12,335 (15.6%) patients underwent open, 57,874 (73.3%) laparoscopic, and 8,778 (11.1%) robotic surgery. There was an increasing trend towards the utilization of robotic surgery (2.5% increase per year) at the expense of the other approaches. With the increasing trend toward the utilization of the robotic approach, a decreasing trend in overall and surgical complications and length of stay was observed. After adjusting for the baseline confounders, robotic surgery was associated with shorter length of stay, lower rate of overall (OR 0.397; p < 0.05 compared to open and OR: 0.763; p < 0.05 compared to laparoscopy) and surgical complications (OR: 0.464; p < 0.05 compared to open and OR: 0.734; p < 0.05 compared to laparoscopy). This study revealed an increasing trend toward the utilization of MIS for elective colectomy in the US. Robotic surgery was associated with a decreasing trend in overall and surgical morbidity and length of stay.

Trends in utilization, conversion rates, and outcomes for minimally invasive approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer: a national cancer database analysis

BACKGROUND

This study examined utilization and conversion rates for robotic and laparoscopic approaches to non-metastatic rectal cancer. Secondary aims were to examine short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent conversion to laparotomy from each approach.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was reviewed for all cases of non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the rectum or rectosigmoid junction who underwent surgical resection from 2010 to 2016. Utilization rates of robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches were examined. Patients were split into cohorts by approach. Subgroup analyses were performed by primary tumor site and surgical procedure. Multivariable analysis was performed by multivariable logistic regression for binary outcomes and multivariable general linear models for continuous outcomes. Survival analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier and multivariable cox-proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2016, there was a statistically significant increase in utilization of the robotic and laparoscopic approaches over the study period and a statistically significant decrease in utilization of the open approach. The conversion rates for robotic and laparoscopic cohorts were 7.0% and 15.7%, p < 0.0001. Subgroup analysis revealed statistically lower conversion rates between robotic and laparoscopic approaches for rectosigmoid and rectal tumors and for LAR and APR. Converted cohorts had statistically significant higher odds of short term mortality than the non-converted cohorts (p  < 0.05).Laparoscopic conversion had statistically higher odds of positive margins (p  < 0.0001) and 30-day unplanned readmission (p  < 0.0001) than the laparoscopic non-conversion. Increased adjusted mortality hazard was seen for converted laparoscopy relative to non-converted laparoscopy (p  = 0.0019).

CONCLUSION

From 2010 to 2016, there was a significant increase in utilization of minimally invasive approaches to surgical management of non-metastatic rectal cancer. A robotic approach demonstrated decreased conversion rates than a laparoscopic approach at the rectosigmoid junction and rectum and for LAR and APR. Improved outcomes were seen in the minimally invasive cohorts compared to those that converted to laparotomy.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer as a platform to build on: review of current evidence

Laparoscopy in colorectal surgery reduces the rate of postoperative complications, shortens the length of stay in hospital, and improves the quality of patient care. Despite these established benefits, the technical challenges of rectal resection for cancer have resulted in most operations being performed through open surgery in the USA. Moreover, controversy in the current literature questions the oncologic safety of a laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer. How then can surgeons innovate to overcome the technical challenges while preserving the critical oncological outcomes of high-quality rectal cancer surgery? Robotics may be a platform that allows us to overcome the technical challenges in the pelvis while maintaining both oncological outcomes and the benefits of a minimally invasive technique. Current evidence suggests that the quality of total mesorectal excision, the rates of circumferential margin involvement, and postoperative outcomes are comparable between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. While a robotic approach demonstrates lower conversion rates and reduced surgeon workload, the operative time is longer and initial costs are higher; however, time and future science will determine its true benefits. We review the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on rectal cancer surgery.