A comparison of the technical and oncologic validity between robot-assisted and conventional open abdominoperineal resection

Outcome of Colorectal Robotic Surgery in Newly Established Robotic Surgery Center: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION

The robotic platform compared to laparoscopy has proven to have similar postoperative outcomes, however its adoption in the Middle East has been slow and there is limited data regarding outcomes with its use in small newly established robotic colorectal programs. Our aim was to report our experience and outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare them to larger, more experienced centers.

METHODS

This is retrospective review of data collected between November 2021 and March 2023 from a tertiary health care referral center. The series included 51 patients who had elective or urgent robotic colorectal surgery. Patients who had emergency surgery were excluded. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and quality of oncological specimen.

RESULTS

The overall morbidity was 31.4% (n = 16 patients). Only 9.8% (n = 5) had serious morbidity of which three required interventions under general anesthesia. The median length of hospital stay was 6 days (IQR = 4), and there was no mortality. Of 17 rectal cancer resections, 88% had complete mesorectal excision, 15 of them were R0 resections, median lymph node harvested was 14 (IQR = 7) and two cases were converted to open. All the colon cancer resections had R0 resection, median lymph nodes harvested was 21 (IQR = 4) and none were converted to open.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation and integration of robotic colorectal surgery at a newly established center in a small country, when led by fellowship trained robotic colorectal surgeons, is safe and effective in terms of morbidity, mortality, conversion to open and specimen pathological quality.

Outcomes in robotic-assisted compared to laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery in a newly established colorectal tertiary center: a retrospective comparative cohort study

The robotic platform matches or surpasses laparoscopic surgery in postoperative results. However, limited date and slow adoption are noticed in the middle east. We aimed to report outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic colorectal surgery performed by fellowship-trained robotic colorectal surgeons and compare it to larger more experienced centers. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data between 2021 and 2023 of 107 patients who had robotic-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery was included in the study. The outcomes were overall morbidity, serious morbidity, mortality, conversion to open, length of hospital stay, and the quality of oncological specimen. Of 107 patients, 57 were in the robotic and 50 were in the laparoscopic surgery groups. Overall, there were no significant differences in overall morbidity (46.8 vs. 53.2%, p = 0.9), serious morbidity (10.5 vs. 8%, p = 0.7), or mortality (0 vs. 4%, p = 0.2). Regarding oncological outcomes, there were no significant difference between the two groups regarding the number of lymph node harvested (17.7 ± 6.9 vs 19.0 ± 9.7, p = 0.5), R0 resections (92.7 vs. 87.1%, p = 0.5), and the rate of complete mesorectal excision (92.7 vs. 71.4%, p = 0.19). The study found that the robotic group had an 86% reduction in conversion rate to open surgery compared to the laparoscopic group, despite including more obese and physically dependent patients (OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.7, p = 0.01). Robotic surgery appears to be a safe and effective as laparoscopic surgery in smaller colorectal surgery programs led by fellowship-trained robotic surgeons, with outcomes comparable to those of larger programs.

Outcomes and Cost Analysis of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection for Rectal Cancer: A Case-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopy for abdominoperineal resection has been well defined, the literature lacks comparative studies on robotic abdominoperineal resection. Because robotic abdominoperineal resections typically do not require splenic mobilization or an anastomosis for reconstruction, the mean console time is expected to be shorter than low anterior resection. We hypothesized that robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection would provide similar oncologic and financial outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to compare the perioperative, oncologic, and economic outcomes of the robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective, case-matched patient cohort.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

This study included all patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic abdominoperineal resections between January 2008 and April 2017; they were case-matched in a 1:1 ratio based on age ±5 years, BMI ±3 kg/m 2 , and sex criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Perioperative, oncologic, and economic (including survival) outcomes were compared. Because of institutional policy, actual cost values are presented as the lowest direct cost value as "100%," and other values are presented as proportional to the index value.

RESULTS

We examined 68 patients (34 in each group). Both groups had similar preoperative characteristics, including preoperative chemoradiation rates. Operative time (319 vs 309 min), length of stay (7.2 vs 7.4 d), postoperative complications (38.2% vs 41.2%), conversion to open (5 vs 4), complete mesorectal excision (76.4% vs 79.4%), radial margin involvement (2.9% vs 8.9%), and direct hospital cost parameters (mean difference 26%, median difference 43%) were comparable between robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection groups, respectively (all p > 0.05). Local recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival rates (85.3% vs 76.5%) were also similar after 22 months of follow-up between the groups.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations of this study are its retrospective nature and the variety in concomitant procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic abdominoperineal resections provided in carefully matched patients with rectal cancer showed similar perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes compared to laparoscopic abdominoperineal resections. Our study was not powered to detect a significant increase in cost with robotic abdominoperineal resections. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B920 .

RESULTADOS Y ANLISIS DE COSTO DE LA RESECCIN ABDOMINOPERINEAL LAPAROSCPICA VS LA ROBTICA EN CASOS DE CNCER DE RECTO ESTUDIO DE CASOS EMPAREJADOS

ANTECEDENTES:Si bien la resección abdominoperineal laparoscópica está bien definida, la literatura carece de estudios comparativos sobre la resección abdominoperineal robótica. Dado que las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas generalmente no requieren movilización esplénica o una anastomosis en casos de reconstrucción, se supone que el tiempo medio en la consola sea más corto que durante una resección anterior baja. Hipotéticamente las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas y laparoscópicas nos proporcionarían resultados oncológicos y económicos similares.OBJETIVO:Comparar los resultados perioperatorios, oncológicos y económicos de la resección abdominoperineal robótica y laparoscópica.DISEÑO:Esta fue una cohorte de pacientes retrospectiva, emparejada por casos.AJUSTE:Estudio realizado en un centro de referencia terciario.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a resecciones abdominoperineales LAParoscópicas o ROBóticas entre Enero de 2008 y Abril de 2017 fueron identificados y emparejados según la edad ±5, el IMC ±3 y los criterios de sexo en una proporción de 1:1.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se compararon los resultados perioperatorios, oncológicos y económicos (incluida la sobrevida). Debido a la política institucional, los valores de costos reales se presentan como el valor de costo directo más bajo al 100% y los otros valores se presentan como proporcionales al valor índice.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron 68 pacientes (LAP-34 y ROB-34). Ambos grupos tenían características preoperatorias similares, incluidas las tasas de radio-quimioterapia pre-operatoria. Los tiempos operatorios fueron de 319 y 309 minutos, la estadía hospitalaria de 7 días en los dos grupos, las complicaciones post-operatorias fueron de 38,2% LAP frente a 41,2% ROB, la tasa de conversion fué de 5 a 4, la excisión total del mesorrecto de 76,4% frente a 79,4%, la resección radial con afectación de los márgenes de 2,9% frente a 8,9% y los parámetros de costes hospitalarios directos (diferencia de medias 26%, diferencia de medianas 43%) fueron comparables entre los grupos, de resección abdominoperineal robótica y laparoscópica, respectivamente (todos p > 0,05). Las tasas de recurrencia local, sobrevida libre de enfermedad y sobrevida general (85,3% frente a 76,5%) también fueron similares después de 22 meses de seguimiento entre los grupos.LIMITACIONES:La naturaleza retrospectiva y la variedad de procedimientos concomitantes fueron las principales limitaciones de este estudio.CONCLUSIONES:Las resecciones abdominoperineales robóticas proporcionaron resultados oncológicos perioperatorios y a corto plazo similares en pacientes con cáncer de recto cuidadosamente emparejados en comparación con las resecciones abdominoperineales laparoscópicas. Nuestro estudio no fue diseñado para detectar un aumento significativo en el costo relacionado con la resección abdominoperineal robótica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B920 . (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

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.

Re-evaluation of possible vulnerable sites in the lateral pelvic cavity to local recurrence during robot-assisted total mesorectal excision

BACKGROUND

Despite mechanical and technical improvements in laparoscopic and robot-assisted (LAR) rectal cancer procedures, the absence of prognostic disparities among various approaches cannot improve the quality of TME. The present study re-evaluated robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (TME) procedures to determine whether these procedures may reveal technical faults that may increase the rate of local recurrence (LR).

METHODS

This study enrolled 886 consecutive patients with rectal cancer, who underwent curative robot-assisted LAR at Asan Medical Center (Seoul, Korea) between July 2010 and August 2017 (the first vs second period; n = 399 vs 487). The quality of TME and lateral pelvic mesorectal excision (LPME) were analyzed, as were LR rates and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Complete TME and LPME were achieved in 89.2% and 80.1% of these patients, respectively, with ≤ 1% having incomplete TME excluding intramesorectal excision. LR rates were 13.5 and 14.5 times higher in patients with incomplete TME and LPME, respectively, than in patients with complete TME and LPME (14.8% vs 1.1% and 8.7% vs 0.6%; p < 0.001 each by univariate analyses). Multivariate analyses showed that defective LPME was independently associated with incomplete TME and vice versa (p < 0.001). Cox regression analysis showed that defective LPME was independently correlated with reduced 5-year disease-free survival rate (hazard ratio, 1.563; 95% confidence interval, 1.052-2.323; p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

LR in rectal cancer patients was largely due to incomplete LPME, which was significantly associated with incomplete TME. Complete LPME may enhance the likelihood of complete TME, reducing LR rates.

Trends of robotic-assisted surgery for thyroid, colorectal, stomach and hepatopancreaticobiliary cancer: 10 year Korea trend investigation

BACKGROUND

The current position of robotic surgery in the field of minimally invasive surgery remains ambiguous. We evaluated long-term trends of robotic general surgery and the future direction of its development.

METHODS

Data on robotic cancer surgeries between 2005 and 2014 were retrospectively collected by volunteer institutions in the Republic of Korea. Spearman's correlation and logistic regression analyses were used to compare robotic and laparoscopic surgery trends in general surgery.

RESULTS

The odds that robotic surgery was performed instead of laparoscopic surgery significantly decreased in the fields of colorectal, stomach, and hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery (odds ratio [OR]: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-0.97; OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.88-0.92; and OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.65-0.78, respectively), except for thyroid surgery (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.25-1.30). Of the total numbers of each procedure, proportions of robotic intersphincteric resections, abdominoperineal resections, and pylorus-preserving surgery performed significantly increased (r = 0.98, P < .001; r = 0.78, P = .01; and r = 0.86, P = .007, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of robotic surgery failed to preponderate that of laparoscopic surgery, except for thyroid surgery. Robotic surgery is increasingly preferred for limited fields or complex surgeries, but the use of robotics in simple surgeries has decreased.

Totally robotic vs hybrid abdominoperineal resection: A retrospective multicenter analysis

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection (APR) for low rectal cancers is technically demanding. Robotic assistance may be of help and can be hybrid (HAPR) or totally robotic (RAPR). The present study describes outcomes of robotic APR and compares both approaches.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A multicentric retrospective analysis of rectal cancer patients undergoing either HAPR or RAPR was conducted. Patients' demographics, surgeons' experience, oncologic results, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five patients were included, 48 in HAPR group and 77 in RAPR group. Demographics and comorbidities were comparable. Operative time was reduced in RAPR group (266.9 ± 107.8 min vs 318.9 ± 75.1 min, P = .001). RAPR patients were discharged home more frequently (91.18% vs 66.67%, P = .001), and experienced fewer parastomal hernias (3.71% vs 9.86%, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

RAPR is safe and feasible with appropriate oncologic outcomes. Totally robotic approach reduces operative time and may improve functional outcomes.

Comparative analysis of robot-assisted vs. open abdominoperineal resection in terms of operative and initial oncological outcomes

Purpose

The present study aimed to objectively evaluate robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection (APR) in comparison with open APR, in terms of operative elements and initial oncological outcomes.

Methods

A total of 118 patients with lower rectal adenocarcinoma who had undergone curative APR were consecutively enrolled between June 2010 and June 2016, i.e., robot-assisted group (n = 40) and open group (n = 78).

Results

Transabdominal extralevator muscle excision was more frequently performed in the robot-assisted group than in the open group (68% vs. 42%, P = 0.012). In the robot-assisted group, the pain score at one day after surgery was less than in the open group, and the resumption of bowel function was earlier (P = 0.043 and P = 0.002, respectively). The occurrence of circumferential resection margin involvement (CRM+) was more than 5 times greater in the open group than in the robot-assisted group, presenting a marginal significance (P = 0.057). Although important postoperative morbidity did not generally differ between the 2 groups, voiding difficulty and male sexual dysfunction appeared to be encountered more frequently in the open group than in the robot-assisted group.

Conclusion

The robot-assisted APR facilitated transabdominal extralevator excision and bowel recovery and demonstrated a trend towards reduced CRM+.

A systematic review of transabdominal levator division during abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER)

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the surgical technique, short-term oncological and perioperative outcomes for the transabdominal division of the levator ani muscles during abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed to identify studies reporting on transabdominal division of the levator ani during APER. A comprehensive literature search was performed using a combination of free-text terms and controlled vocabulary when applicable on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library. The search period was from January 1945 to December 2015. The following search headings were used: "transabdominal", "transpelvic", "abdominal" or "pelvic" combined with either "levator" or "extralevator" and with "abdominoperineal".

RESULTS

Nine publications were identified reporting on 99 participants. The male/female distribution was 1.44:1, respectively, and the mean age was 56.6 (30-77) years. All tumours were less than 5 cm from the anal verge. The preoperative radiological staging was T2 in 18% of cases, T3 in 53.5% and T4 in 28.5%. Transabdominal division of the levators was performed laparoscopically in 55 cases, robotically in 34 and open in 10. The mean operating time was 255 (177-640) min. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 140 (92-500) ml. There were no conversions to open. Circumferential resection margins were positive in two cases, and there was one intraoperative perforation. Mean post-operative length of stay was 9.3 (3-67) days. Follow-up (from 0 to 31 months) revealed 19 perineal wound infections, 15 cases of sexual dysfunction and 7 cases of urinary retention. There was no mortality and 1 readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Transabdominal division of the levators during APER is feasible and reproducible, with acceptable perioperative and good early oncological outcomes. Further comparative studies are needed.

Robot-assisted intersphincteric resection facilitates an efficient sphincter-saving in patients with low rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Few investigations of robot-assisted intersphincteric resection (ISR) are presently available to support this procedure as a safe and efficient procedure. We aimed to evaluate the utility of robot-assisted ISR by comparison between ISR and abdominoperineal resection (APR) using both robot-assisted and open approaches.

METHODS

The 558 patients with lower rectal cancer (LRC) who underwent curative operation was enrolled between July 2010 and June 2015 to perform either by robot-assisted (ISR vs. APR = 310 vs. 34) or open approaches (144 vs. 70). Perioperative and functional outcomes including urogenital and anorectal dysfunctions were measured. Recurrence and survival were examined in 216 patients in which >3 years had elapsed after the operation.

RESULTS

The robot-assisted approach was the most significant parameter to determine ISR achievement among potent parameters (OR = 3.467, 95% CI = 2.095-5.738, p < 0.001). Early surgical complications occurred more frequently in the open ISR group (16 vs. 7.7%, p = 0.01). The voiding and male sexual dysfunctions were significantly more frequent in the open ISR (p < 0.05). The fecal incontinence and lifestyle alteration score was greater in the open ISR than in the robot-assisted ISR at 12 and 24 months, respectively (p < 0.05). However, the 3-year cumulative rates of local recurrence and survival did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current procedure of robot-assisted ISR replaced a significant portion of APR to achieve successful SSO via mostly transabdominal approach and double-stapled anastomosis. The robot-assisted ISR with minimal invasiveness might be a help to reduce anorectal and urogenital dysfunctions.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: A meta-analysis of classic randomized controlled trials and high-quality Nonrandomized Studies in the last 5 years

OBJECTIVE

To present a meta-analysis of high-quality published reports comparing laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) and open rectal resection (ORR) for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Studies that compared LRR and ORR and were published within the last 5 years were identified. All eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative trials (NRCTs) were evaluated based on the Jadad score, the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and modified Methodological Indices for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS). The mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) were used to compare the operative time, blood loss, mortality, complications, harvested lymph nodes, hospital stay, distal resection margin, and circumferential resection margin. The risk ratio (RR) method was used to examine recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were identified and included 7 RCTs and 7 NRCTs and 4353 patients (2251 LRR, 2102 ORR). Although the operation time of the LRR group was obviously longer than that of the conventional surgery group (MD = 25.64, 95%CI = [5.17,46.10], P = 0.01), LRR was associated with fewer overall complications (OR = 0.67, 95%CI = [0.52,0.87], P = 0.002), less blood loss (MD = -66.49, 95%CI = [-88.31, -44.66], P < 0.00001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (OR = -1.26,95%CI = [-2.45, -0.07],P = 0.004) and shorter bowel function recovery times (MD = -0.93, 95%CI = [-1.27,-0.58], P < 0.00001). Moreover, the difference in the DRM was statistically clear (MD = 0.14, 95%CI = [0.02,0.27], P = 0.03). However, no significant differences between the LRR and ORR groups were observed in terms of the number of lymph nodes harvested, mortality, positive CRM, local and distal recurrence, or overall and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that there are no significant differences between LRR and ORR in terms of survival and pathological outcomes with the exception of the DRM. Moreover, this study suggests that LRR can be performed safely and elicits faster recovery times compared with conventional surgery.

Robot-Assisted Abdominoperineal Resection: Clinical, Pathologic, and Oncologic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The extralevator approach to abdominoperineal resection is associated with a decreased incidence of rectal perforation and circumferential resection margin positivity translating to lower recurrence rates. The abdominoperineal resection, as such, is an operation associated with poorer outcomes in comparison with low anterior resections, and any improvements in short-term outcomes are likely to be related to surgical technique. Robot assistance in extralevator abdominoperineal resection has shown improvement in these pathologic outcomes. Because these are surrogate markers for local recurrence and disease-free survival, long-term survival data are needed to assess the efficacy of this robot-assisted technique, exclusively in a dedicated abdominoperineal resection cohort.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the perioperative, pathologic, and oncologic outcomes of the robot-assisted extralevator abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer.

DESIGN

This study was a review of a prospective database of patients over a 5-year period.

SETTING

Procedures were performed in the colorectal division of a tertiary hospital from April 2007 to July 2012.

PATIENTS

Patients with rectal cancer were operated on robotically. Indications for abdominoperineal resection were low rectal cancers invading the sphincter complex or location in the anal canal precluding anastomosis.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients received a robot-assisted extralevator abdominoperineal resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative and perioperative measures, pathologic outcomes, and disease-free survival and overall survival were documented and assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (15 men) with a mean age of 65.5 years and mean BMI of 28.6 kg/m underwent robotic abdominoperineal resection. Circumferential resection margin was positive in 13.6%. There was 1 tumor/rectal perforation. At a mean follow-up of 33.9 months, overall survival was 81.8% with a disease-free survival of 72.7%. Local recurrence was 4.5%.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-institution study with no comparative open or laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection is safe, feasible, and oncologically sound with short-term and long-term outcomes comparable to open and laparoscopic surgery.

Robotic-assisted surgery versus open surgery in the treatment of rectal cancer: the current evidence

The aim of this meta-analysis was to comprehensively compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted rectal cancer surgery (RRCS) and open rectal cancer surgery (ORCS). Electronic database (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Library) searches were conducted for all relevant studies that compared the short-term and long-term outcomes between RRCS and ORCS. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and hazard ratios were calculated. Seven studies involving 1074 patients with rectal cancer were identified for this meta-analysis. Compared with ORCS, RRCS is associated with a lower estimated blood loss (mean difference [MD]: −139.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −159.11 to −120.86; P < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay length (MD: −2.10, 95% CI: −3.47 to −0.73; P = 0.003), lower intraoperative transfusion requirements (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.99, P = 0.05), shorter time to flatus passage (MD: −0.97, 95% CI = −1.06 to −0.88, P < 0.00001), and shorter time to resume a normal diet (MD: −1.71.95% CI = −3.31 to −0.12, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in surgery-related complications, oncologic clearance, disease-free survival, and overall survival between the two groups. However, RRCS was associated with a longer operative time. RRCS is safe and effective.

Robotic Rectal Cancer Surgery

There are an estimated 39,000 new cases of rectal cancer in the United States per year which makes it the third most prevalent cancer when paired with colon cancer. Given its complexity, there are now multiple modalities available for its successful treatment. This includes innovative chemotherapy, radiation, transanal resection techniques, and minimally invasive surgery. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer represents the current pinnacle of minimally invasive technology for this disease process.