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

Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been endorsed by clinical guidelines for colon cancer, but not for rectal cancer on account of unapproved oncologic equivalence with open surgery.

AIMS

We started this largest-to-date meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy in the treatment of rectal cancer compared with open surgery.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Both randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic proctectomy and open surgery between January 1990 and March 2020 were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase Databases (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020211718). The data of intraoperative, pathological, postoperative and survival outcomes were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs and 93 NRCTs including 216,615 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with 48,888 patients received laparoscopic surgery and 167,727 patients underwent open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery group showed faster recovery, less complications and decreased mortality within 30 days. The positive rate of circumferential margin (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.85, p < 0.0001) and distal margin (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.85 p < 0.0001) was significantly reduced in the laparoscopic surgery group, but the completeness of total mesorectal excision showed no significant difference. The 3-year and 5-year local recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival were all improved in the laparoscopic surgery group, while the distal recurrence did not differ significantly between the two approaches.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is non-inferior to open surgery for rectal cancer with respect to oncological outcomes and long-term survival. Moreover, laparoscopic surgery provides short-term advantages, including faster recovery and less complications.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robot-assisted and laparoscopic rectal surgery for rectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis using the Japanese Nationwide diagnosis procedure combination database

Background

The use of robot-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is increasing, but its short-term results remain unclear. We compared the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer using a nationwide inpatient database.

Methods

We analyzed patients registered in the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database who underwent robot-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer from April 2018 to March 2020. Postoperative complication rates, anesthesia time, length of hospital stay, and cost were compared using propensity score matching for low anterior resection (LAR), high anterior resection (HAR), and abdominoperineal resection (APR).

Results

Among 38 090 rectal cancer cases, 1992 LAR, 357 HAR, and 310 APR pairs were generated by propensity score matching and analyzed. Anesthesia time was longer for robot-assisted surgery compared with laparoscopic surgery (LAR: 388.6 vs. 452.8 min, p < 0.001; HAR: 300.9 vs. 393.5 min, p < 0.001; APR: 4478.5 vs. 533.5 min, p < 0.001). Robot-assisted surgery was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay for LAR (22.3 vs. 20.0 days, p < 0.001) and APR (29.2 vs. 25.9 days, p = 0.029). Total costs for LAR were significantly lower for robot-assisted surgery (2031511.6 vs. 1955216.6 JPY, p < 0.001). The complication rates for robot-assisted surgery tended to be fewer than laparoscopic surgery for all procedures, but the differences were not significant.

Conclusions

Although the anesthesia time was longer for robot-assisted surgery, the procedure resulted in shorter hospital stay for LAR and APR, and lower costs for LAR compared with laparoscopic surgery. Robot-assisted surgery can thus help to reduce costs and can be performed safely.

Comparison of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

There is still controversy on whether or not robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) have advantages over laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery(LACS).

Materials and methods

The four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library)were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the outcomes of RACS and LACS in the treatment of colorectal cancer from inception to 22 July 2023.

Results

Eleven RCTs were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Compared with LACS,RACS has significantly longer operation time(MD=5.19,95%CI: 18.00,39.82, P<0.00001), but shorter hospital stay(MD=2.97,95%CI:-1.60,-0.33,P = 0.003),lower conversion rate(RR=3.62,95%CI:0.40,0.76,P = 0.0003), lower complication rate(RR=3.31,95%CI:0.64,0.89,P=0.0009),fewer blood loss(MD=2.71,95%CI:-33.24,-5.35,P = 0.007),lower reoperation rate(RR=2.12, 95%CI:0.33,0.96,P=0.03)and longer distal resection margin(MD=2.16, 95%CI:0.04,0.94, P = 0.03). There was no significantly difference in harvested lymph nodes, the time of first flatus, the time of first defecation,the time of first resume diet, proximal resection margin, readmission rates, mortalities and CRM+ rates between two group.

Conclusions

Our study indicated that RACS is a feasible and safe technique that can achieve better surgical efficacy compared with LACS in terms of short-term outcomes.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023447088.

Implementation of robotic rectal cancer surgery: a cross-sectional nationwide study

AIM

An increasing number of centers have implemented a robotic surgical program for rectal cancer. Several randomized controls trials have shown similar oncological and postoperative outcomes compared to standard laparoscopic resections. While introducing a robot rectal resection program seems safe, there are no data regarding implementation on a nationwide scale. Since 2018 robot resections are separately registered in the mandatory Dutch Colorectal Audit. The present study aims to evaluate the trend in the implementation of robotic resections (RR) for rectal cancer relative to laparoscopic rectal resections (LRR) in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2020 and to compare the differences in outcomes between the operative approaches.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection between 2018 and 2020 were selected from the Dutch Colorectal Audit. The data included patient characteristics, disease characteristics, surgical procedure details, postoperative outcomes. The outcomes included any complication within 90 days after surgery; data were categorized according to surgical approach.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2020, 6330 patients were included in the analyses. 1146 patients underwent a RR (18%), 3312 patients a LRR (51%), 526 (8%) an open rectal resection, 641 a TaTME (10%), and 705 had a local resection (11%). The proportion of males and distal tumors was higher in the RR compared to the LRR. Over time, the proportion of robotic procedures increased from 15% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 13-16%) in 2018 to 22% (95% CI 20-24%) in 2020. Conversion rate was lower in the robotic group [4% (95% CI 3-5%) versus 7% (95% CI 6-8%)]. Anastomotic leakage rate was similar with 16%. Defunctioning ileostomies were more common in the RR group [42% (95% CI 38-46%) versus 29% (95% CI 26-31%)].

CONCLUSION

Rectal resections are increasingly being performed through a robot-assisted approach in the Netherlands. The proportion of males and low rectal cancers was higher in RR compared to LRR. Overall outcomes were comparable, while conversion rate was lower in RR, the proportion of defunctioning ileostomies was higher compared to LRR.

Index cost comparison of laparoscopic vs robotic surgery in colon and rectal cancer resection: a retrospective financial investigation of surgical methodology innovation at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic assisted colorectal cancer resection (R-CR) has become increasingly commonplace in contrast to traditional laparoscopic cancer resection (L-CR). The aim of this study was to compare the total direct costs of R-CR to that of L-CR and to compare the groups with respect to costs related to LOS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colon and/or rectal cancer resection via R-CR or L-CR instrumentation between January 1, 2015 and December 31 2018, at our institution, were evaluated and compared. Primary outcomes were overall cost, supply cost, operating time and cost, postoperative length of stay (LOS), and postoperative LOS cost. Secondary outcomes were readmission within 30 days and mortality during the surgery.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty R-CR (mean age 64.9 ± 12.4 years) and 258 L-CR (mean age 66.4 ± 15.5 years) patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall mean direct cost between R-CR and L-CR was significantly higher ($8756 vs $7776 respectively, p=0.001) as well as the supply cost per case ($3789 vs $2122, p < 0.001). Operating time was also higher for R-CR than L-CR (224 min vs 187 min, p = 0.066) but LOS was slightly lower (5.08 days vs 5.55 days, p = 0.113).

CONCLUSIONS

Cost is the main obstacle to easy and widespread use of the platform at this junction, though new developments and competition could very well reduce costs. Supply cost was the main reason for increased costs with robotic resection.

Hybrid revascularization vs. coronary bypass for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Coronary artery bypass graft is the mainstay of treatment for multivessel coronary artery disease and is superior to percutaneous coronary intervention. Combined approaches such as hybrid coronary revascularization integrate coronary artery bypass grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention during the same procedure or weeks apart. These attempt to improve surgical morbidity and long-term outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Per PRISMA criteria, a systematic review of keywords "Hybrid Revascularization," "Hybrid Coronary Revascularization," "Surgical," "Surgery," "Treatment," "CABG," "HCR" and "PCI" was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS. Studies comparing this technique's performance on either single or two-stage approach against traditional multiple vessel coronary artery bypass grafting were screened and analyzed for our review.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-two studies totaling 6981 participants were ultimately included for analysis. Mean differences in operative time, bleeding, ventilator time and length of stay were significantly lower in the hybrid coronary revascularization group. Odds ratios in transfusions and in-hospital myocardial infarction were also lower in the hybrid coronary revascularization group. Results for in-hospital and all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stroke, reintervention, and complete revascularization were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows hybrid coronary revascularization is a feasible alternative to traditional coronary artery bypass grafting. Short-and long-term outcomes including mortality, MACE, and postoperative morbidity are similar between both groups, while hybrid approaches are associated with decreased perioperative morbidity.

Application of Transumbilical Laparoscopic Surgery on Low/Ultralow Rectal Cancer for Anal Sphincter Preservation

Background: Rectal cancer is a common malignant tumor in the gastrointestinal tract. This work compares the effects of transumbilical laparoscopic surgery (TULS) and laparoscopic-assisted surgery on the anus-preserving effect of low/ultralow rectal cancer. Materials and Methods: Eighty patients with rectal cancer admitted to our hospital from February 2011 to July 2016 were randomly selected and divided into the laparoscopic group and TULS group, 40 cases in each group, all underwent radical anorectal cancer radical surgery. Statistical analysis was performed on surgical-related indicators in the two groups. Results: Two patients converted to open surgery were excluded. Five patients were excluded because of radical abdomen perineal resection for rectal cancer. Six patients were converted to TULS from laparoscopic surgery. Sixty-seven patients in the experimental group successfully completed anus-sparing surgery, and none died during the operation. The compliance rate of the distance between the lower edge of the tumor and the incision edge of the specimen in the TULS group was better than that in the laparoscopic group (P < .05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of surgical time, blood loss, number of lymph node dissections, functional time of voluntary defecation and postoperative complications, tumor-free recurrence rate at 3 years, and 3-year survival rate after surgery (P > .05). Conclusions: The TULS method is safe and feasible in low and ultralow rectal cancer surgery. It has more advantages than laparoscopic-assisted surgery for anus preservation.

Influence of steep Trendelenburg position on postoperative complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Intraoperative physiologic changes related to the steep Trendelenburg position have been investigated with the widespread adoption of robot-assisted pelvic surgery (RAPS). However, the impact of the steep Trendelenburg position on postoperative complications remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare RAPS to laparoscopic/open pelvic surgery with regards to the rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), cardiac, and cerebrovascular complications. Meta-regression was performed to evaluate the influence of confounding risk factors. Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 47 non-randomized controlled studies (NRSs), with a total of 380,125 patients, were included. Although RAPS was associated with a decreased risk of VTE and cardiac complications compared to laparoscopic/open pelvic surgery in NRSs [risk ratio (RR), 0.59; 95% CI 0.51–0.72, p < 0.001 and RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.58–1.50, p = 0.78, respectively], these differences were not confirmed in RCTs (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.52–1.62, p = 0.77 and RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.58–1.50, p = 0.78, respectively). In subgroup analyses of laparoscopic surgery, there was no significant difference in the risk of VTE and cardiac complications in both RCTs and NRSs. In the meta-regression, none of the risk factors were found to be associated with heterogeneity. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in cerebrovascular complications between RAPS and laparoscopic/open pelvic surgery. Our meta-analysis suggests that the steep Trendelenburg position does not seem to affect postoperative complications and, therefore, can be considered safe with regard to the risk of VTE, cardiac, and cerebrovascular complications. However, proper individualized preventive measures should still be implemented during all surgeries including RAPS to warrant patient safety.

Robotic-Assisted vs. Standard Laparoscopic Surgery for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 19,731 Patients

Simple Summary

Surgery remains a mainstay of combined modality treatment at patients with rectal cancer; however, there is a growing interest in using laparoscopic techniques (LG); including robotic-assisted techniques (RG). Therefore, we have prepared a meta-analysis of the literature regarding the safety and efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic approaches in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. The results indicate a number of advantages of RG in terms of both safety and efficacy. Operative time in the RG group was shorter and associated with a statistically significantly lower conversion of the procedure to open surgery. RG technique provided a shorter duration of hospital stay and lowered urinary risk retention. No differences were found between these techniques regarding TNM stage; N stage or lymph nodes harvested. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% in RG vs. 98.8% for LG.

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery is expected to have advantages over standard laparoscopic approach in patients undergoing curative surgery for rectal cancer. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from database inception to 10 November 2021, for both RCTs and observational studies comparing robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer resection. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Forty-Two were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. Survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate was 99.6% for RG and 98.8% for LG (OR = 2.10; 95% CI: 1.00 to 4.43; p = 0.05). Time to first flatus in the RG group was 2.5 ± 1.4 days and was statistically significantly shorter than in LG group (2.9 ± 2.0 days; MD = −0.34; 95%CI: −0.65 to 0.03; p = 0.03). In the case of time to a liquid diet, solid diet and bowel movement, the analysis showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Length of hospital stay in the RG vs. LG group varied and amounted to 8.0 ± 5.3 vs. 9.5 ± 10.0 days (MD = −2.01; 95%CI: −2.90 to −1.11; p < 0.001). Overall, 30-days complications in the RG and LG groups were 27.2% and 19.0% (OR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.55; p = 0.53), respectively. In summary, robotic-assisted techniques provide several advantages over laparoscopic techniques in reducing operative time, significantly lowering conversion of the procedure to open surgery, shortening the duration of hospital stay, lowering the risk of urinary retention, improving survival to hospital discharge or 30-day overall survival rate.

Postoperative complications observed with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer: An updated meta-analysis of recently published studies

BACKGROUND

This is an updated meta-analysis comparing the postoperative complications observed with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery (LS) for the treatment of rectal cancer.

METHODS

Cochrane central, MEDLNE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica dataBASE), Google Scholar, Web of Science and http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies (published after the year 2015), comparing robotic versus LS for the treatment of rectal cancer. The postoperative outcomes were considered as the endpoints in this analysis. RevMan 5.4 was used to carry out the statistical analysis. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the results following data analysis.

RESULTS

A total number of 22,744 participants were included in this study whereby 9178 participants were assigned to the robotic surgery and 13,566 participants were assigned to the LS group. The time period of patients' enrollment varied from years 2007 to 2017. Our results showed that overall complications (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.71-1.17; P = .45), wound complications (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.64-1.04; P = .09), anastomotic leak (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.88-1.42; P = .37), anastomotic bleeding (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.29-2.64; P = .82), stoma-related complications (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.24-3.21; P = .85), intra-abdominal abscess (RR: 0.53. 95% CI: 0.22-1.31; P = .17), urinary tract infection (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.53-1.66; P = .83), enterocolitis (RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.38-4.71; P = .64), reoperation (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.46-1.54; P = .58), and mortality (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.34-1.62; P = .46) were not significantly different between robotic-assisted versus LS for rectal cancer. Postoperative ileus (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.81-1.81; P = .34), readmission (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.75-1.83; P = .48), and urinary retention (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.21-1.23; P = .14) were also similarly manifested.

CONCLUSIONS

In this updated meta-analysis, both robotic and laparoscopic surgeries were equally effective for the treatment of rectal cancer. Similar postoperative complications were observed. However, our analysis was restricted only to postoperative outcomes, parameters such as duration of surgery were not taken into consideration.

A prospective study of the components of operating room utilisation time for robotic urological surgery in a public teaching hospital setting

Introduction and aim:

Although there are several publications on learning curves and patient outcomes in robotic surgery, the literature is lacking in depth analysis of operating room (OR) utilisation time which is an expansive healthcare resource for robotic surgery, especially in urology. Thus, we aimed to study individual operating theatre component times in order to improve performance and efficacy.

Method:

A cross-specialty robotic-surgery programme was established at our institution in mid-June 2016 using the daVinci Xi dual console robot. A detailed database was established before initiation of the project. The times taken for each element of the preparation and completion of robotic urological procedure were collected by an independent nurse for all the procedures. Primary outcome measures were total OR time, operative time and console time. Secondary outcome measures were port placement time, set-up time and non-operative time. The statistical significance was calculated by using the Student’s t-test, Fisher’s exact test or Wilcoxon matched pairs test where appropriate.

Result:

Thirty consecutive urological cases were analysed. Mean total OR time, operative time and console time were 320.86 (range 172–485), 235.7 (124–295) and 152.3 min (66–219) respectively. Console time accounted for about less than half of OR time. A significant proportion of OR time was non-operative time (almost one third). After an initial learning curve, set-up time was consistently maintained for most robotic procedures.

Conclusions:

The findings of this study have three implications for clinical practice. Firstly, console time contributed about half of the OR time. This can be optimised with experience. Secondly robot set-up time is likely to reduce with the experience of the whole team. Finally, non-operative OR time constitute a significant one third of the OR time during robotic surgery. Efforts to reduce non-surgical aspect of OR time will have potential to reduce cost and improve efficiency.

Level of Evidence:

4

Comparison of the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, open surgery, and transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: An overview of systematic reviews

Regarding the surgical approaches for rectal cancer, many techniques have been reported in randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and reviews of comparisons between two techniques, e.g. open surgery vs laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery vs robotic surgery, or laparoscopic surgery vs transanal total mesorectal excision. Since robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision were developed after laparoscopic surgery had become an established minimally invasive technique, they have each been compared with laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, a review was performed to compare the surgical outcomes of robotic surgery and transanal total mesorectal excision, and to perform such comparisons among ≥3 of the above mentioned approaches, in the expectation that this review will serve as a reference for aiding treatment selection in future. The results of the current review suggest that all of the examined procedures have advantages and disadvantages, but that there are no decisive factors that could be used to select one procedure over any other. At the present time it cannot be demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery, transanal total mesorectal excision, or open surgery is superior to the other techniques, and it is important to select the best technique for each patient from among those that a surgeon can perform. It is also important to maintain a flexible attitude that allows new techniques to be adopted as needed in the future.

Cutoff of 25% for Ki67 expression is a good classification tool for prognosis in colorectal cancer in the AJCC‑8 stratification

Ki‑67 expression has been widely used in clinical practice as an index to evaluate the proliferative activity of tumor cells. The cutoff for Ki67 expression in order to increase the prognostic value of Ki67 expression in colorectal cancer varies. The present study assessed the relationship between the 25% cutoff for Ki67 expression and prognosis in colorectal cancer in the AJCC‑8 (American Joint Committee on Cancer 8 edition) stratification. The current trial included 1,090 colorectal cancer patients enrolled from 2006 to 2012 at Huzhou Central Hospital. Ki67 expression was classified according to 25% intervals, dividing the patients into four groups. Measurement data were analyzed by ANOVA, and count data by Crosstabs. Bivariate correlation analysis was performed to assess clinicopathological indicators based on Ki67 expression. Disease‑free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) based on Ki67 levels were analyzed by the Kaplan‑Meier method. A total of 1,090 patients of the 2,080 enrolled CRC cases were evaluated (52.4%). Invasive depth, tumor differentiation, tumor size, AJCC‑8, positive number of lymph nodes and chemotherapy status showed significant differences in the various Ki67 expression groups (all P<0.05), with significant correlations (Spearman rho: 0.170, 0.456, 0.22, 0.195, 0.514 and ‑0.201, respectively, all P<0.001). DFS and OS for the different Ki67 level groups based on AJCC‑8 stratification were analyzed, and no significance was found in stage IV (P=0.334). DFS and OS survival rates were assessed at different Ki67 expression levels, and no significant differences were found (all P>0.05). Cox regression analysis showed that invasive depth, lymph node metastasis, tumor differentiation, AJCC‑8 and Ki67 were independent factors affecting colorectal cancer (P=0.030, all others P<0.001). In conclusion, a cutoff of 25% for Ki67 expression is a good classification tool. High Ki67 has a close association with poor prognosis in colorectal cancer and independently predicts prognosis in the AJCC‑8 stratification.

Robotic Surgery for Rectal Cancer and Cost-Effectiveness

Robotic surgery is considered as one of the advanced treatment modality of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer. Robotic rectal surgery has been performed for three decades and its application is gradually expanding along with technology development. It has several technical advantages which include magnified three-dimensional vision, better ergonomics, multiple articulated robotic instruments, and the opportunity to perform remote surgery. The technical benefits of robotic system can help to manipulate more meticulously during technical challenging procedures including total mesorectal excision in narrow pelvis, lateral pelvic node dissection, and intersphincteric resection. It is also reported that robotic rectal surgery have been shown more favorable postoperative functional outcomes. Despite its technical benefits, a majority of studies have been reported that there is rarely clinical or oncologic superiority of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery. In addition, robotic rectal surgery showed significantly higher costs than the standard method. Hence, the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal surgery is still questionable. In order for robotic rectal surgery to further develop in the field of minimally invasive surgery, there should be an obvious cost-effective advantages over laparoscopic surgery, and it is crucial that large-scale prospective randomized trials are required. Positive competition of industries in correlation with technological development may gradually reduce the price of the robotic system, and it will be helpful to increase the cost-effectiveness of robotic rectal surgery.

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.

Evaluation of laparoscopic forceps jaw contact pressure and distribution using pressure sensitive film

In this study, the authors used the Fujifilm Prescale Pressure Measuring System to measure the contact pressure and distribution at the jaws of laparoscopic grasping forceps. This data was then correlated with measured pressures at the forceps handles to understand the relationship between the surgeon's actuating pressure and that on the organ being manipulated. The purpose of this study is to create a database of tactile information to provide guidelines in defining minimally invasive surgery (MIS). This is expected to be important as today's society continues to progress in the use of automation, IoT, AI and MIS. In order to achieve the above, the authors developed an experimental device consisting of an actuator, a load cell and an MCU to stably actuate and control the handle side of grasping forceps. Target organs were simulated using triangular prisms of various silicone rubber materials. The experimental method involved actuating the handle side with preset pressure values for fixed time periods and using sensitive film to measure the pressure at the forceps tip. The film data was then scanned, processed and analyzed.

Robotic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery has been considered as an alternative to open surgery by surgeons for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of robotic and conventional laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer remain unclear in the literature. The primary aim of this review was to determine whether robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies were systematically searched in the databases of CENTRAL, EMBASE and PubMed from their inception until January 2018. Case reports, case series and non-systematic reviews were excluded.

RESULTS

Seventy-three studies (6 RCTs and 67 observational studies) were eligible (n = 169,236) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In comparison with the CLS arm, RAS cohort was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of conversion to open surgery (ρ < 0.001, I² = 65%; REM: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30,0.53), all-cause mortality (ρ < 0.001, I² = 7%; FEM: OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.36,0.64) and wound infection (ρ < 0.001, I² = 0%; FEM: OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11,1.39). Patients who received RAS had a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization (ρ < 0.001, I² = 94%; REM: MD - 0.77; 95% CI 1.12, - 0.41; day), time to oral diet (ρ < 0.001, I² = 60%; REM: MD - 0.43; 95% CI - 0.64, - 0.21; day) and lesser intraoperative blood loss (ρ = 0.01, I² = 88%; REM: MD - 18.05; 95% CI - 32.24, - 3.85; ml). However, RAS cohort was noted to require a significant longer duration of operative time (ρ < 0.001, I² = 93%; REM: MD 38.19; 95% CI 28.78,47.60; min).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that RAS provides better clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer patients as compared to the CLS at the expense of longer duration of operative time. However, the inconclusive trial sequential analysis and an overall low level of evidence in this review warrant future adequately powered RCTs to draw firm conclusion.

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.

Transanal transabdominal TME: how far can we push it?

Over many decades, advances in surgical technology, such as the use of the electrocautery Bovie, development of minimally invasive and advanced endoscopic platforms and the ability to create and maintain pneumorectum have propelled surgical techniques forward to today, with development of the transanal total mesorectal excision TME (taTME) for en bloc resection of rectal cancers. The transanal platform offers, for now, a viable alternative to perform safe and oncologically sound TME, especially favorable in cases of low rectal lesions in a narrow pelvis post neoadjuvant treatment. The aspiration of the colorectal community remains to continue to push the operative boundaries whilst maintaining safe oncological principals with the best possible functional outcomes for patients. In this article we review this evolving technique and focus on future directions.