Robot-assisted rectal cancer surgery: short-term outcomes for 113 consecutive patients

Comparing minimally invasive surgical and open approaches to pelvic exenteration for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies - Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is a complex multivisceral surgical procedure indicated for locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. It poses significant technical challenges which account for the high risk of morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. Developments in minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches and enhanced peri-operative care have facilitated improved long term outcomes. However, the optimum approach to PE remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify studies comparing MIS (robotic or laparoscopic) approaches for PE versus the open approach for patients with locally advanced or recurrent pelvic malignancies. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed systematically and a meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

11 studies were identified, including 2009 patients, of whom 264 (13.1%) underwent MIS PE approaches. The MIS group displayed comparable R0 resections (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 0.98, 1.07, p = 0.35)) and Lymph node yield (Weighted Mean Difference [WMD] 1.42, 95% CI -0.58, 3.43, p = 0.16), and although MIS had a trend towards improved towards improved survival and recurrence outcomes, this did not reach statistical significance. MIS was associated with prolonged operating times (WMD 67.93, 95% CI 4.43, 131.42, p < 0.00001) however, this correlated with less intra-operative blood loss, and a shorter length of post-operative stay (WMD -3.89, 955 CI -6.53, -1.25, p < 0.00001). Readmission rates were higher with MIS (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.11, 4.02, p = 0.02), however, rates of pelvic abscess/sepsis were decreased (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21, 0.95, p = 0.04), and there was no difference in overall, major, or specific morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION

MIS approaches are a safe and feasible option for PE, with no differences in survival or recurrence outcomes compared to the open approach. MIS also reduced the length of post-operative stay and decreased blood loss, offset by increased operating time.

Robotic versus laparoscopic approach for minimally invasive lateral pelvic lymph node dissection of advanced lower rectal cancer: a retrospective study comparing short-term outcomes

PURPOSE

The importance of lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LLND) for advanced low rectal cancer is gradually being recognized in Europe and the USA, where some patients were affected by uncontrolled lateral pelvic lymph node (LLNs) metastasis, even after total mesorectal excision (TME) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The purpose of this study was thus to compare robotic LLND (R-LLND) with laparoscopic (L-LLND) to clarify the safety and advantages of R-LLND.

METHODS

Sixty patients were included in this single-institution retrospective study between January 2013 and July 2022. We compared the short-term outcomes of 27 patients who underwent R-LLND and 33 patients who underwent L-LLND.

RESULTS

En bloc LLND was performed in significantly more patients in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (48.1% vs. 15.2%; p = 0.006). The numbers of LLNs on the distal side of the internal iliac region (LN 263D) harvested were significantly higher in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (2 [0-9] vs. 1 [0-6]; p = 0.023). The total operative time was significantly longer in the R-LLND than in the L-LLND group (587 [460-876] vs. 544 [398-859]; p = 0.003); however, the LLND time was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.718). Postoperative complications were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study clarified the safety and technical feasibility of R-LLND with respect to L-LLND. Our findings suggest that the robotic approach offers a key advantage, allowing significantly more LLNs to be harvested from the distal side of the internal iliac region (LN 263D). Prospective clinical trials examining the oncological superiority of R-LLND are thus necessary in the near future.

Feasibility of two laparoscopic surgeries for colon cancer performed by the same surgeon on a single day

BACKGROUND

Although the proportion of laparoscopic colectomies (LCs) for colon cancer is increasing, the feasibility of the same surgeon performing two LCs on a single day remains unknown. This study was conducted to clarify the feasibility of this practice by evaluating short-term and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis enrolled patients with pathological stage I-III colon cancer who underwent LC at the Shizuoka Cancer Center between 2010 and 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on the timing of the surgery for the surgeon. The first group (n = 1485) comprised patients who underwent LC as the first surgery of the day for the surgeon. The second group (n = 163) comprised patients who underwent LC as the second LC of the day for the surgeon. Propensity score matching was performed to balance the baseline characteristics of the first and second groups. The short-term and long-term outcomes of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grade II or higher between the first (10.4%, 17/163) and second groups (5.5%, 9/163). There were no significant differences in other perioperative outcomes, including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and incidence of conversion to open surgery, between the two groups. Regarding long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences in overall survival or relapse-free survival between the two groups both in the full cohort and in the propensity score-matched cohort. In the propensity score-matched cohort, 5-year overall survival was 92.7% in the first group and 94.4% in the second group; 5-year relapse-free survival was 87.1% and 90.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the same surgeon performing two LCs for colon cancer on a single day is feasible in terms of short-term and long-term outcomes.

Comparison between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer

Aim

Sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer include low anterior and intersphincteric resection. In low anterior resection, the distal rectum is divided by a transabdominal approach, which is technically demanding. In intersphincteric resection, a perineal approach is used. We aimed to evaluate whether robotic-assisted surgery is technically superior to laparoscopic surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer. We compared the frequency of low anterior resection in cases of sphincter-preserving operations.

Method

We investigated 183 patients who underwent sphincter-preserving robotic-assisted or laparoscopic surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer (lower border within 5 cm of the anal verge) between April 2010 and March 2020. The frequency of low anterior resection was compared between laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries. The clinicopathological factors associated with an increase in performing low anterior resection were analyzed by multivariate analyses.

Results

Overall, 41 (22.4%) and 142 (77.6%) patients underwent laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. Low anterior resection was done significantly more frequently in robotic-assisted surgery (67.6%) than in laparoscopic surgery (48.8%) (P = 0.04). Multivariate analyses showed that tumor distance from the anal verge (P < 0.01) and robotic-assisted surgery (P = 0.02) were significantly associated with an increase in the performance of low anterior resection. The rate of postoperative complications or pathological results was similar between the groups.

Conclusion

Compared with laparoscopic surgery, robotic-assisted surgery significantly increased the frequency of low anterior resection in sphincter-preserving operations for ultra-low rectal cancer. Robotic-assisted surgery has technical superiority over laparoscopic surgery for ultra-low rectal cancer treatment.

Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for lower rectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

There have been reports about robotic surgery for rectal cancer with chemoradiotherapy (CRT), but only a few studies have compared the use of robotic surgery with and without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The aim of our study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic surgery with and without NAC for lower rectal cancer and to examine the effects of NAC on robotic surgery.

METHODS

From January 2016 to July 2021, we compared the short-term outcomes of 45 patients who did not undergo NAC and 55 patients who underwent NAC.

RESULTS

The rate of sphincter-preserving surgeries was higher in the NAC group than in the non-NAC group (P = .024). The total operative time was significantly longer in the NAC group than in the non-NAC group (P < .001). The rate of lateral lymph node dissection was significantly higher in the NAC group than in the non-NAC group (P < .001). No significant differences were identified in the rate of incisional surgical site infections (SSI), organ/space SSI postoperative bleeding, small bowel obstruction, anastomotic leakage, urinary dysfunction, or urinary infections between the groups. There were eight incidences of lateral lymph node metastasis (15%) and two cases with positive resection margins (4.0%) in the NAC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery after NAC has few complications and a higher sphincter-preserving rate that without NAC.

Evaluation of the learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery using the cumulative sum method

BACKGROUND

There is no clear evidence on the number of cases required to master the techniques required in robot-assisted surgery for different surgical fields and techniques. The purpose of this study was to clarify the learning curve of robot-assisted rectal surgery for malignant disease by surgical process.

METHOD

The study retrospectively analyzed robot-assisted rectal surgeries performed between April 2014 and July 2020 for which the operating time per process was measurable. The following learning curves were created using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method: (1) console time required for total mesorectal excision (CUSUM tTME), (2) time from peritoneal incision to inferior mesenteric artery dissection (CUSUM tIMA), (3) time required to mobilize the descending and sigmoid colon (CUSUM tCM), and (4) time required to mobilize the rectum (CUSUM tRM). Each learning curve was classified into phases 1-3 and evaluated. A fifth learning curve was evaluated for robot-assisted lateral lymph node dissection (CUSUM tLLND).

RESULTS

This study included 149 cases. Phase 1 consisted of 32 cases for CUSUM tTME, 30 for CUSUM tIMA, 21 for CUSUM tCM, and 30 for CUSUM tRM; the respective numbers were 54, 48, 45, and 61 in phase 2 and 63, 71, 83, and 58 in phase 3. There was no significant difference in the number of cases in each phase. Lateral lymph node dissection was initiated in the 76th case where robot-assisted rectal surgery was performed. For CUSUM tLLND, there were 12 cases in phase 1, 6 in phase 2, and 7 cases in phase 3.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the learning curve for robot-assisted rectal surgery is the same for all surgical processes. Surgeons who already have adequate experience in robot-assisted surgery may be able to acquire stable technique in a smaller number of cases when they start to learn other techniques.

Surgical Outcomes of Robotic Resection for Sigmoid and Rectal Cancer: Analysis of 109 Patients From a Single Center in China

Background: Robotic colorectal surgery has been increasingly performed in recent years. The safety and feasibility of its application has also been demonstrated worldwide.However, limited studies have presented clinical data for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving robotic surgery in China. The aim of this study is to present short-term clinical outcomes of robotic surgery and further confirm its safety and feasibility in Chinese CRC patients.

Methods: The clinical data of 109 consecutive CRC patients who received robotic surgery at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between June 2016 and May 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics,tumor traits, treatment details, complications, pathological details, and survival status were evaluated.

Results: Among the 109 patients, 35 (32.1%) had sigmoid cancer, and 74 (67.9%) had rectal cancer. Thirty-seven (33.9%) patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Ten (9.2%) patients underwent sigmoidectomy, 38 (34.9%) underwent high anterior resection (HAR), 45 (41.3%) underwent low anterior resection (LAR), and 16 (14.7%) underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR). The median surgical procedure time was 270 min (range 120–465 min). Pathologically complete resection was achieved in all patients. There was no postoperative mortality. Complications occurred in 11 (10.1%) patients, including 3 (2.8%) anastomotic leakage, 1 (0.9%) anastomotic bleeding, 1 (0.9%) pelvic hemorrhage, 4 (3.7%) intestinal obstruction, 2 (1.8%) chylous leakage, and 1 (0.9%) delayed wound union. At a median follow-up of 17 months (range 1–37 months), 1 (0.9%) patient developed local recurrence and 5 (4.6%) developed distant metastasis, with one death due to disease progression.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that robotic surgery is technically feasible and safe for Chinese CRC patients, especially for rectal cancer patients who received neoadjuvant treatment. A robotic laparoscope with large magnification showed a clear surgical space for pelvic autonomic nerve preservation in cases of mesorectal edema.

Advantages of robotic abdominoperineal resection compared with laparoscopic surgery: a single-center retrospective study

PURPOSE

Although robotic surgery for rectal cancer can overcome the shortcomings of laparoscopic surgery, studies focusing on abdominoperineal resection are limited. The aim of this study was to compare the operative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted from April 2010 to March 2020. Patients with rectal cancer who underwent robotic or laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection without lateral lymph node dissection were enrolled. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

We evaluated 33 and 20 patients in the robotic and laparoscopic groups, respectively. The median operative time and blood loss were comparable between the two groups. No significant differences in the overall complication rates were noted, whereas the rates of urinary dysfunction (3% vs. 26%, p = 0.02) and perineal wound infection (9% vs. 35%, p = 0.03) in the robotic group were significantly lower in comparison to the laparoscopic group. The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robotic group (8 days vs. 11 days, p < 0.01). The positive resection margin rates were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Robotic abdominoperineal resection demonstrated better short-term outcomes than laparoscopic surgery, suggesting that it could be a useful approach.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Robotic Surgery for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumor

Background. The optimal radical surgical approach for rectal neuroendocrine tumor (NET) is unknown. Methods. This study evaluated the short- and long-term outcomes of 27 patients who underwent robotic radical surgery for rectal NET between 2011 and 2019. Results. The median distance from the lower border of the tumor to the anal verge was 5.0 cm. The median tumor size was 9.5 mm. Six patients (22%) had lymph node metastasis. The incidences of postoperative complications of grade II and grade III or more according to the Clavien-Dindo classification were 11% and 0%, respectively. All patients underwent sphincter-preserving surgery, and no patients required conversion to open surgery. The median follow-up time was 48.9 months, and both the 3-year overall survival and relapse-free survival rates were 100%. Conclusions. Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal NET tumor were favorable. Robotic surgery may be a useful surgical approach for rectal NET.

Efficacy of a robotic stapler on symptomatic anastomotic leakage in robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Clinical evidence demonstrating risk factors for anastomotic leakage including robotic staplers has remained limited, even though the use of robotic surgery has increased substantially. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of robotic staplers on symptomatic anastomotic leakage in robotic low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A total of 427 consecutive patients with primary rectal cancer who underwent robotic low anterior resection without diverting stoma were investigated retrospectively. Symptomatic anastomotic leakage was defined as anastomotic leakage of Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥ II. We compared the symptomatic anastomotic leakage rates between manual and robotic staplers using propensity score matching and investigated the risk factors for symptomatic anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 168 pairs of manual and robotic stapler cases were selected. The symptomatic anastomotic leakage rate was significantly higher for manual staplers (6.5%) than for robotic staplers (1.2%, p = 0.02). In a multivariate analysis, the use of a manual stapler (p = 0.04, OR 4.86, 95% CI 1.08-21.8) and anastomosis < 4 cm from the anal verge (p < 0.01, OR 4.36, 95% CI 1.48-12.9) were identified as independent risk factors for symptomatic anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic stapler use was associated with a significantly decreased rate of anastomotic leakage in robotic low anterior resection without diverting stoma for rectal cancer.

Surgical outcomes of hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer: Initial experience

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) combines better visualization of laparoscopic surgery with the advantages of open surgery. The aim of this study was to describe important technical considerations of HALS and to assess the feasibility of hybrid HALS pelvic exenteration (PE) for primary advanced rectal cancer.

METHODS

From May 2012 to August 2018, we retrospectively analyzed 11 patients who underwent PE for primary advanced rectal cancer (< 10 cm from the anal verge). Patients were divided into the open PE group (n = 5) and the hybrid HALS PE group (n = 6).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in patient characteristics between the two groups, and all included patients were male. Tumor invasion to adjacent organs was mostly anterior invasion. In addition, four patients (66%) in the hybrid HALS PE group and two (40%) in the open PE group received neoadjuvant therapy (P = .3).

CONCLUSION

Compared to open surgery, hybrid HALS has the advantages of less bleeding and less invasion, and can achieve the same results in the short-term. It was a reasonable procedure which was easy and safe dissection of internal iliac vessels and dorsal vein complex. Thus, hybrid HALS may become a useful approach for PE.

Potential urinary function benefits of initial robotic surgery for rectal cancer in the introductory phase

We aimed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of initial robotic surgery for rectal cancer in the introduction phase. This study retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent initial robotic surgery (n = 36) vs. patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery (n = 95) for rectal cancer. We compared the clinical and pathological characteristics of patients using a propensity score analysis and clarified short-term outcomes, urinary function, and sexual function at the time of robotic surgery introduction. The mean surgical duration was longer in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the conventional laparoscopy group (288.4 vs. 245.2 min, respectively; p = 0.051). With lateral pelvic lymph node dissection, no significant difference was observed in surgical duration (508.0 min for robot-assisted laparoscopy vs. 480.4 min for conventional laparoscopy; p = 0.595). The length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the conventional laparoscopy group (15 days vs. 13.0 days, respectively; p = 0.026). Conversion to open surgery was not necessary in either group. The International Prostate Symptom Score was significantly lower in the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the conventional laparoscopy group. Moderate-to-severe symptoms were more frequently observed in the conventional laparoscopy group compared with the robot-assisted laparoscopy group (p = 0.051). Robotic surgery is safe and could improve functional disorder after rectal cancer surgery in the introduction phase. This may depend on the surgeon’s experience in performing robotic surgery and strictly confined criteria in Japan.

Robotic surgery for clinical T4 rectal cancer: short- and long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical approach for clinical T4 (cT4) rectal cancer is unknown. This study was conducted to clarify short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for cT4 rectal cancer.

METHODS

In our retrospective cohort study, we enrolled patients who underwent robotic surgery for cT4 rectal cancer within 15 cm from the anal verge between 2011 and 2018. The short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of a total of 122 eligible patients, 70 (57%) had cT4a tumors and 52 (43%) had cT4b tumors. Thirty-five patients (29%) had distant metastasis and 21 (17%) underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Thirty-four patients (28%) underwent combined resection of adjacent organs and 43 (35%) underwent lateral lymph node dissection. The median operative time was 288 min and the median blood loss was 11 ml. No patients required conversion to open surgery. The incidences of postoperative complications of grades II, III, and IV or more according to the Clavien-Dindo classification were 17.2%, 3.5%, and 0%, respectively. Seventy-three patients (60%) had pathological T4 tumors, and the incidence of positive resection margins was 4.9%. The median follow-up time was 42.9 months. The 3-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and cumulative local recurrence rates were 87.5%, 70.4%, and 4.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for cT4 rectal cancer were favorable. Robotic surgery is considered to be a useful approach for cT4 rectal cancer.

Surgical technique for mesorectal division during robot-assisted laparoscopic tumor-specific mesorectal excision (TSME) for rectal cancer using da Vinci Si surgical system: the simple switching technique (SST)

In a narrow pelvic cavity, performing sufficient tumor-specific mesorectal excision (TSME) is difficult. Even in robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS), mesorectal division is difficult in a narrow pelvic cavity. To overcome this difficulty, we invented a novel method of mesorectal division. In this new approach, we switched the fenestrated bipolar forceps and the double-fenestrated forceps with each other so that both instruments were placed on the same (right) side of the patient. After the mesorectal fat and vessels were coagulated using the fenestrated bipolar forceps, coagulated tissues were divided using the monopolar scissors in the same direction. We named this technique the "simple switching technique (SST)". We retrospectively collected data and evaluated the usefulness of SST in 24 consecutive patients who underwent RALS TSME between July 2018 and January 2020. Twelve patients underwent SST, and 12 patients underwent other conventional surgical methods (non-SST). The median operation time for mesorectal division was 809.5 s (range 395-1491 s) in the SST group and 985.5 s (range 493-2353 s) in the non-SST group. The coefficient of variation for non-SST was 0.545, which was > 1.5 times the coefficient of 0.360 for SST. Although no significant differences were found for operation time for mesorectal division, the operation time for mesorectal division by SST tended to be shorter than by non-SST (P = 0.157). No significant differences were found regarding short-term outcomes between the groups. SST is feasible and can be an optional method of mesorectal division in RALS TSME.

Short-term outcomes of pelvic floor peritoneum closure in endoscopic low anterior resection of rectal cancer: A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of pelvic floor peritoneum closure (PC) during endoscopic low anterior resection (E-LAR) of rectal cancer remains unclear. This study aimed to clarify whether pelvic floor PC affected short-term outcomes.

METHODS

The study group comprised patients with the pathologically confirmed diagnosis of rectal cancer who underwent E-LAR with pelvic floor PC or with no PC (NPC) between January 2013 and December 2018 in Southwest Hospital. After propensity score matching (PSM), 584 patients (292 who underwent PC and 292 who underwent NPC) were evaluated. Postoperative indicators, including the rates of complications, anastomotic leakage (AL), reoperation, and inflammation, were observed in the two groups.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the rates of postoperative complications between the PC and NPC groups. The rates of AL were similar (11.3% vs. 9.2%, p = .414). However, the reoperation rate of patients in the PC group was significantly lower than that of patients in the NPC group after AL (36.4% vs. 11.1%, p = .025). The hospital costs were higher in the NPC leakage subgroup (p = .001). Additionally, the serum C-reactive protein levels were lower in the PC group on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, and 5, whereas procalcitonin levels on POD 1 and 3 were lower in the PC group but did not differ significantly on POD 5.

CONCLUSION

Pelvic peritonization did not affect the rate of complications, especially AL; however, it effectively reduced the reoperation and inflammation rates and reduced hospitalization costs. Other short-term outcomes were similar, which warrant the increased use of pelvic peritonization in endoscopic surgery.

Short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection for advanced lower rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic strategies to suppress local recurrence, including lateral lymph node metastasis, are important to improve the curability of rectal cancer. The aim of the present study was to clarify the advantages of robotic-assisted laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection (RALLD), comparing its short-term outcomes with those of laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection (LLLD). There are some retrospective reports comparing RALLD or LLLD and open lateral lymph node dissection (OLLD), but few reports comparing RALLD and LLND to each other.

METHODS

From November 2014 to August 2020, we compared the short-term outcomes in 40 patients who underwent RALLD and 55 patients who underwent LLLD.

RESULTS

The total operative time was significantly longer in the RALLD group than in the LLLD group (p < 0.001). However, lateral dissection time was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0.661). The postoperative hospital time was shorter in the RALLD group than in the LLLD group (p < 0.048). No significant differences were identified in the rates of postoperative bleeding, incisional surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, urinary disfunction, urinary infection, or small bowel obstruction between the groups. However, anastomotic leakage was significantly lower in the RALLD group than in the LLLD group (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term outcomes of RALLD indicate it is feasible, and RALLD may be a useful modality for lower rectal cancer.

Robotic versus laparoscopic rectal resection surgery: Short-term outcomes and complications: A retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

The safety of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) remains a concern. This study aimed to compare the complications after RAS versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAS) for rectal cancer using the Clavien-Dindo classification and to identify risk factors related to the complications.

METHOD

Between March 2010 and June 2016, 556 rectal cancer patients who underwent successful RAS and 1029 patients who received LAS were enrolled in this study. The complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, and the possible risk factors related to the complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall postoperative complication rate was 14.9%, with a 5% rate of severe complications that were classified as grade III or above in RAS group compared with 17.1% and 4.4% in LAS group. However, no significant difference was found (P = 0.608). A high ASA score was identified as an independent risk factor for overall and severe complications in both groups. The use of more than 3 staples in each operation and the anastomotic site of the anal verge at less than 5 cm were independent risk factors for complications.

CONCLUSIONS

RAS for rectal cancer is technically safe and it does not significantly improve the complication rate. The incidence of overall complications is still related to tumor location, the general condition of the patients, and the surgical approach.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: results of a single high-volume center in Japan

PURPOSE

Scientific evidence supporting robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for rectal cancer remains inconclusive because most previous reports were retrospective case series or case-control studies, with few reports focusing on long-term oncological outcomes with a large volume of patients. The aim of this study was to clarify the short- and long-term outcomes of a large number of consecutive patients with rectal cancer who underwent RALS in a single high-volume center.

METHODS

The records of 551 consecutive patients who underwent RALS for rectal adenocarcinoma between December 2011 and March 2017 were examined to reveal the short-term outcomes. The oncological outcomes of the 204 patients who underwent surgery between December 2011 and March 2014 were evaluated.

RESULTS

Most patients had tumors located in the lower or mid-rectum (86.0%). Only 7.6% of patients underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Lateral lymph node dissection was performed for 191 patients (34.7%). The median operative time was 257 min, median blood loss was 10 mL, and no transfusions were needed. No conversion to open surgery was necessary. Eighteen patients (3.3%) had Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative complications. Six patients (1.1%) had positive resection margins. The mean follow-up duration of the 204 patients was 43.6 ± 9.8 (months). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 100%/100%/100%/not reached, respectively. The 5-year relapse-free survival rate for stage I/II/III/IV was 93.6%/75.0%/77.6%/ not reached, respectively. The rate of local recurrence was 0.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that RALS is technically feasible for rectal cancer and has good short- and long-term outcomes.

Lateral Lymph Node Dissection With the Focus on Indications, Functional Outcomes, and Minimally Invasive Surgery

The lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) is still a subject of great debate as to the appropriate treatment for patients with mid to low advanced rectal cancer. The guidelines of the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum recommend a LLND for patients with T3/4 rectal cancer below the peritoneal reflection. However, in most Western countries, a routine LLND is not recommended unless a node or nodes are clinically suspicious for metastasis. Even after preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT), an 8% to 12% lateral pelvic recurrence was noted. The size of the lateral lymph node and responsiveness to preoperative CRT should be the main factors for selecting appropriate patients to undergo a LLND. In addition, from the recent literature, a laparoscopic LLND is safe and oncologically feasible and might have some advantages in short-term outcomes.

Robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center

BACKGROUND

The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for locally advanced rectal cancer remain unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the short-term outcomes of this procedure at our institution.

METHODS

From December 2011 to December 2016, patients who underwent robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer were investigated. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and pathological results were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

There were 31 patients; 17 men (54.8%) and 14 women (45.2%), with a median age of 65 years (range 40-82 years). Twenty-one patients (67.7%) had a cT4 tumor, 9 patients (29.0%) had a pT4b tumor, and all patients except one (96.8%) underwent complete resection of the primary tumor with negative resection margins. Eleven patients (35.5%) received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The most commonly resected organ was the vaginal wall (n = 12, 38.7%), followed by the prostate (n = 10, 32.3%). Lateral lymph node dissection was performed in 20 patients (64.5%). The median operative time was 394 min (range 189-549 min), and the median blood loss was 41 mL (range 0-502 mL). None of the patients received intraoperative blood transfusions or required conversion to open. Overall, postoperative complications occurred in 11 patients (35.5%). The most frequent complication was urinary retention (n = 5, 16.1%), and none of the patients developed serious complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grades III-V.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted multivisceral resection for rectal cancer is safe and technically feasible.

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy changes the size criterion for predicting lateral lymph node metastasis in lower rectal cancer

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to identify the size criteria of lateral lymph node metastasis in lower rectal cancer both in patients who underwent preoperative CRT and those who did not.

METHODS

This study enrolled 150 patients who underwent resection for primary lower rectal adenocarcinoma with lateral lymph node dissection between 2013 and 2015. Patients were divided into two groups: the CRT group, treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy before surgery, and the non-CRT group, treated with surgery alone. The short-axis diameter of each dissected lateral lymph node was measured. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were generated to reveal the optimal cutoff values for determining lateral lymph node metastasis in both groups.

RESULTS

In the non-CRT group (n = 131), the ROC curve demonstrated that the optimal cutoff value for determining metastasis was 6.0 mm, with a sensitivity of 78.5% and specificity of 82.9%, and the AUC was 0.845. In comparison, in the CRT group (n = 19), the optimal cutoff value was 5.0 mm, with a sensitivity of 71.4% and specificity of 85.3% and an AUC of 0.836.

CONCLUSION

The cutoff size for determining lateral lymph node metastasis was smaller in the CRT group than in the non-CRT group.

Robotic rectal surgery: State of the art

Laparoscopic rectal surgery has demonstrated its superiority over the open approach, however it still has some technical limitations that lead to the development of robotic platforms. Nevertheless the literature on this topic is rapidly expanding there is still no consensus about benefits of robotic rectal cancer surgery over the laparoscopic one. For this reason a review of all the literature examining robotic surgery for rectal cancer was performed. Two reviewers independently conducted a search of electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) using the key words “rectum”, “rectal”, “cancer”, “laparoscopy”, “robot”. After the initial screen of 266 articles, 43 papers were selected for review. A total of 3013 patients were included in the review. The most commonly performed intervention was low anterior resection (1450 patients, 48.1%), followed by anterior resections (997 patients, 33%), ultra-low anterior resections (393 patients, 13%) and abdominoperineal resections (173 patients, 5.7%). Robotic rectal surgery seems to offer potential advantages especially in low anterior resections with lower conversions rates and better preservation of the autonomic function. Quality of mesorectum and status of and circumferential resection margins are similar to those obtained with conventional laparoscopy even if robotic rectal surgery is undoubtedly associated with longer operative times. This review demonstrated that robotic rectal surgery is both safe and feasible but there is no evidence of its superiority over laparoscopy in terms of postoperative, clinical outcomes and incidence of complications. In conclusion robotic rectal surgery seems to overcome some of technical limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery especially for tumors requiring low and ultra-low anterior resections but this technical improvement seems not to provide, until now, any significant clinical advantages to the patients.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for lower rectal cancer: the impact of visceral obesity on surgical outcomes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for lower rectal cancer and for visceral obesity cases, which have been regarded as challenging situations in rectal cancer surgery, comparing their surgical outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer were included in this retrospective study. Surgical outcomes including perioperative, postoperative, and pathological data were compared between the RALS and CLS groups. Patients were stratified into obese and non-obese groups according to visceral fat area (VFA). Obesity was defined by VFA ≥130 cm(2).

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-six patients were enrolled, including 127 cases in the RALS group and 109 cases in the CLA group. A total of 82 (34.7 %) cases were categorized as VFA obese, including 52 cases in the RALS and 30 cases in the CLS groups. RALS for lower rectal cancer was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.007), a lower overall complication rate (9.4 % in RALS vs 23.9 % in CLS, p = 0.003), and shorter postoperative stay (p < 0.01) than CLS, with similar operative time and pathological results. The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the RALS group with VFA obesity; blood loss was significantly less and the postoperative stay was shorter in the RALS group with visceral obesity.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that RALS has some advantages in terms of surgical outcomes over CLS in challenging situations of rectal cancer surgery, such as lower rectal cancer cases and visceral obesity cases.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer

AIM: To compare the short-term outcomes of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic radical resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS: The clinical data for 120 rectal cancer patients treated from December 2014 to January 2016 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University were analyzed retrospectively, of whom 63 underwent robotic surgery (robotic group) and 57 underwent laparoscopic surgery (laparoscopic group). Operative details, postoperative recovery and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: Operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (161.1 min ± 41.4 min vs 135.5 min ± 39.1 min, P = 0.001). Intra-oprerative blood loss in the robotic group was significantly less than that in the laparoscopic group (104.8 mL ± 70.8 mL vs 140.3 mL ± 81.4 mL, P = 0.013). The anal sphincter preservation rate was significantly higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group [65.0% (13/20) vs 25.0% (4/16), P = 0.017]. The time to first postoperative exhaust, time to resume liquid food and time to remove the urinary catheter were significantly shorter in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.05). The cost was significantly higher in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group (27.0 thousand yuan ± 11.0 thousand yuan vs 43.0 thousand yuan ± 13.0 thousand yuan, P = 0.000). No conversion occurred in the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of length of specimens, length of distal margin, number of resected lymph nodes, postoperative hospital stay and incidence of postoperative complications (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: The robotic rectal cancer surgery can achieve a similar radical therapeutic effect to laparoscopic surgery. Moreover, it has the advantages of less trauma, less intraoperative bleeding, faster recovery, and higher anus preserving rate.

Totally robotic rectal resection: an experience of the first 100 consecutive cases

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery provides an alternative option for a minimal access approach. It provides a stable platform with high definition three-dimensional views and improved access, which enhances the capabilities for precise dissection in a narrow surgical field. These distinctive features have made it an attractive option for colorectal surgeons.

AIM

The aim of this study was to present a standardised technique for single-docking robotic rectal resection and to analyse clinical outcomes of the first 100 robotic rectal procedures performed in a single centre between May 2013 and April 2015.

METHOD

Prospectively collected data related to 100 consecutive patients who underwent single-docking robotic rectal surgery was analysed for surgical and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients were male, the median age was 67 years (range-24-92). Eighteen patients had neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy whilst 23 patients had BMI >30. Procedures performed included anterior resection (n = 74), abdominoperineal resection (n = 10), completion proctectomy (n = 9), restorative proctectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) (n = 5) and Hartmann's procedure (n = 2). The median operating time was 240 min (range-135-456), and median blood loss was 10 ml (range 0-200). There was no conversion or intra-operative complication. Median length of stay was 7 days (range, 3-48) and readmission rate was 12 %. Thirty-day mortality was zero. Postoperatively, two patients had an anastomotic leak whilst two had small bowel obstruction. The median lymph node harvest was 18 (range, 6-43).

CONCLUSION

The single-docking robotic technique should be considered as an alternative option for rectal surgery. This approach is safe and feasible and in our study it has demonstrated favourable clinical outcomes.

Robot-assisted surgery for the radical treatment of deep infiltrating endometriosis with colorectal involvement: short- and mid-term surgical and functional outcomes

PURPOSE

Sexual and urinary dysfunctions are complications in radical treatment of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) with colorectal involvement. The aim of this article is to report the preliminary results of our single-institution experience with robotic treatment of DIE, evaluating intraoperative and postoperative surgical outcomes and focusing on the impact of this surgical approach on autonomic functions such as urogenital preservation and sexual well-being.

METHODS

From January 2011 through December 2013, a case series of 10 patients underwent robotic radical treatment of DIE with colorectal resection using the da Vinci System. Surgical data were evaluated, together with perioperative urinary and sexual function as assessed by means of self-administered validated questionnaires.

RESULTS

None of the patients reported significant postoperative complications. Questionnaires concerning sexual well-being, urinary function, and impact of symptoms on quality of life demonstrated a slight worsening of all parameters 1 month after surgery, while data were comparable to the preoperative period 1 year after surgery. Dyspareunia was the only exception, as it was significantly improved 12 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery seems to be advantageous in highly complicated procedures where extensive dissection and proper anatomy re-establishment is required, as in DIE with colorectal involvement. Our preliminary results show that robot-assisted surgery could be associated with a low risk of complications and provide good preservation of urinary function and sexual well-being.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen's fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.

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.

Robotic-assisted vs. conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: short-term outcomes at a single center

PURPOSES

Several retrospective studies have demonstrated the safety and technical feasibility of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS). The aim of the present study was to clarify the advantages of RALS for rectal cancer by comparing its short-term outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

Between April, 2010 and April, 2015, a total of 974 patients underwent proctectomy for rectal cancer. After the exclusion of those who underwent open surgery, high anterior resection, lateral lymph node dissection, or multiple resection, 442 patients were enrolled in this study, including 203 who underwent RALS and 239 who underwent CLS. We compared the short-term outcomes of these two groups.

RESULTS

There was no case of conversion to open surgery in the RALS group, but 8 (3.3 %) cases in the CLS group (p = 0.009). Operative time was not significantly different, but blood loss was significantly less in the RALS group than in the CLS group (p < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the RALS group than in the CLS group (p < 0.001). The rate of urinary retention was significantly lower in the RALS group than in the CLS group (p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

The short-term outcomes in this series provide further evidence that RALS may be superior to CLS for rectal cancer.

Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Robotic surgery (RS) overcomes the limitations of previous conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). Although meta-analyses have been published recently, our study evaluated the latest comparative surgical, urologic, and sexual results for rectal cancer and compares RS with CLS in patients with rectal cancer only.

METHODS

We searched three foreign databases (Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, and Cochrane Library) and five Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, KISS, RISS, and KisTi) during July 2013. The Cochrane Risk of Bias and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized were utilized to evaluate quality of study. Dichotomous variables were pooled using the risk ratio (RR), and continuous variables were pooled using the mean difference (MD). All meta-analyses were conducted with Review Manager, V. 5.3.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies involving 2,224 patients were included. RS was associated with a lower rate of intraoperative conversion than that of CLS (RR, 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.54). Time to first flatus was short (MD, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.01). Operating time was longer for RS than that for CLS (MD, 49.97; 95% CI, 20.43-79.52, I(2) = 97%). International Prostate Symptom Score scores at 3 months better RS than CLS (MD, -2.90; 95% CI, -5.31 to -0.48, I(2) = 0%). International Index of Erectile Function scores showed better improvement at 3 months (MD, -2.82; 95% CI, -4.78 to -0.87, I(2) = 37%) and 6 months (MD, -2.15; 95% CI, -4.08 to -0.22, I(2) = 0%).

CONCLUSION

RS appears to be an effective alternative to CLS with a lower conversion rate to open surgery, a shorter time to first flatus and better recovery in voiding and sexual function. RS could enhance postoperative recovery in patients with rectal cancer.

A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgery outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database

BACKGROUND

Until randomized trials mature, large database analyses assist in determining the role of robotics in colorectal surgery. ACS NSQIP database coding now allows differentiation between laparoscopic (LC) and robotic (RC) colorectal procedures. The purpose of this study was to compare LC and RC outcomes by analyzing the ACS NSQIP database.

METHODS

The ACS NSQIP database was queried to identify patients who had undergone RC and LC during 2013. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were identified. Using propensity score matching, abdominal and pelvic colorectal operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 11,477 cases were identified. In the abdomen, 7790 LC and 299 RC cases were identified, and 2057 LC and 331 RC cases were identified in the pelvis. There were significant differences in operative time, conversion to an open procedure in the pelvis, and hospital length of stay. RC operative times were significantly longer in both abdominal and pelvic cases. Conversion rates in the pelvis were less for RC when compared to LC--10.0 and 13.7%, respectively (p = 0.01). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for RC abdominal cases than for LC abdominal cases (4.3 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001) and for RC pelvic cases when compared to LC pelvic cases (4.5 vs. 5.3 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, wound complications, anastomotic leak, sepsis/shock, or need for reoperation within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

As the robotic platform continues to grow in colorectal surgery and as technical upgrades continue to advance, comparison of outcomes requires continuous reevaluation. This study demonstrated that robotic operations have longer operative times, decreased hospital length of stay, and decreased rates of conversion to open in the pelvis. These findings warrant continued evaluation of the role of minimally invasive technical upgrades in colorectal surgery.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open lateral lymph node dissection for advanced lower rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to clarify the advantages of robotic-assisted laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection (RALLD) for rectal cancer by comparing its short-term outcomes with those of open lateral lymph node dissection (OLLD) in a large series from a single center. In terms of RALLD for advanced lower rectal cancer, there are only a few reports with a small number of cases in retrospective, non-comparative studies.

METHODS

From April 2010 to July 2014, a total of 177 patients underwent rectal cancer surgery with lateral lymph node dissection. Four patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic lateral lymph node dissection were excluded. Thus, 173 patients were enrolled, with 85 RALLD and 88 OLLD cases. Perioperative outcomes, postoperative complications, and pathological results were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

No conversion to open surgery was necessary in the RALLD group. The rate of sphincter-preserving procedure was significantly higher in the RALLD group than in the OLLD group (p = 0.007). Operative time was significantly longer in the RALLD group than in the OLLD group (p = 0.007). Blood loss was significantly less in the RALLD group than in the OLLD group (p < 0.001). The rates of wound infection, small bowel obstruction, anastomotic leakage, and urinary retention were significantly lower in the RALLD group than in the OLLD group. Numbers of harvested lymph nodes and positive resection margin rates showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The short-term outcomes of RALLD may be superior to those of OLLD for advanced lower rectal cancer.

Robotic colorectal surgery for laparoscopic surgeons with limited experience: preliminary experiences for 40 consecutive cases at a single medical center

BACKGROUND

We present our preliminary experiences and results for forty consecutive patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) who were treated by robotic surgery.

METHODS

Between May 2013 and September 2014, forty patients with CRC received robotic surgery at a single institution. The clinicopathological features and perioperative parameters were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 40 patients with CRC, 33 (82.5 %) had rectal cancers, and 22 (66.7 %) of those 33 patients also underwent pre-operative concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). The two most frequent surgical procedures were intersphincteric resection (ISR) with coloanal anastomosis (16/40, 40 %) and lower anterior resection (LAR) (15/40, 37.5 %). Among all 40 patients, the median time to first flatus passage was 2 days. The median time to soft diet resumption was 4 days. The median post operative hospital stay was 7 days. The overall complication rate was 20 % (8/40 patients), of which most of the complications were mild, although one laparotomy was required to check for post-operative bleeding. There was no 30-day hospital mortality, nor conversion to open surgery and laparoscopy.

CONCLUSION

We present our preliminary experiences of robotic colorectal surgery and demonstrate that robotic colorectal surgery is a safe and feasible surgery even when conducted by laparoscopic surgeons with limited experience.

Current status of robotic surgery in Japan

The da Vinci S surgical system (Intuitive Surgical) was approved as a medical device in 2009 by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Robotic surgery has since been used in gastrointestinal, thoracic, gynecological, and urological surgeries. In April 2012, robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) was first approved for insurance coverage. Since then, RALP has been increasingly used, with more than 3,000 RALP procedures performed by March 2013. By July 2014, 183 institutions in Japan had installed the da Vinci surgical system. Other types of robotic surgeries are not widespread because they are not covered by public health insurance. Clinical trials using robotic partial nephrectomy and robotic gastrectomy for renal and gastric cancers, respectively, have recently begun as advanced medical treatments to evaluate health insurance coverage. These procedures must be evaluated for efficacy and safety before being covered by public health insurance. Other types of robotic surgery are being evaluated in clinical studies. There are several challenges in robotic surgery, including accreditation, training, efficacy, and cost. The largest issue is the cost-benefit balance. In this review, the current situation and a prospective view of robotic surgery in Japan are discussed.

Evaluation of the intestinal blood flow near the rectosigmoid junction using the indocyanine green fluorescence method in a colorectal cancer surgery

PURPOSE

It has been reported that some patients do not have an anastomosis of a marginal artery near the rectosigmoid junction, but the frequency of this condition and its clinical significance so far remain unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the blood flow at the marginal artery near the rectosigmoid junction.

METHODS

From January 2013 to January 2014, we enrolled consecutive patients with a preoperative diagnosis of left-sided colon cancer or rectal cancer who underwent surgery with lymph node dissection. During the operation, the blood flow through the point of origin of the last sigmoid arterial branch, originating from the inferior mesenteric artery, was interrupted, and the rectosigmoid junction was supplied by only the marginal artery. We injected indocyanine green intravenously and observed the blood flow using a near-infrared camera system.

RESULTS

A total of 119 consecutive patients were enrolled in this study. Sixty-eight patients (57.1 %) had a good anastomosis of the marginal artery near the rectosigmoid junction (type A). In 27 patients (22.7 %), a fluorescence border was recognized, but the fluorescence border diminished within 60 s (Type B). In 18 patients (15.1 %), delayed fluorescence was recognized over 60 s (type C), and 6 patients (5.0 %) had no fluorescence at all (type D). A mean length of 14.8 cm was found from the peritoneal reflection to fluorescence border of blood flow.

CONCLUSIONS

This study proves that cases without the anastomosis of the marginal artery of the rectosigmoid junction truly exist, using studies in living humans (UMIN000011186).