Minimally Invasive Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: A National Perspective on Short-term Outcomes and Morbidity

Robotic Rectus Abdominis Harvest for Pelvic Reconstruction after Abdominoperineal Resection

The use of robotic surgical systems to perform abdominoperineal resection (APR) has recently become more prevalent. This minimally invasive approach produces fewer scars and potentially less morbidity for the patient. The rectus abdominis muscle is often used for reconstruction after APR if primary closure is not feasible or the surgical site is at high risk of wound complications. Since the traditional open harvest of this flap creates large incisions that negate the advantages of minimally invasive APR, there has been growing interest in harvesting the rectus abdominis in a similarly robotic fashion. This article reviews the technique, benefits, and limitations of this robotic technique. Compared to the traditional open harvest, robotic harvest of the rectus abdominis leaves smaller scars, provides technical benefits for the surgeon, and offers possible morbidity benefits for the patient. These advantages should be weighed against the added expense and learning curve inherent to robotic surgery.

Surgical treatment of rectal cancer: prospective cohort study about good oncologic results and low rates of abdominoperineal excision

OBJECTIVES

the purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of rectal cancer surgery, in a unit adopting the principles of total mesorectal excision (TME) with a high restorative procedure rate and with a low rate of abdominoperineal excision (APE).

METHODS

we enrolles patients with extraperitoneal rectal cancer undergoing TME or TME+APE. Patients with mid rectal tumors underwent TME, and patients with tumors of the lower rectum and no criteria for APE underwent TME and intersphincteric resection. Those in which the intersphincteric space was invaded and in those with a free distal margin less than 1cm or a tumor free radial margin were unattainable underwent APE or extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). We assessed local recurrence rates, overall survival and involvement of the radial margin.

RESULTS

sixty (89.6%) patients underwent TME and seven (10.4%) TME + APE, of which five underwent ELAPE. The local recurrence, in pacientes undergoing TME+LAR, was 3.3% and in patients undergoing APE, 14.3%. The local recurrence rate (p=0.286) or the distant recurrence rate (p=1.000) was similar between groups. There was no involvement of radial margins. Survival after 120 months was similar (p=0.239).

CONCLUSION

rectal malignancies, including those located in the low rectum, may be surgically treated with a low rate of APE without compromising oncological principles and with a low local recurrence rates.

Real-world comparison of curative open, laparoscopic and robotic resections for sigmoid and rectal cancer-single center experience

There has been an increase in the utilization of robotic surgery in addition to traditional open or laparoscopic approaches. Aim of this study is to compare the short-term outcomes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery for rectal and sigmoid cancer. One hundred and forty-seven patients (open n = 48, laparoscopic n = 49, robotic n = 50) undergoing curative resections by two surgeons between 2013 and 2020 were included. Data analyzed included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, length of stay, post-operative outcomes, and pathologic surrogates of oncologic results, including total mesorectal excision (TME) quality, circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement and lymph node (LN) yield. Median age of population was 68 years (IQR 59-73), majority (68%) were males. Median distance from anal verge in the robotic surgery group was 8 cm, compared to 15 and 14.5 cm in the open and laparoscopic groups, respectively, p = 0.029, (laparoscopic vs robotic, p = 0.005 and open vs robotic, p = 0.027). Proportion of patients who received neoadjuvant radiotherapy in robotic surgery group was higher, p = 0.04. In sub-group of tumors between 3 and 7 cm from anal verge more patients in the robotic surgery group had sphincter preservation, p = 0.006. Length of stay, maximum C-reactive protein, and white blood cell rise favored minimally invasive approaches compared to open surgery. There were no differences in post-operative complications, lymph node yield or CRM positivity rate between the three groups. Robotic surgery approach is safe and allows sphincter preservation without compromising TME quality in rectal cancer surgery.